Phoebe
EAP2 WW
Mr. Leverett
Practice Final
April 24, 2008
Student should not be allowed to use Wikipedia
Nowadays, academia has begun to debate whether students should be allowed or encouraged to use or cite Wikipedia. The reasons are Wikipedia has collected the combined wisdom of the masses, it does not have a statement of authorities; the Internet will never be like the school library, and it can bring lots of problems for students; Internet vandalism could influence the articles easily. Therefore, some prestigious colleges have banned Wikipedia; according to Byers (2007) “Middlebury College, a prestigious liberal arts school in Vermont, recently announced that its history department had banned the citation of Wikipedia for history paper and exams” (para. 1). Should students be allowed to use Wikipedia? The answer is no. Students are supposed to use or cite some Web sources that are approved by qualified authorities. Students should not be allowed to cite Wikipedia.
Because Wikipedia is already the ninth most popular Web site in US, if Wikipedia’ s available information is not necessarily accurate, students’ would get the wrong information. Therefore, students should avoid Wikipedia in order to learn the correct information that has no risk. First, Wikipedia has collected the combined wisdom of the masses, but it does not have a statement of authorities. Second the Internet will never like the school library and it can bring lots of problems for students. Finally, Internet vandalism could influence the articles easily.
First, Wikipedia has collected the combined wisdom of the masses, but it does not have a statement of authorities. In “Wikipedia Wisdom” (Wolverton, 2007) the author states that Wikipedia users can add, or remove information without signing, so when people visit Wikipedia, they just get the available information that does not have the author’s name and is just for free. Everyone can put anything on Wikipedia at anytime but no one monitors the Web; therefore, the available information is not accurate that can influence students’ thinking.
Moreover, the Internet is not like the school library, and it can bring lots of problems for students. According to Lengel (2006), “The Internet will never be like the school library. Nor should it be. Its value as a communication medium lies in its openness and diversity. But these same aspects make it problematic for our students” (para. 12). In “Teaching with Technology” Lengel (2000) tells us that we trust a library book, newspaper, or television; these kinds of media can be respectable authorities.
Third, Internet vandalism could influence the articles easily. According to Wolverton (2007), “The argument amongst scholars is that the information available on Wikipedia is not necessarily accurate and that the articles themselves are particularly susceptible to Internet vandalism” (para. 11). This is because Wikipedia articles can be written by anyone at anytime, bringing the risk of providing the information from outside academia. In addition, if everyone can change the article, Internet vandalism would be the most difficult problem to solve.
In conclusion, it is very clear that the citation of Wikipedia should be banned for students. Therefore, when Wikipedia collected the combined wisdom of the masses, a statement of authorities is necessary; the Internet information should be correct and be a part of well-mediated system; people who lead to Internet vandalism should be punished.
Reference
Byers, M. (2007, March 8). Controversy over use of Wikipedia in academic papers arrives at Smith, Sophian, Smith College. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2007/03/08/Newa/Controversy.Over.Use.Of.Wikipedia.In.Academic.Papers.Arrives.At.Smith2765409.shtml
Lengel, J. (2006, Feb 7). Authority, Teaching with Technology. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.powertolearn.com/articles/teaching_with_technology/article.shtml?ID=12
Wolverton, J. (2007, Jan 22). Wikipedia Wisdom, Valley Vanguard. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Starbucks' Greenwashing
Abstract
This paper’s argument is that Starbucks’ beans are not so green. It argues that Starbucks is not really going green because it has some problems of quality. There are four reasons for this argument. The first is that Starbucks is not doing enough compared to what they claim, and the second is that the ingredients of Starbucks coffees do not conform to the OCA’s (the Organic Consumers Association) standard. The third reason is that the milk of Starbucks coffee has problems. Finally, the Starbucks’ workers’ income is illegally low.
Starbucks’ greenwashing
I drink Starbucks coffee almost every day; however, I heard some news that stated that Starbucks’ coffee is not good for our health. Therefore I was looking for some information about Starbucks’ quality problems on the Internet. Starbucks’ products issue is, “it has done little to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of its foods and beverages or to promote Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee” (Deen, 2002, para. 4). “Coffee plants naturally grow in the shade, under the cover of a diverse biosphere. But unless your coffee says ‘shade grown’ on the bag, it was probably grown in a field for easier harvesting and greater profit margins” (Deen, 2002, para. 5). Also, the milk has a problem; some scientist found the cows that Starbucks uses milk from which have been injected with rBGH. Then the milk contains bacteria, antibiotics and pus (Deen, 2002, para. 8). In these few days, Starbucks wants to win back customers, so they are providing 8 oz. of coffee for a dollar. So some high class people discuss whether Starbucks’ quality problems are coming again. Because millions of people in the world drink Starbucks’ coffee, if Starbucks’ coffee quality cannot live up to a standard, people’s health will not be guaranteed.
In “Greenwash” the author states “Greenwash (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term that is used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service. The term Green sheen has similarly been used to describe organizations which attempt to appear that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment” (n.d. para. 1). It is greenwashing when a company or organization spends more time and money trying to be “green” by advertising and marketing than by minimizing environmental impact. In “What is Greenwashing, and Why is it a Problem? “ the author states that “Greenwashing could result in consumer and regulator complacency. If one corporation in a particular company gets away with greenwashing, other corporations will follow suit, thereby creating an industry-wide illusion of environmental sustainability, rather than sustainability itself” (1992, para. 4). It’s whitewashing, but with a green brush. In “A brief history of greenwash” the author says that “This initial wave of greenwash was labeled by former Madison Avenue advertising executive Jerry Mander and others at the time as “ecopornography” Karliner, (2001, para. 2). These days, “Going green” has become a standard practice for Starbucks. However, is it really green enough? Starbucks makes environmental marketing claims that can be misleading. Therefore, we need some statement to solve these problems.
First, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. An association can cooperate with some professional testing organization in order to prove whether Starbucks’ material is green. They also need to test Starbucks’ products before they leave the factory. In “Testing product for quality” the author introduces that “ConsumerLab.com is a private testing organization that licenses a quality seal for products that pass testing. Some other initiatives are done by trade associations like the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and American Botanical Council (ABC)” (1999, para. 2). That would restrict the company so that they cannot choose the cheapest material which cannot guarantee the products’ quality. For example, if Starbucks selects the low-priced material these related associations must interfere with the working process so that Starbucks cannot produce the low quality goods. Therefore, once these related organization influences Starbucks’ working process and the option of material, their coffee’s quality would be much better than before.
Second, the government should make a new law in order to control the products’ quality. In “Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China–2000” they write that “For the purposes of strengthening product quality supervision and control, raising the product quality level, clarifying the liability for product quality, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and safeguarding the socio-economic order, this Law is formulated” (2000, para. 1). After that the government should set up some pointed punishments that would limit the producer in order to improve the drinking products’ quality. In “Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China–2000” they write that “Anyone who produces or sells a product failing to comply with the relevant national or sector standards for safeguarding the health and personal or property safety is ordered to stop the production or sale, is confiscated of the product illegally produced or sold and concurrently is imposed a fine equivalent to but less than three times of the value amount of the product illegally produced or sold; is confiscated of his illegal gains concurrently if any; is revoked his business license if the circumstance is serious; and is demanded for criminal responsibility according to law if a crime is constituted” (2000, para. 49). For example, once the government built a new law which stated that if a company produces one product that whose quality cannot be guaranteed, they would be punished by the government and they would be more heavily taxed. Therefore, to punish Starbucks severely would be good for Starbucks’ credit and their customers’ health.
Finally, Starbucks should avoid the battle of business. In “Taking your eye off the competition” the author says that “During the busy start-up phase it can be easy to forget to set aside enough time to monitor the competition. However, it's essential that you are ready to respond to competitors in your market place and to new development” (n.d. para. 1). The commercial battle can influence the quality of products. The reorganization of quality and taste is basically what they are supposed to do. For example, if Starbucks wants to be the winner of this battle, they probably should reduce the price. Sometimes low price leads to poor quality. In “Are Low-Price, Poor-Quality Competitors Killing Your Business?” the author said that “The authors' comments echo sentiments occasionally expressed to us by other woodworkers who lost out on bids they deemed way too low to be profitable. The epitome of disgust vented our way has come from representatives of high-end architectural woodworking firms that were riled beyond belief after losing a high-profile job to a low-balling, snake-in-the-grass garage shop“ (2000, para. 3). So, some passive competition should be avoided.
Opponents of Starbucks say it is not really going green; that is because it has some problems of quality, Starbucks has to compete with its competitors to win back customers. However, this argument does not give a complete side of what Starbucks did. In fact, these benefits were well received by consumers and these methods should be provided to the customers in order to win the commercial competition. The truth is that the price reduction at Starbucks, even for one item, could make the customers happy and could be a positive activity. Jackie Gehlem, who said she visits Starbucks about twice a month, said, “It sounds good to me because I think Starbucks is too expensive” (Harris, 2008, para. 18). Furthermore, after Starbucks provides a low price, discount, and coupon, they can gain credit from customers. Credit is a necessary factor for a company; it can influence the image of a company so that Starbucks can win back their customers. Harris (2008), writes that after Starbucks brought Chairman Howard Schultz back, Starbucks shares jumped; this shows that the Chairman makes good decisions for his company. To conclude, providing the $1 cup of coffee and free refills are beneficial for both the consumers and Starbucks’ company.
In conclusion, nowadays the most important thing is human healthy; we need the green foods or drinks. Starbucks is the biggest company at producing coffee; we can not make it closed because coffee is a part of our daily life. So the only thing we have to do is make it better. Once Starbucks coffee becomes green, the other companies’ coffee will be as good as Starbucks, because it is the leader. Therefore, Starbucks must solve the quality problem in order to win back consumers. So, the Starbucks coffee’s working process and the option of material should be supervised by some related organization. Punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA (the Organic Consumers Association) or any interrelated organization. The reorganization of quality and taste is basically what they should do.
Reference
Christianson, R. (2000, May). Are Low-Price, Poor-Quality Competitors Killing Your Business? BNET. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3156/is_6_105/ai_n25029417
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks Beans Not So Green. Valley Advocate. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
Davis. (1992). What is Greenwashing, and Why is it a Problem. Business Ethics. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.businessethics.ca/greenwashing/
Greenwash. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwash
Harris, C. (2008, Jan 24). Starbucks–for a buck. SEATTLEPI. Retrieved Mar 28, 2008, from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/348521_sbux24.html
Karliner, J. (,2001, March 22). A Brief History of Greenwash. CorpWatch. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=243
Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China. (2000). LEHMAN. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.lehmanlaw.com/resource-centre/laws-and-regulations/consumer-protection/product-quality-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-2000.html
Sage. (2007). Greenwashing. Business Ethics. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.businessethics.ca/greenwashing/
Testing products for quality. (1999, Jan). supplement quality. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.supplementquality.com/stdregs/testing.html
This paper’s argument is that Starbucks’ beans are not so green. It argues that Starbucks is not really going green because it has some problems of quality. There are four reasons for this argument. The first is that Starbucks is not doing enough compared to what they claim, and the second is that the ingredients of Starbucks coffees do not conform to the OCA’s (the Organic Consumers Association) standard. The third reason is that the milk of Starbucks coffee has problems. Finally, the Starbucks’ workers’ income is illegally low.
Starbucks’ greenwashing
I drink Starbucks coffee almost every day; however, I heard some news that stated that Starbucks’ coffee is not good for our health. Therefore I was looking for some information about Starbucks’ quality problems on the Internet. Starbucks’ products issue is, “it has done little to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of its foods and beverages or to promote Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee” (Deen, 2002, para. 4). “Coffee plants naturally grow in the shade, under the cover of a diverse biosphere. But unless your coffee says ‘shade grown’ on the bag, it was probably grown in a field for easier harvesting and greater profit margins” (Deen, 2002, para. 5). Also, the milk has a problem; some scientist found the cows that Starbucks uses milk from which have been injected with rBGH. Then the milk contains bacteria, antibiotics and pus (Deen, 2002, para. 8). In these few days, Starbucks wants to win back customers, so they are providing 8 oz. of coffee for a dollar. So some high class people discuss whether Starbucks’ quality problems are coming again. Because millions of people in the world drink Starbucks’ coffee, if Starbucks’ coffee quality cannot live up to a standard, people’s health will not be guaranteed.
In “Greenwash” the author states “Greenwash (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term that is used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service. The term Green sheen has similarly been used to describe organizations which attempt to appear that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment” (n.d. para. 1). It is greenwashing when a company or organization spends more time and money trying to be “green” by advertising and marketing than by minimizing environmental impact. In “What is Greenwashing, and Why is it a Problem? “ the author states that “Greenwashing could result in consumer and regulator complacency. If one corporation in a particular company gets away with greenwashing, other corporations will follow suit, thereby creating an industry-wide illusion of environmental sustainability, rather than sustainability itself” (1992, para. 4). It’s whitewashing, but with a green brush. In “A brief history of greenwash” the author says that “This initial wave of greenwash was labeled by former Madison Avenue advertising executive Jerry Mander and others at the time as “ecopornography” Karliner, (2001, para. 2). These days, “Going green” has become a standard practice for Starbucks. However, is it really green enough? Starbucks makes environmental marketing claims that can be misleading. Therefore, we need some statement to solve these problems.
First, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. An association can cooperate with some professional testing organization in order to prove whether Starbucks’ material is green. They also need to test Starbucks’ products before they leave the factory. In “Testing product for quality” the author introduces that “ConsumerLab.com is a private testing organization that licenses a quality seal for products that pass testing. Some other initiatives are done by trade associations like the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and American Botanical Council (ABC)” (1999, para. 2). That would restrict the company so that they cannot choose the cheapest material which cannot guarantee the products’ quality. For example, if Starbucks selects the low-priced material these related associations must interfere with the working process so that Starbucks cannot produce the low quality goods. Therefore, once these related organization influences Starbucks’ working process and the option of material, their coffee’s quality would be much better than before.
Second, the government should make a new law in order to control the products’ quality. In “Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China–2000” they write that “For the purposes of strengthening product quality supervision and control, raising the product quality level, clarifying the liability for product quality, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and safeguarding the socio-economic order, this Law is formulated” (2000, para. 1). After that the government should set up some pointed punishments that would limit the producer in order to improve the drinking products’ quality. In “Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China–2000” they write that “Anyone who produces or sells a product failing to comply with the relevant national or sector standards for safeguarding the health and personal or property safety is ordered to stop the production or sale, is confiscated of the product illegally produced or sold and concurrently is imposed a fine equivalent to but less than three times of the value amount of the product illegally produced or sold; is confiscated of his illegal gains concurrently if any; is revoked his business license if the circumstance is serious; and is demanded for criminal responsibility according to law if a crime is constituted” (2000, para. 49). For example, once the government built a new law which stated that if a company produces one product that whose quality cannot be guaranteed, they would be punished by the government and they would be more heavily taxed. Therefore, to punish Starbucks severely would be good for Starbucks’ credit and their customers’ health.
Finally, Starbucks should avoid the battle of business. In “Taking your eye off the competition” the author says that “During the busy start-up phase it can be easy to forget to set aside enough time to monitor the competition. However, it's essential that you are ready to respond to competitors in your market place and to new development” (n.d. para. 1). The commercial battle can influence the quality of products. The reorganization of quality and taste is basically what they are supposed to do. For example, if Starbucks wants to be the winner of this battle, they probably should reduce the price. Sometimes low price leads to poor quality. In “Are Low-Price, Poor-Quality Competitors Killing Your Business?” the author said that “The authors' comments echo sentiments occasionally expressed to us by other woodworkers who lost out on bids they deemed way too low to be profitable. The epitome of disgust vented our way has come from representatives of high-end architectural woodworking firms that were riled beyond belief after losing a high-profile job to a low-balling, snake-in-the-grass garage shop“ (2000, para. 3). So, some passive competition should be avoided.
Opponents of Starbucks say it is not really going green; that is because it has some problems of quality, Starbucks has to compete with its competitors to win back customers. However, this argument does not give a complete side of what Starbucks did. In fact, these benefits were well received by consumers and these methods should be provided to the customers in order to win the commercial competition. The truth is that the price reduction at Starbucks, even for one item, could make the customers happy and could be a positive activity. Jackie Gehlem, who said she visits Starbucks about twice a month, said, “It sounds good to me because I think Starbucks is too expensive” (Harris, 2008, para. 18). Furthermore, after Starbucks provides a low price, discount, and coupon, they can gain credit from customers. Credit is a necessary factor for a company; it can influence the image of a company so that Starbucks can win back their customers. Harris (2008), writes that after Starbucks brought Chairman Howard Schultz back, Starbucks shares jumped; this shows that the Chairman makes good decisions for his company. To conclude, providing the $1 cup of coffee and free refills are beneficial for both the consumers and Starbucks’ company.
In conclusion, nowadays the most important thing is human healthy; we need the green foods or drinks. Starbucks is the biggest company at producing coffee; we can not make it closed because coffee is a part of our daily life. So the only thing we have to do is make it better. Once Starbucks coffee becomes green, the other companies’ coffee will be as good as Starbucks, because it is the leader. Therefore, Starbucks must solve the quality problem in order to win back consumers. So, the Starbucks coffee’s working process and the option of material should be supervised by some related organization. Punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA (the Organic Consumers Association) or any interrelated organization. The reorganization of quality and taste is basically what they should do.
Reference
Christianson, R. (2000, May). Are Low-Price, Poor-Quality Competitors Killing Your Business? BNET. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3156/is_6_105/ai_n25029417
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks Beans Not So Green. Valley Advocate. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
Davis. (1992). What is Greenwashing, and Why is it a Problem. Business Ethics. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.businessethics.ca/greenwashing/
Greenwash. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwash
Harris, C. (2008, Jan 24). Starbucks–for a buck. SEATTLEPI. Retrieved Mar 28, 2008, from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/348521_sbux24.html
Karliner, J. (,2001, March 22). A Brief History of Greenwash. CorpWatch. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=243
Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China. (2000). LEHMAN. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.lehmanlaw.com/resource-centre/laws-and-regulations/consumer-protection/product-quality-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-2000.html
Sage. (2007). Greenwashing. Business Ethics. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.businessethics.ca/greenwashing/
Testing products for quality. (1999, Jan). supplement quality. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.supplementquality.com/stdregs/testing.html
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Is Starbucks-for a buck good or not?
Phoebe
EAP 2 WW
Mr. Leverett
Argument essay
April 8, 08
Is Starbucks-for a buck good or not?
I drink Starbucks coffee almost every day; however, I heard some news that stated that Starbucks’ coffee is not good for our health. Therefore I was looking for some information about Starbucks’ quality problems on the Internet. Starbucks’ products issue is, “it has done little to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of its foods and beverages or to promote Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee” (Deen, 2002, para.4). “Coffee plants naturally grow in the shade, under the cover of a diverse biosphere. But unless your coffee says ‘shade grown’ on the bag, it was probably grown in a field for easier harvesting and greater profit margins” (Deen, 2002, para.5). Also, the milk has a problem; some scientist found the cows that Starbucks uses milk from which have been injected with rBGH. Then the milk contains bacteria, antibiotics and pus (Deen, 2002). In these few days, Starbucks wants to win back customers, so they are providing 8 oz. of coffee for a dollar. So some high class people discuss whether Starbucks’ quality problems are coming again.
In my paper, I want to write that because millions of people in the world drink Starbucks’ coffee, if Starbucks’ coffee quality cannot like up to a standard, people’s health will not be guaranteed. Starbucks must solve this problem. First, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. Second, government should build a new law in order to control the drinking products’ quality. For example, punishment and added tax is necessary. Finally, Starbucks should avoid the battle of business because it can influence the quality of products.
First, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. That would restrict the company so that they cannot choose the cheapest material which cannot guarantee the products’ quality. For example, if Starbucks selects the low-priced material the related association must interfere with the working process so that Starbucks cannot produce the low quality goods. Therefore, once the related organization influences Starbucks’ working process and the option of material, their coffee’s quality would be much better than before.
Second, the government should make a new law in order to control the drinking products’ quality. After that the government should sets up some pointed punishments that would limit the producer in order to improve the drinking products’ quality. For example, once the government built a new law which stated that if a company produces one product that whose quality cannot be guaranteed, they would be punished by the government and they would be more heavily taxed. Therefore, to punish Starbucks severely would be good for Starbucks’ credit and their customers’ health.
Finally, Starbucks should avoid the battle of business. The commercial battle can influence the quality of products. The reorganization of quality and taste is basically what they are supposed to do. For example, if Starbucks wants to be the winner of this battle, they probably would reduce the price. Sometimes low price leads to poor quality. So, some passive competition should be avoided.
Opponents of Starbucks say it is not really going green; that is because it has some problems of quality, so Starbucks has begun to compete with its competitors by providing the discount and free refills. However, this argument does not give a complete side of what Starbucks did. In fact, these benefits were well received by consumers and these methods should be provided to the customers in order to win the commercial competition. The truth is that the price reduction at Starbucks, even for one item, could make the customers happy and could be a positive activity. Jackie Gehlem, who said she visits Starbucks about twice a month, said, “It sounds good to me because I think Starbucks is too expensive” (Harris, 2008, para. 18). Furthermore, after Starbucks provides a low price, discount, and coupon, they can gain credit from customers. Credit is a necessary factor for a company; it can influence the image of a company so that Starbucks can win back their customers. After Starbucks brought Chairman Howard Schultz back, Starbucks shares jumped; this shows that the Chairman make a good decision for his company. To conclude, providing the $1 cup of coffee and free refills are beneficial for both the consumers and Starbucks’ company.
In conclusion, Starbucks must solve the quality problem in order to win back consumers. So, the Starbucks coffee’s working process and the option of material should be supervised by some related organization. Punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA or any interrelated organization. The reorganization of quality and taste is basically what they should do.
Reference
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks Beans Not So Green. Valley Advocate. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
Harris, C. (2008, Jan 24). Starbucks–for a buck. SEATTLEPI. Retrieved Mar 28, 2008, from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/348521_sbux24.html
EAP 2 WW
Mr. Leverett
Argument essay
April 8, 08
Is Starbucks-for a buck good or not?
I drink Starbucks coffee almost every day; however, I heard some news that stated that Starbucks’ coffee is not good for our health. Therefore I was looking for some information about Starbucks’ quality problems on the Internet. Starbucks’ products issue is, “it has done little to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of its foods and beverages or to promote Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee” (Deen, 2002, para.4). “Coffee plants naturally grow in the shade, under the cover of a diverse biosphere. But unless your coffee says ‘shade grown’ on the bag, it was probably grown in a field for easier harvesting and greater profit margins” (Deen, 2002, para.5). Also, the milk has a problem; some scientist found the cows that Starbucks uses milk from which have been injected with rBGH. Then the milk contains bacteria, antibiotics and pus (Deen, 2002). In these few days, Starbucks wants to win back customers, so they are providing 8 oz. of coffee for a dollar. So some high class people discuss whether Starbucks’ quality problems are coming again.
In my paper, I want to write that because millions of people in the world drink Starbucks’ coffee, if Starbucks’ coffee quality cannot like up to a standard, people’s health will not be guaranteed. Starbucks must solve this problem. First, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. Second, government should build a new law in order to control the drinking products’ quality. For example, punishment and added tax is necessary. Finally, Starbucks should avoid the battle of business because it can influence the quality of products.
First, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. That would restrict the company so that they cannot choose the cheapest material which cannot guarantee the products’ quality. For example, if Starbucks selects the low-priced material the related association must interfere with the working process so that Starbucks cannot produce the low quality goods. Therefore, once the related organization influences Starbucks’ working process and the option of material, their coffee’s quality would be much better than before.
Second, the government should make a new law in order to control the drinking products’ quality. After that the government should sets up some pointed punishments that would limit the producer in order to improve the drinking products’ quality. For example, once the government built a new law which stated that if a company produces one product that whose quality cannot be guaranteed, they would be punished by the government and they would be more heavily taxed. Therefore, to punish Starbucks severely would be good for Starbucks’ credit and their customers’ health.
Finally, Starbucks should avoid the battle of business. The commercial battle can influence the quality of products. The reorganization of quality and taste is basically what they are supposed to do. For example, if Starbucks wants to be the winner of this battle, they probably would reduce the price. Sometimes low price leads to poor quality. So, some passive competition should be avoided.
Opponents of Starbucks say it is not really going green; that is because it has some problems of quality, so Starbucks has begun to compete with its competitors by providing the discount and free refills. However, this argument does not give a complete side of what Starbucks did. In fact, these benefits were well received by consumers and these methods should be provided to the customers in order to win the commercial competition. The truth is that the price reduction at Starbucks, even for one item, could make the customers happy and could be a positive activity. Jackie Gehlem, who said she visits Starbucks about twice a month, said, “It sounds good to me because I think Starbucks is too expensive” (Harris, 2008, para. 18). Furthermore, after Starbucks provides a low price, discount, and coupon, they can gain credit from customers. Credit is a necessary factor for a company; it can influence the image of a company so that Starbucks can win back their customers. After Starbucks brought Chairman Howard Schultz back, Starbucks shares jumped; this shows that the Chairman make a good decision for his company. To conclude, providing the $1 cup of coffee and free refills are beneficial for both the consumers and Starbucks’ company.
In conclusion, Starbucks must solve the quality problem in order to win back consumers. So, the Starbucks coffee’s working process and the option of material should be supervised by some related organization. Punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA or any interrelated organization. The reorganization of quality and taste is basically what they should do.
Reference
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks Beans Not So Green. Valley Advocate. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
Harris, C. (2008, Jan 24). Starbucks–for a buck. SEATTLEPI. Retrieved Mar 28, 2008, from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/348521_sbux24.html
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Whether Starbucks is green or not
Phoebe
EAP 2 WW
Mr. Leverett
Research proposal
April 8, 08
Whether Starbucks is green or not
I drink Starbucks coffee almost every day; however, I heard some news that stated that Starbucks’ coffee is not good for our health. Therefore I was looking for some
information about Starbucks’ quality problems on the Internet. Starbucks’ products issue is, “ It has done little to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of its foods and beverages or to promote Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee” (Deen, 2002, para. 4). “Coffee plants naturally grow in the shade, under the cover of a diverse biosphere. But unless your coffee says ‘shade grown’ on the bag, it was probably grown in a field for easier harvesting and greater profit margins” (Deen, 2002, para. 5). Also, the milk has a problem; some scientist found the cows that Starbucks uses milk from which have been injected with rBGH. Then the milk contains bacteria, antibiotics and pus (Deen, 2002). In these few days, Starbucks wants to win back customers, so they are providing 8 oz. of coffee for a dollar. So some high class people discuss whether Starbucks’ quality problems are coming again.
In my paper, I want to write that because millions of people in the world drink Starbucks’ coffee, if Starbucks’ coffee quality cannot live up to a standard, people’s health will not be guaranteed. Starbucks must solve this problem. First, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. Second, government should build a new law in order to control the drinking products’ quality. For example, punishment and added tax is necessary. Finally, Starbucks should avoid the battle of business because it can influence the quality of products.
I have found some academic articles and news that give Starbucks’ history agreement and disagreement. Also, I have found some interesting websites that will help me to know Starbucks’ quality problems in a certain way. I still want to find some news about how government can solve these problems.
Reference
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks Beans Not So Green. Valley Advocate. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
Harris, C. (2008, Jan 24). Starbucks–for a buck. SEATTLEPI. Retrieved Mar 28, 2008, from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/348521_sbux24.html
EAP 2 WW
Mr. Leverett
Research proposal
April 8, 08
Whether Starbucks is green or not
I drink Starbucks coffee almost every day; however, I heard some news that stated that Starbucks’ coffee is not good for our health. Therefore I was looking for some
information about Starbucks’ quality problems on the Internet. Starbucks’ products issue is, “ It has done little to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of its foods and beverages or to promote Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee” (Deen, 2002, para. 4). “Coffee plants naturally grow in the shade, under the cover of a diverse biosphere. But unless your coffee says ‘shade grown’ on the bag, it was probably grown in a field for easier harvesting and greater profit margins” (Deen, 2002, para. 5). Also, the milk has a problem; some scientist found the cows that Starbucks uses milk from which have been injected with rBGH. Then the milk contains bacteria, antibiotics and pus (Deen, 2002). In these few days, Starbucks wants to win back customers, so they are providing 8 oz. of coffee for a dollar. So some high class people discuss whether Starbucks’ quality problems are coming again.
In my paper, I want to write that because millions of people in the world drink Starbucks’ coffee, if Starbucks’ coffee quality cannot live up to a standard, people’s health will not be guaranteed. Starbucks must solve this problem. First, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. Second, government should build a new law in order to control the drinking products’ quality. For example, punishment and added tax is necessary. Finally, Starbucks should avoid the battle of business because it can influence the quality of products.
I have found some academic articles and news that give Starbucks’ history agreement and disagreement. Also, I have found some interesting websites that will help me to know Starbucks’ quality problems in a certain way. I still want to find some news about how government can solve these problems.
Reference
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks Beans Not So Green. Valley Advocate. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
Harris, C. (2008, Jan 24). Starbucks–for a buck. SEATTLEPI. Retrieved Mar 28, 2008, from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/348521_sbux24.html
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Is the Starbucks with soul?
Phoebe
EAP 2 WW
Mr. Leverett
Summary Respone
Mar 26,2008
Is the Starbucks with soul?
In Deen`s (2002) article entitled “USA:Starbucks beans not so green,” she points out that Starbucks is not really going green because it has some problems of quality. First, the author says Starbucks isn’t doing enough for what they claim. According to Deen(2002), ”It has done a little to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of its foods and beverages or promote Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee” (pp.10). Second, the ingredients of Starbucks coffees do not conform to the OCA’s(Organic Consumers Association) standard. The clad field of Starbucks beans is amiss, The author says that coffee plants should be grown in the shade, but Starbucks beans probably are grown in an easier harvesting field and the coffee fruits are sprayed with ethylene. Also, the milk has problems; according to Deen(2002), “Most Starbucks still use milk from cows that have been injected with rBGH. Then the resulting milk contains bacteria, antibiotics and pus” (pp. 21). Finally, the Starbucks’ workers’ income is illegally low. The OCA states that the Starbucks gives their workers a living wage that is too low. In conclusion, the author says Starbucks needs to solve these problems immediately.
It is clear that Starbucks must solve their problems of quality. Starbucks seems like a McDonald’s. McDonald’s is leading in the area of fast food; their food does not have enough nutrition. So the NNO (Nation Nutrition Organization) punished them; now, their food has become greener and the other fast food restaurants have become the same as McDonald’s. In the same way, Starbucks’ problems are the same. Therefore, we need some statement to solve these problems. In fact, punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA or any interrelated organization. Starbucks has to retake the products on sale. Some relative associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material.
First, punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA or any interrelated organization. Starbucks sells these products but does not conform to the OCA’s standard because they want more money. So if the government gives them the grueling punishment, they would have no profits to gain. So they may change their material to get credit from their customers. Therefore, to punish Starbucks severely would be good for Starbucks` credit and customers’ health.
Second, Starbucks has to improve the products on sale. In this way, they can get three positive results. The government should compulsively ask Starbucks to retake their products which are on sale. Starbucks has to produce the products which are healthy and true. As another result, customers can buy the new coffee that is good for their health, so they could feel safe when drinking it. Moreover, Starbucks’ partnership will increase and it will be more competitive in the international world trade.
Finally, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. These organizations are supposed to dispatch some professionals to help choose the better coffee beans or plants of the same price and using new technologies to feed cows instead of injecting them with rBGH. Also the production facility of Starbucks should be supervised in order to prevent quality problems. Perhaps Starbucks coffee price will become more expensive, but it is necessary.
In conclusion, nowadays the most important thing is human health; we need the green foods or drinks. Starbucks is the biggest company at producing coffee; we can not make it closed because we like drinking coffee. So the only thing we have to do is make it better. If Starbucks coffee becomes green, the other companies’ coffee will be as good as Starbucks, because it is the leader.
Reference
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks beans not so green. Valley Advocate. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
EAP 2 WW
Mr. Leverett
Summary Respone
Mar 26,2008
Is the Starbucks with soul?
In Deen`s (2002) article entitled “USA:Starbucks beans not so green,” she points out that Starbucks is not really going green because it has some problems of quality. First, the author says Starbucks isn’t doing enough for what they claim. According to Deen(2002), ”It has done a little to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of its foods and beverages or promote Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee” (pp.10). Second, the ingredients of Starbucks coffees do not conform to the OCA’s(Organic Consumers Association) standard. The clad field of Starbucks beans is amiss, The author says that coffee plants should be grown in the shade, but Starbucks beans probably are grown in an easier harvesting field and the coffee fruits are sprayed with ethylene. Also, the milk has problems; according to Deen(2002), “Most Starbucks still use milk from cows that have been injected with rBGH. Then the resulting milk contains bacteria, antibiotics and pus” (pp. 21). Finally, the Starbucks’ workers’ income is illegally low. The OCA states that the Starbucks gives their workers a living wage that is too low. In conclusion, the author says Starbucks needs to solve these problems immediately.
It is clear that Starbucks must solve their problems of quality. Starbucks seems like a McDonald’s. McDonald’s is leading in the area of fast food; their food does not have enough nutrition. So the NNO (Nation Nutrition Organization) punished them; now, their food has become greener and the other fast food restaurants have become the same as McDonald’s. In the same way, Starbucks’ problems are the same. Therefore, we need some statement to solve these problems. In fact, punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA or any interrelated organization. Starbucks has to retake the products on sale. Some relative associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material.
First, punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA or any interrelated organization. Starbucks sells these products but does not conform to the OCA’s standard because they want more money. So if the government gives them the grueling punishment, they would have no profits to gain. So they may change their material to get credit from their customers. Therefore, to punish Starbucks severely would be good for Starbucks` credit and customers’ health.
Second, Starbucks has to improve the products on sale. In this way, they can get three positive results. The government should compulsively ask Starbucks to retake their products which are on sale. Starbucks has to produce the products which are healthy and true. As another result, customers can buy the new coffee that is good for their health, so they could feel safe when drinking it. Moreover, Starbucks’ partnership will increase and it will be more competitive in the international world trade.
Finally, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. These organizations are supposed to dispatch some professionals to help choose the better coffee beans or plants of the same price and using new technologies to feed cows instead of injecting them with rBGH. Also the production facility of Starbucks should be supervised in order to prevent quality problems. Perhaps Starbucks coffee price will become more expensive, but it is necessary.
In conclusion, nowadays the most important thing is human health; we need the green foods or drinks. Starbucks is the biggest company at producing coffee; we can not make it closed because we like drinking coffee. So the only thing we have to do is make it better. If Starbucks coffee becomes green, the other companies’ coffee will be as good as Starbucks, because it is the leader.
Reference
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks beans not so green. Valley Advocate. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
Is the Starbucks with soul?
Phoebe
EAP 2 WW
Mr. Leverett
Summary Respone
Mar 26,2008
Is the Starbucks with soul?
In Deen`s (2002) article entitled “USA:Starbucks beans not so green,” she points out that Starbucks is not really going green because it has some problems of quality. First, the author says Starbucks isn’t doing enough for what they claim. According to Deen(2002), ”It has done a little to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of its foods and beverages or promote Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee” (pp.10). Second, the ingredients of Starbucks coffees do not conform to the OCA’s(Organic Consumers Association) standard. The clad field of Starbucks beans is amiss, The author says that coffee plants should be grown in the shade, but Starbucks beans probably are grown in an easier harvesting field and the coffee fruits are sprayed with ethylene. Also, the milk has problems; according to Deen(2002), “Most Starbucks still use milk from cows that have been injected with rBGH. Then the resulting milk contains bacteria, antibiotics and pus” (pp. 21). Finally, the Starbucks’ workers’ income is illegally low. The OCA states that the Starbucks gives their workers a living wage that is too low. In conclusion, the author says Starbucks needs to solve these problems immediately.
It is clear that Starbucks must solve their problems of quality. Starbucks seems like a McDonald’s. McDonald’s is leading in the area of fast food; their food does not have enough nutrition. So the NNO (Nation Nutrition Organization) punished them; now, their food has become greener and the other fast food restaurants have become the same as McDonald’s. In the same way, Starbucks’ problems are the same. Therefore, we need some statement to solve these problems. In fact, punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA or any interrelated organization. Starbucks has to retake the products on sale. Some relative associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material.
First, punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA or any interrelated organization. Starbucks sells these products but does not conform to the OCA’s standard because they want more money. So if the government gives them the grueling punishment, they would have no profits to gain. So they may change their material to get credit from their customers. Therefore, to punish Starbucks severely would be good for Starbucks` credit and customers’ health.
Second, Starbucks has to improve the products on sale. In this way, they can get three positive results. The government should compulsively ask Starbucks to retake their products which are on sale. Starbucks has to produce the products which are healthy and true. As another result, customers can buy the new coffee that is good for their health, so they could feel safe when drinking it. Moreover, Starbucks’ partnership will increase and it will be more competitive in the international world trade.
Finally, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. These organizations are supposed to dispatch some professionals to help choose the better coffee beans or plants of the same price and using new technologies to feed cows instead of injecting them with rBGH. Also the production facility of Starbucks should be supervised in order to prevent quality problems. Perhaps Starbucks coffee price will become more expensive, but it is necessary.
In conclusion, nowadays the most important thing is human health; we need the green foods or drinks. Starbucks is the biggest company at producing coffee; we can not make it closed because we like drinking coffee. So the only thing we have to do is make it better. If Starbucks coffee becomes green, the other companies’ coffee will be as good as Starbucks, because it is the leader.
Reference
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks beans not so green. Valley Advocate. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
EAP 2 WW
Mr. Leverett
Summary Respone
Mar 26,2008
Is the Starbucks with soul?
In Deen`s (2002) article entitled “USA:Starbucks beans not so green,” she points out that Starbucks is not really going green because it has some problems of quality. First, the author says Starbucks isn’t doing enough for what they claim. According to Deen(2002), ”It has done a little to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of its foods and beverages or promote Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee” (pp.10). Second, the ingredients of Starbucks coffees do not conform to the OCA’s(Organic Consumers Association) standard. The clad field of Starbucks beans is amiss, The author says that coffee plants should be grown in the shade, but Starbucks beans probably are grown in an easier harvesting field and the coffee fruits are sprayed with ethylene. Also, the milk has problems; according to Deen(2002), “Most Starbucks still use milk from cows that have been injected with rBGH. Then the resulting milk contains bacteria, antibiotics and pus” (pp. 21). Finally, the Starbucks’ workers’ income is illegally low. The OCA states that the Starbucks gives their workers a living wage that is too low. In conclusion, the author says Starbucks needs to solve these problems immediately.
It is clear that Starbucks must solve their problems of quality. Starbucks seems like a McDonald’s. McDonald’s is leading in the area of fast food; their food does not have enough nutrition. So the NNO (Nation Nutrition Organization) punished them; now, their food has become greener and the other fast food restaurants have become the same as McDonald’s. In the same way, Starbucks’ problems are the same. Therefore, we need some statement to solve these problems. In fact, punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA or any interrelated organization. Starbucks has to retake the products on sale. Some relative associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material.
First, punishment should be given to the Starbucks by OCA or any interrelated organization. Starbucks sells these products but does not conform to the OCA’s standard because they want more money. So if the government gives them the grueling punishment, they would have no profits to gain. So they may change their material to get credit from their customers. Therefore, to punish Starbucks severely would be good for Starbucks` credit and customers’ health.
Second, Starbucks has to improve the products on sale. In this way, they can get three positive results. The government should compulsively ask Starbucks to retake their products which are on sale. Starbucks has to produce the products which are healthy and true. As another result, customers can buy the new coffee that is good for their health, so they could feel safe when drinking it. Moreover, Starbucks’ partnership will increase and it will be more competitive in the international world trade.
Finally, some related associations need to supervise the working process and the option of material. These organizations are supposed to dispatch some professionals to help choose the better coffee beans or plants of the same price and using new technologies to feed cows instead of injecting them with rBGH. Also the production facility of Starbucks should be supervised in order to prevent quality problems. Perhaps Starbucks coffee price will become more expensive, but it is necessary.
In conclusion, nowadays the most important thing is human health; we need the green foods or drinks. Starbucks is the biggest company at producing coffee; we can not make it closed because we like drinking coffee. So the only thing we have to do is make it better. If Starbucks coffee becomes green, the other companies’ coffee will be as good as Starbucks, because it is the leader.
Reference
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks beans not so green. Valley Advocate. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
Monday, March 31, 2008
For a buck
In the article” Starbucks—for a buck,” by Harris, the author explains that Starbucks competes with its competitors by providing the discount and free refills. First, Starbucks started selling the $1 cup of coffee and refills in Seattle in order to win back customers. The author says that because of the battle between Starbucks Corp and McDonald’s Corp, Starbucks has to provide the discount. Next, because of the share price dropped, Starbucks raised price for the second time in one year and after Starbucks fired its chief executive and brought Chairman Howard Schultz back, Starbucks shares jumped, since the Chairman points out that the company does not have enough “exciting” products. Then, Starbucks said that “testing is a way of life for us.” they have tested several kinds of products before. The author says that the prices are different between stores, so does competitors. To conclude, providing the discount and refills at Starbucks was well received and it makes the customer happy. In fact, some benefits should be provided to the customers in order to win the commercial competition.
Nowadays, every company in modern society faces the keen competition, especially Starbucks, the world largest coffee chain with 15,000 stores; the battle would be fiercer. In every area, each company will provides low price, discount, coupon, surprise activity, and customer service, however, these methods can not solve the basic problems, these statements can win the customers in a short time but it is not a long-term consideration. If they want to solve the principal problem, the reorganization of quality and taste is basically that they supposed to do. The outer packing should be change completely. Starbucks should avoid any business scandal to gain the credit from customers.
First, the reorganization of quality and taste is basically that they supposed to do. Starbucks start selling a $1 cup of coffee in some Seattle-area stores, it is a positive activity. Jackie Gehlen, who said she visits Starbucks about twice a month, said:” It sounds good to me because I think Starbucks is too expensive,” (pp 81). However, sometimes low price lead to poor quality. So that quality and taste should be guaranteed. In this way, this kind of promotion will become a main project.
Second, the outer packing should be change completely. The cups of Starbucks are almost the same style, a white cup with a trademark; that can not attract the customers’ attention. Variety of pack is a great magnet for customers. Therefore, Starbuck should change the packing, different types of people have varied styles. People may have a feeling that the cup is fashionable so that they want to follow it.
Finally, Starbucks should avoid any business scandal to gain the credit from customers. Credit is a necessary factor for a company. If customers think that Starbucks is unconvincing, no matter how attractive the activity is, no one wants to buy their goods. Commercial scandal often happens in a big corporation like Starbucks, although, it can influence the image of a company, if the company deals with it in a moderate way, they can win back a group of customers.
In conclusion, business battle is necessary, but do not make it worse. Starbucks has steady customer, malign competition only can harm the customers. Improve themselves is the only way to beat the competitors. Starbucks brought the Chairman back in order to choose the better strategy, good promotion activity and guaranteeing the quality are the pre-requisite for winning back the customers.
Reference
Harris, C. (2008,Jan 24). Starbucks–for a buck. SEATTLEPI. Retrieved Mar 28, 2008, from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/348521_sbux24.html
Nowadays, every company in modern society faces the keen competition, especially Starbucks, the world largest coffee chain with 15,000 stores; the battle would be fiercer. In every area, each company will provides low price, discount, coupon, surprise activity, and customer service, however, these methods can not solve the basic problems, these statements can win the customers in a short time but it is not a long-term consideration. If they want to solve the principal problem, the reorganization of quality and taste is basically that they supposed to do. The outer packing should be change completely. Starbucks should avoid any business scandal to gain the credit from customers.
First, the reorganization of quality and taste is basically that they supposed to do. Starbucks start selling a $1 cup of coffee in some Seattle-area stores, it is a positive activity. Jackie Gehlen, who said she visits Starbucks about twice a month, said:” It sounds good to me because I think Starbucks is too expensive,” (pp 81). However, sometimes low price lead to poor quality. So that quality and taste should be guaranteed. In this way, this kind of promotion will become a main project.
Second, the outer packing should be change completely. The cups of Starbucks are almost the same style, a white cup with a trademark; that can not attract the customers’ attention. Variety of pack is a great magnet for customers. Therefore, Starbuck should change the packing, different types of people have varied styles. People may have a feeling that the cup is fashionable so that they want to follow it.
Finally, Starbucks should avoid any business scandal to gain the credit from customers. Credit is a necessary factor for a company. If customers think that Starbucks is unconvincing, no matter how attractive the activity is, no one wants to buy their goods. Commercial scandal often happens in a big corporation like Starbucks, although, it can influence the image of a company, if the company deals with it in a moderate way, they can win back a group of customers.
In conclusion, business battle is necessary, but do not make it worse. Starbucks has steady customer, malign competition only can harm the customers. Improve themselves is the only way to beat the competitors. Starbucks brought the Chairman back in order to choose the better strategy, good promotion activity and guaranteeing the quality are the pre-requisite for winning back the customers.
Reference
Harris, C. (2008,Jan 24). Starbucks–for a buck. SEATTLEPI. Retrieved Mar 28, 2008, from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/348521_sbux24.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
