Tuesday, January 01, 2008

You say you want a resolution...

Have you come up with your New Year's resolution yet? Mine is to not bother making one. But apparently a lot of people do, and one of the most popular resolutions is to lose weight. If that's you, boy are you in luck, because now $tarbuck$ is going to support you every step of the way!

That's right, the evil empire is introducing a new "platform" called the "Skinny Latte" (which means nonfat milk and sugar-free syrup) so that you can "stick to your New Year's goals". Because obviously everybody's New Year's goal is to lose weight, and obviously the best way to do that is to get help from Starbucks.

This is the time of year for shameless pitches from all kinds of gyms, weight loss programs, etc. But really, Starbucks? It seems like a bit of a stretch. As pointed out over at the f-word blog, ordering a "skinny" won't even cut all that many calories. It's pretty clear that this is just a dumb PR stunt to capitalize on everybody's New Year's-induced guilt.

Also, why is it assumed that a latte will have syrup in it?

Oh, whatever.

On a tangentially related point, I have this hypothesis that the terms "skim" and "nonfat" may have a geographical distribution. I always used to call it skim, then when I moved to Berkeley if I asked for "skim" at a coffee shop they'd give me a blank look, so I started saying "nonfat". Then when I moved to Pittsburgh, I'd get the look for calling it "nonfat" so I started saying "skim" again. But then when I moved to SoCal, "skim" was clearly not cutting it, so now I'm back to "nonfat". I'm not sure where the boundary is, but I'm pretty sure there is one. So here's a Reader's Poll for you: Does anybody east of the Mississippi call it "nonfat"? Or does anyone out west call it "skim"? If I don't get any responses, I'll just go on assuming I am right.

Also as an aside, as I was poking around on the web for stuff on the Skinny Latte platform (wtf is up with the "platform" thing, anyway?), I found this post about a guy who got a coupon for a free drink at Starbucks and tried to come up with the most expensive one he could get -- his 13 shot venti soy hazelnut vanilla cinnamon white mocha with extra white mocha and caramel totaled $13.76. I'll bet that tasted really awesome! For some reason it reminds me of that Domino's pizza thing that Meg linked to a while back...

Anyway, Happy New Year, everybody!


Ms. Pants said...

Eff resolutions. I always do lists of stuff I learned in the previous year instead.

Mary said...

I like that idea, Ms. Pants!

Btw, I can now verify that the Skinny Latte is out there -- Starbucks has a big stupid sign about it in front of all their stores now. Barf.

Ms. Pants said...

I saw it on the sign. But as a fat girl, you will never see me asking for a skinny anything. I might ask for a sammich for some skinny bitch to gnaw on, but that's about as far as it goes.

Besides, I don't have to stick any sort of skinny into "iced, venti, unsweetened red eye." The only thing I really need is the needle to mainline the caffeine directly into a vein. Maybe next year they'll offer the "hypodermic" option.

Anonymous said...

An informal survey revealed that the native midwesterners prefer "skim" and the New Yorker was unsure. Also, there was a feeling that perhaps "nonfat" seemed too Starbucksy and pretentious.

Anonymous said...

These taste soooooooo BAD!!! My roommate got one and had me taste it to see if it was just her. Shudder.

Nasty. I don't know if it is the lack of sugar or no fat but it just tastes all the way around bad.