The Unfortunate Trio Blend: Starbucks, Black Gold, Ethiopia

It is quite fascinating to see giant corporations, whom we perceive as untouchable, sometimes act like human beings. Personally, nothing captivates me more, in this automated corporate world, than feeling the honest human characters behind the amorphous structures operating in robotic styles and boring façades. And that is one of the good things I see in Starbucks; the fact that the company sometimes acts like a natural person – age doesn’t matter. Here is one such act – an act anyone you know might do.

Last week, Black Gold movie’s opening in Los Angeles was announced through postings on several websites including here on Coffee Politics. As reported here, Starbucks issued what it calls a rumor response on January 12, 2007. By the way, I don’t see how a gossip retains its status as a rumor after making it all the way to an official website. Any ways, the response accused Black Gold by saying, “the film incompletely represents the work Starbucks is doing to address this (“this” refers to the global coffee trade characterized by the film as unfair) issue."

As I read this response, Starbucks’ responsiveness to the media, which is good, caught my attention but I was not too impressed with Starbucks’ decision to confront the film after all that happened during the film’s official screening here in Seattle earlier in 2006. Also, I didn’t think it was wise for Starbucks to open another front at this very troubling time.

The filmmakers of Black Gold, Nick Francis and Marc Francis did not expect that either. The Francis said:

“We are surprised that Starbucks have gone out to discredit the film again. This is not a film specifically about Starbucks, it's a film about the winners and losers in the global coffee industry and it shows the daily reality for millions of coffee farmers."

I think that is a correct statement and does makes sense. But at the same time, I also agree with Starbucks’ statement in that, the film is incomplete as it does not tell the company’s side of the story (except those two Starbucks employees' impressive Customer Service.) Obviously, the film would have been not only complete but also fair had both parties (including Starbucks) were given equal opportunity to present their cases.

Surprise! The filmmakers agree.

So what is the problem, you ask? The Francis think that ‘no’ is a response too:

"We spent six months during the production trying to persuade Starbucks to participate in the film to give them the opportunity to explain how they buy their coffee and how they work in Ethiopia, but they declined our invitation. In a subsequent meeting with five senior Starbucks executives at their Seattle headquarters, we asked them to tell us the exact price they pay farmers for a pound of coffee - but they refused to disclose this.”

Aha. So, what is all the fuss then? What’s this new exchange of press statements all about?

It’s Starbucks who fired the first shot!

It sounds as though the filmmakers are defending the integrity of the film and also show off the confidence bolstered in the past months. The statement reads:

“Black Gold is the first feature-length documentary to be made about the $80 billion global coffee industry. The company was so concerned by the impact of the film, that they posted a statement on their website urging customers to "feel good about drinking Starbucks coffee.”” Huh?

Ok let me back off a little bit. You know, this is a common argument; anyone familiar with the post-Black Gold era would not be surprised by Starbucks’ such rhetoric as “we are great!” Since the film’s pre-screening days, I have read several statements and articles on Black Gold and, almost always, the debate has been hovering over the price of coffee and the unfair global trade. And that is fine as it is consistent to the central message of the film.

These days, the debate is changing its course. What makes the current war of words between Starbucks and Black Gold different from all preceding ones is, however, the new dimension that has just surfaced: Starbucks’ actions against Ethiopia’s efforts to trademark its own coffee names.

The Black Gold statement concluded its first round of barrage with the $80 million load:

“Towards the end of last year, Starbucks CEO Jim Donald flew to Ethiopia to meet Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi after the company was accused of blocking Ethiopia's attempt to trademark its famous coffee names which could earn country over $80 million dollars a year.”

I was shocked. We all know that the ™ thing is too bitter to mix with Starbucks coffee. It is almost certain that entering the Starbucks orbit through this angle will further complicate the already chaotic atmosphere. How dare you?

So, I expected a very angry response from Starbucks blasting Black Gold even harder for linking the film with this issue.

Guess what? This morning…

Er…

…the rumor response to Black Gold was taken off Starbucks’ website. Nada! It's gone; so what?

Why?

- Cuz!

Go and read the only press statement there.

Isn't that funny? I like it.