By now we all know that Starbucks is in trouble. In an effort to stave off more losses, they've introduced a new brew, revamped their stores—and even kicked breakfast sandwiches to the curb (that eggy odor overwhelms the sweet smell of Joe, apparently).
But they're only now starting to roll out the real secret weapon: the $11K Clover coffee machine. Here's all you need to know about the Clover: it makes one of the best cups of coffee you'll ever have, some experts say. Previously used only by indy coffee houses and high-end coffee shops, Clover machines attracted Starbucks' interest last year, and Starbucks eventually bought the whole company last summer.
So could the Clover actually help boost business? Wired magazine even goes so far as to ask: "Can the $11,000 Clover Machine Save Starbucks."
To which we ask: can any one change help a struggling business with a myriad of problems?
Maybe. In Starbucks' case, while there have been complaints about the taste of the coffee (burnt), that doesn't seem to be the main reason people aren't patronizing them as much. Nor does that fact that it's gotten too far away from its "roots" as a coffeehouse, as CEO Howard Schulz seems think. People who look for that experience were already going to small, independent coffee houses anyway. Anecdotally, the primary problem seems to be that Starbucks grew too much, too fast. That combined with a dip in the market that left some people wondering whether it really makes sense to drop $4 on a frappucino have probably done more to damage the business than the burnt coffee ever has.
That said, consumers tend to flock to novelties—at least temporarily. Do you think the Clover could have any measurable impact on Starbucks' business?

| [comments (1)] |
So your quarterback can't throw touch down passes anymore. Maybe you should buy him new shoes, get him a better helmet, throw more money at him, get him a faster car... that will surely fix the problem. WRONG!!!
Adding another piece to the puzzle isn't going to BUZZ consumers into submission. Like the Wired article states, it is the coffee stupid (and probably the crappy no crema, watered-down-shot-making-super-automatic "efficiency" machines) that have turned people off of SBucks and onto alternatives - making it at home, going to indiepunkbucks, or using the Bunsen Burner at college.
Starbucks, in my humble opinion, has thrown away the "art" of the barista in exchange for the Mickiedee's model. I think a throwback to semi-auto machines and small batch regional roasting facilities, and training baristas to be espresso gods again would be a step in the right direction. But hey, I still drink the crap because they are everywhere and mediocre (and mediocre is better than inconsistency any day of the week indiepunkbucks).
—brentbutler
19:54, July 24th, 2008

You must be registered
and signed in to leave comments.