The Champagne of Coffees
October 27, 2006 10:39 AM Subscribe
Starbucks, Ethiopia and Intellectual Property. It was only a matter of time before Starbucks went up against a nation-state. Starbucks responds that they just want to help and that Ethiopia's position is based on unsound advice. Do their advisors know better than Oxfam? [oxfam response]. Maybe.
Starbucks is breaking into the entertainment business quite effectively. Can corporate interest and social responsibility go hand in hand? Either way, the Pumpkin Spice Latte is yummy.
I had read the Forbes story, the Oxfam link is pretty interesting, thanks:
posted by matteo at 10:47 AM on October 27, 2006
I gotta say, I think I tend to agree with Starbucks on this one. This is a pretty weak-ass use of trademark, but it's exactly what protected geographic designations are made for. Unfortunately, as of right now, such designations don't hold much weight in the US...
posted by mr_roboto at 10:53 AM on October 27, 2006
posted by mr_roboto at 10:53 AM on October 27, 2006
Is it unreasonable to expect that the government of Ethiopia would have something better to do with its time?
This is just a lame-ass IP strategy that might potentially allow them to capture a premium at some point in the future. Probably going to cost more NPV in legal fees than will ever be captured...
posted by sfts2 at 11:01 AM on October 27, 2006
This is just a lame-ass IP strategy that might potentially allow them to capture a premium at some point in the future. Probably going to cost more NPV in legal fees than will ever be captured...
posted by sfts2 at 11:01 AM on October 27, 2006
I'd like to take Ethiopia's side here, but they're playing a losing game. They can own all the trademarks they want, but they don't have the marketing machine that Starbucks has. If Starbucks can't sell Ethiopian coffee as Yirgacheffe, they'll just make up some other african sounding name and the juggernaut will roll on.
posted by 2sheets at 11:26 AM on October 27, 2006
posted by 2sheets at 11:26 AM on October 27, 2006
Yeah, countries should make sure that nobody copyrights/trademarks widespread indigenous knowledge (incl. native names for things), but they shouldn't go asserting exclusive rights to said knowledge either.
posted by Firas at 11:36 AM on October 27, 2006
posted by Firas at 11:36 AM on October 27, 2006
Except as a defensive strategy. I realize that with trademarks it's complicated because you can't hold them in defense without going on the offensive when someone uses them... hmm..
posted by Firas at 11:37 AM on October 27, 2006
posted by Firas at 11:37 AM on October 27, 2006
There is no such thing as "Pumpkin Spice"! Don't drink it, you fool!!!
posted by wumpus at 11:40 AM on October 27, 2006
posted by wumpus at 11:40 AM on October 27, 2006
Except as a defensive strategy. I realize that with trademarks it's complicated because you can't hold them in defense without going on the offensive when someone uses them... hmm..
Well, that's the whole point of the geographic cert.
posted by delmoi at 11:52 AM on October 27, 2006
Well, that's the whole point of the geographic cert.
posted by delmoi at 11:52 AM on October 27, 2006
Is it unreasonable to expect that the government of Ethiopia would have something better to do with its time?
You mean besides watching it's people starve while they get hardly any of the huge amounts of money being spent on their biggest cash crop?
posted by lumpenprole at 12:03 PM on October 27, 2006
You mean besides watching it's people starve while they get hardly any of the huge amounts of money being spent on their biggest cash crop?
posted by lumpenprole at 12:03 PM on October 27, 2006
lumpenprole, the 'market solution' to being ripped off is increasing your prices on the cash crop...
posted by Firas at 12:26 PM on October 27, 2006
posted by Firas at 12:26 PM on October 27, 2006
Pumpkin spice latte good in my mouth but I don't like the syrupy aftertaste.
posted by thirteenkiller at 12:38 PM on October 27, 2006
posted by thirteenkiller at 12:38 PM on October 27, 2006
lumpenprole,
No, I mean actually doing something to actually produce something to feed themselves. How are these people being 'ripped off,' exactly.
It seems to me, the VAST majority of the value chain in coffee is transportation and distribution, not the actual bean. No different than any other agricultural commodity.
Who really gives a shit where its from, aside right now from some fickle superficial American consumers? In 10 years, do you think Starbucks customers will still be clamoring for this coffee? I don't, but maybe.
I sure hope they get something from this effort, but I'd guess its just the next layer of rip-off.
posted by sfts2 at 1:04 PM on October 27, 2006
No, I mean actually doing something to actually produce something to feed themselves. How are these people being 'ripped off,' exactly.
It seems to me, the VAST majority of the value chain in coffee is transportation and distribution, not the actual bean. No different than any other agricultural commodity.
Who really gives a shit where its from, aside right now from some fickle superficial American consumers? In 10 years, do you think Starbucks customers will still be clamoring for this coffee? I don't, but maybe.
I sure hope they get something from this effort, but I'd guess its just the next layer of rip-off.
posted by sfts2 at 1:04 PM on October 27, 2006
lumpenprole,
No, I mean actually doing something to actually produce something to feed themselves. How are these people being 'ripped off,' exactly?
It seems to me, the VAST majority of the value chain in coffee is transportation and distribution, not the actual bean. No different than any other agricultural commodity.
Who really gives a shit where its from, aside right now from some fickle superficial American consumers? In 10 years, do you think Starbucks customers will still be clamoring for this coffee? I don't, but maybe.
I sure hope they get something from this effort, but I'd guess its just the next layer of rip-off.
posted by sfts2 at 1:05 PM on October 27, 2006
No, I mean actually doing something to actually produce something to feed themselves. How are these people being 'ripped off,' exactly?
It seems to me, the VAST majority of the value chain in coffee is transportation and distribution, not the actual bean. No different than any other agricultural commodity.
Who really gives a shit where its from, aside right now from some fickle superficial American consumers? In 10 years, do you think Starbucks customers will still be clamoring for this coffee? I don't, but maybe.
I sure hope they get something from this effort, but I'd guess its just the next layer of rip-off.
posted by sfts2 at 1:05 PM on October 27, 2006
The 4th link is a list of 'Socially responsible companies'. It seems to be fairly reasonable.
Except they list Disney as socially responsible, for among other things, its commitment to quality entertainment.
I'd say about 97% of what Disney does is pure, consumeristic, morally bankrupt garbage.
Okay, de-rail over now.
posted by Alex404 at 2:33 PM on October 27, 2006
Except they list Disney as socially responsible, for among other things, its commitment to quality entertainment.
I'd say about 97% of what Disney does is pure, consumeristic, morally bankrupt garbage.
Okay, de-rail over now.
posted by Alex404 at 2:33 PM on October 27, 2006
sfts2: "
Who really gives a shit where its from, aside right now from some fickle superficial American consumers? In 10 years, do you think Starbucks customers will still be clamoring for this coffee? I don't, but maybe."
You'd be wrong about that.
Good coffee has always sold at a premium based upon scarcity. Look at the relative prices of Jamaican Blue Mountain and Kona. They cost a fortune twenty years ago and they cost a fortune today. A good Yirg can be almost as
good but there's no decent quality control on most stuff from that area, so it's reputation is very variable.
Not sure what Oxfam and Ethiopia are whining about here. Nobody would buy Yirgicheffe and expect to get anything from somewhere else in Africa, but the best thing that the Ethiopians can do to get a larger share of the coffee dollar is focus on improving quality as the South Americans have with their Cup of Excellence programmes.
Finally, Yirg is generally drunk as a standard filter/brewed coffee, and not usually a major component of espresso or espresso-based drinks. Which makes one wonder why they've targetted Starbucks at all? I imagine mosy Yirg is sold through small, boutique roasters, not giant chains.
Starbucks's advice is good. Oxfam obviously have no idea how the market works. They'd be better off keeping schtum when they don't know what they are talking about.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:56 PM on October 27, 2006
Who really gives a shit where its from, aside right now from some fickle superficial American consumers? In 10 years, do you think Starbucks customers will still be clamoring for this coffee? I don't, but maybe."
You'd be wrong about that.
Good coffee has always sold at a premium based upon scarcity. Look at the relative prices of Jamaican Blue Mountain and Kona. They cost a fortune twenty years ago and they cost a fortune today. A good Yirg can be almost as
good but there's no decent quality control on most stuff from that area, so it's reputation is very variable.
Not sure what Oxfam and Ethiopia are whining about here. Nobody would buy Yirgicheffe and expect to get anything from somewhere else in Africa, but the best thing that the Ethiopians can do to get a larger share of the coffee dollar is focus on improving quality as the South Americans have with their Cup of Excellence programmes.
Finally, Yirg is generally drunk as a standard filter/brewed coffee, and not usually a major component of espresso or espresso-based drinks. Which makes one wonder why they've targetted Starbucks at all? I imagine mosy Yirg is sold through small, boutique roasters, not giant chains.
Starbucks's advice is good. Oxfam obviously have no idea how the market works. They'd be better off keeping schtum when they don't know what they are talking about.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:56 PM on October 27, 2006
It seems to me, the VAST majority of the value chain in coffee is transportation and distribution
You meant cost chain ? Containerization has probably reduced transport cost to a minimum, even if some times cargos get shuffled uselessly just to make business for containers. The greatest cost is sustained by the buyer, who thinks that paying 100000% the cost of the good somehow makes sense, while the value he gets is just a friggin coffee.
posted by elpapacito at 4:05 PM on October 27, 2006
You meant cost chain ? Containerization has probably reduced transport cost to a minimum, even if some times cargos get shuffled uselessly just to make business for containers. The greatest cost is sustained by the buyer, who thinks that paying 100000% the cost of the good somehow makes sense, while the value he gets is just a friggin coffee.
posted by elpapacito at 4:05 PM on October 27, 2006
Who really gives a shit where its from, aside right now from some fickle superficial American consumers?
Coffee from different regions tastes vastly different due to the different growing conditions. Whether you can taste that difference after Starbucks burns it black and covers it in milk and syrup is debatable.
posted by markr at 4:18 PM on October 27, 2006
Coffee from different regions tastes vastly different due to the different growing conditions. Whether you can taste that difference after Starbucks burns it black and covers it in milk and syrup is debatable.
posted by markr at 4:18 PM on October 27, 2006
Despite the exorbitant cost of Starbucks' espresso drinks, their biggest profits come from the sales of whole beans. A pound of coffee, selling for about $15, has a total cost of about $3. They certainly could afford to pay farmers much more than the "above average" wages they're already getting, they just don't.
Having said that, Starbucks does pay above average wages; the criminally low prices paid for coffee are a systematic problem. If South America, Africa, and Indonesia formed a "coffee OPEC", the prices they charge to wholesalers could triple, and the cost to consumers wouldn't really budge - Starbucks et al are already charging as much as consumers are willing to pay. ($5 for a latte, I guess; $10 and I'll have a scotch instead thanks) It'd just eat a chunk out of their very large profit margins.
posted by mek at 5:25 PM on October 27, 2006
Having said that, Starbucks does pay above average wages; the criminally low prices paid for coffee are a systematic problem. If South America, Africa, and Indonesia formed a "coffee OPEC", the prices they charge to wholesalers could triple, and the cost to consumers wouldn't really budge - Starbucks et al are already charging as much as consumers are willing to pay. ($5 for a latte, I guess; $10 and I'll have a scotch instead thanks) It'd just eat a chunk out of their very large profit margins.
posted by mek at 5:25 PM on October 27, 2006
Too true markr. Charbucks popularized superdark roasts because the darker it is the more you taste the roast and lose the flavor of the beans themselves (so it really matters very little on the quality of the bean - it all tastes consistently burnt.
If you want awesome coffee, get an Air Popper and roast your own: Sweet Maria's
posted by spock at 5:25 PM on October 27, 2006
If you want awesome coffee, get an Air Popper and roast your own: Sweet Maria's
posted by spock at 5:25 PM on October 27, 2006
mek writes "$5 for a latte, I guess; $10 and I'll have a scotch instead thanks"
Not ideal for the morning commute, though.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:07 PM on October 27, 2006
Not ideal for the morning commute, though.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:07 PM on October 27, 2006
This is one matter where I am a bit of two minds.
Starbucks' and the NCA's insistence that a trademark would be "bad" for Ethiopia, and that they need to "build up a brand" sounds incredibly hypocritical, considering that:
a) Starbucks' doesn't appear to think that trademarks are bad for itself, and is indeed quite adamant in defending them; and
b) how in hell are the Ethiopian coffee growers supposed to "build up a brand" without protected trademarks?! It's not as if they'd be the first ones, anyway. (BTW, the Colombian Coffee Federation appear to be members of the NCA...How nice of them, preventing the competition from doing what they've been doing for so many years).
And should the Ethiopians protect their product with a geographical indicator? Hmm, in theory it would indeed be a good idea. Trademarks are indeed supposed to be granted only if they are distinctive and not descriptive. Even if lawyers keep expanding those boundaries all the time, I think Ethiopia will have a hard time getting those trademarks accepted at the USPTO.
However, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which you may know from this film and includes a few members that are also members of the National Coffee Association, like these guys, these guys and these other guys *(although apparently not Starbucks), "is adamantly opposed to new negotiations on the extension of enhanced protections for geographical indications to products other than wine and spirits", and they've accordingly lobbied the US government very hard against it. Last time I checked, Ethiopian coffee was neither a wine nor a spirit...
Why am I still a bit of two minds, despite this huge show of hypocrisy by big corporations? Well, before feeling too sorry for the Ethiopian government, I may wonder whether the timing for this outrage may have something to do with this...
* Does everyone also notice how all those big corporations appear to have exactly the same corny website design?
posted by Skeptic at 10:39 AM on October 29, 2006
Starbucks' and the NCA's insistence that a trademark would be "bad" for Ethiopia, and that they need to "build up a brand" sounds incredibly hypocritical, considering that:
a) Starbucks' doesn't appear to think that trademarks are bad for itself, and is indeed quite adamant in defending them; and
b) how in hell are the Ethiopian coffee growers supposed to "build up a brand" without protected trademarks?! It's not as if they'd be the first ones, anyway. (BTW, the Colombian Coffee Federation appear to be members of the NCA...How nice of them, preventing the competition from doing what they've been doing for so many years).
And should the Ethiopians protect their product with a geographical indicator? Hmm, in theory it would indeed be a good idea. Trademarks are indeed supposed to be granted only if they are distinctive and not descriptive. Even if lawyers keep expanding those boundaries all the time, I think Ethiopia will have a hard time getting those trademarks accepted at the USPTO.
However, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which you may know from this film and includes a few members that are also members of the National Coffee Association, like these guys, these guys and these other guys *(although apparently not Starbucks), "is adamantly opposed to new negotiations on the extension of enhanced protections for geographical indications to products other than wine and spirits", and they've accordingly lobbied the US government very hard against it. Last time I checked, Ethiopian coffee was neither a wine nor a spirit...
Why am I still a bit of two minds, despite this huge show of hypocrisy by big corporations? Well, before feeling too sorry for the Ethiopian government, I may wonder whether the timing for this outrage may have something to do with this...
* Does everyone also notice how all those big corporations appear to have exactly the same corny website design?
posted by Skeptic at 10:39 AM on October 29, 2006
On the off chance spock is still watching this thread... you could get a popper I guess. Or you could build this like I did and roast a pound or two at a time. Adjustable heatgun for the heat, wiper motor attached to the bottom for stirring. Home-roasting is definitely the way to go if you are a huge coffee nerd.
posted by markr at 3:57 AM on November 2, 2006
posted by markr at 3:57 AM on November 2, 2006
« Older Babbling Bobster Beatnik Poetry | A whole new world... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments