It’s that time of year again for Consumer Reports to come to our collective rescue and save us from wasting our hard-earned money on bad coffee: Colombian coffee champ is unseated in our new Ratings. Except we’ve come to the conclusion that Consumer Reports does more harm than good in the name of good coffee.

Of course, We’re no strangers to mocking Consumer Reports‘ odd foray into the world of consumables. Their Web site literally keeps us in stitches whenever we read things like, “If you’re looking for information about coffee, Consumer Reports is your best resource” alongside teasers hawking their reviews of clothes dryers, dishwashers, microwave ovens, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners.

It feels a lot like asking your muffler shop to recommend a gastroenterologist. Their coffee reviews even fall into the “Home & Garden” section of their Web site, where bold type tells us to get ratings for “flooring, windows, lightbubs & more” — the things we clearly worry most about when seeking good coffee. Just throw in lawn mower reviews and we’ll know we’re in the right place.

Setting aside for a moment the dissimilarities between a kitchen appliance and something you eat, despite Consumer Reports‘ consumer advocacy and the socialist causes of its organizational parent, Consumers Union, their editorial approach towards coffee ironically encourages a great deal of consumer, social, and environmental regression. By focusing exclusively on what we call the “ghetto” market of mass-produced, minimal-profit-margin coffees, Consumer Reports is effectively dismissing higher quality coffees — coffees that stand to not only raise the bar for consumer taste buds, but also to improve the social, economic, and environmental conditions for where these coffees might be sustainably grown. Their reviews don’t encourage aspirational coffees at value-oriented prices; rather, they keep their readers constrained to lowest-common-denominator office coffee. I mean… K-Cups? Really?

Now it’s certainly not in Consumer Reports‘ agenda to promote expensive luxury coffees. But when it comes to automobiles, for example, they don’t exclusively review Hyundais while overlooking BMWs, Jaguars, and Volvos. Given how they treat coffee, it’s as if consumers get a public dialog about the best brand of canned green beans — all the while denying the existence of the better quality, and better environmental practices, behind the fresh produce variety. Or, as another analogy, it makes us believe that if Consumer Reports were to review wines, the only wines they’d promote would come in boxes.

In the headlines today, Consumer Reports continues to explore the merits of ghetto coffee: Lack of excellent coffee blends: Consumer Reports | Reuters. Whereas before they chimed in on the McDonald’s vs. Starbucks debate — something we’ve always likened to a beauty contest between Courtney Love and Joan Rivers — this time their “expert” taste buds were disappointed by 37 different coffee blends available at major supermarket chains.

Of course, we’re writing this post while sipping a press pot of some freshly ground El Salvador Nueva Granada from Barefoot Coffee Roasters. (Mmmmm.) But this is the same Consumer Reports that lavished untimely praise on Toyota last month.

Our biggest contention with Consumer Reports is that, in recent years, they have over-extended themselves from objective reviewers of consumer appliances towards more subjective arbiters of public taste. It’s one thing to judge a minivan by objectively measurable criteria such as noise levels, cabin space, engine pickup, and fuel economy. It’s an entirely different thing where, to quote the press release:

“Consumer Reports has a rating criteria in which the tasters look for specific characteristics including the flavor and aroma.”

Consumer Reports established itself on unbiased, objective reviews of vacuum cleaners, washing machines, and even home espresso machines. But lately they have been trying to become public taste-makers for coffee. This shift towards subjective analysis calls their credentials into question — particularly since we’ve found a number of dubious conclusions from their previous taste tests. It also makes us question what’s next: wine? Restaurants? Single-malt Scotch?

How is Consumer Reports any different than CoffeeRatings.com?

Do we claim to be any more qualified as arbiters of coffee taste? Absolutely not, but that’s kind of the issue. What best appeals to your taste buds or our taste buds does not follow the same kind of analysis that you’d give a child’s car seat.

So who makes the taste judgments, and how they make them, become absolutely critical. Transparency is essential, as this is the know-your-coffee-reviewers problem we wrote about three years ago. And Consumer Reports‘ model for expanding into coffee reviews — which is indistinguishable from their legacy of reviewing dishwashers — offers none of that. It’s one thing to recommend a cordless phone for its range and battery life, but it’s an entirely different thing to recommend one to eat for dinner.

What additionally concerns us is a kind of blind (and undeserved) reverence bestowed on Consumer Reports by most media outlets and consumers — many who seem blissfully unaware of their transition from objective review criteria to subjective taste-making. From another take on this survey (Why America Can’t Get a Great Cup of Coffee – DailyFinance), we also learn:

Tasters looking for “smoothness and complexity, with no off-flavors” and beans “neither under-roasted nor charred” and, of all things, “subtle top notes” were left wanting.

To be useful to consumers on subjective criteria, Consumer Reports must frame their standards of coffee tasting to a profile to which we can each relate. What’s written above is perhaps better than no information at all. But reading this, we’ll be damned if we can figure out how our own taste preferences compare to theirs. Who actively seeks out under-roasted, charred, or off-flavored coffee? This doesn’t describe coffee profiling so much as defect-finding, making Consumer Reports less coffee tasters and more meat inspectors.

Furthermore, Consumer Reports has provided no information about their methodology and standards for evaluation. The freshness of their supplies, how they prepare their coffee, how many samples they try at a given seating — all of these factors can make a huge difference in any side-by-side comparison. (UPDATE: We at least learned they do a swish-and-spit.)

Of course, in today’s quality coffee world where purveyors and consumers are obsessing over single origin roasts, a survey of supermarket coffee blends seems about as retro and down-market as tuna casserole. Not that there isn’t an audience for down-market coffee reviews. After all, there are people who think of Joan Rivers and Courtney Love as beauty queens. We just ask that if you do these reviews, please bother to do them properly.

And with that, we leave you with one of our favorite quotes about public tastes for coffee:

If I asked all of you, for example, in this room, what you want in a coffee, you know what you’d say? Every one of you would say “I want a dark, rich, hearty roast.” It’s what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! What percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to Howard [Moskowitz], somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want — that “I want a milky, weak coffee.”

– Malcolm Gladwell [video: start at 10:45]

We’ve been harping on the ethically and intellectually bankrupt medical infotainment industry for years now. Publicity stunts masked as science are bad enough (see: Tuesday’s example). But bad science transformed into a publicity stunt is far more irresponsible. A textbook example came to us all this week in the form of a flawed study linking heavy caffeine consumption to hallucinations: Bad Science » Drink coffee, see dead people..

Newspapers, Web sites, and bloggers went ga-ga over the story. And when stuff like this inevitably happens, there are no two blogs we value more than the UK’s Bad Science and Neuroskeptic. In the U.S., we’ve been encouraged by a special weekly feature in Discover Magazine online, who once again didn’t get caught napping: Worst Science Article Of The Week: Too Much Coffee Will Make You Hallucinate? | Discoblog | Discover Magazine.

Rather than beat that dead horse further, we strongly encourage anyone even remotely curious about the “Drink coffee, see dead people” study to read the above-cited article. It’s a bit of an eyeful, depending on your tolerance for statistical analysis and critique. But it provides insight on the fraudulent underpinnings behind much of the study-based medical reporting we read — and willingly share as if it were fact — today.

UPDATE: March 7, 2009
We cannot believe our eyes. Finally, a news article that tells readers how to tell the difference between good and bad health studies. But it gets much better than that. They also confess that pretty much all medical research and news reporting on the health-related effects of coffee are essentially useless: Health | Get smart about science news: Sorting through health studies | Seattle Times Newspaper.

And we quote:

According to experts who study disease and risk: You can pretty much ignore almost all of these health bulletins, with a few exceptions:

Exercise, eat a balanced diet, don’t be fat, drink only in moderation and, whatever you do, don’t smoke.

There’s nothing more to see here, folks. Everyone, please go back to your homes and worry about something else worth worrying about.

Why we entertain the unscientific musings of a discount health care company is beyond us. It’s probably because we’d rather report on it before much of the local press undoubtedly picks this bubblegum lifestyle piece up and makes it out to be something remotely substantial: Caffeine Survey Reveals Most, Least Caffeinated Cities.

A year ago we reported on their “first [sic] annual” survey, and we surprisingly get a second. Whereas San Francisco was ranked the least caffeinated city in America in 2007, we’ve apparently dropped off the Top 5 list in 2008. Curiously enough, we are now ranked #3 for the most coffee consumption after being unranked in 2007.

Of course the real question — after checking out the survey’s home page — is why Peggy Fleming got the can as their spokesperson. Apparently nobody’s job is safe in this economy.

When PR flacks try to get their clients noticed above the crowd noise, a common and effective tactic is the city rivalry vanity/voyeurism survey. Hey, it worked for us. Which is why we’re reporting on the “news” that San Francisco/Oakland ranked #1 among least caffeinated cities in the country: Caffeine Survey Reveals Most, Least Caffeinated Cities.

OK, so their methods are completely unscientific, there were only 20 cities total under consideration, and they had the audacity to call this survey a “first annual” (talk about an oxymoron). I won’t even ask why some Mickey Mouse health care operation is behind it with quotes from their spokesperson, 1968 Olympic gold medalist and 1980s Trident gum queen Peggy Fleming.

But while Seattlites reportedly down more coffee than anyone — and Chicagoans are more amped on caffeine than anyone (largely the product of unrivaled cola and chocolate consumption) — the citizens of our fair standard metropolitan statistical area are the least caffeinated of the lot. We still drink coffee around these parts but apparently give comparatively little love to tea and energy drinks.

You know, San Francisco, I never quite understood how beverage companies could seriously market their products like alkaline batteries either…

Last year I asked the question, “Where are all my coffee varieties?”. Today a press release from a Florida roaster picked up where I left off: Espresso like no Other and perhaps a little like Wine.

The broken English is pretty amusing for a press release — even if they make an obligatory wine comparison (yes, here we go again). But Key West, FL’s Island Joes Gourmet Coffee Roasting Company was trying to make a point about how supermarkets typically carry only one espresso blend.

Turns out that Kenneth Davids did give several of their blends a coffeereview.com score of 90/100 or better — which is nothing for your portafilter to sneeze at. But after months of explaining it to store managers and helping customers learn about their own espresso palates, they successfully convinced Albertsons to recognize that espresso isn’t a monolithic commodity.

Not all public relations professionals are brain-dead. Really. Unfortunately, there are armies of brain-dead PR zombies that routinely clog the media firehose with inane chatter.

One of their favorite zombie techniques? Take a rather inane topic that seems trendy in the media — say, oh, blogging. Then take whatever tired idea you have in front of you from your client and reformulate it — spinning it with as far-fetched a connection as you can make between that tired idea and the rather trendy, inane topic. Then pray that various media outlets are too inundated to fact check, and viola! — you have just hitched your lame story to the coattails of a media fad.

Apparently, one of the reigning media fads is still blogging. Last year we witnessed “coffee for bloggers” (no, I am not making this up). This year, we apparently have “blogging” coffee makers — thanks to the otherwise credible Clover brewer: PRESS RELEASE The First “Blogging” Coffeemaker: The Coffee Equipment Company Launches CloverNet(TM). But upon reading the press release, you quickly realize that by “blogging” they really mean basic data transmission. This is akin to NASA saying that the Mars Explorer is busy blogging from the surface of the Red Planet.

Clover, you make a good product. But don’t screw it up by hiring PR hacks who think we’re morons.

UPDATE: May 6, 2007
Apparently Rebecca Halleran of Duo PR is the lead zombie who walks the night in search of fresher brains than her own: The First “Blogging” Coffeemaker: The Coffee Equipment Company Launches CloverNet(TM) @ SYS-CON Media.

Has TheShot been taken over by “splogs” (spam blogs)?!

For anyone who has run a blog, I don’t mean the regular stream of bogus insurance adverts and “great post – I had never thought of that” comments. I mean all those splogs out there that have disguised themselves as online “lifestyle magazines” — i.e., shorthand for “all commercial posts, no content”. Product placement to the extreme. Bloggers who are even more guilty of “rip-and-read” journalism than those regurgitating corporate press releases in traditional media.

Last December I came across a pretty nifty coffee accessory worth writing about. Now if I had to choose a “coffee accessory of the year”, every year, undoubtedly it would have to be the pair of group head main cylinder gasket seals I regularly replace on my home espresso machine. There is no single accessory more responsible for my espresso enjoyment in any given year.

If had to choose a second from last year, I’d have to pick the French press travel mug from Barefoot Coffee Roasters. I’ve developed a habit of bringing it to the office most days (I also get plenty of comments on it). I grind some fresh beans into it before leaving for work in the morning — storing some extra grinds in the hidden compartment at the bottom. It makes truly good coffee quite convenient and portable.

And why buy from Barefoot? They are always spreading the love around, and I can hardly think of a nearby coffee outfit more deserving of a little return love themselves. And the French press travel mug comes in a variety of colors … including cornflower blue, for those Fight Club fanatics who need to stay awake through those Monday morning presentations about “cybernetting your office.”

UPDATE: June 12, 2007
In case you wanted to pick up one of these in person, I recently discovered they are available for purchase at Cafe Bello.


UPDATE: Jan. 31, 2008
After a solid year of use, we finally found our first true defect with this device. The welding that connects to the handle to the thermal cylinder weakened until, just recently, it pretty much came off. However, the mug is still very functional even without the handle.

Yesterday, Consumer Reports announced that their taste testers rated McDonald’s premium coffee as superior to Starbucks‘ coffee. (Isn’t that a bit like a beauty contest between Courtney Love and Joan Rivers?) But the real story behind this isn’t their ratings so much as the response to these ratings: Coffee taste test stirs hot debate – Los Angeles Times. Over the past day, talkbacks and forums on news sites have been experiencing something of a religious firestorm on this issue.

We live in a modern consumer culture where people frequently define who they are by what they buy and consume. So when Consumer Reports says that our favorite loyalty coffee brand is inferior, by extension they are saying that we are inferior. Or at least as offensive to some Starbucks loyalists, they are suggesting that they have inferior tastes to those raised on fast food and clowns. Hence the visceral, and sometimes vitriolic, reaction from many coffee lovers on the subject. This is akin to red states vs. blue states in a coffee cup.

But the coffee purveyors like it this way. It means that their brands have come to stand for more than just their coffee; their brands have come to identify with personal lifestyles — something much more intimate and personally defining. The real truth is, of course, in Starbucks’ statement in response to Consumer Reports‘ study: “Choosing a brand of coffee is a personal decision, as taste is subjective.” Which was a 24-hour about face from Starbucks CEO Jim Donald’s recent comments about customers “graduating” from McDonald’s coffee to the unquestionable superiority of Starbucks’ “super-premium” coffee.

Too often, I am sure, this site sounds like the rantings of a coffee elitist/curmudgeon whose only purpose is to serve as mainstream coffee iconoclast. “You know nothing about good espresso — my tastes are better than yours!” If so, that is certainly my failing. Because my intentions, while perhaps only paving my own road to hell, are about enlightenment: opening your eyes beyond the obvious, helping you question assumptions, getting you to experience first-hand more of what’s out there, and hopefully getting you to demand better quality from your favorite cafés.

That could very well mean that, for you, Starbucks is the pinnacle of coffee. But I will have succeeded if I help you question the possibility of other outcomes — because billions of dollars are being spent to convince you there aren’t any.

I came across a coffee-related press release yesterday (as I often do), and I truly resisted writing about it — hoping it would just go away unnoticed. But then the company behind it is based out of San Francisco, and the press release hit the Associated Press today: AP Wire | 01/11/2007 | Mysterious `Meth Coffee’ launches in San Francisco.

Why was I so reluctant? Because this product screams “crap coffee” disguised by an idiotic marketing gimmick. Thus my posting about it here would only encourage such idiotic behavior. Ultimately, the degree with which their goth-teen-targeted idiocy made me spew good coffee across the room in laughter outweighed any concerns over contributing to their publicity. So now I’m posting good old-fashioned ridicule for the ridiculous.

Now it’s no secret that I’ve been ranting a lot lately about how coffee lovers are equated with caffeine addicts — in ways where we wouldn’t presume that a wine aficionado is naturally an alcoholic. (The hideous wine analogy rears its ugly head yet again!) But come on… “Meth Coffee”?! I just read today that bath soap qualifies as an instrument of caffeine delivery: A New Type of Java Jolt: Caffeinated Soap. Is the Dove Unscented Crack Beauty Bar up next for a little Fight Club-like marketing?

Please. Try again. Next time like you mean it.

UPDATE: January 12, 2007
One press release later, and now Tully’s Coffee lays claim to the very same yerba maté additive that Meth Coffee says gives their brew that special caffeinated crank. Yet here, Tully’s takes the “healthy energy” approach with the same substance, making it sound like a fresh-scented bar of Irish Spring by comparison: Tully’s Coffee Puts Focus On “Healthy Energy”; Adds Yerba Maté To Menu :: News :: Natural and Nutritional Products Industry Center.

Apparently one man’s meth is another man’s rainforest-grown, immune-system-boosting herbal medicine to complement his yoga sessions.