by mal » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:09 am
by Leaping Lindner » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:39 am
by Dutchy » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:47 am
by Blacky » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:48 am
by Dissident » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:49 am
by Dissident » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:50 am
Dutchy wrote:I loved Starbucks when I was in New York a few years back, thought Id give them a go when they opened up in Rundle Mall and have never been back, worst coffee in the city, even worse than Hudsons and thats saying something!!!
by Brock Landers » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:51 am
by Q. » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:29 am
by Footy Chick » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:48 am
Quichey wrote:Good Riddance. Despite it's pledges, Starbucks Corp. has repeatedly bought coffee and chocolate bought produced under exploitative labour conditions. Less than 1% off coffee is purchased from coffee farmers who are guaranteed a living wage.
Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
by wycbloods » Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:49 pm
Quichey wrote:Good Riddance. Despite it's pledges, Starbucks Corp. has repeatedly bought coffee and chocolate bought produced under exploitative labour conditions. Less than 1% off coffee is purchased from coffee farmers who are guaranteed a living wage.
by Q. » Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
by Footy Chick » Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:02 pm
Quichey wrote:Gefugged FC, I don't even look like a hippy
by Q. » Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:13 pm
1st lady wrote:Quichey wrote:Gefugged FC, I don't even look like a hippy
Who?![]()
I knowHippys have hair
by therisingblues » Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:13 pm
by therisingblues » Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:40 pm
Quichey wrote:Good Riddance. Despite it's pledges, Starbucks Corp. has repeatedly bought coffee and chocolate bought produced under exploitative labour conditions. Less than 1% off coffee is purchased from coffee farmers who are guaranteed a living wage.
by Punk Rooster » Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:03 pm
we hate new stuff- as evident by our lack of planning approval...therisingblues wrote:Interesting that this has come up.
After reading a book recently called "Starbucked" I pondered the question about its success in South Australia, mainly because when I lived in SA there were many coffee houses already and of a good standard. One of the things that got Starbucks off on the springboard to success in other parts of the world was a lack of quality competition.
I was thinking of starting a thread entitled "Coca-cola, AFL and Starbucks" and using it as an analysis of the South Australian psyche. My thinking was that the three above organisations are juggernauts that have swept all before them in whatever market they entered, but have met the most resistance in SA.
Coke is only outsold in two places in the world, and only in SA is it outsold by a milk drink (FU Iced coffee)
AFL has had more trouble dampening the spirit of the SANFL league than any other suburban footy league in Australia. Look at the figures for attendances for 2nd tier competitons anywhere in the world, the SANFL is way out ahead of any of them.
Starbucks, I never got around to doing any SA specific research on, but the headlines seem to have beaten me to it.
Is there something about South Australia that (in a few cases at least) places heart, principle, loyalty (parochialism) and quality ahead of neat, systemized, corporate packaging?
Something to be proud of IMO.
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by Dog_ger » Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:09 pm
by devilsadvocate » Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:42 pm
by Psyber » Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:49 pm
by Mic » Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:12 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |