My opinion as well unless we're talking their "Blonde Roast", which is somehow decent despite Starbucks' apparent burnt-flavor bias.

I think the reason Starbucks stays afloat is not their coffee, but their 900 calorie "coffee drinks", which they market such that people can pretend to be coffee snobs while drinking what are essentially milkshakes.

“ which they market such that people can pretend to be coffee snobs”

I don’t think very many of their urban or suburban customers in the US have this hang up - they sell out of Target and hospitals amongst other things.

There are enough 3rd wave coffee shops around of varying levels of snobbery that people are aware of what’s available.

Starbucks gives familiarity and consistency.

> I don’t think very many of their urban or suburban customers in the US have this hang up

I think you might be surprised- ask them if they ever go to Dunkin' and they'll invariably indicate "no", sometimes with evident revulsion at the thought. We're obviously operating in anecdata here but that's been my experience.

Not in my experience. I work in hospitals mostly on academic campuses - if there’s a Starbucks, it’s getting a ton of business in that captive market. Dunkin’ does a pretty amazing business amongst this same crowd on the east coast and Midwest.

Again I have no idea how anyone with a few functioning brain cells squares up colocated in Target with snobby. Perhaps your friends are just dumb.

I mean I have known people that think that Panda Express is exotic Asian cuisine - and literally have heard crab Rangoons referred to as an exotic delicacy by some dumbass I went to high school with - doesn’t mean these people aren’t dumb as fuck. These people don’t make enough money as a collective to keep Starbucks afloat though.

> Perhaps your friends are just dumb.

> dumb as fuck

A strong argument can stand on its own merits without the need for insults or talking down. You're showing your hand by stooping like this.

I think Dunkin can be good but knowing which franchises are the "good ones" takes trial and error.

> "Blonde Roast", which is somehow decent despite Starbucks' apparent burnt-flavor bias

Well by definition it's a lighter roast so maybe that's why?

It's a good way to get the kids hooked.

My understanding is Starbucks intentionally burns their beans because 'burnt' flavor is easy to standardize across all of their bean suppliers.

It also can't change at this point. Their flavor is recognized all over the world and many customers wouldn't be happy if it changed. But it's nice to have the blonde roast option at least!

And if most of your customers are going to drink it with loads of added sugar and flavorings, burnt doesn't really matter as a flavor profile.

There's also more to extract so requires less beans for the same strength.

My father was in the Navy. On the night shift, the coffee would become syrupy and he would drink that. He drinks coffee black. He tried Starbucks and will not touch the stuff.

My parents are smokers. There were few times cigarette ash accidentally got into my mouth. I swear Starbucks coffee and cigarette ash taste the same. I've had it from a couple of stores and both tasted the same. I can't help but think someone else in the comments is right in that people don't go for the coffee but for the stuff that hides the coffee.

It is not just you. Starbucks coffee tastes burned.

McD's coffee is also bad (acidic, weak flavor).