SERBC: selling its soul?
October 24, 2007 – 1:45 amat this rate, there may not be an audience for next year’s southeast regional barista competition. you could just hold the thing in my back shed. at one point during a compelling and unpredictable final round, i counted 13 people in the seats. thirteen. i met most of them, and they very possibly won’t be back. it had nothing to do with the competitors.
i almost wrote off barista competitions the first time i saw one, in 2003. i was confused. the wife had agreed to drive an obscene length of time to witness an event i didn’t really understand. it was about coffee, obscenely good coffee, and i thought for sure i’d find like-minded junkies who had caught the espresso disease and would rock my world with some good stuff. you know, something i could gape in awe at, maybe put in my mouth. alas, the turn-offs were twofold: the competition was more like some hipster smoking club, and no one was interested in speaking to a member of the general public. and then there were these banners hanging everywhere. for … flavoring syrup. mediocre coffee vendors. hokey commercial products.
wait, i remember thinking. i thought the point was the coffee. what’s the syrup for?
in 2007, it’s the same scene on steroids, and it made clearwater, florida’s version of the SERBC nearly insufferable. in essence, someone turned over the production of a coffee-making competition — a drama that hinges on a beverage, in its purest form — to a syrup company and a manufacturer of roasters. this doesn’t just create cognitive dissonance, when, say, the sponsorship banner proclaims the virtues of a product that directly undermines the beverages being crafted. it also, apparently, gives the organizing gurus an excuse not to support the contest they’ve paid to bring to florida. which raises a sober sort of question: why would the syrup people and the roaster people and even the offbeat coffee people feel free to loiter in the halls as this year’s bash is nearing its climax?
oh, right. “return on investment.” that was the phrase, friends, uttered by some guy (i know not his name) who speechified as the finalists nervously awaited their awards. there was no talk of advancing quality coffee, or engaging the public, or honoring the best of the barista craft. it was about — say it together now — maximing profits on sugary subtances.
i got no beef with specific companies doing what’s smart — paying for exposure at an industry gathering. obviously, events need sponsors. cafes often need syrup. you can’t get around either one of them, and when it comes to underwriting a free public parley i’m all for a big money tent. indeed, given the proliferation of such contradictory sponsorships in trade publications and on the masthead of events nationwide, one might even assume you can’t do anything in specialty coffee without mining the pockets of the sugar peddlers. but what does this say about the movement? and what is the cost of this approach?
for an eager fanboy like me, in 2003, it told me the so-called “third wave” coffee craze wasn’t that serious. the competition was just a game — wink, wink — because the company paying for the gigs couldn’t possibly want the people crafting these beverages to succeed. not really. because introducing the world to lem butler’s cappuccinos would mean the end of the sugar business as they know it.
this year, the visible fallout of industry insiders throwing this sort of backyard party became profoundly painful.
* basic efforts to spread the word — to make the competition accessible — were apparently neglected. even if you drove 10 hours, across the southeast, to a peninsular location for this gig — with maps! — you’d have a hard time finding your way into ballroom A on the third floor of a small convention hall marked only with tiny fliers. it turns out one competitor had relatives in clearwater, who had a vested interest in the competition and who scoured the local papers and calendars for any word. nothing.
* the allocation of resources appeared, ah, non-logical. no purse money for the winners as in years past, no equipment or perks beyond the plexiglass trophy and a trip to the nationals for first place. instead, there was a professional video crew beaming images on a big screen to spectators. all 13 to 20 of them. that, and the rental of a major league baseball field for evening softball.
* the competitors affiliated with florida backers were, frankly, a waste of time. none advanced to the finals, and most completely flamed out, disqualifying themselves or walking off the stage in embarrassment. some brought rowdy fan contingents, then immediately disappeared after the obligatory routine. an insult to the deserving performers, basically. a sophomoric joke.
each year, it’s a bit more work finding something to get excited about. each year i go back, hoping to see something amazing, to find real drama onstage, to discover something that will catch fire and win over the masses. but it feels like this home junkie is scraping the bottom of his barrel o’ hope.
UPDATE: e-mailer “X” notes that once you culled friends and family or sponsor officials from this weekend’s crowd, the actual number of onlookers may have been more like five. we stand corrected.
UPDATE: we had no idea. nestled among the stated goals of u.s. barista competitions is this one … “to establish a greater interaction between the barista and the consumer, thereby developing a sense of community in which ideas and information about specialty coffee drinks are exchanged.”
who could have guessed?
UPDATE: alterra‘s lucey offers a scintillating spin on this year’s great lakes regional competition. it seems like a move in an appropriate direction. meanwhile, commenter “true” nails the “disconnect” and “tone deafness” that characterized his first exposure to barista competitions — without impugning any of the good guys! nicely done …
UPDATE: an anonymous coffee insider offers a promise in the comments: “rest assured that this host will not be hosting the event in the future.”
an improvement! but perhaps not necessarily a step toward fixing the basic problem … which is a competitive event that’s fashioned as an insider show instead of a public drama.
UPDATE: the head SERBC organizer person fellow responds. gulp. we’re starting to feel like beelzebub incarnate. still, we’ve invited him to respond here. we’ll see if he accepts …
UPDATE: the ire boils over here.
This certainly seems to have been a difficult region, and I guess everyone is hoping that CCC will step up and get involved in the hosting again next year.
As for sponsors – I think picking and choosing sponsors will be a result of several years of successful competitions funded by taking whatever sponsorship it can get.
I think within the ranks of sponsors who we may not directly associate with quality (syrup companies being the obvious choice for this discussion) there will of course be those whose involvement with coffee will lead them to be genuinely passionate about it all, and of course those hawking flavoured sugar water by any means necessary.
It is certainly a terrible shame that those competing weren’t really given the audience they deserved or, by the sounds of it, even a little respect. Bringing barista competitions to the masses remains a difficult problem that lots of dedicated people struggle with the world over. We are all looking for an answer, and there seems to be a danger of discussion on boards not really going anywhere, just talking round and around the same points and niggles.
The UK competition is looming and it is definitely something we are working on.
but james. we HAVE been doing this for several years, and the sponsor problem just got worse — not better.
if you’re working on it in the u.k., that’s a good sign.
i remain hopeful that we can discuss the ISSUE without getting personal.
from an outsider’s standpoint, it’s just a shockingly bad call to marginalize the competitors instead of capitalizing on the craftsmanship they bring.
i think crowds can be drawn. i’ll blog the ideas soon. as soon as you spill the details about square mile, james.
wow…what a report. I regret that I wasn’t able to make the journey on the Octane Minivan-of-Joy-and-Outstanding-Baristas, but from all I’ve seen and heard, it would have been hard to endure the described situation. I was pretty shocked a few months back when I found out that our bid to host it in the ATL got turned down. Maybe next year we can get it and really honor those for whom the whole this was created in the first place.
bz, thanks for the reports and uninhibited commentary–you bridged the gap.
dave: i firmly believe that barista comps in general could use an overhaul. what’s depressing here is that even what was good about previous iterations appeared to be discarded.
a coffee competition should be run by actual coffee people. that simple.
an atlanta bash would be a huge improvement. i know the location that was suggested, and it is very cool. great location, great public involvement potential. here’s hoping we at least get back what we had…
Ben,
Great thoughts. This subject has always bothered me as well. But as James says we may have to make do until we can do without.
Or should we even do?
If our industry was bigger then an event with mostly industry folks would be a bigger event…and it is when the base level of maturity from the competitors is stepped up to a level where we would be relatively safe from Beer Helmets and embaressing walk offs then the public may take us seriously as well.
Right now it seems as though there is only a small part of this community that is taking this seriously and the other that is treating is like a sugar coated joke.
I hope we go through puberty soon.
-CD
the assumption i’m hearing is that the competitions need the syrup money. is that true?
if it is, then why not scale back? focus more on audience and craft and less on venue and big screens and various other “big-time” production costs.
this wouldn’t necessarily mean a fall-off in credibility or prestige. in fact, a more grassroots approach might help generate excitement, bring people closer to the action.
vague, i know …
I’m totally conflicted about how to offer constructive feedback. I’m just getting involved in the business side of coffee; for me, the event was great. I met so many people who were amazingly generous with their time and knowledge. This RBC was the first event of this sort that I’ve ever attended, so there’s not much that I can offer in the way of should of/would of. But I have been involved in organizing many, many events, from academic conferences to international trade show presences. It’s not difficult to see the cognitive dissonances that were in full effect. It wasn’t just the syrup. I saw judges, volunteers, and coordinators that were absolutely dedicated to the event and were doing everything possible to help the competitors. I saw judges and event workers that looked pained to be there. Or roped into being there and otherwise completely disinterested in what was taking place. And there was an odd (disdain is too strong of word– disconnect, perhaps) between the attitudes of the hosts and the people they were hosting. Let’s call it a certain tone-deafness to the likes/needs of the people that they were supposed to be there to support and spotlight.
And then there are the old complaints. If they had attracted a huge crowd, what would they come away thinking about the specialty coffee community? You couldn’t sample even a taste of espresso. You could find an airpot of coffee from one of the sponsors– one that would have been sitting there for hours if you were not there first thing in the morning. All that money on AV equipment, and the hall couldn’t figure out how to dim the lights over the screen. The audio mix was all munged, and you often couldn’t hear the competitors’ dialog over the music. There wasn’t anything in the way of program to explain what was going on, so a spectator from outside of the industry would have been baffled by what was going on onstage.
Still, there’s so much potential to be seen with the event…
that’s the kind of fundamental logic and observation that it seems takes an outsider. i don’t know why, but it does.
“disconnect” and “tone deafness” are both good ways to describe things.
it’s the “potential” that keeps me coming back. it’s simply too good an idea (barista comps) to give up for dead.
The hosts of this year’s SERBC will not be hosting the SERBC again. There were several items that were promised in their proposal that were not followed through on, both in the promotion and the organization of the event. Unfortunately, the choice of sponsors is up to the event host as it is their event and their responsibility to raise the funds, market the event, and organize the logistics according to the rules & regulations that are provided. In this case, the sponsor was someone who had not had previous involvement with a competition, either as a host or even as a judge… (unlike most/all other regional competition hosts). Some things can be changed once the event team arrives on site from the SCAA, but some things can not. The feedback and reports we’ve heard of the SERBC leave a lot to be desired, but rest assured that this host will not be hosting the event in the future.
These events are not meant to be about “profit” or “return on investment” and those kinds of statements have no place in a competition. Clearly they were doing this for reasons other than the promotion and advancement of the barista craft.
Please don’t judge all regional, national, or world competitions based on the experience at the 2007 SERBC.
anon: that’s good news. however, i might venture to say that this rather extreme example of the misuse of a barista competition might conveniently highlight areas ripe for change anyway — the basic framework that allowed this to happen.
this isn’t the first year the southeast regionals have played only to the most extreme fanboys among us. it would be a shame, in my view, to return the competition to more appropriate sponsors/control without addressing the more fundamental mixed messages. the flaws in presentation that keep real people at bay.
thanks for the input. it’s reassuring that folks are listening out there.
Of course people are listening – your perspective and your voice are compelling, Ben. And while it seems you might not be receiving a return on your emotional investment, I totally agree that it’s the potential that’s worth committing to.
I wasn’t there, so it’s difficult for me to get worked up about the SERBC. Or perhaps this just seems like old news to me. Which one? I’m not sure.
While I agree with )on’s position, I’m grated on by the comments of Anonymous Coffee Insider’s comments. If you’re so on the “inside” then simply state you name and your game. I’ve grown weary of those on the “inside” who are afraid to stand up, state their position and be counted. Those who privately voice their disdain but publicly act as though all is right in the world. That’s the epitome of two-faced and we need less of that in our world and more real leadership.
Until this “Third Wave” actually produces people with character and strength, we’re just wasting our time and playing with ourselves.
i almost didn’t go this year. the thinking was, it’s way too far and this event is SO not geared toward me. so why go? it was shannon’s practice routine in the middle of the mall that convinced me i needed to be there. frankly, i went in thinking it would be somewhat lame and came back totally stunned at the heights of lameness that could be reached.
it’s a monstrous insult to all those working competitors who DID have a have a huge emotional investment in the event.
jay: i understand what you’re saying, and normally i would agree. at the newspaper where i work, we are NEVER allowed to use anonymous sources, for credibility reasons.
in this case, i happen to know who this commenter is (i can see the e-mail address) and i’ve never heard from this person before. i appreciate the fact that someone came over to my hack blog and drew a line in the sand, assuring us that at least this extreme sort of debacle won’t happen again.
a good number of other folks have e-mailed or told me something privately or put something in the grapevine. at least this is an improvement.
Any audio available of the sponsor speech?
a little background on the sponsor’s speech… Concurrent with the SERBC, two of the sponsors were running for-fee workshops. One was a series of roasting/cupping classes put on by Ambex/”the Gulfcoast Rosters Group and Southeast Roasters Cult,” the other was a basic “intro to espresso/latte art” series sponsored by Astoria. The espresso room had a dozen or so Astorias set up, and every time I went by the room was pretty much deserted. The roasting classes appeared to be better attended. (If they had wanted to set something up where spectators could sample the competitor’s drinks, machines 4-16 were sitting vacant for most of the three days of the event…)
There seemed to be some tension as to how the sessions were tacked onto the SERBC. As I understood the comments during the speech, they were relating to how allowing the sponsors to charge for concurrent workshops was a great new model for the RBCs because it allowed sponsors to cop a true return on investment. It was a very awkward moment, for sure. All sorts of loaded questions could be read into the comments, including sponsor intent– should a company sponsor an RBC because they have “pure” intentions (raising the quality of coffee, building collegiality in the industry) in addition to the marketing benefit of having one’s name associated with the competition, or is the competition simply there as a side-show to attract customers to the workshops that actually bring in cash for the sponsors.
alas, i got no audio. it was the most startling thing in the world, and i certainly had not been interested in recording the interminable speeches before the awards were handed out.
it was one of the first things out of his mouth. the context, as i recall, was basically that he was alluding to some objections people had to this model of event (true explains this better than i could .. the speaker wasn’t very specific) and he was boasting a bit that the sponsors had seen their return on investment, and thus, in his view, the event was a success.
the juxstaposition here is that he was taking time to, purportedly, set the stage for the awards. and yet he wasn’t even talking about the awards. more egregious, he had barely been in the room during the actual competition.
Thanks for all the constructive feedback. Just kidding! Especially from anonymous who knows, as an insider, that at least 2 of these sponsors made it known from the start that they only wanted to host 1 time. Anon,if you sit on the USBC board you should resign immediately. Anonymous posting is not professional and is the latest refuge of a coward. Actually you should probably just leave the industry as a whole. Also, what exactly was “promised” that wasn’t delivered?
All three host sponsors have sponsored multiple barista events in the past- from RBCs, USBCs and WBCs to jams and parties. So it is a little silly to make it sound as if these companies are newbies, or have hidden agendas. Syrup man taking over the world- please that is just plain goofy.
On a personal note ( since some of you seem to believe that only “real” coffee people should be involved in these events) I would like to point out that I began my coffee career as a barista ( 7 years) and a shop owner ( 14 years) a wholesale roaster ( 12 years) and have been manufacturing roasters almost from the beginning. I have been to every RG retreat as both a sponsor and an attendee, and was one of the 2 roasters ( the other being Bob Arceneaux of New Orleans) that began the regional roaster training groups some 3 years ago. I also write trade journal articles for Roast and Fresh Cup, usually on technology or business issues as they pertain to roasting, but sometimes on general coffee issues. You may read some of these articles, and judge their value for yourselves, by going to the article page on our website http://www.ambexroasters.com I also produce a poetry contest for coffee professionals, the Davis Demitasse Poetry Contest, where I give away a 5 lb. roaster for the best poem containing coffee. The winners are presented in Roast magazine every spring. Check it out. Poetry is as good for the soul, as coffee is for the heart.
In my shop we have a 3 group La Victoria Ardiuno Lever ( chrome), in the warehouse we have a 2 group custom built lever ( by Espressosmith ). At home, I brew my coffee with a stove top Bialetti. I drink single ristretto espressos at work ( never doubles) and never use sugar or cream. At mid morning and at lunch I brew a Vietnamese Oolong in a french press. I am a coffee professional that knows my place in the industry ( not very high) and am constantly struggling to learn more and climb higher. I have poored my heart and soul into this business and into this industry. These are my coffee bona fides. I hope they meet your approval.
As for my company: over the years more than a half dozen of my staff have judged at one RBC or another, including my son and my admin assistant at this event. My son competed in the USBC at the Miami SCAA in 2000, and my daughter has competed in 3 SERBC, including this one where she got her ass-kicked, but she went down with style. I myself have never judged, and probably never will. I do not enjoy watching young people in manufactured high stress environments, and probably never will. Just a personal quirk, I guess.
With the exception of Anonymous and BZ, I believe that many of you that have posted here are sincere but lack a clear picture of what occurred in Clearwater. What occurred is very simply that the best barista won. Lem Butler was good in the first round and great in the finals. No judging controversies, no scoring controversies. Only the controversy stirred up by one disgruntled “consumer”, and a misspoken anonymous.
The biggest complaints seem to center around the lack of spectators and my ROI comment. The first issue is a problem at every RBC and USBC if you filter out the coffee people in the house. Frankly, after 6 years perhaps we should face up to the fact that 3 drinks in 15 minutes just isn’t exciting enough for most American consumers.
The second issue has been poorly presented on this blog from the beginning. I did indeed say that we intended to produce an event that gave better ROI, to the sponsors, to the SCAA, and most importantly to the industry. At present the industry and the association simply do not get a high enough return for the amount of time, labor, and yes, money that go into producing these events. By co-locating a regional roaster training ( this groups always meets in Clearwater in the fall, by the way)and a barista jam we were hoping to bring more coffee professionals into what has been a very closed circle in the SE and to hopefully split some facility costs. If you really believe that the sponsors were recovering cash from 28 roasters at $60/head, or jammers at $50/head you very simply do not understand the economics of training. That money went to offset the square footage rental and the power costs that each of these training events required and to offset the meals and some training expenses for the COE cupping. And if any of you still believe that this was about making money, I assure you I will still be staying at the Springhill Suites for the free breakfast, and driving my 92 Buick for the forseeable future. Return On Investment does not always mean cash return- and it is hardly a “shocking” term to a trade association. Do you really want barista competitions to be seen as charities? Should we start a CoffeeKids for baristas?
I have one other criticsm ( although I know that BZ has many, many more) that I feel I should try and explain. We have been severely criticized for not giving a cash prize to any of the finalists, eventhough it is not required. I personally accept responsibility for this decision, as I find the practice demeaning to both the hosts and the competitors and not in the spirit of friendly competition. If you do not agree take this up with the USBC. We are paying Lem’s expenses to compete in Minneapolis, something I believe is also not required by the USBC.
For those of you who saw fit to post opinions about an event based on the observations of just one person. Weren’t you just a little suspicious that there was not a single redeeming feature about this event? Hell, you even slammed the poor 1st time competitors? Shame on all of you for not coming to the aid of your comrades.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly- what right do any of you have to question the motives of any other coffee person or business in this industry?
Anonymous and BZ most of all.
It is now 2:15 am EST, and I just reread this entire thread. I think I get it now. Someone is really enjoying this. Go back and re-read this from the top, with fresh eyes, knowing that the author is a professional wordsmith.
Ever seen Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent? I think I just got roped into participating in BZ’s Manufacturing Controversy. ” Beezlebub incarnate” who writes like that? Why would a “consumer” drive 16 hours (with a wife and baby) to sit and watch a barista competition? Something just does not make sense here.
All coffee professionals that have posted on this thread, myself included, should be ashamed. Jesus, what were we thinking. This is like Jerry Springer on caffeine.
If any of you are really interested in what occurred here, or wish to discuss what decisions were made and why- please feel free to call me or e-mail me. Or- Call Nick Cho. Call Ric Rhinehart. Call Scott Conary. Call Tracy Allen. Call the Competitors. Call Michelle Campbell. Verify the information you are receiving here. You owe your industry that much. This needs to stop. Serious damage is being done here. Just for the sake of one man’s ego.
I feel dirty, I am going to go home, take a shower, go to bed and post here no more. Good luck to you all in all of your coffee endeavors. See some of you in Seattle.
BZ, I have relearned a lesson here this evening, and lost some sleep in the process. For the lesson I thank you, for the lost sleep-well, I guess that is my own fault.
Interesting and illuminating posts. Having read through the SCAA guidlines for hosing an RBC, I can’t fathom why anyone would want to take on hosting the event. I see that the SCAA is building committees to look at a number of aspects of staging and promoting the event; they really need to begin with a ground-up appraisal of the hosting guidelines. The required venues and costs are way out of line for an event that draws spectators by the half dozens.
That said, I can’t help but notice that if your thoughts about barista competitions are along the lines of “I myself have never judged, and probably never will. I do not enjoy watching young people in manufactured high stress environments, and probably never will. Just a personal quirk, I guess” you are setting up any number of pratfalls for yourself if decide to host a barista competition. Honestly, why go through the tremendous expense and workload to host the event if you don’t enjoy it at all? If it is painfully obvious that you don’t care for the event that you host, it will create tensions among the people that are passionate about participating. It’s not to infer that you are not passionate about coffee, only that one could logically assume that there are better outlets to demonstrate your passion.
As for the role of the syrup manufacturer as a sponsor, let’s just say that giving back to the community isn’t a bad thing when the community has provided well enough for you. I can assure everyone who didn’t make it to the SERBC that Monin’s investment in their sugar factory dwarfs that of any “third wave” roaster’s physical plant, and those guys are not driving ’92 Buicks. There’s gold in that thar high fructose corn syrup. Where BZ sees a contradiction, I say give ‘em enough rope. If, as bz had speculated, point of competition is to promote quality so that syrups are an unwanted to a well crafted coffee, perhaps the guys from Monin will be driving their 15 year old Lexus and Infinity sports coupes to the 2013 SERBC.
/\”and unwanted addition”
ugh. I give up. Can’t. type. before. coffee.
(if one is going to make a typo, though, it might as well be along the lines of “Having read through the SCAA guidlines for hosing an RBC”)
I attended this year’s SERBC and I just wanted to say that BZ and ANONYMOUS are not the alone in their dissatisfaction with this years event. BZ is acting as the mouthpiece for those who may not want to step out of the anonymous for fear that their personal opinions may reflect on their companies, organizations or associations. I can understand that.
TD- I don’t happen to care who sponsors the event. I also don’t have a problem with the host/sponsors profiting off of it. If that is what is needed to have these events and further promote coffee, the barista craft and community, so be it. I think you are misinterpreting why people were upset with the sponsors and the “ROI” speech. There was a perceived lack of respect for the competitors and the competition during the entire weekend. During the finals the host/sponsor conglomerate, were nowhere to be seen until it was time to make the announcement. Then magically everyone appeared and the room filled. So, when you took the stage and made the now infamous “ROI” speech, it wasn’t the fact that you felt the sponsors should make money off the event, it was that you decided to make those statements with the barista finalists on stage. The timing and tone of the speech, gave the impression that you felt that the competitors were less important than the Return on Investment. It IS after all a barista competition. Here is a quote you directed towards BZ on coffeed.com, “The company staffs, the volunteers, the SCAA staff and the competitors that you have demeaned here”. It is my opinion that if anyone was demeaning, it was you, by the actions I stated above. Whether intentional or otherwise, only you know.
td: strangely, you rip me for questioning your motives (which i didn’t), then proceed to … question my motives. (it’s a manufactured controversy designed to boost my ego!) stunning.
as on coffeed.com, i’m not going to respond in kind to personal attacks. it would appear that readers (like “true”) have already discerned the logical lapses in argument and called them as such.
in general, i would prefer posters with names. however, the truth is always more important. and so, i appreciate the anonymous input.
interesting. i’ve already replied to you — and stated initially — that i got no problem with the business argument for syrup sponsorships. it’s the mixed messages i’m interested in discussing.
your coffee credentials, numerous as they are, haven’t been questioned. your organization of a barista competiton has.
as such, you’ve stated that (a) you’ve never judged, and (b) you don’t like watching competitions. so … you must have had other reasons for bringing the event to clearwater. in fact, you already stated them.
this is the ENTIRE point — the work of baristi was denigrated by this approach. your mind and priorities appeared to be elsewhere. the entire competition seemed to be a tack-on to the kinds of things you really wanted to do. it felt like a rip-off.
i’ll agree on one point — people should call nick cho if they’re wondering. michelle campbell too. ’nuff said there.
you’re right, spectators are never substantial. but it’s never been this bad (since at least 2002). so instead of making strides, we’re going backward. basic steps to engaging people are ignored. that’s the tragedy. i think chris owens nicely summarizes the problem with the ROI comment above.
fair enough. that’s a reasonably debatable point, in my view. thing is, if you’re going to eliminate a traditional money prize, then people are going to look for some other source of value. i think people were looking, and they weren’t seeing one.
hm. clearly, you haven’t read my 29 blog posts about this year’s SERBC. there were redeeming qualities, and i named them. that simple.
as stated on coffeed, you needn’t pay me any attention, td. i’m a nobody whose blog is NOT read by most of the coffee community. who writes like this? an exhausted hack junkie late at night, that’s who! it’s BAD writing! this blog has always been my cathartic way of just sounding off about a topic i love, in a NON-journalistic, NON-reportorial way, since the journalism you love to refer to is what i already do all day.
here, it’s just honest humor and screediness about what i see from the spectator seats. that’s it. there’s a constitutional amendment protecting that sort of thing, you know.
as for why i’d drive 10 hours to clearwater … as clearly blogged here, it was to support greenville’s only top-notch barista in his inaugural (and emotional) competition. that may seem crazy to you. but then, i love excellent coffee a LOT. and it’s not crazy to me or my wife.
Hey True – your comments above imply that Monin (and apparently all syrup company sponsors) use HFCS. While some do, neither Monin nor DaVinci, the two that typically do sponsor barista comps, don’t use HFCS. I believe a correction is in order there.
Overall, I’m a bit disgusted at the tone of some of the posts. I personally don’t like most flavored lattes, but you know what – a good mocha is awesome and not every barista can do that – it takes someone with talent.
Unlike many shops with 3W aspirations, we challenge our baristas to come up with unique drinks which may or may not include syrups, because we take the “bartender” version of the barista definition to imply “mixologist”, not simply a machine operator or sommelier. So that makes us decidedly non-3W, but it doesn’t mean we don’t train or can’t hold our own against 3W shops, as we’ve proven we can.
Comments about desiring syrup manufactuers out of business seem immature at best, mean-spirited at worst. Yes, we can and should applaud shops that the l33tz determine “hardcore” when they do things right, but those are and will be few and far between – urban centers, near colleges, maybe some affluent burbs. Not a lot going of 3W going on in fly-over states, ex-burbs or other areas – where a lot, if not most, of coffee drinkers in the US reside.
Our shop serves excellent, mostly Direct Trade, coffee. But we have no desire to be elitist. Rather, we think the point of our existence is to provide pleasure, not to ask customers to revel in our awesomeness. That, and to sell more “good” coffee that pays more farmers well so that more coffees at more points of origin become worthy of our business.
Guess what. Flavored latted customers can actually discern that our 16oz vanilla lattes taste better than the mermaid’s. Even though those people supposedly have no palates if you listen only to the cognoscenti.
So if it takes some syrup to sell the tons of FT and Direct Trade and auction coffees that make a difference to the quality of live of peoples at origin, so be it.
rich: no one — and i mean no one — has made comments desiring “syrup manufactuers out of business.” rather, about everything i’ve written comes laden with caveats acknowledging the inevitability and even need for syrups.
100 % agree. what we should strive for, imo, is a level of quality that draws people in instead of leaving people out.
the syrup comments have been wholly focused on another issue — effectively promoting comps to engage with consumers — and not their necessity or inevitability in the regular shop environment.
thanks for the feedback. i think some people responding to this subject are smelling an attack where there really isn’t one.
for the umpteenth time: my question is about mixed messages, and how the movement can best highlight what’s special about competitions. syrup sponsors SEEM to pose an bump in the road in two ways — cognitively, for the average consumer, and (at this year’s serbc) in terms of business priorities and the ability to effectively pull off a barista comp that draws the public.
Rich, I honestly hoped that people would understand “there’s gold in that thar high fructose corn syrup” as a satirical trope instead of definitive analysis of the content in the bottle. Unapologetically, my point stands that the specialty coffee industry has been very good to the flavor factories, and as a result there’s nothing wrong with them giving back.
Given the concern that Monin and DaVinci be properly represented in their component ingredients, I’ll ask (without a trace of irony or satire) what exactly is in that stuff? While some of the syrups might contain trace amounts of the actual foodstuff on the label, every bottle that I looked at listed “natural flavor” as the primary flavor component. As Robert Wolke points out in What Einstein Told His Cook, “The official FDA definition of natural flavoring is published in the Code of Federal Regulations (21CFR101.22) in the form of more than 100 words that meticulously plug every conceivable loophole. In simple terms, a natural flavor is defined as a substance extracted, distilled or otherwise derived from plant or animal matter, either directly from the matter itself or after it has been roasted, heated or fermented. Not often realized is the fact that all flavoring additives, natural or artificial, are made by humans.” He goes on to point out that natural flavors and artificial flavors are created side-by-side in the same factories, with little difference between the two besides the path taken to the target chemical compound– and that natural flavorings are more expensive (because of marketing value) than an identical compound arrived at through different means.
Or, as Eric Schlosser writes: “Distinctions between artificial and natural flavors can be arbitrary and somewhat absurd, based more on how the flavor has been made than on what it actually contains.
“A natural flavor,” says Terry Acree, a professor of food science at Cornell University, “is a flavor that’s been derived with an out-of-date technology.” Natural flavours and artificial flavors sometimes contain exactly the same chemicals, produced through different methods. Amyl acetate, for example, provides the dominant note of banana flavor. When it is distilled from bananas with a solvent, amyl acetate is a natural flavor. When it is produced by mixing vinegar with amyl alcohol and adding sulfuric acid as a catalyst, amyl acetate is an artificial flavor. Either way it smells and tastes the same. “Natural flavor” is now listed among the ingredients of everything from Health Valley Blueberry Granola Bars to Taco Bell Hot Taco Sauce.
A natural flavor is not necessarily more healthful or purer than an artificial one. When almond flavor — benzaldehyde — is derived from natural sources, such as peach and apricot pits, it contains traces of hydrogen cyanide, a deadly poison. Benzaldehyde derived by mixing oil of clove and amyl acetate does not contain any cyanide. Nevertheless, it is legally considered an artificial flavor and sells at a much lower price. Natural and artificial flavors are now manufactured at the same chemical plants, places that few people would associate with Mother Nature.”
What’s in the syrups? We’ll probably never know. The natural flavorings could be any of the items listed in FDA regulation sections 182.10, 182.20, 182.40, and 182.50, and the substances listed in 172.510. “Natural Flavor” could be any combination of the thousands of chemical compounds listed; the manufacture will never explicitly state what’s used as long as it is derived from items on that list. There may not be HFCS in the syrup, but I’m willing to bet that there’s no pumpkin in the pumpkin spice.
um, wow. that was about the most esoteric-but-fascinating post in awhile.
IBB7:
£337? 1′m jµ$7 4 n00b! 1 h4rУ¥ qµ4£17¥ 70 m4|{3 h4rÐ(0r3 pr0nµn(3m3n7$ 4b0µ7 qµ4£17¥.
Ben,
The comment was made that somebody hopes the syrup guys don’t make enough in the next few years to be able to afford a new car. So, OK, that’s not wishing them out of business, but it certainly can’t be construed as a wish for success and good tidings.
I get the rest of what you’re saying.
Rich
Rich,
Sorry again for the confusion. I wasn’t saying that I want Monin (or any syrup manufacturer) to fail; I was trying to make a comparison based on one of Terry’s bona fides– he noted that as a coffee roaster/cafe owner he will be driving a 92 Buick for the forseeable future. I was trying (unsuccessfully, I guess) to point out a type of inequity: so many people are struggling so hard to build a business around quality coffee (i.e., one of the points of the RBCs), yet syrups (aka the dialectical anthesis of quality coffee) appear to be a much more profitable. In my last comment, I was imaging a world in which the 3W (to borrow your term) cafe owner or roaster was driving the shiny new black sports coupe and the syrup/flavor chemist was driving the fifteen year old car. Sure, it’s not gonna happen, but a guy can dream. And again, by inequity I allude to the inherent contradiction in that the RBCs celebrate a sort of purity of ingredient that eschews commercial syrups, but in the real world of the coffee shop those same people use enough syrup that their manufacturers have build a business that is (most likely) more profitable than any specialty coffee business focusing on what’s in the cup from the bean.
OK, I get that point (and yes, you could’ve been less opaque on that).
However, I will also challenge what appears to be an assumption on both yours and Ben’s behalf that the RBCs are designed to celebrate a “purity of ingredient”. Rather, they exist to showcase the talents of the baristas – knowing their coffees and being able to showcase its flavors given the equipment and setting. That the impression is out there that the RBCs are about the ingredients is due more to specific entrants and cafe owners and not due to the entities known as the SCAA or BGA. There is nothing in the rules about not using syrups.
I personally think there should be more points given to “taste” of the sig drinks and less on creativity and presentation. As a judge, I care that your drink works first of all. Only if it tastes good do I really care how you got to where you ended up. Yet on the sig drinks 42% of the possible sig drink points have nothing to do with taste.
If we’re trying to reach more people, then I’d suggest that the less esoteric, the better for the industry. And “better for the industry” should be SCAA’s aim, not “better for just the 3W cafes”.
There are exceptions to this assertion. Certainly Chris DeFerio’s “Campfire” is an obvious recent example of the story being integral to the presentation. I’d hate to have missed the opportunity to taste that – but Chris is also working to bring that to Carriage House as an actual menu drink. I’m not the first to suggest this, but why isn’t the sig drink required to be on the cafe’s menu instead of something created specifically for the comp?
What would you think of something that was more like an Iron Chef-type sig drink component where there are 10 sponsors supplying different elements of the drink build and you have to use four. Personally I’d think that would be very cool, challenging and worth it to the sponsors. Not to mention it would be reproducable for decent cafes.
WOW. I hope no other coffee consumers — fanatics or otherwise — besides Ben ever read that. Heck, if I were on the outside of this industry and I read that, I would deem you all a gang of snobs and stop caring about learning about coffee.
Jesus, isn’t the goal to make coffee as fascinating to consumers as we find it ourselves? Isn’t the goal to present coffee as so inspiring that it would motivate someone to pack up his wife and kid and drive 16 hours to see it?
SA
sarah: yeah, i thought being nutso was sort of a selling point. or at least, the only reason people read this hack blog.
true: i’m imagining a speech in the vein of what jon lewis did in the 2006 usbc. “i have a dream … ”
rich: personally, i DIG the iron chef-style invent-a-drink. the nordic barista cup has done this, i believe. ‘twould seem to remove some of the “staging” and appearance emphasis, and add a bit of live drama. it would be at least one element of the comp that the audience could sort of “experience.”
ditto on the taste scores. ditto on sigs in the cafe. people want to TASTE this stuff, doggone it. i hear that octane’s ben and danielle may be rolling out their competition sigs, the retail versions, in the upcoming weeks. woohoo to that.
i think, too, that spectators should be able to walk right up to the bar during competition. we may try to do this if our spring event comes together. silence and respect and all that could be observed. in some of these recent comps, spectators were further removed that you’d be on the fairway at a PGA tournament.
my first SERBC (03) was in the by far the coolest venue to date … a cozy, fully equipped culinary room that had enough space for maybe 50 people, and provided a more intimate, exciting venue to crane your neck and watch the craft.
blogwife edit: unfortunately, one of the things we had to watch was a, er, “wasabi mocha.”
rich: i’ll quibble with one thing. in my view, even the explicitly named “barista competitions” should be about the coffee FIRST. without, the barista has no art, and he is simply another food service worker.
for the philosophical underpinnings of this argument, i’ll turn it over to the genius g.k. chesterton.
Iron Chef: does anyone else ever wonder why these guys run to the table and get to work on their “creations” without ever standing around THINKING about what they’re going to do with that “secret” ingredient?
That’s because they know the ingredient ahead of time and do all their planning before they arrive at the studio. In other words, the premise that they’re “surprised” by the ingredient and create off the hip is a complete and utter sham.
On Flavoring: Over the past several years with my time running Jay’s Shave Ice, I explored a number of flavor houses and thought a bit about flavors both artificial and natural. One of my most vivid memories was sitting in the lab at McCormick’s development center “decoding” a strawberry. Feeding that sucker into chromatograph and watching the device spit out the chemical compounds that was that particular strawberry. Then learning that these scientists would combine a number of the compounds to recreate that particular flavor. Once I realized that it’s just chemistry, I wasn’t so turned off to “artificial” flavors.
Personally, I think the USBC bar is set too low. Where’s the excitement? Where’s the “cutting edge”? If this is all we’ve got as a 3W Community, then we suck. Amateurs. Hacks. Myself especially.
I’ve been a syrup manufacturer. I’ve offered 97 different flavors of syrup on our racks. I’ve done the 20 ounce drinks. I’ve done the blended frappuccino-type drinks. I’ve brewed in glass carafes. I’ve done flavored coffees. They’ve all made money for me and my company, however, my approach has always been about refinement and progression.
Today, we offer chocolate and vanilla syrups. Both house made. We eliminated 20z cups in February and will eliminate 16z cups on November 1st. We no longer do blended drinks. And many of our competition drinks end up on our menu – not to mention the other drinks we tinker with from time to time.
Well, maybe I’m being misleading. Right now do have more syrups than vanilla and chocolate. In the fridge I’ve also got coconut milk, a jamaica infusion and piloncillo syrup for a couple of drinks that are off the menu. As we continue, we work on refining our methods and offering a higher quality product. In 2007, we recently switched to all locally produced milk from pastured Jersey cows. It’s a continual process that never ends.
But it’s not because we’re located in some urban sanctuary like Stumptown. We’re in a suburban library where business, at times, can be scarce. It’s also an area that it’s populated with four Starbucks and at least an equal amount of “indie” coffeeshops. In spite of the “competition”, we draw our own line in the sand and refuse to do those things that everyone else does “just because.”
What I would like to see in our craft is greater attention to craft. Sure it’s easy enough to buy that White Chocolate Mocha syrup of DaVinci – but why not learn and make it yourself? From ingredients you’ve sourced and can identify?
Any schmoe (including that crappy shop down the street) can buy a jug of Ghirardhelli and call it “quality” – but are you the kind of barista that can go out and make chocolate syrup in-house and create a drink based on your craft?
Those are the baristas I find inspiring.
it seems like maybe i might sort of agree, perhaps, on your quality argument. except that you HAVE to be such an anomaly when it comes to creating your own syrup, mapping the vagaries of a strawberry, stocking 97 flavors, etc.
97 flavors?!?!?!?!
so … are you the exception that proves the rule about syrup? or a shining, entirely feasible example? or a washed-up, over-unctious nutcase?
also, you’re totally deflating all of my favorite iron chef delusions. sheesh.
i DO agree that craft-i-ness is a total turn-on. this blog totally digs hand-crafted purity.
Wow am I literally the first reply to your great post.