StarBucks Good Bad or Both

Over the years Starbucks have been pretty much a successful company without major conflicts or complaints. Starbucks was founded and established in 1971 by an English teacher named Jerry Baldwin, a History teacher named Zev Seigel, and a writer named Gordon Bowker. Starbucks is designated after coffee-doting first mate in Herman Melville’s Moby Dick and withal because the mental conception of the denomination evoked the romance of high seas and the seas faring tradition of early traders. The Starbucks logo is a two-tailed mermaid encircled by the store’s name.
With that being said, research has shown that Starbuck’s has continuously gone up on their prices since 1994. The average price increase seems to be around $.10 a cup. In my opinion to raise their prices again is beyond absurd. It is not as if Starbucks is going penniless and therefore must raise its prices on cull items in order to preserve the company. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, Starbucks’ 7,000 U.S. retail stores have produced more than $10.5 billion in revenue in 2012. Furthermore, according to Mark Kalinowski, a financial analyst, Starbucks would pay half of the $1.4 billion it paid in 2012 for coffee beans. In addition to the prices of coffee beans dropping, Starbucks will genuinely be preserving its revenue. So the need to go up on prices in today in economy is just plain greedy. This is so compelling to me.
What’s even more fascinating is that considering the market power of the U.S. coffeehouse and donut shop industry, which has perpetuated to grow as other segments in the restaurant industry struggle in the aftermath of the recession. Starbucks grew 15 percent between 2007 and 2011 and, at the time of the study's publication, was estimated to reach...

... middle of paper ...

...ing the small business but really it’s not. A judge ruled in favor of Starbucks due to her naming her shop Sambuck’s. The judge in her case said that she willfully infringed on Starbucks’s trademark in so doing. It really didn’t matter that Sambucks was her legal name. So depending on the authentic questions of perplexity and validity not some dramatic persons “right” to “do business under your own name” much less a sobriquet (like “Sam” Buck for Samantha Buck), and much less put it over the lintel on a shop that, for more preponderant or worse, more immensely colossal or more minute, does compete with an established business.
In conclusion, Starbucks plans to be around for a long time. One would hope that the company does not enter into the gates of money over hell. This type of thinking and practice has never benefited any company or firm. Just ask WorldCom.