Cuptasting in Tallinn

Thank you all for your recent comments and observations – much appreciated and interesting. Some of your comments led me to consider this question: Are the “Speciality” and “Mainstream” sectors separate and in fact do they compete with each other?

It is all too easy (and indeed comfortable) to argue that the two sectors are distinct and separate and have nothing in common. But the truth is a little more complicated, because according to our definition, many good coffees that are considered mainstream in some countries are definitely revered as speciality in others. And, can a mainstream roaster not also produce speciality coffees within its range?

The reality is that both sectors are closely entwined and that they need each other. Speciality is only special because it is different from, and hopefully superior to, mainstream. Mainstream needs speciality because where speciality goes today, mainstream needs to follow tomorrow. Indeed speciality has been the force that has re-invigorated the coffee market, boosting demand and more importantly acting as the conduit through which many young people are introduced to coffee consumption.

But if speciality leads where mainstream goes tomorrow, is there a danger that, in time, mainstream will crowd out speciality altogether? Our definition of speciality revolves around quality, and the supply of quality coffee, although increasing, is still limited (that’s why it’s exclusive and “special”). So, while the speciality sector is able to demand the best qualities, mainstream, by definition has to work with what is left; it is supply-pushed rather than demand-led. Mainstream will always adapt rather than mimic the cutting edge innovations developed within the speciality sector, as the mainstream business will never be able to completely embrace those innovations with the same degree of finesse that those engaged in speciality can. In most cases this is because mainstream cannot guarantee itself access to the best qualities.

However, there are exceptions. Starbucks, for example, has a throughput worldwide in excess of 2 million bags a year. It buys some of the best coffees available, but it also buys a lot of coffee that is considered mainstream. It clearly straddles both sectors and has recently reinforced that notion by adding instant coffee to its range. Nevertheless, it is a rather neat example of what I was saying about speciality leading where mainstream will follow. Starbucks started off by being exclusively speciality, but quickly realised—once it started trading sizeable volumes—that it needed to work with the coffees it could get, rather than those it necessarily demanded.

So yes, the relationship is complex and although it is important to define speciality, we must not necessarily do so in an effort to undermine mainstream.

As always, comments and feedback welcome.

Mick