Not Liking "Bold" Starbucks Coffee Does Not Make You a Weakling
Yesterday, Eater reported that Starbucks has finally caved and is making a weaker, lighter brew. For "pussies."
Several of us at Gut Check International Headquarters have spent time as Starbucks baristas, and maybe that's why at this point you couldn't pay us to drink that swill. Give me a 'Bucks wet cappuccino, give me espresso, sure. But that "coffee" tastes like it was brewed from dark-roasted dirt and toilet water.
We'll bet you our Chemex that no one actually likes the stuff -- they just give in to middle-class peer pressure, thinking it's the good stuff, the strong stuff, and that they're a weakling if they don't like it. This is why there's inevitably a line for the condiment bar at Starbucks, as weary, sleepy-eyed sheep (yes, SHEEP!) fill their cups to the brim with Sugar in the Raw or two-and-a-half Splendas with an inch of half and half.
It's not that we don't like bold coffee. On a recent visit to the West Coast, where evidently all coffee is brewed one cup at a time from freshly ground beans provided by local artisan roasters, we indulged in many a cup of bold, brilliant, rich, nuanced nectar of the gods (no room for cream, thank you). That is "bold" coffee.
Starbucks coffee is not "bold." Unless you're using "bold" as a shorthand combo of "burnt" and "old."
So, kudos to Starbucks for attempting to make a "lighter" coffee. Maybe it will actually taste like coffee? We anxiously await the inevitable Domino's-inspired "We don't suck anymore!" ad campaign. At least that's what you should do.
...'Cause your coffee sucks.