Starbucks Opens at Disney World: What Would Walt Say?

[BigAlsGal]

I'm good with Starbucks. Now if Disney puts in a Wal-mart.......booooooo!

 

[erikamacelroy]

He would say Finally!

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

I'm about 50/50 on the starbucks thing, the reason why I'm for it is because I love the coffee, I don't drink it often but it would be a great way to start the day at the park. What I dont like about it, and I could be wrong on this part, but I believe they replaced the bakery items with the typical Starbucks bakery items. I'm not a fan at all, we can get those items at the thousands of Starbucks around the world, why not mix the coffee with the old bakery items?

~This is a Starbucks, as you can see there are no Disney baked goods available before 11AM.

~Here is the leftover tray of Disney "treats" they throw on the bottom shelf. Eww.

~In all fairness, I don't frequent the bakery. I've only had one cupcake at Disney World in all my trips, it had white frosting and sprinkles. OMG, that cupcake was incredibly vile. I thought I was going to indulge in this decadent vanilla buttercream frosting but turns out it was "whipped cream." I have never tried another Disney cupcake again. I've never had a Disney "cinnamon roll" either so I don't know what I'm missing in that regard. I have had a Starbucks cinnamon roll, they're served cold and you have to request them to be warmed. I like the flavor and filling, the outer ring can be hard but the center is yummy.

~Starbucks has confirmed that this is a Starbucks store, and Disney chooses to promote this place as a "bakery" because they can. And, people will still call it a bakery -- like some people still refer to DHS as MGM. But, I really appreciate Starbucks message, they are very clear and concise about their company goals and what they're striving to achieve. I prefer their honest approach far better. Starbucks has so much respect for their consumer base, it's really hard to find fault with them.

~Anyway, guests who are looking for "bakery" goods should go to Fantasyland, and Disney says this on their website.

Except, the point of the first article was that by "letting" Starbucks sponsor the bakery (and include Starbucks options) it was somehow going against the original intent of the parks by bringing in outside sponsorship. When, in truth, the outside sponsorship has existed since Disneyland opened and was one of the things Walt himself was very big on. Their question was "What would Walt do?" because they failed to research the history of the parks and instead decided to put out a misleading, ill-informed, incendiary, piece of trash article. (You can check out Yesterland.com as well as many other similar sites for numerous histories of sponsored attractions, shops, and restaurants.)

(In fact, there's a case to be made that DL would not have been built in the first place without it!)

The changes in shop style are separate. Would you (and others) be as up in arms if it simply went Main St. Bakery to Main St. Coffee House with similar, non-Starbucks changes? Perhaps, but I feel from reading many, many posts across these boards that most people have issues with Starbucks and not so much the change in venue-style (which, you even allude to with our location counts.)

Now, don't get me wrong, I sympathize with those who see their much-loved bakery shift over to more of a coffee-house location, but change happens and the result isn't always our favorite thing. The issue that I take...well...issue with, is harping on the name rather than the change and bringing it up as if it were a completely new thing while insinuating that Disney has some how "sold-out" and going far away from Walt's original vision*. That part, simply isn't true.

*(Note: "Far away from Walt's vision" in regards to bringing outside sponsors. I'll agree that there are several other cases where this may be applicable.)

~This is NOT my argument, at all. I would never argue about "sponsorship" in the parks. The bakery was replaced with a common coffee franchise. I don't see this as a "bakery" anymore. If you choose to, that's perfectly fine. It's just a difference in opinion.

At least according to this article from two days ago:

It is quite clear from the layout of the new bakery that Disney are expecting it to be extremely busy, and based on this morning's opening they are right. The queue was at capacity on both sides, and the plentiful number of cast members were cranking out the drinks at a quick pace.​

​

​

~The reviews I read described the place as empty in the afternoon. You could walk right up to the counter and order. That's not what I want to hear at all, I want this place packed in the morning while we head straight for the rides.

This is all well and good, but I don't see the majority of people saying they're disappointed that a bakery was replaced with a coffee shop (though certainly those folks can be found). Mostly I'm seeing complaints that Disney is selling out by bringing a corporate brand to Main Street, USA. To those people I say:

~Frankly, I haven't seen a single post about "sponsorship" in the parks, except from the posters who support the change and you are no exception.

~While I did not frequent the bakery, I was disappointed to see it succumb to a Starbucks. They could have put this place anywhere else and honestly the new Fantasyland would have been the perfect location for this venue or "anywhere" else. Like Tomorrowland with a Star Wars themed Starbucks, that could have been epic.

~I'm going to have to guess that the reason Disney didn't allow a Starbucks in Fantasyland is because the Starbucks drinks would upstage the LeFrou's Brew at Gaston's Tavern. It's the only logical reason I could think of, so the bakery was the consolation prize.

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

Where is the outrage over this?

http://disneyland.disney.go.com/disneyland/carnation-cafe/

~LOL. I like it and why should anyone be "outraged?" Anyway, it's a "cafe" so the menu and offerings are open to interpretation. The name works well for some reason -- Carnation Cafe has a nice ring to it -- maybe because "Carnation" is also the name of a flower, so the name can assume two different identities or meanings.

~Awww, there are even "carnations" that serve as centerpieces on the tables.

 

[Cafeen]

~This is NOT my argument, at all. I would never argue about "sponsorship" in the parks. The bakery was replaced with a common coffee franchise. I don't see this as a "bakery" anymore. If you choose to, that's perfectly fine. It's just a difference in opinion.

There are 2 different disappointments with the Starbucks sponsorship.

1) "How can Disney invite this corporation in? That's so un-Disneylike!"
2) "My beloved [or maybe not quite beloved...but you get the gist] bakery is now primarily a coffee shop /sadface"

For #2 - I sympathize. For #1, those people are wrong. Simply, flat out, undeniably wrong. Apparently, I mistook your comments about the number of Starbucks locations as meaning you took issue with Starbucks itself, rather than it going to a coffee shop vs a bakery. If that's your stance, then I totally sympathize. I've had some of my favorite things changed to different formats too, and it always stinks.

(Personally, I haven't been there yet to decide on my own if it's a "bakery" or a "coffee house". I'll swing by in October though and report back! (Erm...well, I'll probably forget to report back...and since I don't drink coffee I'll probably skip the bakery/coffee house...so yeah. It sounded good when I first wrote it though!)

~Frankly, I haven't seen a single post about "sponsorship" in the parks, except from the posters who support the change and you are no exception.

~While I did not frequent the bakery, I was disappointed to see it succumb to a Starbucks. They could have put this place anywhere else and honestly the new Fantasyland would have been the perfect place this venue or "anywhere" else. Like Tomorrowland with a Star Wars themed Starbucks, that could have been epic.

The "Starbucks" issue though has been brought up, many times. Perhaps not directly in this thread, but in several threads elsewhere on the boards as well as in the first article linked in the OP. For some people (perhaps, not yourself, but others frequenting these boards) it IS the main thing rather than the type of venue. There has been a general, ignorant backlash against having Starbucks sponsor the venue since "Walt Disney World is a place of DREAMS not NAME BRANDS!!! KEEP DISNEY WORLD A DREAM NOT A SELLOUT!!!"

And perhaps, there's some disconnect with me here, since I'm not a coffee drinker. I don't associate coffee shop with Starbucks. So when people complain they put a Starbucks there, I assume they're keying off the brand rather than the type of venue (especially when they go and add in the number of Starbucks nation/world-wide into the argument .) Maybe it's more of a Kleenex vs. Facial Tissue type of thing for others that I just don't "get?"

(I still think the first article is very poorly written and hugely biased and slanted toward one side. A 10 minute Google search would have come up with better background than they presented. Plus, there's no guest viewpoint supporting or at least understanding the change, only the corporate spokespeople that they want to illustrate as "out of touch".)

 

[mvk]

~I'm going to have to guess that the reason Disney didn't allow a Starbucks in Fantasyland is because the Starbucks drinks would upstage the LeFrou's Brew at Gaston's Tavern. It's the only logical reason I could think of, so the bakery was the consolation prize.

I'm going to guess that the reason the Starbucks is on Main Street is because -

1. People want their coffee in the morning, on their way in to the park. Why put it at the back of the park to inconvenience the guests?
2. Main Street is supposedly a shopping district, this is where the coffee shop or bakery or whatever you want to call it belongs.
3. Probably a somewhat lesser consideration was, locating it on Main Street will draw the people who want a Starbucks drink in the afternoon/evening back to Main Street, where they may feel compelled to shop more. I'm sure it was a consideration, but like I said, lesser so than the first 2 reasons.

Most people who don't follow every move WDW makes, and/or didn't regularly go to the bakery, won't even know the difference. The façade is the same... small town American Main Street.

 

[godolphin123]

I do give Starbucks credit for trying. It's a froo froo coffee world, lol, just not for some of us.

 

[DisneyDiva1976]

Ever notice how when you go to some attractions and restaurants there is a lot of specific type of vendors selling things such as Nestle or carnation? Even the old illumination show at Epcot would state that it was sponsored by General Electric. As far as Starbucks being part of it I think that that is just another type of sponsor that's coming to the park. And honestly I think Walt would know that this is what guess want. Mickey doesnt want people going of Disney property to go get there morning coffee. If they do then they may not have their breakfast at Disney. In the long run it's a way to keep the guests in Disney and that for sure is what walt would have wanted.

 

[fitzperry]

I think it would make more sense to have the starbucks shops at the resorts rather than in the parks. In most morning rituals, the coffee comes first, or at least long before waiting at a bus stop, a bus ride, and a walk into a park.

True, but by that time many of us are ready for a second jolt ;-) Also, it's not as if Starbucks' business is limited to that morning rush. Most shops seem to remain pretty busy throughout the day. I know I'll be more than happy to spend my free dining snack credits on venti iced green tea lattes in the afternoon.

Starbucks shops are a place for people to hang out, study, do some work correspondence, etc. I don't see this happening in the parks. Won't be surprised if they are not so busy.

That seems consistent with the fact they removed all the seating. I suspect they'll sell a lot of drinks but the lines will move efficiently and people will get in and out of there.

Starbucks on Main Street is just a sign of the times. Low carb and gluten free diets are becoming more prevalent. If I ate one of those cinnamon rolls he size of my head the sugar crash would send me to bed for the rest of the day Starbucks is how people snack today.

 

[fitzperry]

Not sure what their general corporate reputation is like in America these days, but here in Britain they're generally seen as prime example of big bad corps for their shameless capitalism and pushing the legalities of our tax laws.

Avoiding to pay any corporation tax since 2009 despite sales of £400mil per year has done their reputation no favours at all.

If you're troubled by capitalistic enterprises you should probably avoid Disney as well as Starbucks.

Starbucks seems to enjoy a more favorable reputation here in the States than many other large corp's. They pay decent wages and provide health benefits for part time employees (at least I think they still do).

 

[MarkC71]

I really don't get all the discontent over the Starbucks, they took one coffee shop out and put a different one, not owned by Disney, in its place. No big deal. I mean Disney is all about change, if it stayed static they would not have lasted this long. Aren't many of the big rides sponsored by one company or another? Test Track is sponsored by GM and for years Ellen's Energy Adventure was sponsored by ExxonMobil.

My only issue with Starbucks is that I would rather see them put in little coffee shops at the resorts near the Monorail and bus stations. I don't know about anyone else but I'd rather be drinking my coffee while I was on my way to the parks not once I'm inside.

 

[the who #3]

i am not a big fan of starbucks altho i do love good coffee, theirs is just not my favorite. i love the bakery and feel that it should just stay "main street bakery" and not be an advertisement for starbucks.

are other brands of coffee or foods used to advertise? i guess soft drinks may be the same.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

If you're troubled by capitalistic enterprises you should probably avoid Disney as well as Starbucks.

Starbucks seems to enjoy a more favorable reputation here in the States than many other large corp's. They pay decent wages and provide health benefits for part time employees (at least I think they still do).

Couldn't agree more!! Disney is a big corporation that often partners with other big corporations. To make money for its investors. Who knew?!

Walt would be very happy. He often tried to partner with the best, and while I am not a Starbucks fan, they are the biggest and best in the states right now. Now that Starbucks is at MK, my daughter will give SB & WDW an extra $50 or $60 this September.


Haters gonna hate.

 

[beer dave]

Couldn't agree more!! Disney is a big corporation that often partners with other big corporations. To make money for its investors. Who knew?!

Walt would be very happy. He often tried to partner with the best, and while I am not a Starbucks fan, they are the biggest and best in the states right now. Now that Starbucks is at MK, my daughter will give SB & WDW an extra $50 or $60 this September.


Haters gonna hate.

Agreed-- I have never bought a coffee in the parks, and now I might. Probably will. That's much better than never.

 

[beer dave]

On another note-- I could see this drawing some people away from the Ice cream shop-- If my choice in the afternoon is between some ice cream or a solo venti carmel frappuccino, I think I would go with the caffeine splendor rather than the sugar only delight. They should make caffeinated ice cream.

 

[Mom2six]

They should make caffeinated ice cream.

I want some!

 

[Tinkerboy00]

I'm not sure how I feel about this one yet. Im a big Starbucks fan, but not sure if it fits in with MK.

Ive seen pictures but haven't seen it in person yet, so I have to hold judgement till I get there. I know Ill miss the regular/old bakery. It was always fun to stop in there.

I hope that they still have some of the great baked goods, and not just Starbucks' brand baked goods.

 

[stephaknee]

Starbucks was my favorite coffee before I decided to ditch caffeine (decaf just isn't the same :[ ). I might have to cheat a little and get a coffee while I'm there... I high recommend an iced white chocolate mocha, btw.

 

[Fowl Mood 34]

Just so you know, Main Street Bakery Cast Members still work for WDW. Starbucks only provides the product. The turnover of Cast Members occurred because WDW starts new Main Street businesses with new Cast Members. Existing Cast Members were not given the opportunity to remain at Main Street Bakery. Most of the original Cast Members at Main Street Bakery were part-time College Program members who transferred to other sections. As of Yesterday, when my wife and I visited MK, and patronized Main Street Bakery, things seem to have stabilized. The drinks came quickly, and the bakery items were pretty good.
In my opinion, I think WDW has done a good job with the Bakery, other than removing the seating. But, I do understand that. Brand name coffee (much better than the Nescafe crap they used to serve) and fairly quick service (much faster than the Starbucks here in Lakeland) give the new Main Street Bakery a definite plus in my book.

 

[amberpi]

Walt liked to make money and I *believe* was a coffee drinker, so I'm sure he'd be completely happy when he saw drinkable coffee in his parks

My mom didn't know about the changeover but hated the coffee at WDW for years. She and dad go almost every year for F&W, but they don't keep up with WDW news. She almost cried at MK 2 weeks ago when she saw Starbucks on our girls trip. She asked me if it was real Disney Magic Let's just say many skinny venti iced mochas were enjoyed!

Another word in favor of the new bakery/coffee shop (and I'm NOT a Disney apologist), is that the layout is so much nicer from an ease of use perspective. I almost always avoided the old Mainstreet Bakery like the plague (and would get any pastries at the hotel, I understand they are all made in one place in WDW anyway) due to the clastrophic nature of the layout and inability to handle the crowd. Just a perspective. I don't think it diminishes Mainstreet at all, but I also understand its a themepark, not a living documentary of early 1900s Americana

Now if they ever get rid of IASW, that would be the end of the world for sure!