Which is exactly why I started going to the new 'Cryptobucks' mentioned in the article instead of the independent coffee shop across the street from them... That, and the coffee at the Roy St Starbucks is simply better.
Anyway, and I quote: "I'm not an idiot, I know Vivace is the best coffee in Seattle!"
Sigh.
The only time I personally visit starbucks is when I am somewhere abroad and want somewhere familiar for 30 minutes. This means city centres work well, but not necessarily outlets in smaller communities.
SB may be better served by 'sponsoring' independents rather than running their own shops, if they're looking to divorce themselves from the brand. Work with smaller coffee shops, act as a distributor and consultant service for a cut of the profits. They'd mitigate the risk of opening a coffee shop for a first-timer and have a clean break between the 'sophisticated' consumer and the brand.
The way they are tackling this problem is all wrong though. Even if they had unlimited amounts of money, they still wouldn't be able hire enough people with good taste to create a different culture at each location. All they can do is rearrange the furniture a little, and people are too smart for that.
The biggest asset Starbucks has going for it is that when you walk in there, they actually make your coffee as opposed to glaring at you and going back to reading their book. What if instead of trying to hide their biggest assets, they actually leveraged them to become like Reddit for food. That is, they'd showcase local culinary talent and various new and interesting niche beverages. But at the same time there would be a certain consistency in the atmosphere, culture, and service.
This strikes me as the ideal because you could attract people with both high and low openness to experience and neuroticism. And thanks to technology you could do it without needing to identify/hire lots of people with great taste, which is basically impossible at that scale.