Taken from an article from todays New York Times ... Zander Nosler writes:
“Our decision to become part of Starbucks wasn’t easy but I’m happy with how things have turned out on every level. I truly believe this is our best chance to change the coffee industry for the better and that is a great opportunity to have. We didn’t know what the response would be to our decision – we expected there would be some sadness, some frustration and some concern. And there was. But what surprised us was that along with that sadness was an overwhelming amount of support. Sometimes in the same email or same phone call, or even the same sentence, our friends at cafes and roasters also expressed excitement for us. Excitement to see our little company get so much attention. Excitement for what this partnership means for the industry.”
Here's my opinion on the matter which may be labeled as terse or callous or naive or whatever but I'll just go ahead and put it out there (because I really don't know how not to...and diplomacy has never been my strong suit)
[ ] supportive of CEC in their decision
[X] not supportive of CEC in their decision
I think those who have said that CEC have sold out are partially right, they have sold out...they've sold out everyone who they've done business with prior to Starbucks.
All these Indie shops who've heavily invested in these machines as well as the company , who've put eleven grand down on the future of their businesses they've just seen the full return on their investment.
I know, I know, I'm naive right? But, from my limited point of view hanging your entire clientele out to dry is my own personal definition of of bad business.
If starbucks buys out La Marzocca please don't tell me...
The partnership of CEC and SBux means not a darn thing to the indies of the world. The indies need to do what they do best - roast and brew a supierior cup of coffee. I do think CEC sold old the indies for the big bucks, but that's their decision and the rest of us need to move on.
I just don't get why folks are taking this so personally. The business of it is not rocket science. The development of the Clover was NOT on the backs of indies, it was on the backs of investors and partners. Zander had a responsibility to them. Everyone else just bought a machine.
Everyone who bought a machine was also sold a bill of goods. I'm personally not saying it's wrong for them to make a profit, but they did it at the expense of every indie shop that bought an exorbitantly priced machine on the theory that the service would be there, and that would give them an edge in beating out the 5 Starbucks locations that surround them.
For CoEqCo to sell to Starbucks- knowing that SBUX was sequestering the Clover to keep it away from indies, is a slight to independent coffee house owners who were going up against a corporation that uses predatory and underhanded methods of putting the little guy out of business. Now, you wouldn't take that personally? For the independent owner, business is personal. CoEqCo knowingly made it that much harder for us to gain an edge, and they profited from that. They suck for that. So Trish, I hope this clears it up for you. IMHO, of course.
All's fair, including your opinion, Tim.
Just so you know, I was pretty clear about what you wrote the first time.
But thanks anyway.
(the little guy shouldn't be put out of business due to a machine choice unless they are in the machine business)
"Zander had a responsibility to them. Everyone else just bought a machine."
Trish, this is the fundamental issue in disagreement. I think you'd agree that CoEqCo is/was part of the specialty coffee industry, and their decision to sell to SBUX was, in total, detrimental to that industry, even if only by the act of removing an excellent tool for making coffee. I think there are other factors as well- the kneecapping of the 'clover menu' as marketing tool, for example.
You feel that the free market reigns? I see a bit more responsibility being due to an industry to which you belong.
I didn't mean to imply you didn't get it. But I'm pretty sure that I was clear about "the little guy" being put out of business was due to the practices of SBUX in clustering, buying leases of indie shops, their pressure on mutual suppliers, etc. not the indie shop's machine choice.
I believe the feelings of betrayal come from feeling like a critical player on your team, who held the game book and knew all of your secrets, just traded teams. And for money.
The lesson learned is that every indie shop should have had stock options in CoEqCo which would have made the $11k price tag a tad bit better, knowing that if CoEqCo won ($$$) so would the very early adopters who embracesd and educated and sold their customers on the concept of Clover...and in that, took a HUGE financial risk in such a purchase.
And now they are left with a $11k machine (who has made their ROI on the machine yet?) that most Starbucks will now have.
Chris/Dale
[ ] supportive of CEC in their decision
[X] not supportive of CEC in their decision
I think those who have said that CEC have sold out are partially right, they have sold out...they've sold out everyone who they've done business with prior to Starbucks.
All these Indie shops who've heavily invested in these machines as well as the company , who've put eleven grand down on the future of their businesses they've just seen the full return on their investment.
I know, I know, I'm naive right? But, from my limited point of view hanging your entire clientele out to dry is my own personal definition of of bad business.
If starbucks buys out La Marzocca please don't tell me...
Mar 28, 2008
Peggy Gargaro
Mar 29, 2008
trish rothgeb
Mar 29, 2008
Tim Noble
For CoEqCo to sell to Starbucks- knowing that SBUX was sequestering the Clover to keep it away from indies, is a slight to independent coffee house owners who were going up against a corporation that uses predatory and underhanded methods of putting the little guy out of business. Now, you wouldn't take that personally? For the independent owner, business is personal. CoEqCo knowingly made it that much harder for us to gain an edge, and they profited from that. They suck for that. So Trish, I hope this clears it up for you. IMHO, of course.
I call Shenanigans on CoEqCo and SBUX! ;>)
Mar 29, 2008
trish rothgeb
Just so you know, I was pretty clear about what you wrote the first time.
But thanks anyway.
(the little guy shouldn't be put out of business due to a machine choice unless they are in the machine business)
Mar 29, 2008
Tim Noble
Trish, this is the fundamental issue in disagreement. I think you'd agree that CoEqCo is/was part of the specialty coffee industry, and their decision to sell to SBUX was, in total, detrimental to that industry, even if only by the act of removing an excellent tool for making coffee. I think there are other factors as well- the kneecapping of the 'clover menu' as marketing tool, for example.
You feel that the free market reigns? I see a bit more responsibility being due to an industry to which you belong.
I didn't mean to imply you didn't get it. But I'm pretty sure that I was clear about "the little guy" being put out of business was due to the practices of SBUX in clustering, buying leases of indie shops, their pressure on mutual suppliers, etc. not the indie shop's machine choice.
Mar 29, 2008
Tim Noble
[flashing East Coast sign]
Bygones.
Mar 29, 2008
Chris/Dale
Mar 29, 2008
kara d. ("kd")
The lesson learned is that every indie shop should have had stock options in CoEqCo which would have made the $11k price tag a tad bit better, knowing that if CoEqCo won ($$$) so would the very early adopters who embracesd and educated and sold their customers on the concept of Clover...and in that, took a HUGE financial risk in such a purchase.
And now they are left with a $11k machine (who has made their ROI on the machine yet?) that most Starbucks will now have.
Mar 29, 2008
Tim Noble
Does anyone else think Uncle Howie looks more like Bill Lumbergh, a la "Office Space" every day?
Mar 29, 2008