Talk:Peet's Coffee/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Peet's Coffee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

business promotion?

This certainly bears a dangerous resemblance to business promotion. Borogove 01:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Peet's Coffee was the inspiration for the originally founding of Starbuck's, was purchased BY Starbuck's after Alfred Peet retired, and was split off from Starbuck's and kept by one of the original founders after Howard Schultz bought them out. The founder (can't recall his name right now) even negotiated a ten-year non-compete clause, meaning Starbuck's couldn't open an outlet in the San Francisco Bay Area until the clause expired. --Calton 02:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Accepted. What's the reference for the customer base being referred to as "Peetniks"? The references I was able to find indicate that the term is more often applied to the employees than the customers. For example, http://investor.peets.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=143809 --Borogove 17:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Beats me. I've been a customer for twenty years and I've never heard the term, though I'm loathe to delete just because of that. I can confirm the brand loyalty, though. Also, I was wrong about the ten-year non-compete: it looks like 5 years, so it would be best to confirm my recollection before including it in an expanded version.

Sorry about the possibly snippy tone above. I tend to write fairly terse posts. --Calton 21:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Terse" means :brief; to the point". But yes, "snippy" describes your tone.

Yes, this is full of business promotion. Shall we effortlessly locate a dozen glaring examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A few clarifications

Starbucks never bought Peet's. Jerry Baldwin one of Starbuck's co-founders, the other two worked @ Peet's before starting it, did buy Peet's in the mid-80's. He bought it from someone who had purchased the company from Alfred Peet in the early 80's. Baldwin did for sometime own a stake in Starbucks and Peet's. He also brought over Jim Reynolds from Starbucks. Jim Reynolds was trained by Alfred Peet and eventually took over the job of Coffee buyer and Roastmaster the two post most critical in the production of quality coffee. Reynolds is second only to Alfred Peet in shaping the direction and character of the company. Jim Reynolds retired in 2003 and now holds the title of Roastmaster Emeritus. Doug Welsh is the new coffee buyer and John Weaver is the roastmaster.

Alfred Peet never wanted to sell brewed coffee and only offered it b/c he knew that people had not ever before experienced deep roasted high quality sourced beans and needed a way to expose them to it. He wanted to primarily sell beans by the pound, or half/quarter pound. He would famously refuse to sell patrons anything more than 2 pounds at once. Telling them that the coffee would go bad and that they needed to come back and buuy fresh beans. Peet would roast the beans right on the premises of the Vine St. store, on Sundays he would roast peanuts. It wasn't until ~10-15 years ago that Peet's started serving espresso based drinks. Initially offering on Latte's and Cappucinos and only using whole milk.

Peetnik was a originally coined to refer to Peet's customers in particular a group of regulars who would hang out in front of the orginal Vine St. store. It later was adopted to refer to employees. Recently it has meant customers again with promotional campaign by the mail order branch of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.151.87 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 9 November 2005

I know these comments are a bit old, but the Peetniks term is now used on the Peet's corporate website, so it seems to have attained a bit of official sanction. Crunch 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks never bought Peet's.

On [Howard] Schultz's return from Italy [in the spring of 1983], he shared his revelation and ideas for modifying the format of Starbucks stores with [founding partners Jerry] Baldwin and [Gordon] Bowker. But instead of winning their approval, Schultz encountered strong resistance. Baldwin and Bowker argued that Starbucks was a retailer, not a restaurant or bar. They feared that serving drinks would put them in the beverage business and dilute the integrity of Starbucks' mission as a coffee store. They pointed out that Starbucks was a profitable small, private company and there was no reason to rock the boat. But a more pressing reason for their resistance emerged shortly—Baldwin and Bowker were excited by an opportunity to purchase Peet's Coffee and Tea. The acquisition took place in 1984; to fund it, Starbucks had to take on considerable debt, leaving little in the way of financial flexibility to support Schultz's ideas for entering the beverage part of the coffee business or expanding the number of Starbucks stores. For most of 1984, Starbucks managers were dividing their time between their operations in Seattle and the Peet's enterprise in San Francisco. Schultz found himself in San Francisco every other week supervising the marketing and operations of the five Peet's stores. ... In the months that followed, he began to spend more of his energy on the Peet's operation in San Francisco.

- From the Strategic Management, 11th edition textbook website.

Originally posted 23:52, 9 November 2005 by Calton (talk · contribs)

128.103.151.87 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I editted this page a few months ago, and am upset to see that it has been changed back again presenting erroneous information. Peet's was never owned by Starbuck's. The confusion comes from the fact that Jerry Baldwin did own a stake in Starbuck's when he bought Peet's and it did take him a while to divest from Starbuck's. I don't doubt that this Strategic Management 11th Edition calims otherwise, but they are dead wrong. I have worked for Peet's for 4+ years now. I have read and been told from 20+ year employees a lot about company history. Let me state again just to be clear: Starbuck's never owned Peet's. This is a common myth.

As for the term peetnik. It did first mean a Peet's customer, then it meant a Peet's employee, and now it seems to mean both. In a marketing move in 2004 peetnik was used to describe ppl who had recurring mail orders with Peet's. http://www.peets.com/who_we_are/history_peetniks.asp and http://www.peets.com/peetniks/peetniks.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosto (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 January 2006

I also removed the link to Strategic Management 11th Edition b/c of its incoorect information on Starbucks owning Peet's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosto (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 January 2006

Two free clues:

Read WP:Verifiability: a college textbook is an acceptable source; "Because I said so" isn't. Multiple book references (including Howard Schultz's book) count; "someone told me" doesn't. You want to change the history and delete a ref? Provide a reliable source countering it.

Signing Talk Page posts by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) is considered the normal practice, so readers are able to follow the conversation.

--Calton | Talk 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I emailed Peet's to get some clarification. I think from the horse's mouth should be reliable enough:

You are exactly right. The brief period when Jerry Baldwin owned Peet's and still retained an interest in Starbucks is what causes this rumor to live on. We also sold Starbucks their coffee beans when they were a very small, new company located only in Seattle, and that sometimes adds to the confusion. However, Peet's has always been an independent company, and was never owned by Starbucks or by anyone else---other than our very happy shareholders when the company went public! Let us know if you have any other questions, and enjoy the rest of your day. --128.103.151.87 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A few questions:

What part of the word "verifiable" is giving you trouble?
If you really work at Peet's, why did you need to send e-mail to them?
I see a bunch of text above -- I see not the slightest indication of the source. By an amazing coincidence, I, too have recently received some equally reliable e-mail:

You're right, our international shipping charges are ridiculous, so we'll waive them and send you several pounds of Blend 101 absolutely free. Let us know if you have any other questions, and enjoy the rest of your day.

Hmm, equally verifiable, so I'll be expecting my first shipment late next week, then.

Oh, and don't alter the signatures of other posts: also a no-no. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Roosto 04:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC) First off, I only altered my own signatures so as to make it more clear as to who had posted them, b/c I had neglected to login for them. Second off I'd be more than happy to forward the email to you with FULL headers so as you can verify it as a 'reliable' source. I didn't post it here b/c I felt that putting clear text emails in a publicly acessible page would be bad form. Or better yet, how about you email Peet's yourself and get the skinny on how wrong you are: https://www.peets.com/cust/feedback.asp -Dustin-

24.61.14.94 19:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Your rudeness and snide sarcastic comments are uncalled for and unhelpful to the discussion at hand, I'm quite tempted to report you as an abusive user. Below is the email w/ headers:

X-Apparently-To: myemail via 206.190.39.77; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:55:24 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.172.75.250] Return-Path: <webmail@peets.com> Authentication-Results: mta255.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=Peets.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) Received: from 63.172.75.250 (EHLO pctinetsv3.peets.net) (63.172.75.250) by mta255.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:55:24 -0800 Received: from pctexchsv1.peets.net ([172.16.2.64]) by pctinetsv3.peets.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:55:14 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: AMANDA Peet's Stores Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:55:13 -0800 Message-ID: <E1E13E28E8744B41BC3551096BA4629101EDA2D4@pctexchsv1.peets.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AMANDA Peet's Stores Thread-Index: AcYW9tkQ3gvinhXSSHaYsOpQN8ojSwAAiwUw From: "Webmail WWW Mail Account" <Webmail@Peets.com> Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert To: myemail Return-Path: Webmail@peets.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2006 21:55:14.0315 (UTC) FILETIME=[B3A39DB0:01C616F9] Content-Length: 1001

Hi, Dustin:

  You are exactly right.  The brief period when Jerry Baldwin owned

Peet's and still retained an interest in Starbucks is what causes this rumor to live on. We also sold Starbucks their coffee beans when they were a very small, new company located only in Seattle, and that sometimes adds to the confusion. However, Peet's has always been an independent company, and was never owned by Starbucks or by anyone else---other than our very happy shareholders when the company went public! Let us know if you have any other questions, and enjoy the rest of your day. Best wishes, empname Peet's Coffee & Tea www.peets.com 1-800-999-2132 Discover Lost Toraja, a rare coffee treasure that until recently was lost to the world: nutty, mildly sweet, supremely elegant. Available only during January, while supplies last! Order now for shipment beginning 1/10/06. Call 800-999-2132.

Original Message-----

From: myemail [1] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:35 PM To: Webmail WWW Mail Account Subject: AMANDA Peet's Stores

Name: Dustin mylastname Customer Number: Phone: myph# E-Mail: myemail Feedback Concerning: Peet's Stores

Feedback:

Hi There, Can you please clarify for me an often misunderstood item about the company's history. Was Peet's ever owned by Starbucks? I know that it was bought from Alfred Peet in the early 80's (by whom I do not know) and then Jerry Baldwin bought it in 1984, while he was still a part owner of Starbucks. For a time Jerry owned Peet's and an interest in Starbucks, I think this is where the confusion comes in. Any clarifications and/or further information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -Dustin-

There is no "discussion", there's only you making unsourced claims, deleting named sources merely because YOU say they're wrong, AND whining about how "offended" you were because someone had the nerve to edit your writing. Did you read the notices plastered around the [Save page] button? "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable."? "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."?

A few questions:

What part of the word "verifiable" is giving you trouble? See Wikipedia:Verifiability for a refresher.
If you really work at Peet's, why did you need to send e-mail to them?
I see a bunch of text above -- I see only ~~not~~ the slightest indication of the source -- which is better than before, but equally unverifiable: even if genuine it's merely "because I said so" taken to another level. And "Because I said so" is still not a reliable source.

how about you email Peet's yourself and get the skinny on how wrong you are Not my job to do your homework: you've made the claim, you need to offer some proof for it.

I'm quite tempted to report you as an abusive user Go crazy. Start here and be sure to read ALL the directions. --Calton | Talk 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Roosto 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I did a simple search for Peet's on Lexis Nexis of the 150 or so articles about 15 referred to the sale of Peet's in 1984. 3 of them were ambigious on details. 2 of them said Peet's was sold to Starbucks. These 10 correctly reported that Peet's was bought by Jerry Baldwin I've quoted a bit from one as it seems to be the most relevant: Rival Moving Beyond Roots Entwined With Starbucks NY Times 6/4/2005 Section C4

In Seattle, for Peet's sake SF Chronicle 7/29/2003 B1

At Peet's, The Beans Come First Boston Globe 6/2/2001 E1

Stop by Larry's for Peet's coffee Seattle Times 5/31/2001 C3

Peet's Brews Up An IPO SF Chronicle 1/13/2001 D1

Coffee, Coffee, Everywhere SF Chronicle 5/7/2000

Baldwin aims to restart a coffee legacy Boston Herald 1/12/1999 pg 46

Starbucks, Peet's could go bean to bean Boston Globe 5/25/1999 City Weekly pg 1

Coffee Times: Peet's History SF Chronicle 4/30/1997 B4

* THE PEET'S-- STARBUCKS STORY

Initially, Peet's and Starbucks were more coffee cousins than competitors. A brief history:

1971 -- Jerry Baldwin and two partners open the first Starbucks coffee outlet in Seattle's Pike Place Market. The store uses the Peet's format, as well as Peet's coffee.

1984 -- Baldwin's group buys Peet's Coffee & Tea.

1987 -- Peet's owners sell the Starbucks chain.

Sources: Peet's Coffee & Tea; Chronicle Research

Peet's 'cupper brings his brew to town Boston Globe 7/19/1995 Food pg 73

I have again changed the article and removed the reference to Strategic Management 11th Edition and replaced it with the reference of the 4/30/97 SF Chronicle Story

Sources

You're getting closer. How about some quotes and links? I note that your last one says "Peet's" is the source, which is marginally better than an e-mail excerpt but still frowned on as self-referential. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Roosto 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Rival Moving Beyond Roots Entwined With Starbucks NY Times 6/4/2005 Section C4 "The company began operations in Berkeley in 1966, when Alfred Peet, a Dutch immigrant, opened his first store. A few years later, Mr. Baldwin and two partners opened their own coffee shop in Seattle, and contracted with Mr. Peet to supply their store with beans. "They called their store Starbucks, and gradually expanded it to five stores. In 1984, the Starbucks partners bought the small Peet's chain. Three years later, believing that Peet's epitomized their zeal for coffee, they sold Starbucks to Howard Schultz."

In Seattle, for Peet's sake SF Chronicle 7/29/2003 B1 "In 1984 Baldwin bought the small Peet's chain and sold Starbucks, which had eight stores in 1987."

At Peet's, The Beans Come First Boston Globe 6/2/2001 E1 "Once Baldwin bought Peet's, he [3 LINES OVERSET] of Starbucks to Howard Schultz, a New Yorker hired to do marketing, who eventually took over the company and bought out the others."

Stop by Larry's for Peet's coffee Seattle Times 5/31/2001 C3 "Peet's was purchased by two of Starbucks' co-founders, Gerald Baldwin and Gordon Bowker, in the summer of 1983. The pair sold Starbucks to Howard Schultz and his investors in 1987."

Peet's Brews Up An IPO SF Chronicle 1/13/2001 D1 "In 1984, Baldwin sold Starbucks to a group of Seattle investors, moved back to Berkeley and bought Peet's."

Coffee, Coffee, Everywhere SF Chronicle 5/7/2000 "...Peet's was a coffee retail company with four stores until a group headed by Baldwin bought it in 1984."

Baldwin aims to restart a coffee legacy Boston Herald 1/12/1999 pg 46 "Baldwin's brain was brewing with ideas to start another coffee store so when Peet's Coffee was up for grabs, he seized the opportunity and bought the company in 1984. "Three years later, Baldwin separated himself from Starbucks to keep growing Peet's and sold Starbucks (which operated 8 stores) to a private investor."

Starbucks, Peet's could go bean to bean Boston Globe 5/25/1999 City Weekly pg 1 "Baldwin helped found Starbucks in 1971, and was a Starbucks executive in 1984 when Peet's went up for sale. He bought it, and later sold his stake in Starbucks."

Coffee Times: Peet's History SF Chronicle 4/30/1997 B4 "* THE PEET'S-- STARBUCKS STORY

   Initially, Peet's and  Starbucks were more coffee cousins than competitors. A brief history:
  1971 --  Jerry Baldwin and two partners   open the first Starbucks coffee outlet in Seattle's Pike Place   Market. The store uses the Peet's format, as well as Peet's   coffee.
  1984 --  Baldwin's group buys Peet's Coffee & Tea.
  1987 --  Peet's owners sell the Starbucks chain.
 Sources: Peet's Coffee & Tea; Chronicle Research"

Peet's 'cupper brings his brew to town Boston Globe 7/19/1995 Food pg 73 "In 1984, Baldwin bought Peet's; he sold his shares in Starbucks in 1987."

Seems pretty conclusive to me. I don't know what's up w/ that 3 LINES OVERSET thing from the globe article and I'll try to find a copy that isn't mangled.

Location

Apparently there is some dispute about whether Emeryville or Berkeley is the correct word to put next to Location in the summary box. I believe Peet's was founded and its headquarters are still located in Berkeley. But its roasting plant is in Emeryville. I'd go with Berkeley. (source: http://peets.com/cust/contact.asp#contact) Crunch 22:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Roosto 03:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC) I'd agree with Emeryville as that is where the headquarters etc is. They did get their start in Berkeley, but everything is now in Emeryville. They will be moving to Alameda soon where they are currently building a new roasting plant. All their press releases ( http://investor.peets.com/releases.cfm ) have Emeryville as the byline too.

Thanks. I now see they list Emeryville on the SEC reporting, so that is probably official. Crunch 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Tea

One thing noticeably missing from this article is any discussion of tea. I was a Peet's customer back in the days when Cunningham's coffee in Oakland was acquired and became the third Peet's store. I can't claim that I really knew Mr. Peet although I had seen him in the store, but as a regular, I knew members of the staff very well. They often mentioned Mr. Peet's passion for tea, and implied or perhaps outright said that it went beyond his love for coffee. I was told that he was really a tea drinker, not a coffee drinker. They did not by any means mean that Mr. Peet did not know coffee or drink it, but tea supposedly came first. I can't cite any sources since I can't find anything written about this. And these days, all the tea, as far as I know, is prepackaged, but it was certainly a significant part of Mr. Peet's business, and his staff was always glad to engage in a conversation about the character of various teas. I know that his family was in the tea business, and he specialized in tea before opening his own coffee and tea store. There must be somebody with good information on all this.

I knew him when he conducted tastings for staff (i was staff). he loved tea passionately, and this would show during tea tastings. I dont know that he wasnt a coffee drinker. What he needs (sad he wont be around for interviews) is someone to write a biography of him, esp. on how he probably opened channels for high quality beans and tea leaves to enter the US after decades of a moribund industry.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

the obituaries

the obituaries don't belong in this article. this article is about Peet's Coffee & Tea, not Mr. Peet himself. the article links to Mr. Peet's article. that's where the obituaries belong. Anastrophe (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Other misinformation in "Company history" section

This information appears in the Company History section:

The company went public in January 2001 (symbol PEET). After a very successful IPO, shares struggled through the first year but have posted solid gains ever since. As of June, 2006, Peet's was listed as a competitor of Starbucks with a market cap of roughly $393M compared to Starbucks's roughly $5B.

First of all, Starbucks' market capitalization in June 2006 was far higher than $5B. Also, the ascription of "solid gains" to Peet's stock performance is biased and meaningless, since what constitutes "solid gains" is ambiguous, and is also false since Peet's market cap has fallen since June 2006. I suggest that someone remove the bolded selection.

Why is Peet's new parent company on the list for businesses that used forced labor during WWII? If you google "Joh. A. Benckiser GmbH Forced Labor" and you get this....http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/germanco1.html. they wont answer the question. Also, what chemicals did they make during WWII — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.99.54 (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Conroversy

This "controversial" information can be added to the article if it is tied to a source, such as a newspaper article about it. But you can't really use Wikipedia as your personal grievances sounding board. So, tie it to a newspaper or journal article or a news report or leave it out. --Blechnic (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted

i reverted vandalism to mr peets name. i noticed it came from an IP address with multiple problems and at least 1 edit block. i dont know how to direct attention to this other than comment here. hopefully someone will note the vandalism and notify the user. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This kind of trivial vandalism happens all the time. The best approach is revert-and-ignore, unless it is repetitive. I'll add this article to my watchlist in any case -- don't want anybody dissing my daily quaff. Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ygplusplus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)