February 5, 2007
Starbucks Roasted by McDonald’s in Taste Test
Howard Schultz has said, “Starbucks represents something beyond a cup of coffee.” Perhaps that is true, but according to Consumer Reports, when it comes to getting a good cup of coffee, you should try McDonald’s (that’s right) instead.
The March issue of the magazine ran a taste test among Burger King, Dunkin’ Donuts, McDonald’s and Starbucks. Two taste testers went into the various stores and ordered their beverages black.
In the end, Starbucks’ coffee was deemed to be “strong, but burnt and bitter enough to make your eyes water instead of open.”
The winning coffee from McDonald’s was described as “decent and moderately strong,” and having “no flaws.”
The coffee of the next two chains in the test were described as inoffensive (Dunkin Donuts) and tasted more like hot water” (Burger King).
Starbucks sought to downplay the report. The company released a statement saying, “Choosing a brand of coffee is a personal decision, as taste is subjective.”
McDonald’s, on the other hand, was ecstatic about the news. Danya Proud, a spokesperson for the fast food chain, told the Los Angeles Times, “It was great news.” Particularly rewarding to McDonald’s is that the company gets this recognition a year after it changed the coffee blend it sold in its restaurants, with many wondering if a premium brew would catch on with the chain’s customers.
Discussion Questions: Will the Consumer Reports article and the media coverage of it give McDonald’s a boost with its coffee business? Will this taste test induce trial of McDonald’s coffee by customers of Starbucks?
As an FYI – There is some controversy surrounding the Consumer Reports taste test.
Willem Boot, who trains tasters for the Coffee Quality Institute, told the Los Angeles Times, “We assemble panels of at least six testers to taste the coffee under tightly controlled conditions. Doing only two samples in this case is crazy.”
We don’t know if conducting the taste test is crazy, but we do know that we’ve heard consumers use similar language to describe the coffees in question. In our case, we’ll continue to drink Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts coffee. Of course, given the option, we’ll just grind the beans at home and do it ourselves. That’s the best coffee.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Sometimes Consumer Reports tests things anyone could easily test themselves. Its major value: when the items tested aren’t easily compared by the average reader. Very few people can easily buy 17 different washing machines. Almost everyone can easily test a half dozen different coffee brands. But Consumer Reports isn’t just test results, it’s an entertainment medium. Every issue has funny and sarcastic comments. Sometimes the tests are easily replicated by the readership. Coffee is one of the most popular universal purchases in America, so it’s fun to see what the magazine says. Who cares about taking it seriously?
Hello from Singapore, Coffee Drinkers! Well you have too many coffee suppliers in this world, each saying “my coffee is special.” I have tasted so many different preparations but would rather put my dollars into local coffee because it tastes better…and the strong aroma….
I suspect you are seeing a data aggregation fallacy. If you research a sample of all pizza eaters and study the aggregated results you would probably never offer anchovies again! You would then find that 5% of your customers have gone away never to return!
Starbucks coffee is a polarizing taste that probably appeals to a minority of coffee drinkers, but those who like it would never find McDonald’s (or Dunkin’ Donuts) acceptable. In addition, the experience of going to Starbucks is a self-expressive statement that the same person is unlikely to be able to make at Mickie D’s.
This type of reporting basically misses why product superiority often often has little to do with extreme brand equity, but don’t get me started!
One of the basic problems with this test by CR is that I doubt if very many people actually drink Starbucks’ coffee plain as they do McDonald’s or Dunkin’ Donuts. Being a very big coffee drinker, I agree that McDonald’s has the best tasting regular coffee and go there very frequently. Since I do not go into the office everyday or have customers to impress on a regular basis, I just get the best tasting, most reasonably priced cup of java and that’s at the Golden Arches. If I have the need for a latte then Starbucks is the only place to go and they have a great atmosphere if you want to meet someone or kill some time.
Image has been brought up and it is much more important to some than others. I have been working as the general contractor for a new home and have met more people at McDonald’s than at Starbucks. These people, as a rule, are more interested in a good basic cup of coffee than a latte regardless of the price.
For Starbucks fanatics, three bucks is well spent without repent. Despite McDonald’s new accolades from Consumer Reports, it will not win many new coffee-crazed cohorts.
East is East, West is West, Starbucks is perceived the best.
Even if McDonald’s plays this news hard, the amount of Starbuckies migrating would be minimal. Taste is subjective and it’s difficult to put any stock in a test that describes Dunkin’ Donuts coffee as tasting like “hot water.”
Interesting comments. I too would not have thought of ordering coffee at a McDonald’s. Given Consumer Reports review – if I am in a McDonalds; I will definitely order it and see for myself.
Do I see McDonald’s as a destination for me to purchase coffee? No. But I do see an opportunity for McDonald’s to capture some market share from convenience stores from those who want a good cup of grab and go coffee without getting out of their cars.
This is an amazing development that certainly will give pause to many coffee addicts, especially when they want their coffee on the go. Schultz is right. Starbucks is a nice place to hang. I just wouldn’t consider hanging out at McDonald’s for a cup of coffee. The smells, the kids, the harsh sounds. Give me Starbucks any day.
But, if I’m in a hurry and thinking about the Starbucks drive through as an option, this Consumer Reports study makes me stop and think. Do I want to fork over 2 bucks, wait in line, after all those latte and cappuccino people? Golden Arches, here I come.
The social stigma of buying coffee at McDonald’s far outweighs whatever taste advantage it might offer.
Despite what their ubiquitous ad suggests, McDonald’s coffee is not (and never will be) hug worthy.
No impact…the folks who drink at Starbucks don’t go to McD’s unless/until their kids ask them to go.
This story unearths an important element in many of our discussions, and in the business world in general: data isn’t always good data. I am afraid I am unmoved by the Consumer Reports claim in this case.
I’ve had the opportunity to observe many of Consumer Report’s methods, and from my perspective at least, much of their product testing and analysis is some of the finest, most rigorous, most objective I have ever seen. (This statement may draw ire from some–I have observed that there appears to be a segment of the public that harbors very negative feelings about Consumer Reports, no matter what.) This isn’t true in all cases, however. I also note that I do not think it helps the public or a testing organization to say things like, “bitter enough to make your eyes water.” This is certainly, in my view, in the category of mockery, and has no place in such a report.
Compare Consumer Report’s conclusions on this topic with the same test run by another very rigorous testing laboratory, Cook’s Illustrated, which drew some of the same observations, but then found that when mixed with the common additives such as milk and cream and flavored sugar syrup, Starbucks Coffee rated number one.
This all reminds me of many of the claims that float around particularly the world of marketing: “Rated number one in its class” (said of cars and is a rating made by drivers, not experts, and of a class of cars defined so narrowly that there are three in the category); “rated number one by (a different consumer magazine, and one that is actually funded by the companies whose products they test);” “Our customer service is rated number one” (claimed by a cellular provider and it turns out, there was no data for this and no test or survey run at all). The moral of the story? Claims and even data may not be what they seem to be.
McDonald’s has an opportunity to tout the quality of its new coffee as long as it doesn’t get into a pattern of negative comparative advertising vs. Starbucks. That’s not McDonald’s style…in fact, that’s the style that others have used to compare their food to McDonald’s over the years (think BK campaigns for fries). So McDonald’s has an interesting marketing challenge but definitely an opportunity.
That being said, the Starbucks customer knows that he/she is getting more than a cup of coffee. The boost in self-esteem (not just caffeine) designed carefully into everything about the Starbucks retail experience is not likely to translate easily to McDonald’s.
Anyway, there’s little mistaking the strong taste of Starbucks for anyone else’s coffee, if that’s your personal preference. Starbucks can continue to move into a broader breakfast menu and an expanded menu of coffee and non-coffee drinks, and it’ll do just fine.
I’ve never even considered ordering a coffee from McDonald’s when making a stop with my kids. Now, I will give it a try. If it turns out I like it, I might forgo getting coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks (I go to both) and spend more at McDonald’s. It certainly is more convenient with its drive-thru window.
The best coffee IS the stuff you grind at home. I think there are a couple of lessons here and neither of them have to do with the taste of coffee.
First, CR has used a pea shooter to send a warning over Starbucks’ bow. But the lesson is still there. No matter how dominant you are in an industry there is always a ‘best before’ date. At some point some up-and-comer starts to nibble away at your lunch. That’s why organizations have to be in a constant state of transformation and re-invention. I believe our ‘life cycles’ are getting shorter and shorter. This applies especially to the Starbucks and Wal-Marts of our world. You are never too big to fall.
Second is the fact that Mr.Schultz is right–it’s about more than the coffee. Carrying a Starbucks cup into the office makes you look sophisticated and debonair. Carrying a McDonalds’s cup makes you look cheap and primitive. It’s like carrying a Montblanc pen or a Bic–one doesn’t necessarily write any better than the other. Starbucks sells image and experience. However, consumers will eventually start asking how badly they need that because the experience starts to get boring like going on the same roller coaster over and over. The solution is to buy a Starbucks mug and pour your McDonald’s coffee into it. One thing for sure, the ROI on the mug is quick.
I used to be a Starbucks diehard, but my husband & I realized that we were spending big bucks on our regular coffees, non-fat lattes, and beans for grinding at home. Now, I go to Starbucks to meet girlfriends for a visit and a coffee, enjoying the ambiance, nice music, and adult companionship.
We switched our “regular” coffee drinking to Tim Hortons–anyone who has been to Canada has to have had a Tim Hortons coffee before. Half the price of Starbucks, fast service, amazing coffee…and loyalty of diehard Canadian coffee drinkers everywhere. McDonald’s in Canada may get folks who are already in the establishment to purchase a coffee. But if there’s a “Tim’s” within a block, they’ll drive on over, even willing to spend time waiting at the very popular drive through window.
I have said all along that McDonald’s has a good cup of the Java. I think this lower cost quality java will lead some people to switch, especially in the drive-through. McDonald’s will need to make sure their coffee stays fresh throughout the day and throw old coffee away. Starbucks should take notice that perceived coffee quality is subjective. Most people won’t switch but new consumers into the category may choose value over ambiance. Next step; McDonald’s should sell their coffee in bags at their stores.
I am of the belief that the Starbucks “experience” goes well beyond the taste of the coffee! The McDonald’s win in the Consumer Reports poll does not necessarily mean it can deliver on the expectations of the many folks who go to Starbucks each morning…they may get some trial of their coffee, but I do not see a lot of loyal Starbucks users moving into the McDonald’s environment. I for one do not order coffee at McDonald’s because I do not want to wait 20-minutes for it to cool down…if I do, the breakfast sandwich will be too cold to be enjoyable. I think McDonald’s needs to find a way to optimize the temperature of its coffee to its breakfast sandwiches if they want to maximize this opportunity.
When McDonald’s came out with their new premium coffee, I was impressed. No doubt it’s the best tasting coffee around. I never cared for Starbucks. I don’t think the latest news will have a big impact. People go to Starbucks because they are trying to look cool and walk around with with bad hair and a briefcase with a Starbucks in their hand. You can’t look cool with a McDonald’s cup.
I think it’s all been said, but I can’t help chime in.
If I were Starbucks, I would do a consumer taste test, rather than relying on the so-called experts from Consumer Reports. Of course, if McD’s fared better, I’d keep my mouth shut.
Then again, Starbucks doesn’t need to. They are the iconic example that it’s not about the coffee, it’s about the brand and the experience. Personally, I think Starbucks coffee is bitter, but I still drink it. I love the brand.
When I’m on the East Coast, I’ll drink Dunkin’ Donuts. I believe that to do otherwise is against the law. At least in my home state of New Hampshire.
It’s a report by a magazine with flaws and with a limited reach of loyal readers. In just a few days from now, by the end of the week, Starbucks will have opened at least 15 more new locations and continued their march to being something greater than ubiquitous.
For coffee drinkers it goes like this – for a plain black coffee:
Starbucks – $1.70
McDonalds – $1.26
Dunkin Donuts – $1.30
Gas Station – $.69
‘Consumer Reports’ impact on the market – $.0 (Priceless)
Each likes what they like. Some switch regularly depending on mood or convenience (like myself). The likelihood of any real loyal customer (if there is such a thing) to Starbucks (or anyone else) switching to McDonald’s due to the Consumers Reports article is less than nil. Some may try it, but they’ll run back to their favorite because its different and not what they are used to in the morning or any other time.
It’s a non-starter and won’t make a grind’s bit of difference. It will be forgotten by the end of the week.
Neither Starbucks nor McDonald’s is in the business of selling Coffee. Both are, however, in the business of delivering an experience to the consumer. The experience to be delivered would seem to be so different that the chance of crossover would be minimal. Think about it: McDonald’s is all about consistency and speed. Starbucks is all about personal service and lingering.
McDonald’s provides playgrounds for children; Starbucks–for adults.
While McDonald’s has improved their coffee, they provide no variety; just coffee. Credit Starbucks for forcing McDonald’s to change.
As for consumer reports, they tend to get away with making broad statements based on very small samples and sometimes seem to force answers when no answer is necessary. They have become so politically correct that many times they seem to know they answer before the question is asked. Credible data is all about sample size. Everyone seems to know this but Consumer Reports.
This CR taste test report will give McD’s short term “noise” in the PR area and may attract some consumers to give their coffee a try. However, as far as converting Starbucks users…I don’t see it. Starbucks sells “an experience” totally different from McDonald’s. Most Starbucks patrons will discount the test results and I, like others, really question whether Consumer Reports did their research properly. Coffee is very much a matter of personal taste and on the surface, having only two taste testers doesn’t measure up to appropriate research methodology. And a statement like “bitter enough to make your eyes water” doesn’t sound objective to me. CR is still trying to get over their recent embarrassment from their research on kids car seats….
McDonald’s may have great coffee, but the person taking my order probably does not drink coffee, does not know how to make change, and I may have to use my language skills to get an extra cream. Starbucks does coffee very well, and doesn’t try to be something it is not. Coffee shops usually can tell me about the coffee, and can suggest something different.
McDonald’s tries EVERYTHING, and does not do everything well, at times.
I would not go to a general practitioner for a severe heart condition, even if it was CHEAPER.
Coffee–Schmoffee. Give me the cool uplifting effervescence of a fountain coke from McDonald’s in the morning.
Well, being a coffee addict, I drink coffee all day. Both have excellent brews, however, the price is not much different at McDonald’s than at Starbucks, and I have a choice of several different brews at Starbucks. They also now feature drive-through, which everyone seems to crave. I detest drive-through; it limits my ability to make a choice of additives, causes huge amounts of smog, long waits, etc.
Given the choice of 10 cents more a cup (now 15 cents as Starbucks has gone for a price increase), I will take Starbucks anytime.
When did I ever go to Starbucks for coffee? I go for a latte, the vibe and overall experience. But yeah, kudos to McD’s for raising the bar; why on earth are the other fast food chains missing this?
McD’s java is now my top pick for a quick drive-through when I’m out of town. The current blend tastes great, the price is fair and the service is quick. Plus, they have those keen warnings on the cup about how the contents may be hot….
But I like a good latte now and then too, and I’ve happily plunked down my $3.50 at ‘Bucky’s from Seattle to Manhattan to downtown Tokyo.
When back East, DD’s is a good choice for a cuppa, although I’ve trained myself to shun the fried dough rings. I even retain fond memories of the generic joe from nameless Manhattan diners–served in those ubiquitous blue-and white paper cups of faux-Grecian motif. (“Regular, no sugar!”)
But thanks in large measure to Starbucks, the competition in the coffee quarter has stepped up and up. Quality is good almost everywhere I go and the beans we buy at Costco and grind at home fuel my RetailWire missives almost daily.
I guess this is to explain that when it comes to coffee to go, I’m a split shopper of divided loyalty. In my case, consistency is the hobgoblin of the decaffeinated mind.
I believe the story here ought to be Consumer Reports and not the coffee. CR holds itself up as objective and accurate because they don’t take any sponsorship or ad dollars, and consumers have accepted the message, assuming that they must know what they’re doing. Yet, CR’s evaluation tools, procedures and results are regularly called into question. CR gets it wrong just often enough that I no longer put much stock in their reviews.
McDonald’s coffee is good enough that I drink it when I travel (convenient). But I go to Starbucks to relax for a few minutes (atmosphere). In my opinion, both Starbucks and McDonald’s should be congratulated for the same thing: creating a strong brand identity and a predictable, consistent experience wherever you go.
The people I mix with are typically Middle Class white collar and 35-50 with a family. Several of these people have installed their own cappuccino and coffee machines, bean grinders, etc., in their kitchens. Surprisingly, their reason was to save money by not having to go to Starbucks or other coffee stores. They report that their machines were paid for within a year.
The fact remains: we all get our caffeine in different forms. Most of us would just rather not have the designer label.
As Art said, it’s debatable how many Starbucks customers actually drink it black. Likewise, when McDonald’s was touting its new gourmet coffee on television, I thought maybe they were also offering some sort of flavoring, or a variation on Starbucks coffee drinks as well.
But nope–just plain old black coffee, too hot to drink without asking for ice or paying for cold milk. Where’s the gourmet in that?
Sounds familiar…think Pepsi/Coke.
People will override their true taste preferences when confronted with the outside of the can (or in this case, cup). It’s Marketing 101! McDonald’s and Starbucks have both developed strong brands, and consumers’ behavior will not change based on a product review like this.
Having read a similar story a few years ago, and trying the same test many times myself, I find Starbucks significantly superior to any McDonald’s coffee. SBUX always has a new, fresh coffee; I wonder what they were testing. How could they get a random sample since coffee is made in so many places, so many ways? Then too (this is a PR forum), Consumers Reports is heavily financed by the Pew/SUNOCO foundation. It’s the quality 3d party credible source. They dissed Benjamin More for its low VOC (toluene made by Sun Chemical) paints. Could there be some financial relationship relating to interstate rest area vendors or do beef producers spend more on petroleum based fertilizer? Bottom line is that more people learn about Starbucks and McDonald’s on location than reading. The coffee is its own PR.
Though, with this kind of report McDonald’s might get a large number of curious customers (or maybe I am exaggerating this response) who just want to taste the coffee in controversy, it would only be a short term benefit. The bases need to be equal for making comparisons, first of all; McDonald’s and Starbucks are just not comparable, given the kind of “experience” they give.
As everybody knows, Starbucks is not only about coffee, it’s much more than that…the amazing experience and the overall feel that a customer gets there. You go there to soak yourself in a relaxed and comfortable ambiance and to experience an elevated feeling of being associated with that sophisticated image that Starbucks extend to it customers.
As far as the facts told in the report are concerned, I don’t think the kind of coffee and the number of coffee tasters give very convincing argument of McDonald’s offering a better coffee than Starbucks coffee. Reason being that instead of just one version of coffee (black coffee), other versions should have also been tried, with a panel of 5-6 coffee tasters and not just 2-3 coffee tasters.
Wow! There a a lot of comments on this subject. Consumer Reports has a very strong reputation that should
not be questioned. However, who were the tasters? Non-McDonald’s and non-Starbucks customers? Makes a major difference on the results.
And secondly, were the questions asked about the coffees in the context of just the product, or going to each retailer’s outlet and enjoying the product?
Finally, you have two different target audiences, and reasons to go to and McDonald’s or Starbucks. So, Starbucks shoppers and drinkers won’t go to McDonald’s to just relax, or meet a friend, unless they are hungry. But Starbucks is rolling out breakfast and lunch meals, mainly sandwiches. DEFINITELY an issue for McDonalds!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, we know McDonald’s is testing its McCafe, and this does bring a warmer and relaxing place to go. Maybe somewhat like Starbucks’ atmosphere, but not close enough to Starbucks to challenge or rattle Starbucks’ social cult.
The images of both are different and McDonald’s will always be noted as a place to get a quick, decent meal, with or without coffee.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
The fact that the report is touted as a poll is a misnomer. Sort of a “Coalition of the Willing.” A 2 person test is not really a valid test for any credible consumer research agency. Consumer Reports should know that and avoid hurting its credibility by using a more scientific approach to their so called tests. Although I would rely on some of their durable goods testing, I have learned to be skeptical about their consumable goods research. CR many times uses small numbers of participants, some staff “aficionado” to coffee, salsa, etc. and no credible methodology. The result is too much fanfare and discussion around something that has no scientific merit. I am still wondering why we even bother to address it but the frustration with CR’s approach is too much to ignore for some of us that have traditional CPG experience with companies that invest heavily on scientific market research. Consumer Reports…not so much!
I agree with many of the previous comments. Firstly, this is hardly a credible consumer test as the sample is too small and unscientific. Secondly, benchmarking coffee against Burger King, Dunkin’ Donuts, McDonald’s and Starbucks, to me, is comparing apples and potatoes. Who doesn’t sell take away coffee these days? Coffee will never be the major focus at McD’s so apart from convenience why on earth would you go there to buy one? Certainly not for the taste. Selling coffee is about a lot more than simply putting a few coffee machines into your stores (which is all McD’s/BK have done in many locations). The fact that Starbucks cannot even “beat” them in a taste test tells me what many of us have suspected for a long time. Starbucks is now just a lifestyle brand.
Certainly, getting good press cannot hurt McDonald’s. If this were a part of a bigger strategy where McDonald’s attempts to open its own cafes, then this report could be seen as creating tension between Starbucks and McDonald’s. However, McDonald’s will not be opening a chain of cafes; so the company cannot use this good press for any long-term advantage.
I think (i.e. my personal opinion) the debate about the “best” coffee revolves around the tension between consumers who claim that coffee is coffee and those who claim that coffee comes in different “varieties” (similar to wine). According to some, whether purchasing Folger’s by the 5lb tub or Starbucks by the 1/2 pound, coffee pretty much tastes the same. The other camp claims that coffee is for refined tastes, attempting to argue that coffee comes in “varieties” similar to varieties of wine.
Anyway, the difficultly is that coffees do taste different, but not distinctively different from one another. So, one variety of coffee can be a substitute for another kind of coffee. The differentiation just isn’t strong enough to keep people from buying McDonald’s and pouring it into a Starbucks thermos (as another poster averred).
On the other hand, since Starbucks’ CEO uses the argument that coffees have highlights, bouquets, finishes, and aromas depending on the region and climate in which they are grown, this bad press might help Starbucks by keeping that argument from resolving. Thus, Starbucks can continue to convincingly offer new varieties, blends, and roasts to consumers as new products–even though, maybe, it all tastes pretty much like McDonald’s.
The likelihood that this Taste Test will impact Starbucks, even in the slightest, is less than remote. Starbucks stopped selling coffee a long time ago and now punts a lifestyle that the consumer affiliates with unconditionally. The mere thought of trading in the hip Starbucks café experience for a dance with the Titan of Grease, first thing in the morning, is somewhat distasteful (understatement) to those devoted Starbucks groupies.
Taste is of course subjective, and it is important to recognize that while McDonald’s has spent inordinate amounts of money, [not with us I hasten to add!!], investing in the ability to offer an acceptable cup of coffee, it simply does not pare with the investment and quality of coffee that Starbucks provides. McDonald’s coffee menu lacks variety and the ability for customers to customize their offer, and is housed in a Fast Food environmental shell. Starbucks is the opposite, customers can interface with the Barista, the coffee can be customized beyond recognition, and the environment continues to evolve into a space that might outshine most of our living rooms.
I certainly applaud McDonald’s for winning such a taste test, however we were warned about the dynamics of the tasting, and I would question the validity of the results. Certainly, while I don’t think the results of the tasting now elevate McDonald’s into coffee stardom, it is certainly comforting to see a commitment to taste quality; I wonder what they will do next? Maybe reduce the fat content of their core products?
So in summary; well done McDonald’s and Starbucks has nothing to worry about–at the moment anyway!
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
Sometimes Consumer Reports tests things anyone could easily test themselves. Its major value: when the items tested aren’t easily compared by the average reader. Very few people can easily buy 17 different washing machines. Almost everyone can easily test a half dozen different coffee brands. But Consumer Reports isn’t just test results, it’s an entertainment medium. Every issue has funny and sarcastic comments. Sometimes the tests are easily replicated by the readership. Coffee is one of the most popular universal purchases in America, so it’s fun to see what the magazine says. Who cares about taking it seriously?
Hello from Singapore, Coffee Drinkers! Well you have too many coffee suppliers in this world, each saying “my coffee is special.” I have tasted so many different preparations but would rather put my dollars into local coffee because it tastes better…and the strong aroma….
I suspect you are seeing a data aggregation fallacy. If you research a sample of all pizza eaters and study the aggregated results you would probably never offer anchovies again! You would then find that 5% of your customers have gone away never to return!
Starbucks coffee is a polarizing taste that probably appeals to a minority of coffee drinkers, but those who like it would never find McDonald’s (or Dunkin’ Donuts) acceptable. In addition, the experience of going to Starbucks is a self-expressive statement that the same person is unlikely to be able to make at Mickie D’s.
This type of reporting basically misses why product superiority often often has little to do with extreme brand equity, but don’t get me started!
One of the basic problems with this test by CR is that I doubt if very many people actually drink Starbucks’ coffee plain as they do McDonald’s or Dunkin’ Donuts. Being a very big coffee drinker, I agree that McDonald’s has the best tasting regular coffee and go there very frequently. Since I do not go into the office everyday or have customers to impress on a regular basis, I just get the best tasting, most reasonably priced cup of java and that’s at the Golden Arches. If I have the need for a latte then Starbucks is the only place to go and they have a great atmosphere if you want to meet someone or kill some time.
Image has been brought up and it is much more important to some than others. I have been working as the general contractor for a new home and have met more people at McDonald’s than at Starbucks. These people, as a rule, are more interested in a good basic cup of coffee than a latte regardless of the price.
For Starbucks fanatics, three bucks is well spent without repent. Despite McDonald’s new accolades from Consumer Reports, it will not win many new coffee-crazed cohorts.
East is East, West is West, Starbucks is perceived the best.
Even if McDonald’s plays this news hard, the amount of Starbuckies migrating would be minimal. Taste is subjective and it’s difficult to put any stock in a test that describes Dunkin’ Donuts coffee as tasting like “hot water.”
Interesting comments. I too would not have thought of ordering coffee at a McDonald’s. Given Consumer Reports review – if I am in a McDonalds; I will definitely order it and see for myself.
Do I see McDonald’s as a destination for me to purchase coffee? No. But I do see an opportunity for McDonald’s to capture some market share from convenience stores from those who want a good cup of grab and go coffee without getting out of their cars.
This is an amazing development that certainly will give pause to many coffee addicts, especially when they want their coffee on the go. Schultz is right. Starbucks is a nice place to hang. I just wouldn’t consider hanging out at McDonald’s for a cup of coffee. The smells, the kids, the harsh sounds. Give me Starbucks any day.
But, if I’m in a hurry and thinking about the Starbucks drive through as an option, this Consumer Reports study makes me stop and think. Do I want to fork over 2 bucks, wait in line, after all those latte and cappuccino people? Golden Arches, here I come.
The social stigma of buying coffee at McDonald’s far outweighs whatever taste advantage it might offer.
Despite what their ubiquitous ad suggests, McDonald’s coffee is not (and never will be) hug worthy.
No impact…the folks who drink at Starbucks don’t go to McD’s unless/until their kids ask them to go.
This story unearths an important element in many of our discussions, and in the business world in general: data isn’t always good data. I am afraid I am unmoved by the Consumer Reports claim in this case.
I’ve had the opportunity to observe many of Consumer Report’s methods, and from my perspective at least, much of their product testing and analysis is some of the finest, most rigorous, most objective I have ever seen. (This statement may draw ire from some–I have observed that there appears to be a segment of the public that harbors very negative feelings about Consumer Reports, no matter what.) This isn’t true in all cases, however. I also note that I do not think it helps the public or a testing organization to say things like, “bitter enough to make your eyes water.” This is certainly, in my view, in the category of mockery, and has no place in such a report.
Compare Consumer Report’s conclusions on this topic with the same test run by another very rigorous testing laboratory, Cook’s Illustrated, which drew some of the same observations, but then found that when mixed with the common additives such as milk and cream and flavored sugar syrup, Starbucks Coffee rated number one.
This all reminds me of many of the claims that float around particularly the world of marketing: “Rated number one in its class” (said of cars and is a rating made by drivers, not experts, and of a class of cars defined so narrowly that there are three in the category); “rated number one by (a different consumer magazine, and one that is actually funded by the companies whose products they test);” “Our customer service is rated number one” (claimed by a cellular provider and it turns out, there was no data for this and no test or survey run at all). The moral of the story? Claims and even data may not be what they seem to be.
McDonald’s has an opportunity to tout the quality of its new coffee as long as it doesn’t get into a pattern of negative comparative advertising vs. Starbucks. That’s not McDonald’s style…in fact, that’s the style that others have used to compare their food to McDonald’s over the years (think BK campaigns for fries). So McDonald’s has an interesting marketing challenge but definitely an opportunity.
That being said, the Starbucks customer knows that he/she is getting more than a cup of coffee. The boost in self-esteem (not just caffeine) designed carefully into everything about the Starbucks retail experience is not likely to translate easily to McDonald’s.
Anyway, there’s little mistaking the strong taste of Starbucks for anyone else’s coffee, if that’s your personal preference. Starbucks can continue to move into a broader breakfast menu and an expanded menu of coffee and non-coffee drinks, and it’ll do just fine.
I’ve never even considered ordering a coffee from McDonald’s when making a stop with my kids. Now, I will give it a try. If it turns out I like it, I might forgo getting coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks (I go to both) and spend more at McDonald’s. It certainly is more convenient with its drive-thru window.
The best coffee IS the stuff you grind at home. I think there are a couple of lessons here and neither of them have to do with the taste of coffee.
First, CR has used a pea shooter to send a warning over Starbucks’ bow. But the lesson is still there. No matter how dominant you are in an industry there is always a ‘best before’ date. At some point some up-and-comer starts to nibble away at your lunch. That’s why organizations have to be in a constant state of transformation and re-invention. I believe our ‘life cycles’ are getting shorter and shorter. This applies especially to the Starbucks and Wal-Marts of our world. You are never too big to fall.
Second is the fact that Mr.Schultz is right–it’s about more than the coffee. Carrying a Starbucks cup into the office makes you look sophisticated and debonair. Carrying a McDonalds’s cup makes you look cheap and primitive. It’s like carrying a Montblanc pen or a Bic–one doesn’t necessarily write any better than the other. Starbucks sells image and experience. However, consumers will eventually start asking how badly they need that because the experience starts to get boring like going on the same roller coaster over and over. The solution is to buy a Starbucks mug and pour your McDonald’s coffee into it. One thing for sure, the ROI on the mug is quick.
I used to be a Starbucks diehard, but my husband & I realized that we were spending big bucks on our regular coffees, non-fat lattes, and beans for grinding at home. Now, I go to Starbucks to meet girlfriends for a visit and a coffee, enjoying the ambiance, nice music, and adult companionship.
We switched our “regular” coffee drinking to Tim Hortons–anyone who has been to Canada has to have had a Tim Hortons coffee before. Half the price of Starbucks, fast service, amazing coffee…and loyalty of diehard Canadian coffee drinkers everywhere. McDonald’s in Canada may get folks who are already in the establishment to purchase a coffee. But if there’s a “Tim’s” within a block, they’ll drive on over, even willing to spend time waiting at the very popular drive through window.
I have said all along that McDonald’s has a good cup of the Java. I think this lower cost quality java will lead some people to switch, especially in the drive-through. McDonald’s will need to make sure their coffee stays fresh throughout the day and throw old coffee away. Starbucks should take notice that perceived coffee quality is subjective. Most people won’t switch but new consumers into the category may choose value over ambiance. Next step; McDonald’s should sell their coffee in bags at their stores.
I am of the belief that the Starbucks “experience” goes well beyond the taste of the coffee! The McDonald’s win in the Consumer Reports poll does not necessarily mean it can deliver on the expectations of the many folks who go to Starbucks each morning…they may get some trial of their coffee, but I do not see a lot of loyal Starbucks users moving into the McDonald’s environment. I for one do not order coffee at McDonald’s because I do not want to wait 20-minutes for it to cool down…if I do, the breakfast sandwich will be too cold to be enjoyable. I think McDonald’s needs to find a way to optimize the temperature of its coffee to its breakfast sandwiches if they want to maximize this opportunity.
When McDonald’s came out with their new premium coffee, I was impressed. No doubt it’s the best tasting coffee around. I never cared for Starbucks. I don’t think the latest news will have a big impact. People go to Starbucks because they are trying to look cool and walk around with with bad hair and a briefcase with a Starbucks in their hand. You can’t look cool with a McDonald’s cup.
I think it’s all been said, but I can’t help chime in.
If I were Starbucks, I would do a consumer taste test, rather than relying on the so-called experts from Consumer Reports. Of course, if McD’s fared better, I’d keep my mouth shut.
Then again, Starbucks doesn’t need to. They are the iconic example that it’s not about the coffee, it’s about the brand and the experience. Personally, I think Starbucks coffee is bitter, but I still drink it. I love the brand.
When I’m on the East Coast, I’ll drink Dunkin’ Donuts. I believe that to do otherwise is against the law. At least in my home state of New Hampshire.
It’s a report by a magazine with flaws and with a limited reach of loyal readers. In just a few days from now, by the end of the week, Starbucks will have opened at least 15 more new locations and continued their march to being something greater than ubiquitous.
For coffee drinkers it goes like this – for a plain black coffee:
Starbucks – $1.70
McDonalds – $1.26
Dunkin Donuts – $1.30
Gas Station – $.69
‘Consumer Reports’ impact on the market – $.0 (Priceless)
Each likes what they like. Some switch regularly depending on mood or convenience (like myself). The likelihood of any real loyal customer (if there is such a thing) to Starbucks (or anyone else) switching to McDonald’s due to the Consumers Reports article is less than nil. Some may try it, but they’ll run back to their favorite because its different and not what they are used to in the morning or any other time.
It’s a non-starter and won’t make a grind’s bit of difference. It will be forgotten by the end of the week.
Neither Starbucks nor McDonald’s is in the business of selling Coffee. Both are, however, in the business of delivering an experience to the consumer. The experience to be delivered would seem to be so different that the chance of crossover would be minimal. Think about it: McDonald’s is all about consistency and speed. Starbucks is all about personal service and lingering.
McDonald’s provides playgrounds for children; Starbucks–for adults.
While McDonald’s has improved their coffee, they provide no variety; just coffee. Credit Starbucks for forcing McDonald’s to change.
As for consumer reports, they tend to get away with making broad statements based on very small samples and sometimes seem to force answers when no answer is necessary. They have become so politically correct that many times they seem to know they answer before the question is asked. Credible data is all about sample size. Everyone seems to know this but Consumer Reports.
This CR taste test report will give McD’s short term “noise” in the PR area and may attract some consumers to give their coffee a try. However, as far as converting Starbucks users…I don’t see it. Starbucks sells “an experience” totally different from McDonald’s. Most Starbucks patrons will discount the test results and I, like others, really question whether Consumer Reports did their research properly. Coffee is very much a matter of personal taste and on the surface, having only two taste testers doesn’t measure up to appropriate research methodology. And a statement like “bitter enough to make your eyes water” doesn’t sound objective to me. CR is still trying to get over their recent embarrassment from their research on kids car seats….
McDonald’s may have great coffee, but the person taking my order probably does not drink coffee, does not know how to make change, and I may have to use my language skills to get an extra cream. Starbucks does coffee very well, and doesn’t try to be something it is not. Coffee shops usually can tell me about the coffee, and can suggest something different.
McDonald’s tries EVERYTHING, and does not do everything well, at times.
I would not go to a general practitioner for a severe heart condition, even if it was CHEAPER.
Coffee–Schmoffee. Give me the cool uplifting effervescence of a fountain coke from McDonald’s in the morning.
Well, being a coffee addict, I drink coffee all day. Both have excellent brews, however, the price is not much different at McDonald’s than at Starbucks, and I have a choice of several different brews at Starbucks. They also now feature drive-through, which everyone seems to crave. I detest drive-through; it limits my ability to make a choice of additives, causes huge amounts of smog, long waits, etc.
Given the choice of 10 cents more a cup (now 15 cents as Starbucks has gone for a price increase), I will take Starbucks anytime.
When did I ever go to Starbucks for coffee? I go for a latte, the vibe and overall experience. But yeah, kudos to McD’s for raising the bar; why on earth are the other fast food chains missing this?
McD’s java is now my top pick for a quick drive-through when I’m out of town. The current blend tastes great, the price is fair and the service is quick. Plus, they have those keen warnings on the cup about how the contents may be hot….
But I like a good latte now and then too, and I’ve happily plunked down my $3.50 at ‘Bucky’s from Seattle to Manhattan to downtown Tokyo.
When back East, DD’s is a good choice for a cuppa, although I’ve trained myself to shun the fried dough rings. I even retain fond memories of the generic joe from nameless Manhattan diners–served in those ubiquitous blue-and white paper cups of faux-Grecian motif. (“Regular, no sugar!”)
But thanks in large measure to Starbucks, the competition in the coffee quarter has stepped up and up. Quality is good almost everywhere I go and the beans we buy at Costco and grind at home fuel my RetailWire missives almost daily.
I guess this is to explain that when it comes to coffee to go, I’m a split shopper of divided loyalty. In my case, consistency is the hobgoblin of the decaffeinated mind.
I believe the story here ought to be Consumer Reports and not the coffee. CR holds itself up as objective and accurate because they don’t take any sponsorship or ad dollars, and consumers have accepted the message, assuming that they must know what they’re doing. Yet, CR’s evaluation tools, procedures and results are regularly called into question. CR gets it wrong just often enough that I no longer put much stock in their reviews.
McDonald’s coffee is good enough that I drink it when I travel (convenient). But I go to Starbucks to relax for a few minutes (atmosphere). In my opinion, both Starbucks and McDonald’s should be congratulated for the same thing: creating a strong brand identity and a predictable, consistent experience wherever you go.
The people I mix with are typically Middle Class white collar and 35-50 with a family. Several of these people have installed their own cappuccino and coffee machines, bean grinders, etc., in their kitchens. Surprisingly, their reason was to save money by not having to go to Starbucks or other coffee stores. They report that their machines were paid for within a year.
The fact remains: we all get our caffeine in different forms. Most of us would just rather not have the designer label.
As Art said, it’s debatable how many Starbucks customers actually drink it black. Likewise, when McDonald’s was touting its new gourmet coffee on television, I thought maybe they were also offering some sort of flavoring, or a variation on Starbucks coffee drinks as well.
But nope–just plain old black coffee, too hot to drink without asking for ice or paying for cold milk. Where’s the gourmet in that?
Sounds familiar…think Pepsi/Coke.
People will override their true taste preferences when confronted with the outside of the can (or in this case, cup). It’s Marketing 101! McDonald’s and Starbucks have both developed strong brands, and consumers’ behavior will not change based on a product review like this.
Having read a similar story a few years ago, and trying the same test many times myself, I find Starbucks significantly superior to any McDonald’s coffee. SBUX always has a new, fresh coffee; I wonder what they were testing. How could they get a random sample since coffee is made in so many places, so many ways? Then too (this is a PR forum), Consumers Reports is heavily financed by the Pew/SUNOCO foundation. It’s the quality 3d party credible source. They dissed Benjamin More for its low VOC (toluene made by Sun Chemical) paints. Could there be some financial relationship relating to interstate rest area vendors or do beef producers spend more on petroleum based fertilizer? Bottom line is that more people learn about Starbucks and McDonald’s on location than reading. The coffee is its own PR.
Though, with this kind of report McDonald’s might get a large number of curious customers (or maybe I am exaggerating this response) who just want to taste the coffee in controversy, it would only be a short term benefit. The bases need to be equal for making comparisons, first of all; McDonald’s and Starbucks are just not comparable, given the kind of “experience” they give.
As everybody knows, Starbucks is not only about coffee, it’s much more than that…the amazing experience and the overall feel that a customer gets there. You go there to soak yourself in a relaxed and comfortable ambiance and to experience an elevated feeling of being associated with that sophisticated image that Starbucks extend to it customers.
As far as the facts told in the report are concerned, I don’t think the kind of coffee and the number of coffee tasters give very convincing argument of McDonald’s offering a better coffee than Starbucks coffee. Reason being that instead of just one version of coffee (black coffee), other versions should have also been tried, with a panel of 5-6 coffee tasters and not just 2-3 coffee tasters.
Wow! There a a lot of comments on this subject. Consumer Reports has a very strong reputation that should
not be questioned. However, who were the tasters? Non-McDonald’s and non-Starbucks customers? Makes a major difference on the results.
And secondly, were the questions asked about the coffees in the context of just the product, or going to each retailer’s outlet and enjoying the product?
Finally, you have two different target audiences, and reasons to go to and McDonald’s or Starbucks. So, Starbucks shoppers and drinkers won’t go to McDonald’s to just relax, or meet a friend, unless they are hungry. But Starbucks is rolling out breakfast and lunch meals, mainly sandwiches. DEFINITELY an issue for McDonalds!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, we know McDonald’s is testing its McCafe, and this does bring a warmer and relaxing place to go. Maybe somewhat like Starbucks’ atmosphere, but not close enough to Starbucks to challenge or rattle Starbucks’ social cult.
The images of both are different and McDonald’s will always be noted as a place to get a quick, decent meal, with or without coffee.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
The fact that the report is touted as a poll is a misnomer. Sort of a “Coalition of the Willing.” A 2 person test is not really a valid test for any credible consumer research agency. Consumer Reports should know that and avoid hurting its credibility by using a more scientific approach to their so called tests. Although I would rely on some of their durable goods testing, I have learned to be skeptical about their consumable goods research. CR many times uses small numbers of participants, some staff “aficionado” to coffee, salsa, etc. and no credible methodology. The result is too much fanfare and discussion around something that has no scientific merit. I am still wondering why we even bother to address it but the frustration with CR’s approach is too much to ignore for some of us that have traditional CPG experience with companies that invest heavily on scientific market research. Consumer Reports…not so much!
I agree with many of the previous comments. Firstly, this is hardly a credible consumer test as the sample is too small and unscientific. Secondly, benchmarking coffee against Burger King, Dunkin’ Donuts, McDonald’s and Starbucks, to me, is comparing apples and potatoes. Who doesn’t sell take away coffee these days? Coffee will never be the major focus at McD’s so apart from convenience why on earth would you go there to buy one? Certainly not for the taste. Selling coffee is about a lot more than simply putting a few coffee machines into your stores (which is all McD’s/BK have done in many locations). The fact that Starbucks cannot even “beat” them in a taste test tells me what many of us have suspected for a long time. Starbucks is now just a lifestyle brand.
Certainly, getting good press cannot hurt McDonald’s. If this were a part of a bigger strategy where McDonald’s attempts to open its own cafes, then this report could be seen as creating tension between Starbucks and McDonald’s. However, McDonald’s will not be opening a chain of cafes; so the company cannot use this good press for any long-term advantage.
I think (i.e. my personal opinion) the debate about the “best” coffee revolves around the tension between consumers who claim that coffee is coffee and those who claim that coffee comes in different “varieties” (similar to wine). According to some, whether purchasing Folger’s by the 5lb tub or Starbucks by the 1/2 pound, coffee pretty much tastes the same. The other camp claims that coffee is for refined tastes, attempting to argue that coffee comes in “varieties” similar to varieties of wine.
Anyway, the difficultly is that coffees do taste different, but not distinctively different from one another. So, one variety of coffee can be a substitute for another kind of coffee. The differentiation just isn’t strong enough to keep people from buying McDonald’s and pouring it into a Starbucks thermos (as another poster averred).
On the other hand, since Starbucks’ CEO uses the argument that coffees have highlights, bouquets, finishes, and aromas depending on the region and climate in which they are grown, this bad press might help Starbucks by keeping that argument from resolving. Thus, Starbucks can continue to convincingly offer new varieties, blends, and roasts to consumers as new products–even though, maybe, it all tastes pretty much like McDonald’s.
The likelihood that this Taste Test will impact Starbucks, even in the slightest, is less than remote. Starbucks stopped selling coffee a long time ago and now punts a lifestyle that the consumer affiliates with unconditionally. The mere thought of trading in the hip Starbucks café experience for a dance with the Titan of Grease, first thing in the morning, is somewhat distasteful (understatement) to those devoted Starbucks groupies.
Taste is of course subjective, and it is important to recognize that while McDonald’s has spent inordinate amounts of money, [not with us I hasten to add!!], investing in the ability to offer an acceptable cup of coffee, it simply does not pare with the investment and quality of coffee that Starbucks provides. McDonald’s coffee menu lacks variety and the ability for customers to customize their offer, and is housed in a Fast Food environmental shell. Starbucks is the opposite, customers can interface with the Barista, the coffee can be customized beyond recognition, and the environment continues to evolve into a space that might outshine most of our living rooms.
I certainly applaud McDonald’s for winning such a taste test, however we were warned about the dynamics of the tasting, and I would question the validity of the results. Certainly, while I don’t think the results of the tasting now elevate McDonald’s into coffee stardom, it is certainly comforting to see a commitment to taste quality; I wonder what they will do next? Maybe reduce the fat content of their core products?
So in summary; well done McDonald’s and Starbucks has nothing to worry about–at the moment anyway!