Starbucks Plans to Double Number of Stores in Thailand

[Guest]

I only go for the coffee.  

Gafae do better coffer IMHO.

[KhorTose]

I think the Starbucks in Silom Complex should become a go-go bar. Some of the waiters there are really cute!! 

I've noticed the same thing and often wonder if they have a hire gays and tom dee policy.

 

I go to Starbucks for the coffee, period.  If you're really  looking for value, they do have the Bangkok Post, Nation and International Tribune available to read for free.  Again, I only go for the coffee.

Before I was on the diet, I went for the Mango pie and the cheesecake. They are the very best I've had in Thailand.

[Guest fountainhall]

I went for the Mango pie and the cheesecake. They are the very best I've had in Thailand.

 

My absolute favourite also, but sadly only available in Chiang Mai, not in BKK.

 

I was at Starbucks in Hong Kong this morning and it was interesting to compare prices. It is fact that -

1. Hong Kong retail space is vastly more expensive than in Thailand;

2. Staff are paid far higher wages than in Thailand;

3. The cost of living generally is much higher.

 

So, I wondered, how come -

1. A shot of espresso at HK$16 is cheaper than the same in Thailand?

2. A blueberry muffin at HK$16 is cheaper than the same in Thailand?

3. A bottle of freshly squeezed orange juice at HK$23 is roughly the same size and price as the processed imported muck served in Thailand?

 

Plus the local newspapers and the Intl. Herald Tribune are all available for customers to read and I believe, although I never use it in stores, wifi is free. The Thai franchiser is clearly making more than generous profits at the prices he charges.

[Guest]

The way to deal with the Thai Starbucks problem is to use other good coffee shops -both the chains and the independents.

Starbucks probably get less than 10% of my coffee purchases in Thailand.

[KhorTose]

The Thai franchiser is clearly making more than generous profits at the prices he charges.

The way to deal with the Thai Starbucks problem is to use other good coffee shops -both the chains and the independents.

Starbucks probably get less than 10% of my coffee purchases in Thailand.

I think---I repeat, I think that Thailand is probably not a franchise, but a partnership type of operation due to Thai laws on ownership. I do know that Starbucks will do this, or has done this on one occasion. Magic Johnson wanted to see more Starbucks in black neighborhoods and he literally twisted Schultz's arm to allow him to partner with Starbucks. Until Magic came along Starbucks had never allowed this kind of operation. Magic now has 50% ownership of over 30 stores and the nice thing is that a big share of his profits go to AIDS awareness. I agree that the Thailand operation is very expensive, as even in Shanghai, the prices were a lot cheaper then here. The web page of Starbucks Thailand does not give any clues, and I don't know how to find this out, but it sure looks like something is different then the usual operation.

Fountain Hall the next time I come to Bangkok I will bring you a Mango pie slice

[Guest fountainhall]

Fountain Hall the next time I come to Bangkok I will bring you a Mango pie slice

 

You are most kind. I assume it will be the full pie and not just a slice!!   

[KhorTose]

Well, I may leave with a full pie, but if you are lucky, there will be at least one piece when I arrive.

[Guest Devint6669]

There is already a Starbuck of every corner, why do we need to have some more, I don't understand

[KhorTose]

You think it is bad where you are, every coffee store group in the world opens a shop in Seattle to see how they can compete head to head with Starbucks.  If I had a dime for every coffee shop in my city, I would not need to win the lottery, and I could drink my coffee on my 100+ foot yacht.  Europe may be different, but coffee shops in America have replaced the 3 martini lunch as the place to do business.  Also every business meeting I have been in, the coffee and treats usually come from Starbucks or a shop like them.  The legally wired (means to be high or super pepped up)  generation.

[Guest Enchanter]

It's been several years since I tasted Starbucks' coffee. I wonder if it's improved. Their coffee was appalling the last time I tried it. 

 

Starbucks are successful in America because the standard of coffee in this country is generally terrible. It tends to be successful in Asian countries because the standard and availability of coffee in those countries are also poor.

 

In countries that have an existing culture and industry of good coffee and cafes Starbucks have been less successful. They can't compete with the local competition. It's like opening a distributorship for Chinese cars in Germany but charging German car prices.  

 

I was at Starbucks in Hong Kong this morning and it was interesting to compare prices. It is fact that -

1. Hong Kong retail space is vastly more expensive than in Thailand;

2. Staff are paid far higher wages than in Thailand;

3. The cost of living generally is much higher.

 

So, I wondered, how come -

1. A shot of espresso at HK$16 is cheaper than the same in Thailand?

2. A blueberry muffin at HK$16 is cheaper than the same in Thailand?

3. A bottle of freshly squeezed orange juice at HK$23 is roughly the same size and price as the processed imported muck served in Thailand?

 

Plus the local newspapers and the Intl. Herald Tribune are all available for customers to read and I believe, although I never use it in stores, wifi is free. The Thai franchiser is clearly making more than generous profits at the prices he charges.

Perhaps the rule is to price yourself based on what the market will bear and not on what is required to cover your costs. 

[Guest fountainhall]

Perhaps the rule is to price yourself based on what the market will bear and not on what is required to cover your costs. 

 

I am sure that is correct. On the other hand, whoever runs the company in Hong Kong must also be making good profits. So here in Thailand I reckon the profits must be extremely high!

 

It does show, though, what can be done with good brand marketing and store location, whatever the quality of the actual product. And despite Starbucks being pricey here, it has clearly been very successful in attracting the wealthier younger Thai market.

[KhorTose]

It's been several years since I tasted Starbucks' coffee. I wonder if it's improved. Their coffee was appalling the last time I tried it. 

 

Starbucks are successful in America because the standard of coffee in this country is generally terrible. It tends to be successful in Asian countries because the standard and availability of coffee in those countries are also poor.

 

In countries that have an existing culture and industry of good coffee and cafes Starbucks have been less successful. They can't compete with the local competition.

 

Very strange as Starbucks is in over 44 cities in Germany with over 30 stores in Berlin alone.  I had coffee at the one at the Brandenburg Gate, and the one at Alexanderplatz,  and they both were standing room only inside and out. So what country are you talking about, certainly not Germany.

[TotallyOz]

Very strange as Starbucks is in over 44 cities in Germany with over 30 stores in Berlin alone.  I had coffee at the one at the Brandenburg Gate, and the one at Alexanderplatz,  and they both were standing room only inside and out. So what country are you talking about, certainly not Germany.

I would say Brazil and other Latin American Countries. It is where I always get the best coffee and I always take a bag back on the plane with me when I return.

[billyhouston]

I find the price of Illy and Lavazza beans, especially the former, to be absurd in Tops but I figure Thais buy them because they are expensive. They have the idea that expensive is better and it's not easy to convince them that, in reality, it's better that is sometimes more expensive.

 

There is a Dutchman in Chiang Mai who buys (Arabica) beans from the hills around Chiang Rai (I believe), roasts them and sells them as Alti Coffee. I not only use them in CM but brought a couple of Kg back to UK. There's also Hillkoff who, as well as having one of the best selections of 'machinery', mostly commercial, that I've seen anywhere also have an 'Italian Espresso' roast.

[KhorTose]

I was buying hill tribe coffee from a lady that was working with one of the indigenous groups and it was some of the best coffee i have ever had and the price was 250 baht a kilo.  Wish she had not left town.

[kokopelli]

Guess I am a not the only one who dislikes Starbucks coffee;  far too strong for my tastes.  Maybe I should open my own coffee shop in Thailand?

 

[Guest Enchanter]

Very strange as Starbucks is in over 44 cities in Germany with over 30 stores in Berlin alone.  I had coffee at the one at the Brandenburg Gate, and the one at Alexanderplatz,  and they both were standing room only inside and out. So what country are you talking about, certainly not Germany.

Don't know what the coffee culture/standards are like in Germany and wasn't referring to Germany. But Starbucks France struggled and had to work hard to adapt its strategy to the local market. Starbucks hasn't even bothered attempting Italy yet. In Australia Starbucks admitted temporary defeat and closed all but a few of its stores a few years ago. I think they also introduced a barista retraining program for the remaining stores at the same time (i.e. almost an admission that they've been serving horse piss for coffee). These three countries, I know have a strong coffee culture. 

 

Of the remaining stores in Australia, the ones I've seen are in in high traffic locations dominated by Asian immigrants who largely have low or no taste in coffee - long as it's sweet, they're happy. Like McDonalds, they're trading off their location, consistency of experience and long-opening hours (availability) rather than actually serving quality coffee.

 

They failed to recognise that the Australian market on the whole has fairly sophisticated coffee taste, unlike in Asia and America. This is unfortunate because it is actually possible for a cafe chain to serve quality coffee. I know several chains that do and it has paid off for them because they have been more successful than Starbucks. 

 

I'm not saying Starbucks isn't commercially successful worldwide because on the whole, it is a very successful company. I'm just commenting on its strengths and weaknesses and how these factor into the varying degrees of success they have in different markets. 

[Rogie]

 

Of the remaining stores in Australia, the ones I've seen are in in high traffic locations dominated by Asian immigrants who largely have low or no taste in coffee - long as it's sweet, they're happy.

(my bold)

 

I don't know enough about Asian coffee-drinking habits to comment on that, but I do know to many Thais instant coffee means just that - 'instant'. Add boiling water and Bob's your uncle, a cup of sweet milky ughh - to be polite I'll call it a beverage.

 

A visit to see a friend not long ago had an unhappy ending. I normally drink tea In the morning but he didn't have that, so he enquired "3-in-1 ok?" almost as a matter of fact. As it was either that or nothing, I convinced myself the sugar entering my bloodstream early in the morning must be good for something!

[NIrishGuy]

Going back to the previous discussion here re Starbucks not paying any tax in the UK for years and as to whether they were right or not to do for the sake of clarity I see today they have just announced that they now intend to pay £10 million pounds tax this year to the UK Exchequer, with more to follow next year.  It seems their marketing people were listening to the public outcry ( wasn't just me then it seems) after all.   

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23019514

 

Now hopefully some / many of the other large corporates who have been using exactly the same tax rules to avoid paying tax will also follow suit and a lot of money that has been denied to the Country will start coming back into it. Interesting to see them doing this though just before the various Governments agree new tax powers to stop such tax avoidance in the future, perhaps a case of paying something before all their avenues being cut off and them being forced to pay EVERYTHING they are due.

[Guest]

Now hopefully some / many of the other large corporates who have been using exactly the same tax rules to avoid paying tax will also follow suit and a lot of money that has been denied to the Country will start coming back into it.

Companies have a responsibility to minimise taxation within the scope of the rules.  So the likes of Google and Starbucks are quite right to do what they have been doing. For politicians to claim otherwise, either they are stupid, or perhaps they think we are.

 

Governments should have a responsibility to keep their spending within responsible limits, obtain value for money, avoid waste & encourage competition in the economy for the benefit of the consumer.  Our government should put its own house in order before looking to grab even more money to be frittered away on ineffective spending.

Why is it ineffective?  Well politicians tend to be people who have no experience at management or wealth creation. In fact they rarely have has anything to do with a business which has to compete & be better than their competition.

So essentially public spending is controlled by people who mostly have no clue how to allocate capital, provide good services and get value for money.  They need to recognise the very very low limits of their own ability and therefore spend much less.

[NIrishGuy]

@ z909 - Re your first point - absolutely  - but I think it's generally accepted that the large Corporates should act both within the spirit of the law and not just to the letter of it and to pay next to no tax in ten years or more of trading in a Country in other words depriving it's citizens of the much needed income isn't quite fair when the rest of us have to pay up.

 

Is this legal  - yes, is it fair and equitable ( and good business) to be seen to be doing that the citizens of that Country - I don't think so and many others thought the same hence why Starbucks are now paying up.  But I wholly agree that it's the Governments fault that this situation was allowed to occur in the first place and the Corporates where just playing by (and around) the rules as they stand at this time.

 

However this is one occasion where even though our Government dropped the ball re forming better rules to avoid this being able to happen and are crap as usual ( and no doubt lining their own pockets from these rules too no doubt with their many Directorships etc) this time the people spoke and after a fairly effective boycott of Starbucks by many people here in the UK it appears it has prompted them to think again about their tax avoidance policy, however even at 10 million this year they're still getting away cheap for all the years they DIDN'T pay and I'm sure they know that only to well hence the payment now to stave off any further public criticism and to hopefully get their lost customer base back again. 

 

Re your second point  - 100% agree there ! 

[Guest]

Re your second point  - 100% agree there ! 

Wait a minute, we're supposed to haggle!

[NIrishGuy]

Shit really ! See, this is why I can never go alone to markets, it ends up costing me a small fortune as I always forget that small but important fact ! :-)

 

Well actually I "say" 100% but what I guess I meant was that you were talking complete and utter ballox and I don't agree with one single word you said !     Shit !!  There I go again, I never can seem to get that balance thing quite right !  :-(   Ok, lets stick with the 100% thing, much more polite all round I think ! :-) lol

[Guest]

much more polite all round I think !

That's the way to behave. Whether you agree 100% or 0%, it's always good to see polite behaviour on these forums.

[NIrishGuy]

ha ha yes, absolutely, makes for a much more pleasant environment all round - and I WAS joking of course, it WAS 100% :-)