SBux will increase prices on coffee, frappuccinos, vanilla bullshit latte cappa things and other drinks by an average of 9 cents per cup* starting next week. Starbucks claims the move is necessary to help offset the “soaring costs” of milk and other commodities.
Morningstar analyst John Owens said that “There will probably be some grumblings initially, but at the end of the day, I think people aren’t going to change their pattern of buying,” because we are lazy, caffeine-addicted sheep (I’m on #4, how ‘bout you?).
The increase—the second in less than a year, following October’s 5 cent/drink bump—effectively levels the price of a grande beverage to that of a gram of blow, the latter of which you don’t have to wait for on some ungodly long line. We’re not saying, we’re just saying.
Shares of Starbucks are up 15 cents to $28.31.
Starbucks raising U.S. drinks prices next week [Reuters]
*Listen, people. We get that it’s a negligible increase. But we’ve got to draw the line somewhere. Ours will be at $8.50, which is extremely generous considering that we get iced coffee, and, as everyone knows, the iced drinks are where the ‘Buck screws you. What’s your limit?

“Um…why is my Grande Mocha (with extra whip) asking me to spell ‘sardoodledom’?” pretty much sums up Starbucks’ first film promotion venture.
Last year, Starbucks Entertainment (and here I thought Starbucks Entertainment is the laughter that ensues when the cashier asks for $5 in exchange for a cup of coffee) promoted the film “Akeelah and the Bee” for a cut of the film’s box-office proceeds. Akeelah, surprisingly void of sardoodledom (mechanically contrived plot structure or stereotyped, unrealistic characterization in drama (another word for melodrama)), was a flop, even for a documentary. The promotion campaign consisted of spelling bee words on cup sleeves and general barista harassment to go see the film (although baristas are surprisingly mum when it comes to giving a language of origin).
Undeterred by its first film promotion effort, Starbucks is promoting another film, “Arctic Tale,” an eco-fable about a walrus and polar bear that become special, special friends, and then drown after the ice caps melt (like Milo & Otis, if they were in Korea). The Paramount Classics and National Geographic Films release will be condescendingly explained to Starbucks patrons as a cautionary tale about global warming. The film is set to open in select theaters on July 25 and nationally on August 17.
(Here is the video of the poor soul who got stuck with “sardoodledom” in the National Spelling Bee, and nailed it)
Starbucks Sticks With Film-Promotion Plan [Wall Street Journal]

Everytime you fool yourself into having a milkshake at Starbucks by calling it a ‘coffee-drink’ you starve some kid with flies on his face. At least, we think that’s the message of this faux-Starbucks advertisement.

We literally howled with laughter this morning when Starbucks said it had lost revenues because it was making so many of those sugar-coated cold drinks in the hot summer. But maybe we were too quick to judge. Look at the line for Starbucks outside of Barry Ritholtz’s office.
Makes us love the little deli across the park from DealBreaker HQ even more. No lines ever.

Wait Time Curbs Sales at Starbucks [The Big Picture]

CNBC keeps running a trailer for an interview with Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, where Schultz’s major soundbite is:

If you want achieve your dreams, you have to dream big…

Schultz did** a business book a few years ago called Pour Your Heart Into It, and wouldn’t be surprised if that soundbyte was a chapter heading. The only problem is that it makes no sense.***
But frankly, we’ve heard worse. And you have, too. Admit it.
So we’re collecting dumb business soundbytes. Send to tips@dealbreaker.com with attribution (or leave suggestions in the comments.) The reader who submits the Dumbest Business Soundbyte gets a copy of Schultz’s book, good for use as a paperweight for loose pitchbook pages, a doorstop or a beer coaster.
** We’d say “wrote a business book”, but who are we kidding?
***By that logic, dreaming smaller would result in failure to achieve smaller, ostensibly more easily achiveable dreams. And dreaming even smaller would result in even more failure to achieve even smaller dreams. And when a small dream is tucked inside of an even smaller dream, inside of an even smaller dream, it’s a failure inside a smaller failure. And when a small dream inside a small dream…