According to one taste test performed among four experts in Canada, anyway. Yes, that's four coffee aficionados living in the Toronto area and working in the gourmet coffee field. Canadian Business magazine conducted blind taste tests comparing various drip premium coffees: McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD), Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX), a brand called Tim Horton's, and a new Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO) coffee called "Far Coast."

That's the order in which they ranked: McDonald's "Café Roast" blend being the winner with 6.5 "cups" -- as they called their ratings points. Starbucks came in a not-that-close second with 5 cups, Tim Horton's right on its heels with 4, and Far Coast dead last with one single point. And that's only because two judges were nice enough to award it a half point, while the others handed it a goose egg.

Coke introduced Far Coast to market to fast food outlets and convenience stores within the last year.

More news about Starbucks:
-- Starbucks giving warm breakfast to Manhattanites
-- Jim Cramer says Starbucks is worth $50 a share
-- Starbucks, the real estate strategy
-- Baristas recalled?

More news about McDonald's:
-- Beef = sex in China
-- Breakfast all day is healthy

Starbucks (SBUX) will find itself with another competitor in premium coffee and tea drinks soon. The Coca-Cola Co. (KO) has announced it will create a line of latte-style drinks. This line will be targeted for restaurants and other food services outlets -- not retail. Seems every few weeks this summer has brought a similar announcement from some well-known corporation or another. The trend's toward more competition.

Companies are willing to try out this market that critics perennially claim is saturated -- or over-saturated, whatever that means. If consumers do decide that $3.50 is too much for a coffee, then McDonald's and/or Coca-Cola may provide options that are likely to be priced more cheaply, though without the cache of Starbucks, or Tully's, or SBC names.

Coke already this year brought out Coca-Cola BlaK, which is a carbonated coffee-infused soft drink, but that's likened by the company to an energy drink -- not a direct competitor to lattes, canned iced coffees, frappucinos, or the like. It tastes wretched to me, by the way. Sort of like drinking out of bottle at party that people have been dousing their cigarettes in all night. Not that I've done that. Well, not more than twice anyway.

More competitors move to bring Starbucks-style gourmet coffee drinks to an even wider audience. McDonald's is testing the "McCafe concept" in Rochester in New York state, and five other national markets according the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle. Maybe they need to stop adding the Mcprefix to everything, but it would probably get called some form of McCoffee anyway.

Anyway, McD's is right to try and see if there's a piece of this market they can grab for themselves. Dunkin' Donuts is moving hard into the arena. When McDonald's sees a value in exploring this market, it shows that Schultz and Donald of Starbucks are not alone in believing that there's plenty of room to grow a gourmet coffee business right here in the States, not to mention internationally.

Michael Canfield is a private investor, a business and media writer, living in Seattle. He doesn't own stock in Starbucks (SBUX).

A judge in New York City ruled that jury-awarded damages of $300,000 against Starbucks (SBUX) for spilled coffee on a woman's foot were excessive. The spill or splash, or whatever, caused a two-inch burn, and internal damage that impacts the plaintiff's ballet dancing, her experts testified. We've all heard of these suits -- I think the first was against McDonald's. The judge refused to set aside the verdict or give Starbucks a new trial. He 'll determine what damages to award after an upcoming settlement conference by parties.

My question is, who has the time to bring these types of suits? Once attorney fees are taken out, and the cost of one's own time factored in, the payday can't be that much. Sad really. I doubt lawsuits of this type factor into investors decisions, certainly not suits that entail money damages in the range we're talking about in this case.

Michael Canfield is a private investor, a business and media writer, living in Seattle. He doesn't own stock in Starbucks.

While stock in what Brits refer to "Starbuck's North American parent company" (SBUX) plunged last week and we mull the possible reasons for that here (Gilbert) and here (Kretzman), Starbucks UK sales rise 20% to about 462 million dollars U.S. This resulted in after tax profit just over $14 million. Last year the company reported near $1 million after-tax loss. The Seattle gourmet coffee retailer operates 500 stores in the UK, which has a population around 60 million, making it the clear industry leader ahead of Costa Coffee, with 400 stores, and other competing chains.

A common complaint heard in the States is also heard in Britain. Aren't the "High Streets" (retail districts) saturated with fancy coffee shops by now?

Nope. According to the UK subsidiary's new CEO, Phil Broad, the British are still behind the rest of Europe in premium coffee consumption, and he sees -- as Starbucks execs in all national and international markets tend to -- plenty of room to keep adding stores.

Earlier Sarah Gilbert discussed the economic squeeze that could mean trouble for Starbucks (SBUX) and other retailers of premium-priced gourmet items. The Korean Times reports on a debate that is forming in the country over this type of spending, which for better or worse, Starbucks and the "Starbucks experience" seems to typify in many minds. Becoming a target is part-and-parcel of extraordinary success in branding.

Throughout Asia, rushing through a metropolis Starbucks in hand can be seen as a way to tap into a feeling a sophistication and the idea that one is on globalization's winning team. This is part of a lifestyle called "toenjang-nyo" in Korean cyberspace, according to the rather admonishingly-toned Korean Times story by reporter Park Chung-a (linked above) -- at least, it's called so, when the this practice pertains to young professional or college-age women.

Starbucks refuted a potentially embarrassing rumor floating around the net last week, which had the coffee company allegedly denying the request of Marines stationed in Iraq for some gourmet coffee free-of-charge to cheer up them up.

TruthorFiction.com did a good job of summarizing and investigating the story of an email from a Marine [Sgt. Howard Wright] which said some other Marines wrote to Starbucks to say how much they liked Starbucks coffee and to request donations. The rumor began circulated that Starbucks responded with a blanket statement that they "don't support the war and will not send any coffee." Sgt. Wright then wrote the email urging a boycott of Starbucks.

Starbucks responded to Sgt. Wright by stating that the actual reason no coffee was donated "was because the official Starbucks donation policy authorizes such gifts to officially designated public charities, including libraries and schools, and that the U.S. military or military personnel do not qualify," but was never mean to be a statement about the war itself.

Starbucks further said that many individual company employees have been donating their one pound of free coffee per week benefit to members of the military or organizations that provide services to the military, and that many current and former Starbucks employees are themselves on active military duty today.  Sgt. Wright then withdrew his call for the boycott.

Whatever the initial impetus, Starbucks [Nasdaq: SBUX] and the Red Cross have now  just announced they are teaming [teamed up] to deliver hot java to U.S. service members overseas.

3:21 pm Corrections!  This rumor, as commentators below point out, is not new. However, the The Newsmax story about sbux refutation of the rumor, linked to above, is dated 30 June, 2006. Furthermore, it was indeed lame of me to misreport on the Starbucks/Red Cross partnership as being new. It is now well into its third year.