Starbucks Economics - Solving the mystery of the elusive "short" cappuccino. By Tim Harford

Note: I've been doing this for years... wel, not me specifically, but Yukiko has been ordering the "Short" coffees... and not because she's cheap or anything... more that she is caffeine sensitive and the "Tall" is just too much coffee for her. Also I'd like to note that I don't really like Starbucks and find their over-priced coffee high in acidity and bitterness. I much prefer Illy (nice independent chains serving the best mass-marketed espresso I've ever tasted). And may I add that Tim Hortons rocks and I will be buying stock in that company (given the opportunity to). But back to Starbucks, seems most don't know there is a "Short" option. This is an exerpt below from Slate.com.

Starbucks Economics - Solving the mystery of the elusive "short" cappuccino. By Tim Harford: "It's not hard to identify the price-blind customers in Starbucks. They're the ones buying enough latte to bathe Cleopatra. The major costs of staff time, space in the queue, and packaging are similar for any size of drink. So, larger drinks carry a substantially higher markup, according to Brian McManus, an assistant professor at the Olin School of Business who has studied the coffee market.

The difficulty is that if some of your products are cheap, you may lose money from customers who would willingly have paid more. So, businesses try to discourage their more lavish customers from trading down by making their cheap products look or sound unattractive, or, in the case of Starbucks, making the cheap product invisible. The British supermarket Tesco has a 'value' line of products with infamously ugly packaging, not because good designers are unavailable but because the supermarket wants to scare away customers who would willingly spend more. 'The bottom end of any market tends to get distorted,' says McManus. 'The more market power firms have, the less attractive they make the cheaper products.'

That observation is important. A firm in a perfectly competitive market would suffer if it sabotaged its cheapest products because rivals would jump at the opportunity to steal alienated customers. Starbucks, with its coffee supremacy, can afford this kind of price discrimination, thanks to loyal, or just plain lazy, customers.

The practice is hundreds of years old. The French economist Emile Dupuit wrote about the early days of the railways, when third-class carriages were built without roofs, even though roofs were cheap: 'What the company is trying to do is prevent the passengers who can pay the second-class fare from traveling third class; it hits the poor, not because it wants to hurt them, but to frighten the rich.'

The modern equivalent is the airport departure lounge. Airports could create nicer spaces, but that would frustrate the ability of airlines to charge substantial premiums for club-class departure lounges.

Starbucks' gambit is much simpler and more audacious: Offer the cheaper product but make sure that it is available only to those customers who face the uncertainty and embarrassment of having to request it specifically. Fortunately, the tactic is easily circumvented: If you'd like a better coffee for less, just ask."