Why do the fans hate brands?

[Goofyernmost]

This highlighted bit is interesting to me so I just gotta ask: What is it that Starbucks "stands for" that arrouses negative emotion for you?

Fair question...I'll try and keep my answer short and personal. TO ME Starbucks represents elitism. It falls into the same category as driving a new BMW instead of a 40 year old Ford Falcon. It has evolved basically because of it's selling price. A beverage that is picky about it's consumer. It threw in a few, new to us, words like latte or cappuccino and all of a sudden it was limited to those that either knew how to order it or were willing to learn. I don't care how much foam one uses, it is still basically hot water run through ground coffee beans and the public is being fleeced in my opinion.

I think that being in a Disney Park makes it more of a level playing field since everything in Disney is ridiculously priced, it just becomes one other thing...nothing special. People enjoy it so, why not!

 

[mharrington]

Disney creates the backlash when they overdo franchises to cash in. Think about the Kardashians. Same thing. Starbucks. Yep, same thing.

Since when has Starbucks fallen victim to backlash?

 

[sweetpee_1993]

Fair question...I'll try and keep my answer short and personal. TO ME Starbucks represents elitism. It falls into the same category as driving a new BMW instead of a 40 year old Ford Falcon. It has evolved basically because of it's selling price. A beverage that is picky about it's consumer. It threw in a few, new to us, words like latte or cappuccino and all of a sudden it was limited to those that either knew how to order it or were willing to learn. I don't care how much foam one uses, it is still basically hot water run through ground coffee beans and the public is being fleeced in my opinion.

I think that being in a Disney Park makes it more of a level playing field since everything in Disney is ridiculously priced, it just becomes one other thing...nothing special. People enjoy it so, why not!

I think maybe the elitist thing might be a regional or perceived thing because I've never gotten that impression, personally. I might not catch it, tho, because I grew up as the next generation of an already huge coffee-drinking family. I do recall drinking heavily milked-down coffee from a sippy cup as a small child. Starbucks opened my eyes to other things that could be done with coffee. When I started going there I was clueless on the ordering but it was challenging in a fun way to figure it out. And back when I first started going our finances were very, veeeery different from what we have now so literally Starbucks was a rare treat. Like a Mother's Day frappucino. Lol! Never at any time did I perceive it as elitist, tho. To me, it brought a great big world of coffee to the masses in a way I'd never experienced before. If Starbucks is/was the Beemer, what's the Falcon??? ((BTW, my FiL has a sweet 64 Falcon Sprint convertible...much cooler than any BMW I've ever seen.)) At least where we lived, there weren't other places that made the same types of products Starbucks offered accessible.

Also, Starbucks has a very broad range of offerings with different price points. I stick with iced coffee or regular brewed coffee which is very comparable to what you'd pay for similar sizes of the same beverages at other cafes or coffee shops (in my experience) so I still don't get the feeling that Starbucks sets themselves as an establishment apart from their competition.

Interesting! Thank you for the honest response.

 

[sweetpee_1993]

Since when has Starbucks fallen victim to backlash?

Well, when you hear people say things like "There's two Starbucks cafes on every corner. I hate that place." Also, a few years back (can't remember exactly when) Starbucks closed many corporate-owned cafes across the country. Can't say for sure that was a direct result of having opened too many stores too close together but the saturation was pretty dang heavy when all that went down.

 

[Goofyernmost]

If Starbucks is/was the Beemer, what's the Falcon??? ((BTW, my FiL has a sweet 64 Falcon Sprint convertible...much cooler than any BMW I've ever seen.)) At least where we lived, there weren't other places that made the same types of products Starbucks offered accessible.

The Falcon is the cheap coffee that even street people can afford. I don't drink coffee so I don't know what the brand would be...maybe think Instant!

The Falcon I'm thinking about is the original completely stripped model that came out in 58 to 60. Nothing on it, 4 cylinder, no power anything, no carpets, 3 speed standard on the column. Cost about $1200.00 new. Sorry, I keep forgetting how old I am and that most folks wouldn't know what I was talking about.

 

[sweetpee_1993]

The Falcon is the cheap coffee that even street people can afford. I don't drink coffee so I don't know what the brand would be...maybe think Instant!

The Falcon I'm thinking about is the original completely stripped model that came out in 58 to 60. Nothing on it, 4 cylinder, no power anything, no carpets, 3 speed standard on the column. Cost about $1200.00 new. Sorry, I keep forgetting how old I am and that most folks wouldn't know what I was talking about.

I gotcha. Generally if you go to any deli or other restaurant and order a regular brewed coffee it's no more expensive for a brewed coffee of a similar size at Starbucks so it's not just that Starbucks overprices theirs because they think it's that special. Where Starbucks gets pricey is with the lattes and other beverages that involve using more coffee to make (like an espresso shot is like super-duper concentrated coffee "brewed" via a different machine that is designed to produce that) or more ingredients to make. Frappucinos are expensive but they utilize more than just coffee, ice, & milk to make those. The flavored lattes require using more ground coffee than a standard cup of coffee, flavor syrups, whipped cream, and toppings. That's one reason I stick with simple brewed coffee, iced or hot. It's less expensive. The cost is more akin to ordering a Coke at a restaurant. ((Other reasons: lower calorie count and less likely to bother my stomach.))

You can't really compare instant coffee to decent coffee. Instant doesn't even taste like coffee to me. I don't think of it as coffee at all. I wouldn't drink it even if it were free. I guess maybe imagine the choice between drinking a glass of powdered milk or a glass of milk poured from the gallon jug. The powdered isn't really milk at all. It'll do as a substitute on a bowl of cereal when there's no other options but it's not something you want to drink because it doesn't really even compare. Does that make sense?

 

[Goofyernmost]

I gotcha. Generally if you go to any deli or other restaurant and order a regular brewed coffee it's no more expensive for a brewed coffee of a similar size at Starbucks so it's not just that Starbucks overprices theirs because they think it's that special. Where Starbucks gets pricey is with the lattes and other beverages that involve using more coffee to make (like an espresso shot is like super-duper concentrated coffee "brewed" via a different machine that is designed to produce that) or more ingredients to make. Frappucinos are expensive but they utilize more than just coffee, ice, & milk to make those. The flavored lattes require using more ground coffee than a standard cup of coffee, flavor syrups, whipped cream, and toppings. That's one reason I stick with simple brewed coffee, iced or hot. It's less expensive. The cost is more akin to ordering a Coke at a restaurant. ((Other reasons: lower calorie count and less likely to bother my stomach.))

You can't really compare instant coffee to decent coffee. Instant doesn't even taste like coffee to me. I don't think of it as coffee at all. I wouldn't drink it even if it were free. I guess maybe imagine the choice between drinking a glass of powdered milk or a glass of milk poured from the gallon jug. The powdered isn't really milk at all. It'll do as a substitute on a bowl of cereal when there's no other options but it's not something you want to drink because it doesn't really even compare. Does that make sense?

It's probably important to point out again, that I don't drink coffee at all, be it instant or the most expensive blend possible. I was asked what the basis was of my not liking Starbucks. The image and feel that I got from it, as an uninterested bystander, was what I stated. It's an opinion and not meant to be a blanket condemnation of Starbuck lovers everywhere. I live in NC and drink plain, unsweetened, un-added too, Iced Tea more then I drink anything else. Here if the sweetness content isn't high enough to throw your pancreas into a total tailspin, then you are looked upon as something strange. Waitresses see you are drinking Iced Tea and cordially refill you glass with, you guessed it, Sweet Tea. They never even ask!

We all have personal expectations and form opinion based on those things. As I said, my response was totally personal and not to be thought of as a judgment of those that don't feel the same way.

 

[flavious27]

Mainly it is because it interrupts the immersive environment that you are in. You will not totally get away from brand images and logos, but disney is unique in that there is usually not alot of non disney branding you see and dianey branding also. Walk into a six flags park, it would be hard to not see corporate logos everywhere. It is also part of the high cost you pay. If disney has main st look like i-10, they shouldn't charge as much because they are already getting a good chunk of ad money.

 

[Dads 2 Boys]

It appears that many people are forgetting that Disney is a business. There have been corporate logos all over WDW forever......@ most attractions for many, many years. What is the first thing you see while boarding SSE now.....the Siemens logo yes? The Kodak logo is all over the park maps yes? What's ironic here is that there are fewer corporate logos seen around the parks now than ever before because of fewer sponsorships.

Funny thing is that people want corporate sponsorship so the attractions/pavilions can get the love that's needed/wanted but those same people don't want to see the corporate logo. That's not how it works kids.

Part of this arguement also boils down to a lot of issues that pop up on here...change. It's something new which doesn't fly well with traditionalists and the perception of Starbucks doesn't help.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Id say Starbucks is more comparable with Lada than BMW.

 

[l4dybu6]

U-um... This seems to be turning into quite the argument!
And I really don't get what all the fuss is about! As long as Starbucks is incorporated in a tasteful way, no one will really know the difference! And us coffee lovers can finally get a decent coffee in the MK (Not to mention peppermint hot chocolate in the winter time! Yum!)

 

[TheBeatles]

i find brand words to be more annoying

 

[unkadug]

i find brand words to be more annoying

Interesting concept coming from someone with a "Brand" as their screen name.

 

[Hakunamatata]

What a coinkidink: WDW opened in 1971! Match made in heaven??? LOL!

Someone may have pointed this out, but Mainstreet USA was created to reflect the Mainstreet of Walt's youth, not when the park opened.....

 

[sweetpee_1993]

Someone may have pointed this out, but Mainstreet USA was created to reflect the Mainstreet of Walt's youth, not when the park opened.....

Yep, I know. It's just as much of a reach to claim the coincidence of the year 1971 as the official okay as it is to claim that it's ~not~ okay because Starbucks isn't a century old company. Either way, it doesn't matter. The theming can be done to make it acceptable so all the dates mean absolutely nothing in the end wherein lies the entire point to begin with.

 

[TheBeatles]

Interesting concept coming from someone with a "Brand" as their screen name.

i don't view a band i like as a brand word.

things like "memories, dreams, celebrate! immersive, offerings, magic kingdom park" is what i'm referring to.

if you read internal cast publications or pay attention to the wording of most disney press releases, you'll see these same phrases over and over again.

imagineeringdisney.com did a post recently that mocked words disney tends to over use.

 

[flynnibus]

Why is it that all the hardcore fans are so resistant to brands being featured in the parks?

Because Walt set out to create an 'escape' from the outside world.. and made conscious decisions to try to keep the negative aspects of daily life out of the park or things that could distract from the reality he was building.

Disney also had a history and reputation for just doing it themselves rather than relying on existing products/companies. Now they couldn't always do this, and often partner with other companies, but the product being put in front of the customer is Disney. Disney wanted to control his destiny after being burned in his early career. So the culture is big on Disney products, not a conglomerate of other brands together to build a market of products.

 

[Britt]

Because it'd look like Universal. I don't hate universal, but you walk in and you're bombarded with advertisements!!! With fast food, sodas, shops and billboards all over!! Totally ruins that.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Because Walt set out to create an 'escape' from the outside world.. and made conscious decisions to try to keep the negative aspects of daily life out of the park or things that could distract from the reality he was building.

Disney also had a history and reputation for just doing it themselves rather than relying on existing products/companies. Now they couldn't always do this, and often partner with other companies, but the product being put in front of the customer is Disney. Disney wanted to control his destiny after being burned in his early career. So the culture is big on Disney products, not a conglomerate of other brands together to build a market of products.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I have ever read anything that was more incorrect then that one. Read up on Disney history and see the multitude of "brands" that were in the parks since it's opening. They may, over time, have contracted some of those same brands to manufacture stuff for them and put a Disney label on it, but it was never a Disney product. To this day, I truly doubt that Disney has branched out into manufacturing. They still buy brands and slap their Disney label on it. At any given time the only thing you can be sure of is that you are not sure off where the product comes from.

 

[Marco226]

I was born in the early 90's, and I always remember seeing brand names in the parks, like after riding Spaceship Earth or something. So this has been going on for a long time, yes? At least Disney tones it down and just shows you a single lit up sign of the sponsor instead of thrashing your brains about like how Universal does it.

I guess some people look at a brand and a certain negative emotion toward it builds up inside them, and that emotion doesn't mix well with the happy magic feeling that Disney fans have while in WDW. We're supposed to be immersed into a land faraway from reality, and the familiar brand names snap us out of the fun time that we're having. That's just my guess about why some people might hate seeing brands in WDW.