It really irks me when writers get up on their pedestal to make a contrived or weak point. (Didn't have anything interesting to say in your editorial this week? Better come up with something!) A good (but made-up) example would be blaming a vegetarian restaurant for the absence of meat in their entrees. In The mystery of the "short" cappuccino, Tim Harford argues that we should be upset with Starbucks for "hiding" product choices that are a better value for the consumer (specifically, cappuccino), and he goes on and on about it, as though to rile us up against Starbucks.

At issue is the unadvertised availability of a smaller, more traditional sized cappuccino. He argues that this smaller size is better, even going so far as to cite the World Barista Championship rules. This smaller cappuccino, which is not among the cappuccinos listed on the product board (so it must be requested by the customer), contains less milk foam (thereby increasing the taste), the same amount of espresso as the 12-ounce size (1 shot, so equivalent caffeine buzz), but costs you $0.30 less. Because Starbucks offers this drink at a cheaper price, but does so only by request, we should be angry.

To start with, Tim cites the World Barista Championship rules, and points out that Starbucks' smallest listed cappuccino product size does not comply with the rules. Reality check: How long did he have to go hunting to find that the WBC even existed, let alone that they had specific rules for a cappuccino? Does he have any data to show that Starbucks customers know about the rules, or that they even care? I submit that Starbucks customers do not care about the rules (or even know that they exist), and I expect that none of them has any idea about what constitutes a "traditional cappuccino". Go look at the menu at any Starbucks and count the number of completely invented, made-up coffee (and sometimes non-coffee) drinks on the menu. There are many. If Starbucks customers cared about rules or traditional drinks, they would not throw their money at the latest coffee invention from Starbucks. Any visit to Starbucks proves that customers are quite likely to order something extremely non-traditional.

Another aspect of his argument is that we should somehow be offended for spending the extra $0.30 on milk foam, as the additional 4 ounces is not espresso but rather more milk. To this, I ask, are you perfectly happy spending $2.35 on the traditional, 8-ounce cappuccino, which is nothing more than a smaller quantity of espresso and milk foam? What are the actual costs of coffee and milk that go into making that $2.35 cappuccino? Who says that $2.35 is a fair price for an 8-ounce, but $2.65 is not? Reality check: All prices at Starbucks are inflated, and by far exceed the cost of ingredients. In general, this applies to all coffee shops on the planet, and all restaurants and bars, too. It is always cheaper to buy the ingredients yourself, whether it is coffee beans, milk, sandwich meat, or whiskey. If you are a customer with a complaint about drink prices at Starbucks, you should:
a) only order a double espresso from now on (it's the best caffeine value for your dollar at $1.75), or
b) avoid all coffee shops, permanently, and make your own coffee drinks at home.

If you do not choose one of the above, you must recognize that you have no grounds to stand on when complaining about product value for anything sold at Starbucks. If you feel that $2.35 is a reasonable value, but $2.65 is not, you are insane. All of their prices are inflated beyond the value of the actual ingredients. None of it is a good value. Get over it.

Lastly, it is important to point out that the perceived value of a cappuccino (or any other drink) for any coffee shop customer is not defined by the championship rules or traditional style, but is determined by the customer who consumes the drink. One simple argument in favor of a larger sized cappuccino might be that you get more hot drink stuff to consume, so it will last longer. Tim may be correct that the taste quality of a larger size is not traditional, but his value criteria are not the same as Starbucks customers. Starbucks customers are in general untraditional, as is much of the Starbucks beverage menu. Flaming Starbucks for offering non-traditional beverages is about as silly as flaming a vegetarian restaurant for not serving you a steak. If you don't like the products, go somewhere else.

The bottom line is this: If there is a market for Starbucks to sell their products at the prices they choose, you have no say about it beyond keeping your own money in your pocket. Making claims about product value from any retail food or beverage establishment is just silly. It's even sillier when you're talking about Starbucks.