Is This Worthy of an Editorial

Actually, it's that Starbucks coffee has more caffeine than its competitors.

http://www.slate.com/id/2107807/

As a confirmed addict, I can feel the difference between having Starbucks and having a similar cup from elsewhere, not only when I feel the caffeine hit wear off, but also when I feel the lack-of-caffeine headache coming on.

 

The Boston Globe can trump the Trib, easily.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/03/22/daniel_nava_cinderella_after_the_ball/

 

While neither of these is what I consider a valuable editorial, at least the Globe's is very, very brief (it was likely the third editorial of the day) and local.

A good editorial on Starbucks might have been sarcastic, examining why Starbucks has made it this far through the lens of a congratulations. This editorial, unless it completely flew over my head, was not that.

 

They don't buy a ton of traditional media, so this makes it all the more curious. I'd love to see someone from the Chicago Reader (free weekly) or someone else poke around and try to figure out what motivated this. I'd also be curious if any other papers ran similar op-eds, which would be a clear sign that a PR agency was involved.

 

Nothing Starbucks invented, obviously. They just recognized the trend & hopped on.

I'm sure their are countless earlier examples, but the most striking one to me is the marketing of vodka, beginning with Absolute. By law, vodka has to be colorless, tasteless, and odorless. Yet, Absolute was able to market a "lifestyle" and get people to order it by name. It's since been eclipsed by Kettle One, Gray Goose, and others, but it was still remarkable.

 

By law? Vodka sure has a lousy taste for being tasteless (in my opinion).

 

I don't know if I have less or more of a problem with news orgs editorializing about a Starbucks anniversary or providing front-page coverage of a store opening. Whatever happened to Krispy Kreme anyway?

 

Yep, by law:

(There are probably more authoritative sources, but it's true.)

Alcohol is one of the most regulated industries we have.

A couple of micro-distilleries have opened here recently. I toured one a couple of weeks ago. They're not making vodka (partially because you can't compete on flavor), but the stories they told of regulation compliance were crazy.

 

Krispy Kreme lied to their franchisees about how much money they could make. Most went broke & closed. Lots of lawsuits.

And, I agree, that unless there's something interesting about a new business -- the first brewpub in the area or something -- keep it off the front page, or even out of the newspaper.

But, this is the Chicago Tribune for God's sake and they come across as some small town daily with shit like this.

 

Does that apply to foreign vodkas? And I think the word "distinctive" is key here.

 

Yep. If you want to sell it here, you have to comply.

And, distinctive doesn't mean much. Obviously there's not an absence of flavor, but all you should taste is alcohol.

Vodka is basically just watered down grain alcohol. And, you can't use taste differentiation in your advertising. You'll notice that no one ever says their vodka tastes the best.

Flavored vodka is a scam too. Vodka is just an alcoholic base for a drink. You flavor it with something else, like fruit juice. There's no reason to flavor the vodka.

The local distillery does make flavored liqueurs. When it's originally distilled, you have a product that's about 160-180 proof -- nearly pure alcohol. Thin it out by 50% and you have vodka. Thin it out to 40 proof and add flavoring, you have a liqueur.

Vodka sales are all about marketing. It's all attitude, design, lifestyle.

 

I'm not a vodka fan, so I don't know.

I'm not a rum fan, either, but I did a flight of various rums in Miami one time and the older rums were real smooth and tasty.

(And I think everyone complains about government regulation.)