Splenda Scuffle
Now, first off, I used to drink Splenda, and this has nothing to do with Splenda itself, but more along the lines of drink making. A similar post was on Coffeed but I decided I'd like the BaristaExchange's community answer.
The other day, I had a customer come in and asked for 3 Splendas on the bottom of her cup before I started her latte. I was hesitant, but complied. This sparked a recent discussion amongst my manager and a few baristas at Trabant.
*From here forth, "Splenda" is interchangeable with any other sweetner brand*
The way I see it, Splenda is an additive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no nutiritional reason that someone MUST have Splenda in their coffee. I was presented with the possibility that perhaps adding chocolate to a mocha, was like adding Splenda (or Sweet N Low or w/e) to a latte. It was argued that I add the Splenda to the espresso instead of having someone dump it ontop of a rosetta I poured and have my latte art mush up. My main argument was that people, for the most part, who are adding things to their drinks are rarely seen (at my cafe, or at least by me) first trying their drink, and then adjusting accordingly. The Splenda adders are people who have ordered "Venti" Lattes and are in the habit of always dumping sweetner to their bitter espresso beverage. My main argument was that these people are not used to naturally delicious espresso beverages. They are used to the bitter SBUX shots or the McLatte. I'll admit it, when I was still drinking SBUX, I would add Sugar in the Raw to my latte.
So, should I allow my customers to have me mix in their sweet chemicals to my espresso, or should I just point to the condiment bar where they can "Mix to Taste?"
The other day, I had a customer come in and asked for 3 Splendas on the bottom of her cup before I started her latte. I was hesitant, but complied. This sparked a recent discussion amongst my manager and a few baristas at Trabant.
*From here forth, "Splenda" is interchangeable with any other sweetner brand*
The way I see it, Splenda is an additive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no nutiritional reason that someone MUST have Splenda in their coffee. I was presented with the possibility that perhaps adding chocolate to a mocha, was like adding Splenda (or Sweet N Low or w/e) to a latte. It was argued that I add the Splenda to the espresso instead of having someone dump it ontop of a rosetta I poured and have my latte art mush up. My main argument was that people, for the most part, who are adding things to their drinks are rarely seen (at my cafe, or at least by me) first trying their drink, and then adjusting accordingly. The Splenda adders are people who have ordered "Venti" Lattes and are in the habit of always dumping sweetner to their bitter espresso beverage. My main argument was that these people are not used to naturally delicious espresso beverages. They are used to the bitter SBUX shots or the McLatte. I'll admit it, when I was still drinking SBUX, I would add Sugar in the Raw to my latte.
So, should I allow my customers to have me mix in their sweet chemicals to my espresso, or should I just point to the condiment bar where they can "Mix to Taste?"
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Stormer on
-
A customer who drinks three Splenda in their latte will always drink three Splenda in their latte until a paid study by another sweetener company shows that Splenda has no calories because it cannot be digested and therefore should not be eaten. With time you can develop a relationship with a regular customer which would get them excited and curious about coffee, but until that happens just take their money and practice your 20oz latte art. The day that you have so much business that you have to turn people away is the day that you can make only the drinks you wanna make.
-
Permalink Reply by Alex Galt on
-
The way I see it, there are 'prescriptive' coffeehouses, and 'reflective' coffeehouses. In other words, ones in which you tell the customer what they ought to have, and ones where you give them what they want. I've been meaning to start a thread about this, because I think it would make an interesting discussion. We're a reflective coffeehouse, we'll do anything the customer asks for because we care more about pleasing them than we do about advancing third wave dogma. Naturally, we're purists ourselves, so we're good at pleasing those customers who are looking for a higher level of coffeehouse experience. But really, if the customer is willing to pay for it, we'll do it.
I think it's okay to be a prescriptive coffeehouse, if that's what you want. But I think that if you do, you need to design the entire shop around that experience so that the customer knows what to expect.
-
-
If a customer comes in and says they're going to kill you in five minutes, hit 'em with a portafilter in four. Too bad you use nakeds, they just don't deliver the same punch!
-
-
And the crazy-ass ninja scissor
-
Permalink Reply by Brady on
-
This is interesting. (For the record, I think I'm personally somewhere in the middle of this prescriptive/reflective continuum... more toward the reflective side, but with some limits. I'll make a drink that may not be as good as it could be due to customer request, but not one that would be just bad as a result of the same request.)
Regarding the original question - I think you do whatever will give them the best drink. If you KNOW that they are going to add the sweet chemicals to your espresso, and you also know that their drink will be better if you do the dirty work for them, which course of action gives them the best drink? What is your motivation for making them do it themselves -to keep your hands clean?
(By the way, if you add it yourself, you can slowly wean them off the stuff by cutting back a little at a time... and see if they notice. But I digress.)
Stay with me on this next point...
I ran across an interesting discussion of saltiness a few years ago in a cooking reference. It's main premise was that, for each individual, there was a nominal saltiness at which food tasted balanced and normal. Any less salt and the food tasted flat, any more and the food tasted salty. This nominal saltiness can vary widely from person to person. Something to do with variations in salt receptors on the tongue. Anyway, the belief was that a high salt person and a low salt person ultimately tasted something similar once their portions of food were seasoned to their liking. This was determined both by the structure of their tongues and their food experience. I believe this, and over the years I've gathered a similar impression of sweetness.
Bottom line? I think that there is truth to the idea that some sweetener-adders started out trying to mask crappy coffee, and that there is hope for them eventually seeing the light (as OP has) IF they are given a quality coffee to work with. But I also believe that some others are simply adapting their beverage to meet their personal sweetness threshold, regardless of how "good" it tastes naturally. This has little to do with the quality of the coffee, and has more to do with the customer's tongue and experience.
Good discussion. Off to read Coffeed to see what they had to say...
-
-
Guess I should have written, "I'll do anything within reason, if they're willing to pay." Sugar in the portafilter? Stopping the extraction midway? I've never heard these requests, but I'd say no to them. They'd weaken the quality of the drink without adding anything to the customer's experience. I just deal with the fact that sometimes I have to make drinks that I would never drink, a pretty broad category that includes mochas and 12 oz. lattes, which are probably 80% of our espresso drink service. A mocha made with chai and hazelnut syrup? Sounds awful to me, but I'll try to make the very best chai hazelnut mocha that I can. What I've noticed is that customers who order these kinds of things, if they become regular enough, their orders become increasingly coffee focused.
The real issue with Splenda is that it's toxic.
-
-
But the FDA approved it! If the FDA approved something that was toxic (god forbid!) that would mean that the FDA was . . . *gasp* . . . corrupt!
Is it toxic? I don't know, but it does seem a bit odd to me to add something to a drink that has no nutritional value. It cannot be metabolized, but different studies have stated that 15-27% is absorbed by the blood stream anyway. That's still a tiny, tiny amount (a very small percentage of a Splenda packet is actually sucralose), but if you're consuming three packets two or three times a day without any decent long-term studies having been done on it's affects, well, that's just stupid. Perhaps it would be better to just stick to known poisons like caffeine and alcohol.
-
Permalink Reply by Alex Negranza on
-
So I was thinking the other day that if we are not going toworry about our what are customers do after the fact, and we'll add the 3 Splenda's to their drink,...then why put the care and quality in the first place to making that perfect shot? Stay with me here, If our argument is that we're just going to make our customers happy within reason, and that includes (true story) letting the shot run for 2 and a half minutes to fill a 8 oz cup to serve as a doppio/americano then why even worry about that shot to begin with? I love working at a Specialty Coffee shop and one of the perks is that I work with Specialty coffee, a Clover and a Synesso and La Marzocco. I don't agree with serving a drink that, in my opinion, is guaranteed low in quality and taste. Is this accepted ecuse we can't, as a whole, afford to say anything? Or is this accepted because it truly is what we think is right and yummy?
-
-
agreed. That is my exact argument. It is horrible to throw out technique and professionalism in the midst of a SBUX or high demand customer. I was discussing this with a barista at Trabant, and in the middle of the discussion, a man walked in and ordered a Macchiato...To Go. As I was steaming he asked me to put the handful of sugar in the shot before I added milk, I politely asked him to go ahead and "give it a whirl" and add sugar after tasting it 'a la carte'. He did, said it was amazingly delicious, and threw the sugar into the trash. I was pleased with the outcome. Is it then fine to ask customers to try their drink 'a la carte' and if they insist you add things, then comply?
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Haeger on
-
Good for waffle-making and kickin' through the shins. (NOFX reference)
-
-
I believe that it is not only fine, but almost required of any excellent barista.
Handling a situation like this takes a degree of finesse and experience in customer service, so it should not be attempted unless you are sure of your skills as a service professional.
-
-
Agreed.
Barista Exchange Partners
Barista Exchange Friends
Keep Barista Exchange Free
Are you enjoying Barista Exchange? Is it helping you promote your business and helping you network in this great industry? Donate today to keep it free to all members. Supporters can join the "Supporters Group" with a donation. Thanks!
© 2024 Created by Matt Milletto.
Powered by
