Starbucks on main street.......:/

[3Gsandme]

I'm happy that 'Bux is now a park option. I hate paying a lot of money for coffee that's not good. I like Stabucks and the quality should be on par with what I'm used to getting.

 

[siskaren]

I went in the Main Street Starbucks last month. I forget exactly what the bakery looked like before. But the update didn't look like some kind of anacrhonistic or modern coffee shop. Here's a pictorial of the Bakery: http://www.disneylifestylers.com/main-street-bakery-featuring-starbucks-at-magic-kingdom/. Here's a vid: http://youtu.be/ad6UT6Euo5w

It doesn't look remotely like a Starbucks, nor do the workers look like modern Starbucks baristas. I'm utterly confused. The entire place still looks period - as much as any of the other venues on Main St.

Here's a "before" pic for comparison: http://www.disunplugged.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DSC_6932.jpg. I think it looks better and more period-appropriate now than it did before. Call me crazy. Aside from the light fixtures, that before pic of the bakery gives me a "mall food court" vibe (especially those floor tiles).

I totally agree. I just don't understand how people can claim it looks like any other Starbucks in the "real" world.

 

[Chuck S]

I totally agree. I just don't understand how people can claim it looks like any other Starbucks in the "real" world.

Agreed. I'm not a fan of Starbucks coffee, it is too bitter for my personal taste. But this location seems to be well themed, as well as any other Main Street shop, at least.

I mean, really, how purely themed is anything at Disney? I don't think they had a lot of the products they sell on Main Street in the Victorian era. If you want to be authentic, they should sell corsets, bustles, huge ladies hats 3-piece suits, pocket watches and derby hats.

I doubt they'd sell much.

 

[VisualArt]

It is about time there was decent coffee in the MK....There should be more of them

 

[Chuck S]

It is about time there was decent coffee in the MK....There should be more of them

The coffee now served at Disney restaurants is pretty good. (Joffrey's) I thought the Nescafe was OK, but Joffrey's is much, much better. As I said, Starbucks is a little too bitter for my taste, but I have no problem with the Disney theme park locations. They are pretty well themed. I certainly does not look like a regular old Starbucks plopped onto Main Street.

 

[TDC Nala]

Unfortunately (if you feel that way about it) it's a done deal. There will be a Starbucks in each of the 4 theme parks soon (and Downtown Disney). I'd imagine they will all have front and center locations.

 

[Disney_Princess83]

I'm sorry that you are unhappy about Starbucks being in the parks. There are many people who feel the opposite (given the lines I saw several times during our trips).

 

[jiminyfan]

Love having Starbucks on property as I enjoy their coffee. Decent food selection as well. Very happy for this change. Plus my cinnamon rolls r are at Gastons.

 

[monorailmom]

Honestly, when they first announced this I wasn't sure how I felt. But really, I've read many books on the history of WDW and Disneyland, and none of it would have happened without corporate sponsors. Walt never had the money to do it all on his own: without sponsorship paying for much it , we wouldn't have the Disneyland and Disney World we all love today.

I think the Starbucks on Main St. is perfectly themed. It doesn't stick out or have an obnoxious sign or anything. I enjoyed an iced shaken green tea with raspberry on a hot Aug. afternoon, and enjoyed every sip of it.

 

[Suziannie]

Love having Starbucks on property as I enjoy their coffee. Decent food selection as well.

Me too! I'm looking forward to getting a good coffee and people watching one morning. My husband is doing the Behind the Steam Trains Tour one morning so he'll be there way before us. We're hoping to have a nice little meet up at Starbucks and I'm rather looking forward to it.

Honestly though it wouldn't have occurred to me to meet him in the old bakery. We would have probably met up at a restaurant for brunch or maybe in front of a ride. I think there's a plus to every change at WDW.

Didn't Walt himself say "Keep moving forward." ? Why keep things the same

 

[Marthasor]

Honestly, when they first announced this I wasn't sure how I felt. But really, I've read many books on the history of WDW and Disneyland, and none of it would have happened without corporate sponsors. Walt never had the money to do it all on his own: without sponsorship paying for much it , we wouldn't have the Disneyland and Disney World we all love today.

My thoughts exactly. And the PP's remarks that some corporate sponsorships have simply blended into the Disney landscape - Dole Whip anyone! Nikon is the new official camera of WDW. Siemens, Spaceship Earth. the list goes on and on.

Many people know that in Disneyland there is an exclusive club in New Orleans Square called Club 33. Rumor is, it is named for the 33 corporate sponsors at Disneyland during the time the club was being built in the late '60's.

Perhaps Disney doesn't need the financial help of sponsors anymore, but it is a large part of the parks' history. I don't particularly like the look of the Starbucks on Main St., but it is a nice place to duck into for some good coffee on the way in or out of the park. The sponsorship just doesn't bother me that much. It's all part of the way Disney has done business since Disneyland first opened.

 

[nkereina]

Granted I have only seen pictures, but I thought the outside of the building still looked like the Main Street Bakery, with only a small Starbucks sign. Is that not true? Or are you referring to the fact that they re-arranged and took out the small seating nook?

That is true. Its tastefully done. I have no affinity for the bakery, so it didn't bother me. I will say that it looked busy every time I passed by it last week. Only time I was cussing Starbucks was when I was craving a cookie ice cream sandwich at Epcot and there was nowhere to go... no more Fountain View

 

[JimmyV]

Perhaps Disney doesn't need the financial help of sponsors anymore, but it is a large part of the parks' history.

To the contrary. Disney needs them more than ever. In order to expand and provide a diverse range of entertainment options, WDW has to partner with outside sources and vendors. Think about how complex and inefficient WDW would be if it raised, produced, packaged and sold all of its own products. Carnation, Sealtest, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Dole, Tropicana, Minute Maid, Oscar-Meyer, PepsiCo, Frito Lay, Orville Redenbacher, etc. have always been an important part of the parks. Why Starbucks has attracted such a high level of scorn is really quite hypocritical and unfair. The only real reason for this is because there is a Starbucks (or two) on every corner in America. But that fact in and of itself is insufficient to differentiate between Starbucks, (a relatively small, local, U.S. company with an admirable record of corporate responsibility) from Nestle, (a huge, multi-national foreign company with a dubious record of corporate responsibility). Sorry. But if you are frowning on Starbucks and pining away for Nestle, your heart and mind are in the wrong place. And if you want neither and expect Disney to grow, pick, roast and grind its own coffee, well, that's just unrealistic. There is going to be, and has to be corporate affiliation in this aspect of the park. You could do a lot worse than Starbucks.

 

[MsMagical]

I must be one of the few that loved having the SB on Main Street. The exterior looked the same to us. The interior looked Victorian but had few tables. There was two huge lines in there so I'm sure many others loved it too. I was surprised the lines moved so fast. My girls and I were thrilled to get some decent icy coffees as the stuff that was sold there before was just nasty to us. There is also one in Epcot we hit one day and it was great!

I love having Starbucks in the parks. The coffee in all of WDW was awful, the worst I have ever had, prior to our last trip in September. I am thankful that there is a Starbucks around. It is not the best coffee (I'm from Seattle so I've had a A LOT of coffee) but it is far from the worst. And, it is a billion times better than what was there before. (I'm aware they have also changed vendors for the rest of the resorts and parks - also better than before.)

 

[MsMagical]

To the contrary. Disney needs them more than ever. In order to expand and provide a diverse range of entertainment options, WDW has to partner with outside sources and vendors. Think about how complex and inefficient WDW would be if it raised, produced, packaged and sold all of its own products. Carnation, Sealtest, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Dole, Tropicana, Minute Maid, Oscar-Meyer, PepsiCo, Frito Lay, Orville Redenbacher, etc. have always been an important part of the parks. Why Starbucks has attracted such a high level of scorn is really quite hypocritical and unfair. The only real reason for this is because there is a Starbucks (or two) on every corner in America. But that fact in and of itself is insufficient to differentiate between Starbucks, (a relatively small, local, U.S. company with an admirable record of corporate responsibility) from Nestle, (a huge, multi-national foreign company with a dubious record of corporate responsibility). Sorry. But if you are frowning on Starbucks and pining away for Nestle, your heart and mind are in the wrong place. And if you want neither and expect Disney to grow, pick, roast and grind its own coffee, well, that's just unrealistic. There is going to be, and has to be corporate affiliation in this aspect of the park. You could do a lot worse than Starbucks.

Yes! This. I believe that Disney really needed a good coffee sponsor. I would have been fine if it had been another company but, really, what other company is big enough to pay whatever fees necessary make that partnership worth it for both sides?

 

[Marthasor]

To the contrary. Disney needs them more than ever. In order to expand and provide a diverse range of entertainment options, WDW has to partner with outside sources and vendors. Think about how complex and inefficient WDW would be if it raised, produced, packaged and sold all of its own products. Carnation, Sealtest, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Dole, Tropicana, Minute Maid, Oscar-Meyer, PepsiCo, Frito Lay, Orville Redenbacher, etc. have always been an important part of the parks. Why Starbucks has attracted such a high level of scorn is really quite hypocritical and unfair. The only real reason for this is because there is a Starbucks (or two) on every corner in America. But that fact in and of itself is insufficient to differentiate between Starbucks, (a relatively small, local, U.S. company with an admirable record of corporate responsibility) from Nestle, (a huge, multi-national foreign company with a dubious record of corporate responsibility). Sorry. But if you are frowning on Starbucks and pining away for Nestle, your heart and mind are in the wrong place. And if you want neither and expect Disney to grow, pick, roast and grind its own coffee, well, that's just unrealistic. There is going to be, and has to be corporate affiliation in this aspect of the park. You could do a lot worse than Starbucks.

Virtually every restaurant in the US has to have partnerships (farmers, food distributors,etc.) to deliver their product - a cooked meal, a cup of coffee. Most other establishments don't, however, tout that partnership or profit off of it the way Disney does. I don't think any one expects Disney to grow and produce all of its own food, but they can still serve chocolate ice cream without referring to Edy's. Fact of the matter, it is lucrative for Disney to take on sponsors and very good advertising for the sponsors Disney decides to take on. But, no, I do not believe it is financially necessary anymore for Disney to have sponsors. You don't need to slap Starbucks logo on a bakery to serve coffee. You can simply order it from a food distributor like any other restaurant would do. I didnt notice massive revenue from park sponsorships in their last annual report.

I am not against Starbucks at all. I'm a Disney history buff and the sponsorship certainly fits in with the sponsorship history of the park. It's how they've done business for the past amost 60 years.

I'm still hoping apple will sponsor Imagination!

 

[BEASLYBOO]

I think people in general do not like change. I seldom visited the old bakery other than to purchase a croissant and I surely never bought coffee. Now I visit the bakery often, love the coffee and the decor. It's faster to get in and out. I think we've been stuck with Nescafe for far too long, it's Starbucks time to have a go, 10 years from now, who knows who'll be next!

 

[figaromeetsmarie]

I don't mind it either way.

 

[JimmyV]

But, no, I do not believe it is financially necessary anymore for Disney to have sponsors. You don't need to slap Starbucks logo on a bakery to serve coffee. You can simply order it from a food distributor like any other restaurant would do.

And a pineapple frosty treat in Adventureland doesn't have to be called a Dole Whip. But it is. You haven't explained why the scorn is reserved for Starbucks while Nestle, Carnation, Coke and Dole get a free pass. As a Disney history buff, surely you know that the original Main Street Bakery was a Sara Lee outpost with large, prominent signage. Was that so different? It, and the other companies mentioned are/were also corporate sponsors who pay/paid Disney a lot of money. Casey's is every bit a commercial for Coke as the MSB is for Starbucks. But for years there has been crickets. Why is now the right time to take a stand?

 

[MarieShedsky]

That is true. Its tastefully done. I have no affinity for the bakery, so it didn't bother me. I will say that it looked busy every time I passed by it last week. Only time I was cussing Starbucks was when I was craving a cookie ice cream sandwich at Epcot and there was nowhere to go... no more Fountain View

Ditto... never got to try the infamous cookie-wich with fresh/warm cookies.
and now Sleepy Hollow's are soft serve.