KEY POINTS:
It is one of the questions that has baffled economists, cultural commentators and consumer-watchers: why are people who drive a hard bargain in all other parts of their lives willing to spend so much on a shot of coffee and some hot, frothy milk in a very large
cardboard cup?
The reason for the remarkable growth of one of the social markers of the past two decades - upmarket coffee shops such as Starbucks and Caffe Nero - could now be a little clearer thanks to an American academic who has undertaken a personal odyssey to try to get to the bottom of the conundrum.
Bryant Simon spent a year visiting more than 400 Starbucks coffee shops in several countries, observing customers for around 12 to 15 hours a week. In one burst in London he went to 25 branches during four days, admitting, "I tried to have a drink in every one, but it was too painful on my system".
Simon, who is writing a book, Consuming Starbucks, to be published next year, said Starbucks did not introduce coffee and did not even introduce good coffee. "But it did turn coffee into an identity."
The Starbucks empire is strong and getting stronger. Since the first store opened in 1971 in Seattle, it has grown worldwide to some 12,500 branches with 115,000 employees and US$8 billion ($11.7 billion) revenue. There are plans to expand to 40,000 branches, which would see it overtake even McDonald's.
India, Russia, Brazil and Egypt are to be targeted this year. There are 530 branches in Britain and you can now calculate their "Starbucks density" using a locator on the company website: a person in Regent St in central London is within 8km of 166 branches.
But Simon feels one element was lost in the move out of the United States. "Americans have been taught to do part of the labour, and they clean up after themselves. In the US, part of Starbucks' appeal is its cleanness."
Its ubiquity and cross-cultural appeal has attracted the scorn of traditionalists and the curiosity of academics, who regard it as a prime case study of branding in the age of globalisation. They note how Starbucks has "trained" millions to order in its jargon of "grandes" and "half-caffs".
Simon, who teaches history at Philadelphia's Temple University, thinks customers pay over the odds for the coffee - the price hike from unroasted bean to urban cappuccino has been estimated at about 7000 per cent - because of what the brand promises.
"Starbucks shows us our desires but doesn't completely fulfil them," he said. "These include our desires for status, to be socially responsible and simply to have a place to go."
Starbucks' success could be seen as reinvention of the 18th century coffee house where people gossiped, debated, or read newspapers.
Its stated ambition is to retain the values of a small company and ensure that growth does not dilute its local culture. Simon acknowledges its broad appeal, but contends that the prices make it anything but classless.
The chain's muscle means it has a global influence on tastes and trends. The newspaper USA Today said: "Like Oprah Winfrey, Starbucks is emerging as a self-appointed culture guru. It's drawing folks who want a jolt of what's 'in' with their java ... Starbucks manages to project itself as both hero and renegade."
There is a small but vocal opposition that runs websites such as www.ihatestarbucks.com.
The firm, which opens six stores a day, has been accused of buying properties to put independents out of business.
Starbucks has tried to head off criticism by cutting out unhealthy fats, selling Fairtrade coffee and using some recycled materials. But Simon points out that it has two advantages. "First, it has great locations. Second, it is selling a highly addictive product. It's hard to persuade anyone to give up coffee."
Not even the prices - or the jargon - seem likely to stop the Starbucks juggernaut.
- OBSERVER
