Main Street Bakery to Serve Starbucks Coffee

[Hakunamatata]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but given the expansion needed to address capacity issues with so many made to order beverages, I would think we would see a significant encroachment into the seating area.

 

[jakeman]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but given the expansion needed to address capacity issues with so many made to order beverages, I would think we would see a significant encroachment into the seating area.

I guess it should be pointed out just for posterity that the seating area was much smaller until just about 10 years ago.

 

[Hakunamatata]

I guess it should be pointed out just for posterity that the seating area was much smaller until just about 10 years ago.

Please keep my posterior out of the conversation.

 

[yeti]

Tee Hee. @Retro01 ... I think you might have proved him wrong...just a little bit. Sorry I didn't want to quote that whole thing but it made me laugh. Sponsors have always been a part of WDW whether we like it or not. Some are just more obvious than others

I hate to dismiss the amount of effort put into that recipe list, but...

Ya know it was sarcasm right... right?

...right.

 

[righttrack]

OMG This is horrible!

I love Starbucks, can't live without it. Couldn't they just put it in carts and anywhere they have coffee and just serve it there??!?!

 

[flynnibus]

Well, instead of throwing insults at me, enlighten me. Where's the written deal between Disney and Starbucks?

Maybe you wouldn't feel insulted if we didn't have to keep repeating ourselves because you wouldn't listen the first time?

Like this post (from 3 days ago)

Uhh.. because it was all negotiated as part of the same deal. This has been a long time coming.. you obviously weren't following the progression as reported by Al Lutz for the last year.

Or this post (also from 3 days ago)

It means just as it does in Cali - they are Disney F&B people that have additional training (2 weeks worth according to an old Al article) designed by Starbucks to operate and know the Starbucks products and tools.

Or the numerous photos of the Pig Cafe posted to the thread showing it exactly NOT what you are saying what they will build a starbucks location into.

But if you want me to play Google for you... here is some starting points for you. You can read chronologically (old to new too)
http://miceage.micechat.com/allutz/al011712a.htm
then
http://miceage.micechat.com/mc/mc041812a.htm
and finally more here when things were more flushed out
http://miceage.micechat.com/mc/mc042512a.htm

 

[flynnibus]

For what it's worth, I'm currently staying at a Courtyard by Marriott that "proudly serves Starbuck's coffee" in it's cafe. They didnt refer to it as a Starbucks Location......

Were the signs written by an incompetent Disney blogger?

Funny.. you find Marriott a credit point of reference.. but not Disney's own location, established under the same exact deal, that was described exactly the same by the blogger as the new MK location.

 

[G00fyDad]

 

[SirLink]

Everyone keeps avoiding this simple question:

If Disney turned the Emporium into a Wal-Mart, would it be OK as long as it was themed to match Main Street?

Ya mean how the Emporium is a standard Disney store found across the world, actually it may be worse than a standard Disney store ...

Because that IS what's happening here. It's not the Main Street Bakery selling Starbucks products. That would be bad enough. It's Starbucks, selling select Disney favorites, whatever the heck that means.

Ya mean like how they sell Coke products instead of their own branded drink products ... sell Nestle ice cream instead of creating their own ice cream in CS(and most likely TS) places... or serve Nescrape instead of using their own coffee blend all over property? Right?

 

[flynnibus]

No. You both seem to be arguing two different points

Because people are justifying their opinion of how bad it will be to have starbucks branded products BECAUSE of what they believe Disney will build the location out as. The first is predicated on the FALSEHOOD of the second.
Seriously... anyone who believes serving a product BRAND is going ruin Main Street because that BRAND didn't exist before is trying to play just to have something to grab at.. when in reality they don't practice what they preach.

Are we all screaming because they sell soda brands and types of treats in the bakery previously that didn't fit the time table either? Sprite wasn't launched in 1961 - are they ruining Main Street by selling SPRITE?

Rice Crispy Treats weren't until the '40s. I guess they blew up Main Street when they started selling those in the bakery too?

As you can see.. the 'brand' not fitting is a fleeting attempt to grasp at 'theme' that has no real basis in Main Street's execution. It's just some feeble attempt to justify their hate for change.

And as for 'commercialization' because Disney is selling a brand name product is just stupid. Unless you think we should all be drinking Disney created Pop, Disney created hotdogs, and Disney should be growing all their own corn and wheat just so some misguided fans can feel no commercial brand is intruding on their vision of Main Street...

 

[G00fyDad]

Because people are justifying their opinion of how bad it will be to have starbucks branded products BECAUSE of what they believe Disney will build the location out as. The first is predicated on the FALSEHOOD of the second.
Seriously... anyone who believes serving a product BRAND is going ruin Main Street because that BRAND didn't exist before is trying to play just to have something to grab at.. when in reality they don't practice what they preach.

Are we all screaming because they sell soda brands and types of treats in the bakery previously that didn't fit the time table either? Sprite wasn't launched in 1961 - are they ruining Main Street by selling SPRITE?

Rice Crispy Treats weren't until the '40s. I guess they blew up Main Street when they started selling those in the bakery too?

As you can see.. the 'brand' not fitting is a fleeting attempt to grasp at 'theme' that has no real basis in Main Street's execution. It's just some feeble attempt to justify their hate for change.

And as for 'commercialization' because Disney is selling a brand name product is just stupid. Unless you think we should all be drinking Disney created Pop, Disney created hotdogs, and Disney should be growing all their own corn and wheat just so some misguided fans can feel no commercial brand is intruding on their vision of Main Street...

I think that you need to calm down a tad. You are (again) getting completely worked up over someone else's opinion. The other poster's idea of hating this marriage is not going to change because you throw random points at them. It isn't going to change anyone's opinion. And they obviously aren't going to change yours. But you are getting way too worked up over this. Let it go. You are arguing a completely different point than other people and apparently cannot see that, regardless of your last post.

 

[G00fyDad]

 

[Hakunamatata]

Were the signs written by an incompetent Disney blogger?

Funny.. you find Marriott a credit point of reference.. but not Disney's own location, established under the same exact deal, that was described exactly the same by the blogger as the new MK location.

Actually I didn't notice any signs. What I quoted was relayed verbally upon check in.

The point I was making was that TDC could have easily added Starbucks offerings to their menu without retheming and referring to it as a Starbucks location. Under that logic....

I'm staying at a Starbucks that proudly offers Marriott themed guest rooms.....SA.

 

[Dasnowz]

food for thought...
is the licensing agreement up with nescafe??? without something would there be no coffee at all in the bakery?
In the remodel maybe there will actually be more seating because there is a huge empty area now over by the cooler that can be re purposed.
Maybe the remodel is going to take so long because its an older building that needs updating of plumbing and electrical anyway and this was a convenient time.
The outside just underwent renovation. Disney does not spend money foolishly. They knew when they remodeled this was coming. I do not see major if any changes to the store front happening.

For those who have mentioned other coffee chains such as Seattle's best fyi Starbucks own them. So in my opinion why not just go with the parent company???
At least Starbucks is an american company. Nestle started in Switzerland and has extensive out of country holdings. With people worried about jobs at least is a "local company" if that makes anyone feel better.
Edited to add Nestle own Coke so they will still have a presence in the park.

 

[SirLink]

Actually I didn't notice any signs. What I quoted was relayed verbally upon check in.

The point I was making was that TDC could have easily added Starbucks offerings to their menu without retheming and referring to it as a Starbucks location. Under that logic....

I'm staying at a Starbucks that proudly offers Marriott themed guest rooms.....SA.

Starbucks sent reconnaissance spies into Disneyland to observe how the Cast Members operate and behave when they are working the espresso machines at Disney’s existing park coffee shops.

The observations the Starbucks folks made and reported back to headquarters in Seattle were pretty discouraging, and it was clear to the Starbucks team that the Anaheim Cast Members had received very poor training, or no apparent training at all, on how to create a quality espresso drink. Disney had been approaching the training and operating of the espresso machines no differently than it approaches the operation of a deep fryer or a soft serve machine. And as the coffee culture grew over the last 20 years more and more Disneyland visitors can no longer stomach the coffee flavored swill served to them, especially the more demanding tourists from the Pacific Northwest where coffee is king and a badly made Latte can be spotted from 10 feet

The above kinda shows the reason why they couldn't... But at least we are getting an improvement.

 

[flynnibus]

Actually I didn't notice any signs. What I quoted was relayed verbally upon check in.

The point I was making was that TDC could have easily added Starbucks offerings to their menu without retheming and referring to it as a Starbucks location.

Except the relationship between Marriott and Starbucks is different then Disney and Starbucks. And as far as 'referring to it as a Starbucks location' - what exactly is it about the existing Disney in-park Starbucks 'location' that bothers you so much? Instead of dealing with worst case dream scenarios - lets talk REAL WORLD EXAMPLES that the company has already built.

 

[EOD K9]

Outside of Ghiradelli, I'm looking forward to finally getting a cup of good hot chocolate on property. It will be especially nice around the holidays. But other than that...I'm going to wait and see how the two companies pull this off before stating a like/dislike opinion.

 

[Lee]

This thread just keeps getting worse and worse...

People act like they were gonna put in a Hollywood-Maxwell's Intimate Apparel shop on Main St.

Or a Wurlitzer organ store on Main St.

Or a Yale lock store on Main St.

Or an Aunt Jemima Pancake House (with Aunt Jemima!) in Frontierland.

Or a Casa de Fritos, featuring the Frito Kid, in Frontierland.

Seriously.
Sponsors, or operating partners, have been part of Disney parks history since 1955. It's no big deal.
They are adding Starbucks coffee to the Main St. Bakery. So....

 

[Hakunamatata]

Except the relationship between Marriott and Starbucks is different then Disney and Starbucks. And as far as 'referring to it as a Starbucks location' - what exactly is it about the existing Disney in-park Starbucks 'location' that bothers you so much? Instead of dealing with worst case dream scenarios - lets talk REAL WORLD EXAMPLES that the company has already built.

Ok, we can talk real world examples that the company has built as soon as you can direct me to the last Starbucks location built on MSUSA.....oh wait....you can't.

 

[ParentsOf4]

No, the wording of the announcement is being used to say the location will be ripped out and radically altered to be a starbucks like you have on every corner. But that's not what their wording says.

The emotional attachment is moot if the location isn't being radically altered.

Even you are saying they are turning it into a Chain.. you are inferring and leading people to believe it will be like every other Starbucks you see around the country. All based on the wording 'starbucks location' - which is also how they described the Pig Cafe. And the Pig Cafe looks nothing like any 'chain' starbucks you see.

Again, you're missing the point. You're looking at this with emotional detachment. It's a completely reasonable view. But you are missing how people feel. The reaction is what is it because it's all about emotion.

WDW is supposed to be about emotion. People don't go to WDW because it has the tallest or fastest roller coaster, because it has the most rides, or because it has the lowest prices. They go because it evokes an emotional response. WDW keeps nurturing that emotional response with their endless stream of nostalgia commercials. You've seen them, the ones that could have been made 20 years ago.

For people who "love" Main Street USA (see, an emotion), they are taking out their beloved Main Street Bakery (another emotion) and replacing it with a detestable chain store (yet another emotion). It doesn't matter what the Starbucks looks like, it doesn't matter what it looks like at DCA, what matters is it's a "Starbucks location" (the phrase used repeatedly in the announcement) moving into the beloved Main Street USA.

I understand where you are coming from but until you stop writing things such as the "emotional attachment is moot", you are simply indicating that you don't "get it". I'm not saying you are wrong; I'm saying you are not seeing it from the other person's point of view.