Last year Mrs. BA and I went to Canada to catch a cruise to Alaska as part of James Randi’s Amaz!ng Adventure II. The day before, though, we went out with Fraser and his wife for a day on the town in Vancover. What I saw there horrified and disturbed me, as I witnessed first hand just how deeply my country’s culture has infected Canadia.
On behalf of my country, I apologize.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
|
| Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. | |
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
February 7th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
It’s just as bad here in the UK, I can think of 5 starbucks 3 cafe nero’s, and 2 costa’s just in manchester….
February 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I’m reminded of the episode of The Simpsons where Bart has to buy something at the mall before all the stores convert into Starbucks.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Wouldn’t be so bad if they sold decent coffee..
February 7th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I suppose this would be a bad time to tell you that I was thinking of opening a Starbuck’s in my guestroom, huh?
February 7th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Lewis Black had a good part of his routine about this exact phenomenon a while back. It was funny seeing him almost have a heart attack while ranting walking out of a Starbucks only to see another Starbucks directly across the street from him.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Heh, you should see Toronto. Same thing, only with Tim Horton’s instead of Starbucks. Word is, they’re starting to infiltrate into the States…
February 7th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
In fact, they used to have one of the logos inverted there, so as to not overly confuse consumers on the corner. We called it the “anti-starbucks”…
/ Pronounced Rob son, btw…
February 7th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
It’s worse than you may think, BA. I remember that intersection from being there on my honeymoon a couple years ago. On one of the other corners is a “Torazzo d’Itali” coffee bar, which is owned by….Starbucks. So the greater Starbucks Coonglomerate owns three of the four corners of that intersection.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Yeah we suffer from the same thing here in Oz. Actually the 7-11 infestation is worse!
February 7th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
But they sent us Pamela Anderson. I think that we’re even. Hopefully they won’t retaliate for our conservative political groups advising their political candidates’ campaigns by introducing poutine. Nothing merits poutine. Not even sending our over zealous right wingers there.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Near my office in Markham, Ontario (just a bit north of Toronto), there’re two Starbucks in the same shopping plaza – one attached to a Chapters bookstore, and another inside a Longo’s supermarket. I’m pretty sure there’s at least one intersection like the one in your video somewhere in downtown Toronto, but I can’t remember where.
The Starbucks are still far outnumbered by the Tim Horton’s, though
February 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Poutine (drool), you can have Pam.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Plus I would like to point out a lot of the movie stars in hollywod are Canadians.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Do you know why they do that? It’s part of their corporate strategy: when they move into a new city, they scout to find locations where there is already a popular, independent coffee place. That way, Starbucks has one competitor, but the independent place has two. In almost every case, regardless of how popular it is, the independent place just doesn’t have the resources to compete with two rivals at once, and eventually goes out of business. Then Starbucks closes one of their stores. Brilliant and utterly evil.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Oh my goodness! We can’t have a successful business now, can we? How awful!
Those Starbucks wouldn’t be there if there wasn’t a demand for them.
You’d rather have this culture?
http://www.worldhum.com/weblog/item/us_woman_arrested_in_saudi_arabia_starbucks_20080207/
On behalf of my country, I apologize.
On behalf of my country I retract the apology.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Oops…in between “popular, independent coffee place” and “That way, Starbucks has one competitor” should have been this sentence: “Then, they open two stores near it.” Clarity, shmarity.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
In almost every case, regardless of how popular it is, the independent place just doesn’t have the resources to compete with two rivals at once, and eventually goes out of business. Then Starbucks closes one of their stores. Brilliant and utterly evil.
Oops.
http://www.slate.com/id/2180301/pagenum/all/#page_start
Quote: “Ever since Starbucks blanketed every functioning community in America with its cafes, the one effect of its expansion that has steamed people the most has been the widely assumed dying-off of mom and pop coffeehouses. Our cities once overflowed with charming independent coffee shops, the popular thinking goes, until the corporate steamroller known as Starbucks came through and crushed them all, perhaps tossing the victims a complimentary Alanis Morrisette CD to ease the psychic pain. In a world where Starbucks operates nearly 15,000 stores, with six new ones opening each day, isn’t this a reasonable assumption? How could momma and poppa coffee hope to survive? But Hyman didn’t misspeak—and neither did the dozens of other coffeehouse owners I’ve interviewed. Strange as it sounds, the best way to boost sales at your independently owned coffeehouse may just be to have Starbucks move in next-door.”
Lesson: Think for yourselves, people. Don’t use stand up comedy fodder as the basis for your world view. Mmmkay?
So I guess we can add “successful corporation” to the list of things that dissolve skeptical thought on contact?
February 7th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
even here in a college town (State College, PA) where none of us has money for starbucks (it’s cheaper in the commons) there’s two within five minutes walking distance of each other (not much around here, and it’s not even an uphill walk from one to the other).
There was a Starbucks in the train station in Munich (and according toone of the other students in our group said there’s one that they went to in Hamburg). There’s at least McDonalds and a Burger King in each town. There was even a KFC in Berlin accross from the Koenig Wilhelm’s Memorial Church (I took a picture just for proof). I’ll have to tell my sister to keep an eye out for American places while she’s in Europe with her chorus (but finding Hanuta cookies is much higher priority – I intend to make it my job to bring them to America in return for everything we’ve exported there – Nutella, wafer cookies, and hazelnuts, VERY, VERY good)
February 7th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
> You’d rather have this culture?
Absolutely not! Religious conservatives driving the agenda, no freedom of speech (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-23-bush-protesters_x.htm), but at least they have starbucks
February 7th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
you see Michelle it started billions of years ago when all there was a giant dust cloud. Over time the cloud collapse and formed the planets and everything on them including coffee, fries, gravy, and silicon. Oh Starbucks has star in it and also it is name for a charcter in BSG, although I think they got they name from Moby Dick.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I have developed addictions to various Starbucks coffees over time. I wonder if anyone’s studied the effects of addiction to their hyper-caffeinated mega sugary coffees. Expensive too.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
It has nothing at all to do with astronomy.
Is there a rule ?
February 7th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Been to Victoria, 3 MacDs and 1 in Sooke that I know of, Wendys, 2 Arby’s, 5 Starbucks(Oh well I go to the local cybercafe nearby when I’m in downtown there), etc. Vancouver has a few chains, so does Toronto, not sure about Quebec, I don’t remember Sherbrooke having any.
The only chains I like are Tim Hortons, Rogers Video (Blockbuster sucks!!!) and that other coffee one in Victoria. I knew the people that owned the first one. Wheeeeeeeeeeee coffee!!!
Canada is pretty much like the US, except they are pwnage. Well… NY has a special place in my heart as does the Dallas gaming community. Haven’t gone to CA, but planning to. Canada still pwns though. Wheee, Toronto rules.
Oh and Tokyo is insanely cool!!!
Anyways Phil, no need for apologies.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
According to the comedian Lewis Black… this phenomenon is called “the End of the Universe”. Meaning you’ve reached the point where the universe curves back in on itself, so you see 2 Starbucks where only one should rationally be.
See, it is astronomy after all.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
To further prove my point that his IS related to astronomy… EXHIBIT A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9iMgSNrwv4
February 7th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
A couple being interviewed in the movie: “Best in Show”: We met at Starbucks. Not at the same Starbucks but we saw each other at different Starbucks across the street from each other.
Having not lived in Denmark for the last ten years, I couldn’t believe hearing a few friends getting excited about Starbucks finally opening a store there.
They are strangling the local cafés around the world, taking away part of the local colour.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
It’s BA’s blog. If you are under some impression that he is going to write about astronomy alone, then consider that impression dispelled.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
HA! I’m just up the coast from Vancouver, and there used to be an intersection there with 4 Starbucks on it. That was a few years ago, I’m not sure where it was, but apology accepted. Now if only we could export Tim Horton’s
February 7th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Phil you have no idea. There exists a corner in Vancouver (I know it well) wherein a grand total of FOUR Starbucks reside. Two, like you pointed out, as standalone coffee shops, one within a bookstore, and one within a Sears, but all on the same intersection.
To Michelle: Can’t you read? The site is called BAD astronomy. If you want integrity you should try goodastronomy.com (kidding!)
February 7th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I get it ! “Vancover” in “Canadia” is an imaginary city in an imaginary country, where there are two Starbucks on every street corner. Must be a “Behind the Looking-Glass thing.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Yeah, I’ve been there!
If you think that American influence (especially in the corporate sense) on Canada is defined by a dual-starbucks, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. We’re being bought up by your country in a 300-1 ratio (or something like that).
The book “The Disappearing Country” was written a half decade ago and it had already spelled out the buy-up of our country by the corporations of yours. (Don’t worry, I don’t blame you personally!
Okay, I’m starting to sound like somebody who is obsessed with this, but I’m just a Canadian who has even the slightest idea of what is going on.
Don’t get me started on Nafta 2… ha!
I’m going to start getting really worried when there is a Starbucks Express located WITHIN an original Starbucks! (Joke stolen from somewhere…)
February 7th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I guess I’m an old fart, but I’ve never been in a Starbucks (or any other “frufru “coffee shop” for that matter) and never intend to. I don’t want cappachino, frappachino, latte or whatever. I want a cup of C*O*F*F*E*E. Hot, black, with sugar on the side! Hell, even Mickey D’s is selling iced, flavored coffee. Flavored? Coffee is flavor. Thats the point of coffee, aside from the buzz.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Geez, and I thought the world takeover by McDonalds was bad…
February 8th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Kaptain K, I know what you mean.
We have a Starbucks where I live, too (200k pop city in South Germany), yet I have never been there. And I probably never will. Reason: a local coffee place. Yes, they also sell “flavoured” coffee, but the best happened to me a few days ago, when I had collected 15 bonus points that gave me a free coffee (any kind).
When they asked me what kind of flavour I’d like in my coffee, I replied that I like mine coffee-flavoured. Guess what they did … they added an extra espresso!!!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I will never visit that Starbucks as long as this coffee house exists!
February 8th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Geez, and I thought the world takeover by McDonalds was bad…
I still don’t get it. Why is it bad? Why do you care?
Personally, I don’t like McDonalds, so I don’t eat there. Nothing is forcing me to eat there. Why should I fret over their very existence? I basically ignore them.
I read an article a few years back about McDonalds in Europe. Some French guy was complaining about a local McDonalds and, of course, that was a springboard to go off into an anti-American mantra/chant because, well, it’s easier than actually thinking.
He simply could not understand that the reason it was there was that PEOPLE WERE EATING THERE! It was doing sufficient business to survive. His beef (heh heh) should be with his fellow countrymen who, apparently, disagree with his assessment of McDonalds.
Kaptain K: Gasp! You mean you could go somewhere else for coffee? You weren’t forced by Starbucks Stormtroopers to buy an iced mocha latte whatsis? Imagine that!
Cusp: Come back when you discover reality and an ability to reason.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Apparently the world ended back in 1994, as that’s how long those two Starbucks have been there.
But it’s not really the US ending the world, but more a case of Seattle ending the world. Case in point:
- Starbucks
- Microsoft
- Amazon
- Boeing
- UPS (founded in Seattle)
Obviously something in the water…
February 8th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Here in the UK there has been a debate on the BBC website over the abundance of big chain coffee shops. Ten years ago the coffee shops in the UK sold instant coffee, so Megabucks & Costa-Lotta-Coffee have at least improved the situation.
Of course they can be beat on flavour and price, you just have to go searching.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:12 am
You know, it is possible to offer a rebuttal or an opposing viewpoint without being an insufferable ass about it. You may think you’re being oh-so-clever with your snark, but you’re just making this board a less pleasant place to visit.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Wow, sometimes Real Life Comics really is about real life!
There’s a shopping mall near where I live with 7 coffee places, 4 of which are Starbucks. Plus of course all the other restaurants that serve coffee. And another that has a Peet’s Coffee right next to a Borders bookstore, and the Borders has a full-sized Seattle’s Best Coffee inside.
Starbucks doesn’t seem to be driving other coffee places out of business through competition here — I read an article about Coffee Bean a while back that pointed out that no one seems to have found the saturation point for coffee houses yet — but they have been buying them out. My favorite coffee chain used to be one called Diedrich Coffee, which had maybe 20 or so stores in the Los Angeles/Orange County area and a handful in Colorado and Texas. About a year and a half ago, Starbucks bought all their company-owned stores and either closed or assimilated them. There’s a grand total of two stores left, one in California and one in Texas, and a couple of kiosks.
At least Seattle’s Best gets to keep its own menu, even if I’ve only seen them inside bookstores.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:37 am
“A Starbucks on every corner”
What happened? They’re obviously running out of corners. Because there’s two on the same one.
Yes, technically it’s an intersection, therefore four corners, but since when have we actually let truth and details get in the way of a good rant?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:34 am
I don’t like Starbucks (something to do with the flavour of their coffee) but I’m glad that this industry provides somewhere for my kids to learn an adult chemical addiction unsupervised in reasonable safety.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Quiet Desperationon Wrote:
> Oh my goodness! We can’t have a successful business now, can we? How awful!
Yep, there’s a fine line between “successful business” and a parasitical infection…
..oops, didn’t mean to say that. Makes this board unpleasant.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Starbucks = tasteless brown hot water. In Sacramento there are many great independent coffee places, none of which are secretly owned by Starbucks. Among the most crowded are “Old Soul” – which usually has lots of cool art and is located in a back alley within a cleaned up old warehouse, “Java Lounge”, which is run by younger hipster folks, has wild weird art, and has a great progressive jazz night, (not to mention the obligatory progressive political meetings) and “Temple Coffee” a very classy downtown spot (which serves really tasty imported coffee supplied by “Old Soul” uptown). “Temple” is also probably the coziest coffee shop I’ve been in anywhere, including New York, Chicago, London, Tokyo. Then there’s “Coffee Garden” – a great coffee place with a cool outdoor overgrown garden in the back. “Naked Coffee” is yet another – no nudity there expect in some paintings on the walls. Just scratching the surface for Sacramento. There are a bunch more and each seems to have its own coffee culture.
I’m sure other cities have some top-notch totally indi choices. I haven’t even mentioned college towns. Who needs corporate coffee from Starbucks? We don’t. Only if you’re both stranded and a coffee fanatic, and even then its ultimately just tasteless brown hot water by comparison to the places I mentioned. Starbucks has plenty of locations there but they are invisible to those who know where good coffee is found.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:50 am
The Onion: New Starbucks Opens In Rest Room Of Existing Starbucks
http://tinyurl.com/cbrzd
February 8th, 2008 at 4:12 am
There is a name for that.
It’s Cocacolonization.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Astronomy?
“When deep space exploration ramps up, it’ll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.”
February 8th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Quiet Desperation asked,
Because.
Hope that helps.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:40 am
I am a casual burista, myself, and I must say that I really do enjoy Starbucks coffee. I do not, however, enjoy their usage of T-Mobile hotspots. Paying monthly to use an open access WiFi hotspot? Bah!
On the American invasion of Canada, while visiting Winnipeg I ate at a Boston Pizza. I ordered not only a Quesadilla, but Poutin. Cheese curds and all. Talk about a melting pot.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:52 am
Personally, I don’t like McDonalds, so I don’t eat there. Nothing is forcing me to eat there. Why should I fret over their very existence?
So I’m guessing you don’t have kids who have been subjected to saturation advertising for then?
Here is the news: people do not make purchasing decisions solely on the basis of rational calculations of utility. Advertising works.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:56 am
If the mom-and-pop coffee places offered what the customers wanted better than Starbucks does, Starbucks franchises would not succeed… it’s really that simple.
Your typical mom-and-pop place, those ones that everyone whines about when they go out of business but never visit when they’re in business don’t offer much now that smoking has been banned just about everywhere in Canada. They used to offer a homey place where you could sit and smoke and have a coffee. Now it’s just coffee… coffee that people apparently like less than Starbucks.
So, imagine this: You’ve been going to “Bob and Diane’s Cafe” for 10 years, and two Starbucks open on adjacent street corners on Monday. At 10:30, you head out of your office. Which do you go to? If you go to Starbucks, then the reason you made that choice is why the mom-and-pop place went out of business, and it’s not Starbucks fault.
Despite the intrusion of Starbucks, there are other Canadian coffee shops that are doing quite well – Tim Hortons (which is making inroads in the USA), Second Cup (which is flat-out kicking Starbucks out of places), and Timothy’s (playing catch-up, but holding its own).
Second Cup was a mom-and-pop place that started offering people the same thing as Starbucks, only doing it better – better coffee, no smarmy attitude, better food, etc. There are three Starbucks within a block of where I work (Ottawa), and the Second Cup downstairs is doing just fine.
It bothers me to see people call a corporation evil for giving people what they want. When a mom-and-pop business goes belly up, it’s because their customers switched. The customers switched for a reason.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:01 am
“quiet desperation”: you are the only reasonable human being writing in this blog!!!! (beguining by mr/ms b.a.)
if the canadians, germans, italians, españoles, etc., etc. are so stupid to buy in such awfull place, it is not yanquiland fault… it is theirs!!!!
February 8th, 2008 at 6:02 am
I’m a little surprised it’s taken two Starbucks in Vancouver to generate Phil’s apology. The UK has been carpet bombed by McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, et al for over 20 years, with Starbucks recently, but successfully, joining in. And we do it ourselves anyway with most high (main) streets in the country having exactly the same shops, just in a different order.
People like familiarity and are uncomfortable with the unknown. Until we can encourage people to use their imaginations to try the new, the bland will continue to dominate.
The same thing is true of pop music, cinema, etc, etc.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Resisting Starbucks led me, right down the street, to these people: http://www.muddpuddlecoffee.com/
I have never left. Neither, apparently, has the enormous clientele the Mudd Puddle has, despite one Starbucks, at least one other coffee house and one tea shop well within walking distance.
The Puddle (as well as the other small shops) is almost always full of lively people, is friendly and they actually have real barristas that grind, tamp and pull shots.
Starbucks, every time I drive by, has about three people, usually focused on computers, almost never talking and is just dry as toast. And they have coffee vending machines.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
JC
February 8th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Ah, but your mistake is in asserting that there are two different countries involved. There is very little distinction to be made between the Pacific Northwest and Southern British Columbia. Seattle is as much a part of Canada, as is Vancouver and Victoria. I moved to Florida and I always get teased that I am from “lower Canada” and it makes me proud to be a canadian.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:09 am
I found the same thing when I was in Vancouver a couple of years ago. To make it worse I then headed up to Whistler for a conference and the coffee supplied was Starbucks. Luckily there was a rather nice patisserie around the corner that sold coffee that didn’t taste like it been used marinate certain parts of human anatomy.
At least there are some really good small breweries in the BC area.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:15 am
I should add… within 5 km of my house there are:
10 Tim Hortons, some of which are in walking distance from each other
3 Second Cup
2 Starbucks
1 Dunkin Donuts (actually, I don’t know if it’s still there, I think it might have died after the smoking ban came into effect).
There could be one or two Second Cups or Starbucks of which I am unaware in that circle.
So really, who is taking over Canada?
February 8th, 2008 at 6:16 am
BA, you really can’t judge Canada by Vancouver. Lotus-land really does march to its own drum. (Bongos, mostly.) That said, what do we need with Starbucks anyway? We’ve already got our Timmy’s on every city block (and every three rural kilometers.)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:19 am
johnny0:
Allow me to add to your list the Discovery Institute, also out of Seattle.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Heh, you should visit the coffeeshops here in Amsterdam, you could get more than you bargained for. I’m in one right now and….errr… what was my point?…..I know I had something I wanted to say….it seemed like it was important too…..
February 8th, 2008 at 6:21 am
I don’t see the problem. If that is what people want at the moment then that is what they will get. It won’t last forever.
As a Briton it is up to you to apologise for your own country – but there seems a whiff of elitism and disgust over a system you yourself use.
Unless you stop taking money for advertising on your own site then you cannot criticise the capitalist system. American culture is popular. It has some dumb aspects but also some wonderful ones too. I notice you quite happily live in the USA and hide behind it’s freedom and security, while pretending how bad it is.
Most of the world does not live in such luxury, freedom and security that you use to hide behind while giving snobbishly barbed comments against that very protection and freedom.
The UK has many dumb aspects too – but I live in a country that allows me to criticise the God, religion, the Queen, Prime Minister, Government, and the rest of authority without fear of violence. A country that allows me to speak to those on the other side of the world without hiding anything I say.
I am not ashamed of such a wonderful gift and neither should you.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:25 am
It’s Tim Horton’s where I live (Niagara Peninsula). In my hometown, there is one location with the “Main Store”, then across the road is the “Drive Thru” location (the main store also has a drive thru…). Then around the corner is the Duty Free store (If you need some coffee before going to the States…and if you missed the two around the corner). Then down the road about 5 minutes is another main store (different owner for that one).
The reason behind opening these kinds of stores close to each other is because they make more money that way. I know a person that opened one in Halifax. His location was always full, so he decided to open another one across the street…and rather than cutting the customer base in half, it doubled for each location! He promptley opened a third location on the same corner…and buisiness tripled at each location. The fourth corner was a gas station: he offered to put a store in the gas station, pay the owner for the renovations, and let the owner keep all the proceeds from that store. I think you can figure out why at this point…
February 8th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Wow… so there’s an end of the world there too.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:54 am
While it seems silly that there are two Starbucks at the same intersection, there must be enough demand for the product or one of them would have disappeared. Perhaps the lines were so long at the first store that it made business sense to expand, but the adjacent building was unavailable.
Humorous? Yes. Requiring an apology…absolutely not! What are you apologizing for? Are you sorry that your countrymen have created a successful business with a product that is so popular that two stores that sell it can coexist on the same corner? Or, maybe you think that “America” has somehow forced the Canadians to drink “our” coffee.
BTW: I don’t patronize Starbucks, as I don’t think their product is worth the price they charge.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Well, Phil, looks like we’ll just have to disagree on this one.
First, it takes a lot of hubris to apologize “on behalf of my country”. You may apologize all you want for yourself, but I don’t know who elected you to be the USA’s apologist.
Second, businesses can open wherever local governments will allow them to open. Starbucks could not operate in those locations without permission, so you were apologizing for no reason.
Third, you accept advertising on your website. The only way the advertisers could operate on your website is if you allow them to, the same situation as the Canada/Starbucks situation you describe. So, on behalf of all visitors to your website with its ubiquitous advertising, I’d like to apologize.
Sounds silly, doesn’t it?
Regards,
Mikel
PS – OTOH, keep up the great work on behalf of astronomy. A good voice for the people…you sometimes stray a bit (like here), but overall you do a wonderful job!
February 8th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Michelle,
Are you by chance referring to Milliway’s? Could you point me in it’s general direction? I don’t have an infinite improbability drive to help me get there…
February 8th, 2008 at 7:29 am
To all the people who’s posts either say, “What does this have to do with Astronomy?!?!” or the like, I’d like to apologize for them to all the other readers.
Folks, it’s a blurb piece. It’s less than 70 words. It’s a short video. And it’s a blog. Sure, it’s generally an Astronomy blog, but it’s still a blog. Phil opens his head and whatever pours out, we have the option of reading it (ew.).
Guys, stop taking this so ultra-seriously! It’s a goofy little bit about how odd it is to find a couple Starbucks within rock throwing distance of each other!
I can smell the torches from here. “Phil bad! Comment on something non-astronomy related!” If it makes you feel better, Science Fiction is rife with astronomy related stuff. Starbuck is the name of a pilot in Battlestar Galactica.
Oo! New game, six degrees of seperation with astronomy!
February 8th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I agree with Quiet Desperation and Mikel.
I don’t go to those places and I ignore those places. To people with little kids and the McDonalds dilemma? Try sitting them down and explaining to them that the advertising is created to appeal directly to them. Next time they see a commerical ask them if anything in the commercial has ever happened in reality. McDonalds commercials rely on “Magic” and “Sparkly fun!” to dazzle kids, and “Cool reality” for other ethnic and social and economic groups (ie: you never see obese disgusting slobs in their ads, but you usually do in their resturants). Don’t assume that the child can’t and won’t understand that advertising is a lie, cause kids can be really smart! Some kids will actually understand that it’s mental manipulation and get fed up with it and never want to support them again. It worked for me when i was a child, the dawning realization that someone studied ways to make me think what they wanted made me hostile to their ploys and basically started me down the skeptical path.
Oh well, there’s my 2 cents. I probably offended someone! Neat!
-Tundra
February 8th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Overstroming: Heh, you should visit the coffeeshops here in Amsterdam, you could get more than you bargained for. I’m in one right now and….errr… what was my point?…..I know I had something I wanted to say….it seemed like it was important too…..
You were saying you wanted a snack.
/ One of my oddest experiences as a teen was the general burning rope scent at 2pm at a McDonald’s on some side-street near the rail station in downtown Amsterdam.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Rats, when I saw the thread title, I was hoping for something about multiple copies of Katee Sackhoff!
February 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
As a musician, I have watched Starbuck’s kill off independent coffee bars (that book indie music), literally, everywhere. It’s dismaying, to say the least. In my real life job (video producer) I have been in board room meetings of other companies and listened to them come up with marketing strategies specifically and intentionally designed to kill off the mom and pop businesses.
These large, global corporations really are evil. They have no allegiance to anything but the bottom line. Support the independent businesses in your area!
February 8th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Starbucks has the worst coffee, to my taste buds.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Those who say “I don’t see the problem in this. The populous will buy it, the companies will make it” clearly don’t understand the economics of the situation.
One of the rules of business is that there will always be a percentage of the population for whom low price is the sole factor in purchasing decisions.
When there are many manufacturers/suppliers, some of them can easily focus on different market segments and on the whole there will be a wide range of options in terms of both quality and price (including the possibility of some options from innovators which feature high quality and low price).
When an extremely powerful manufacturer/supplier enters the picture (Wal-mart, Starbucks, McDonalds), the smaller ones can no longer compete in terms of low price. This means that they must focus on the higher-quality, higher-price market segment, and if there isn’t a big enough customer base in that segment to support their business they must raise their prices further or go out of business altogether.
So on the whole, large corporations help create low-quality, low-price products. They may give a small boost to small companies in the high-quality, high-price markey niche – though these companies may get wiped out instead. The problem is that they depress or eliminate the middle ground, along with innovation. This leaves the moderate-quality, moderate-price segment with a choice of “cheap crap” or “good but way too expensive”.
For a nice example of this, try comparing and buying a child’s bicycle in the US. All of the bicycle brands available at the large stores are owned and manufactured by the same company. For economic reasons they are all made in the same way. None of them are any better quality than the others. If you want to buy a high-quality bicycle, then you need to go to a specialized shop and pay a lot more.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:52 am
We live in Denver near the University of Denver. A local coffee shop (Kaladi Bros.) now has a *bucks across the street. My wife and I buy all our coffee beans at the Kaladi Bros. We encourage all our friends to do the same. Great people, great coffee produced in the store and a small strike at bad taste.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:01 am
In the 12 years I spent in Saudi Arabia, NO AMERICAN WOMAN was ever so mistreated. Of course, it was apparent they were American, for they dressed as Americans, not Arabs. I haven’t been there since 1990, but the Saudis were then as courteous as ever. It may well be that in the ensuing years, the religious right in Arabia has become more reactionary, grasping more tightly to a dying way of life. Same as the right in this country. It’s not their religion that results in such crap. It’s their CUSTOMS that drive such. Nowhere in the Suras of the Quran does it say that men and women are not of equal value before Allah or must be sequestered from one another. All this comes from the CUSTOM of hiding their women from the rampages of the occupying hoards of the Ottoman Empire. That lasted for three centuries and produced all sorts of novel neuroses, including the wearing of the Hibaya. But it’s not Islam,,,
GAry 7
February 8th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Let’s be honest here…
Starbucks does not compete with pretty much any other coffee serving establishment on price.
Arguably, they don’t compete on beverage quality either, although I like their espresso drinks (I prefer Second Cup, but Starbucks espresso is decent). If we’re talking “regular” coffee, Starbucks is rather grim. I know very few people who would disagree with the previous sentence, and since I work in IT, it’s fair to say that I know a very large pool of long-term, high-volume coffee consumers, including me.
So in theory, all you need to do to beat Starbucks is offer better tasting coffee at a better price – neither of which should be a particular challenge. And it’s not a challenge. Lots of coffee shops stand up to Starbucks, but the weaker ones fail. You might say that it’s natural selection.
Now, I’m happy to patronize any place that can give me a decent cup of coffee. In limited experience of ~30 years as a pretty major coffee drinker, I can say with complete confidence that most mom-and-pop places offer lousy coffee. McDonalds offers better coffee than so many of those hole-in-the-wall mom-and-pop coffee shops. Yes, the little places beat Starbucks on price, but damn…
Starbucks (well any major chain) also offers one thing that the little places can’t: consistency. If I get a cup of coffee from Starbucks here in Ottawa, then go to Montreal and get one there, pop down to Montpelier and get one, fly to Chicago and get one, fly to Seattle and get one… they’ll all taste pretty much exactly the same. Tim Horton’s coffee is mediocre, but it’s drinkable and more to the point it’s exactly the same everywhere… From Whitehorse to St. John’s to Bangor to Vancouver.
In general, when I travel, I’ll drink McDonald’s coffee before I’ll hit a mom-and-pop place I’ve never heard of, simply because I know I won’t get a crappy cup of coffee.
Why aren’t mom-and-pop places striking up deals with bookstores? Hey, maybe the mom-and-pop bookstores that are being beat on by Chapters could start putting in a mom-and-pop coffee shop, thereby competing on atmosphere and price with the big chains? All it takes is the motivation to do it.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Quote: “On the American invasion of Canada, while visiting Winnipeg I ate at a [b]Boston Pizza[/b]”
As far as I know, Boston Pizza is a Canadian corporation (as far as I know)
Pete
February 8th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Quiet Desperation and Mikel, the office called: you left your senses of humor there.
I can’t believe I have to say this, but here goes: this post was a joke. A joke. See the tag at the top, where it’s labeled “humor”? That means it’s supposed to be funny. Did you hear the tone of voice in the video? My mentioning qui and chakras? Did all of that slip past you?
Yes, Mikel, I am so arrogant that I feel that I am in a position to literally apologize on behalf of my entire country over a coffee shop. Quiet Desperation, I am so liberal that I think every corporation is evil, and we should go back to being hunters and gatherers.
I apologize on behalf of myself for anyone who read my post and got the vapors.
[snark off]
Maybe I have a little leftover exasperation over the silliness about the previous “Hillary” post, but c’mon. When an obvious attempt at a little bit of harmless humor generates replies of such sweeping obtuseness, it’s time for some folks to back off a little, go outside, and soak up some sunshine if they can. You’ve got yourselves buried a little too deeply in teh intertoobs.
Mind you, if a post like this gets people talking about the pros and cons of globalization, or even whether Starbucks is good or not (for the record, I think it’s OK, and have no issues whatsoever getting a cup there), then that’s great! But when people take offense at something as ridiculous as this, I think the fault lies not in me, but in their perceptions.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Oh, and Kurt: you win. Best reply so far!
February 8th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Screw Canada. it is common knowledge that they use the American side of Niagara Falls as their garbage dump.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Yeah according to the Wikipedia entry, Boston Pizza was founded in Edmonton, Alberta and is now headquartered in British Columbia.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Note: I am not a big coffee drinker, but I happen to like Starbucks on rare occasions. (Though making a cup at home is just as satisfying.)
Consider the concept of two Starbucks on opposite corners of the same intersection, from a purely business viewpoint.
What would happen if there were only one? If the business is doing well enough, it can’t handle as much traffic as two stores, unless you make the store bigger. (Which is not likely to be able to happen.) Two small corner stores probably costs less than one store twice the size.
This setup also allows you to service people regardless of the direction they are traveling, without the need to cross the intersection. (Especially in areas where they cater to people in cars, not just pedestrians)
There’s a mall nearby that actually has three Starbucks inside the mall. (One in Barnes and Noble, one at the food court, and another kiosk.) From a purely business standpoint, these three small venues can handle as much traffic as one, much larger, central location, without losing the customer who says “I’d really like some coffee, but I’m not going to walk half way across the mall, when I can just hop in to the McDonald’s and get a cup there.”
Of course, then there’s also the “this is a good intersection for a coffee shop, so let’s take both corners so no one else can open one up there” side of things.
And, of course, it just “looks funny” to have two Starbucks at the same intersection, though no more so than the intersection near here with 5 (yes, five!) gas stations within a few hundred feet of each other. At least with Starbucks, they’ll all have the same prices.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:23 am
1 – Large corporations are not necessarily evil, they often just look that way.
2 – Starbucks is a large corporation. I don’t like their product, although my wife (who is much smarter than me – Phil is familiar with this phenomenon) LOVES their lattés. Give me Tim Horton’s any day.
3 – This was FUNNY! I laughed! Maybe, Phil, the problem is that the heading is misspelled, so that people misunderstood. It should be HUMOUR!
Keep it up, old boy!
February 8th, 2008 at 9:30 am
ioresult, I think the wiki entyr is wrong on where BP started. I lived in Edmonton for 17 years, and the BP on Jasper and 109 was my favorite spot. They claim BP started in Calgary.
Moose, it’s not bongos in Lotusland, it’s bongs.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:48 am
oops…
1. I missed the humor location.
2. I don’t have sound on my office PC, so could not hear anything.
So, for what it’s worth, I apologize! — for myself
Egad, it’s easy to screw up, isn’t it?
Mikel
February 8th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Phil,
Don’t feel bad, starbucks is a multinational corp… bringing the “world together” through coffee..
Because, we all know… what happens “over there” matters “over here”…
But seriously… the symbol for starbucks is something you (as a skeptic) should look into!
After you do the research, it becomes kind of scary that the starbucks logo is a “mer-woman” fish person with her legs spread buck eagle… and a pentagram crown on her head….which is ancient symbology for the story of the magical “fish people” who procreated with humans… you don’t have to take my word for it, just look up the logo’s history..
So maybe we should apologize after all, since starbucks is bringing the world into neo-pagan symbology!
February 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am
It’s ok Mikel. Fortunately we were able to call the mob heading for your place and stop them JUST in time.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Have to agree with Quiet here, despite his overly aggressive manner. I can’t drink coffee, and therefore have no opionion on coffee shops, but I was intrigued to find out that Starbucks offers health insurance to its part-time workers, as well as the full-time ones. That seems like a good company to me.
And I love McDonald’s food. I don’t eat the fries; can’t have fried stuff any more than coffee. But the hamburgers and fajitas are wonderful.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Sorry, lost a close-italics tag there.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Men,
I’m from Puebla, Mexico, you should be really scared, that just at south of the city there are 5 starbucks, I don’t know about the rest of the city!
February 8th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Starbucks on every corner is a just another tool in management circles commonly called “swarming” and a Google should bring up lots of links to papers on it.
I lived in Seattle when Starbucks started, and they crushed the dozens of independent coffee cart operators at the time.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Phil, I thought it was hilarious and the tone in your voice was quite clearly one of amusement.
I drink the espresso-based coffees of Starbucks, Costa, or any other chain, and although I do taste a difference, it is not so much better/worse than different. I can’t comment on their filter coffee, though.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Pieter said:
>>I can’t comment on their filter coffee, though.
I can, and have:
http://www.squidzone.ca/the_squid_zone/2007/03/coffee_rankings.html
February 8th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Another article from The Onion on Starbucks:
Starbucks to Begin Sinister ‘Phase Two’ of Operation
Because of this article, every time I drive down “99” past Starbucks Corporate, I think I hear the sound the “Obelisk of Nod,” from the game Command and Conquer, and I worry the mermaid is going to blow away my car with her laser-beam eyes.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I live in Southeastern New England, I can think of at least 3 Tim Horton’s that I need to pass to get from home to work. So we can consider ourselves infiltrated as well.
And I gotta say, the Starbucks phenomenon here has nothing on the Dunkin Donuts, where I passed 4 of those between home and work, and they were in the same small town….
February 8th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Well Phil, I figured out you were joking as soon as I saw your video… but, I won’t let that stop me from twitting you anyway…
It’s not a hard-and-fast rule that when you move to Boulder you absolutely MUST apologize for everything American… as a former NATIVE Boulderite, I know the urge to do this, but you must use this weapon with discretion… elstwise it goes blunt with overusage.
Since everybody took your thing seriously, and have posted some seriously whining replies (including one that somehow implies that some people in America are fat because they go to Starbucks (not sure how that works, but hey, don’t let logic stand in the way of a good chance to slam Americans again)), I thought I’d jump in the fray. It’s snowing here, I haven’t yet shoveled out the driveway (why bother, it’s still coming down) and there’s not a Starbucks within 10 miles of me, so hey…
So, those mom-and-pop places the lack of which (or loss thereof) that everybody’s decrying? Let’s talk about my town… a small burg on the edge of wishful thinking. It has two Dunkin’ Donuts, both of which serve… um… coffee. Sort of. If you can call stuff that is seriously loaded with cream and additives “coffee.”
It has one, count ‘em ONE Mom-and-Pop coffee shop that serves reasonably decent coffee along with a delicious array of soups, salads, and pastries, but it closes at 2 p.m. So much for going somewhere to sit and drink coffee and converse with one’s townies in the afternoon for a quick break.
It has ONE breakfast joint, which is usually open and serves something that resembles coffee only in temperature and color. Otherwise, not so much.
Starbucks, on the other hand, is open many more hours, has a variety of coffees, some of which are good, and some of which I wouldn’t touch. But they’re there. Although, since I live in Frost Heaves, MA, I have to drive to Nashua, NH to get to a ‘bucks…
And, one last smackdown to the snob who thinks we’re all fat from going to Starbucks: it’s obvious you’ve never had a Venti triple expresso with low-fat milk and Equal. There’s NO chance in HELL you’d stand still long enough to put on weight after drinking one of those!
Heh.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am
In Shrek 2 there is a scene where terrified patrons run from one Starbucks to another across the street. I think it is Queen and Bay in Toronto with this same phenomenon.
This is very much akin to Douglas Adams’ great routine on the “shoe shop event horizon”, where it becomes economically unfeasible to have any kind of shop except shoe shops, so the economy collapses and people evolve into life forms that never have to wear shoes again.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:43 am
CaseyS is right; Seattle and Vancouver are like a continuum, an “urban corridor” as William Gibson would have it, so mingling of retail isn’t unusual (though, to the horror of my Canadian friends, there’s still no Tim Horton’s in the Seattle area). Starbucks is like Dunkin Donuts in Boston — there’s a place in that city where four Dunkin Donuts converge, near the financial district, and there’s at least one spot I can think of near Seattle where there are four Starbucks on the same block.
The thing about Starbucks is that they aren’t selling the burnt-tasting coffee, or the sawdusty “pastries” — what they’re selling is the idea that everyone who walks in the door can have their own special idiosyncratic idea of coffee made to order. They don’t even blink at the most crazy orders you can come up with, like the ones in that scene with Steve Martin in “LA Story”: “I’ll have a vente quad-shot vanilla breve cappuccino with room…”
February 8th, 2008 at 11:44 am
That’s nothing. You should visit Hamilton and see all the Tim Hortons locations. I worked at one in the summer and would pass six others on my way home from work (a 20 minute bike ride).
February 8th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Holy crap. There was a Lewis Black sketch where he talked about going to Dallas and seeing a Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks, and said
College guys would later confirm that Lewis Black is telling the truth.
Seriously, Canada, we’re sorry.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I must be in the only Starbucks-free zone left in the world. I haven’t seen a ‘Bucks in three years.
Of course, living in Naples, Italy might have something to do with that. . .
February 8th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Hey Pookey,
The real story of those two Starbucks have more to do with a clever Canadian landlord than any evil American takeover. Starbucks was renting in the south west corner when the building was due for renovation. The landlord mentioned he could let them have the small shop across the street as a temporary location but they would have to sign a lease for longer then the length of the renovations as he had a competitor interested in leasing the building. Once the renovations were done and the new store opened, Starbucks found that their temporary store was still doing a brisk business. The landlord saw this too, and when the lease was due he again mentioned a competitor who wanted to lease it. Starbucks asked if they could sign a longer lease and, of course, the landlord was more than willing to oblige with a raise in the rent.
By the way, the regulars at each shop are very loyal to their shop and will only go to the other under the most extreme circumstances. This behaviour can only be explained by the heightened quality of marijuana available in Vancouver.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I don’t know whether Starbucks is driving out the indies, but I suspect that a good portion of their sales comes from the demand they themselves created. When I was a teenager, my friends and I never drank coffee. Today, all the kids drink Starbucks. There’s one girl who was on my daughter’s cheer squad who drank at least one a day. I estimated she spent close to $2000 a year there. If Starbucks disappeared tomorrow, I doubt she’d head over to some diner.
I’ll tell you what’s worse. My sister lives in NY on the Upper East Side and every cute little shop and restaurant has been turned into a bank branch. Each bank feels it’s necessary to have a branch on every block.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
There’s no need to go ad hominem, folks. I was simply trying to figure out why people are so turned off by corporations that many other people seem to like. Why does it bother them? Just being complete in my skepticism when I see fallacies being bandied about. I wasn’t angry or anything.
As for my sense of humor, for pity’s sake, how many hundreds of silly, humorous posts have I left here?
Those who say “I don’t see the problem in this. The populous will buy it, the companies will make it” clearly don’t understand the economics of the situation.
And yet, somehow, life goes on. And smaller coffee shops thrive even next door to a Starbucks.
“quiet desperation”: you are the only reasonable human being writing in this blog!!!!
Ah, well, someone likes me.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Silly? Loads. Humourous? Fewer.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“And yet, somehow, life goes on. And smaller coffee shops thrive even next door to a Starbucks.”
Care to show some stats on that? It sure ain’t true in my part of the world.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Phil,
You found the other end of the universe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9iMgSNrwv4
February 8th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Auckland: New Zealand
Near my University there are 6 starbucks. Each one less than 500 feet from another starbucks.
Trust me, it’s not just a canadian thing.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Um, I was MOSTLY kidding about the McDonalds thing way back, in the spirit of the joke this thread originally started with. I thought McD’s was everywhere, but it seems like Starbucks is even moreso, hence the original “Geez, and I thought McDonalds world takeover was bad…” Get it? Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha… um… ha. Sigh. OK, this is why I don’t do stand-up comedy.
Anyway, I like JanieBelle’s expansion on why McD’s is bad. (Funny pic!)
Just some random disclaimers and thoughts on a more serious note, though…
I don’t go to places I don’t like, and McD’s happens to be one of them. Hence the ‘MOSTLY’ in my point above.
I do dislike heavy advertising to the point of saturation; the more advertising, the more likely I am to be turned off. You can imagine how effective political campaigns are with me, then.
I’d hate to see the free market become monopolistic. Ironic, that… companies outcompete other companies, growing bigger to the point where they can buy out those they don’t outcompete, and eventually, there’s no competition. And thus, no free market. BUT could that really happen in real life? Would that really happen in real life? I mean could it, would it happen that completely? (Side note: I recently heard someone ask why, instead of a free market economy, we don’t have a fair market economy, but I believe it was in reference to health insurance.)
Oh, finally, I don’t drink coffee. Can’t stand it in any form: plain, flavored, whatever. Never have. Yuck.
On behalf of myself, I don’t apologize for that.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Silly Phil! Of course Quiet Desperation and Evolving Squid didn’t see the humour. You should have expected it. After all, it is impossible for the religious to see the humour in anything that pokes fun of their religion.
And the “The Free Market Solves All Problems” branch of the “Capitalism über Alles!” church is especially humourless.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Mikel wrote:
Second, businesses can open wherever local governments will allow them to open. Starbucks could not operate in those locations without permission, so you were apologizing for no reason.
I know nothing of Vancouver or of Starbucks’ practice, but one issue is that large corporations can use their muscle to get a favourable deal from local government, which allows them to squeeze competitors on price. That said, Starbucks don’t strike me as cheap so it doesn’t seem plausible in this case.
I agree with Dunc: we shouldn’t build society and legislate on the basis of theories that assume people take rational decisions as defined by utility theory.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
On behalf of all Canadians, may I please invite you into a Tim Horton’s the next time you’re in Canada? They don’t over-roast their beans, and will actually put milk/cream/sugar into your coffee FOR you.
Remember: You’ve always got time for Tim Horton’s.
February 13th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Hey, there may be some homeostasis going on, in addition to the mitosis. A new Starbucks just opened in my neighborhood a couple weeks ago (this would make 4 in a 5-minute walking radius, in addition to the other (literally!!) two dozen coffee shops in the same area).
And then this happened!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/02/13/vancouver-blast.html?ref=rss