Starbucks = Skinny?
I’ve heard nonfat espresso drinks called “skinny” and “trim” at other chains, and I guess Starbucks is jumping on the bandwagon. Their new lingo—the word “skinny”— saves you from having to say “nonfat sugar free.” So if I wanted a nonfat sugar free gingerbread latte (which, yum) I could just call it a skinny gingerbread latte, therefore saving on both calories and syllables. According to their press release:
“We regularly hear from our partners that customers are cutting calories and seeking healthier options,” said Katie Thomson, registered dietitian, Starbucks Coffee Company. “We understand how important overall wellness is to our customers and so we’ve made it easier for them to stick to their New Year’s goals without giving up their daily coffee routine by introducing the Skinny platform. In fact, customers can consider replacing that sweet snack so many of them reach for in the afternoon with a Skinny Latte. Not only will they save on calories and fat but they’ll be getting an extra shot of calcium and protein to get them through the day.”
1. I don’t like Starbucks’ mocha flavor at all, but I will definitely try their new sugar-free mocha. Sugar-free chocolate is difficult if not impossible to do well, but I’m curious to taste it.
2. I totally do exactly what the press release says. At about three, when I’m dying for a cookie or what have you, I frequently run across the street to Starbucks and get an espresso drink instead. The sugar free gingerbread latte has gotten me through a lot of afternoons lately. Not so good for my wallet, but better than eating too much sugar (which my body reacts badly to). Now I feel like I’m a tool of The Man.
Via Starbucks Gossip.
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Advertising, Food, Personal
Email us
I am lucky that I only treat myself to Starbucks every few weeks. When I do, I want the REAL DEAL. caramel Frappucino with Whipped Cream! If I was one who did Starbucks on a daily basis, the “skinny” option would be more appealing. Although, I am not a big fan of artificial sweeteners and the like. I work in the chemical industry and I’d sooner drink toilet water than to put the chemicals that they use to make sweet and low in my body.
The first thing I hate about S’bucks is their coffee. (Not their elaborate, coffee-based beverages–their actual coffee.)
The second thing is their pretentious and elitest use of specialized vocabulary. You shouldn’t have to be versed in their jargon to get a cup of coffee.
First, the sugar-free mocha is revolting. I’ve tried it – the baristas at my Starbucks gave me a sneak preview. It has a nasty aftertaste, and doesn’t taste like chocolate at all. I was really looking forward to it, too. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am…
Second, I hate skim milk. I can’t abide the stuff. I’d rather limit my consumption to one breve mocha a week than have unlimited skim mochas. Bleargh!
I’ve never heard someone say “skinny” at Starbucks but I know that their fat free latte is good stuff. I just don’t like their annoying system of ordering. Um, venti? If that’s the biggest, I want it. How can they expect me to use special words at 7am?
Emily: when I started going to Starbucks and couldn’t figure out the sizes I’d just point :P
So many of their drinks taste better non fat. The cinnamon dolce latte and the white chocolate mocha are fantastic nonfat.
PS I’ve been reading this blog for a while without commenting.
The sugar free cinnamon dolce isn’t bad either. I’m hoping that they have sugar free in toffee nut, which is my personal weakness.
The locally-owned latte place across the street from work also has a variety of sugar-free syrups and lower-fat milk, plus, they taste better.
I dislike the assorted flavor syrups as a rule because they tend to taste chemical-y to me. So, these days I tend to go with a soy misto — it’s half coffee, half soy milk, and since Starbucks uses vanilla soymilk you get a bit of vanilla flavor in there, but not so overpowering as the syrup.
Ohhh, so THATS what people mean when they order skinnies. I’m a barista at a local coffee shop, and inevitably we get alot of Starbucks lingo thrown around. I’ve always stuck to local coffee shops because I’m socially retarded and thus get anxiety in crowds, so I avoid Starbucks at all costs. So when people order tall skinny blablablas, I get a little confuzzled. :/ I finally figured out the size translations, but I just figured the skinnies meant skim milk. Whoops! Well, people shouldn’t assume Starbucks lingo is common coffee terms! They really aren’t! Bah!
So if I’m treating myself to the one full-fat, full-sugar thing I get twice a month, what should I say? “I’d like a tall, voluptuous cinnamon dolce.” And if the guy behind the counter says, “Me too,” should I give him my card?
Chesney, I think that’s what it does mean, skim milk. Starbucks hasn’t started using the lingo officially yet.
Eden, the answer to that is yes. And if it works out, invite us all to the wedding!
I used to work at Starbucks. Yes, they do have specific rules for calling drinks (order of ingredients, etc.), but nonfat milk was always nonfat, and sugar-free syrups were always sugar-free. If a customer ordered “skinny” – a term only used at some other coffee shops – we knew what that meant, but the cashier would repeat it to the barista as “nonfat”.
I’m disappointed to learn of this change in Starbucks policy to make “skinny” an official term just for marketing’s sake. It doesn’t describe anything new; it just gives more fodder to people who still make fun of “Starbucks lingo”. Oh yeah, and it’s inaccurate and misleading too.
What do you have to say to get full-fat (real cream) and artificial or no sweetener at all? An Atkins? I might need to know if I ever see a Starbucks out here in the boonies. I hate, hate, hate sweetener in my coffee or tea.
If you just want a cup of coffee, you order whatever size you want and then put in the cream, sugar, whatever yourself.
I love the gingerbread biscotti there, but the only drink I ever get at Starbucks is a steamed soymilk. Plain. No syrup. Just steamed soymilk. The baristas never know how to ring it up.
I then shake in some of the vanilla powder and a couple packets of Splenda and voila, the most awesome hot drink evah. For me, anyway.
The new verbiage is easier to roll off the tongue, but I can’t help but think that some wishful thinking is at play here too, with Starbucks’ new “skinny” term.
Rachel: Why not clarify it as a soy-hot chocolate, hold the chocolate? Sounds yummy, though!
ohh venti nonfat sugarfree cinnamon dolce latte no whip, how I love thee
Skinny? Well, a 16-oz (grande in Sbux lingo) cup of nonfat milk alone has 180 calories. That’s more than a can of regular Coke!
I worked at Starbucks a long time ago, when Frappucinos came out for the first time. They were marketed as low-fat, and I remember customers commenting on how “healthy” they were. A 16-oz regular had over 400 calories in it, and it was basically high-fructose corn syrup and not much else.
Sure, it’s easier to order a “skinny” but the lingo is so misleading.
I can’t stand Starbucks. Call me a coffee snob, but what they serve ain’t coffee.
At our Starbucks way up here in northeastern BC, they stopped using whole milk and cream and started using skim or 1% without asking customers what they wanted. My father-in-law was more than a little annoyed because the drink he gets tastes so watery with anything but whole milk. I think baristas have no business making decisions about what people order – if they want fat, give them fat, if they want it “skinny”, fine. It would be like a waiter bringing you something minus the oil or butter because most other people request it that way. Just because “most people” want non-fat lattes does not mean I do. I agree with a few others at least – if you’re going to get a Starbucks once in a while, get the real thing and go full fat. It’s no different than having a piece of cheesecake or a bowl of ice cream. As for sugar-free, no thanks! I stay as far away from artificial sweeteners as I can….well, except for sugar free gum since that’s the only kind they have unless I get it at the health food store.
As for something that tastes pretty awful as a “skinny” – my personal favourite, the caramel macchiato…they are best when they are worst for you.
Curse you, Mo, for getting me addicted to nonfat sugar-free gingerbread lattes! Personally, if saying “skinny” keeps me from having to say “non fat sugar-free no whip,” then I’ll take it. Yeah, it’s silly marketing, but it makes me feel less pretentious (sp?) and more comfortable ordering.
I live in Seattle and the term “skinny” to refer to a latte with skim/non-fat milk has been in common use here for at least 15 years.
Erin’s comment reminded me of when Starbucks introduced its “light” Frappuccino drinks. A customer came in and asked, “Are these good for people on a diet?” I told her, truthfully, that the mix had less sugar than the regular Frappuccino base and was made with nonfat milk, so it was lower in sugar, fat and calories than the regular version. (Any measure of “good” was, of course, subjective.)
She ordered a grande vanilla Frappuccino Light, walked away drinking it down…and half an hour later came back and got another. On her way out the second time she commented excitedly, “I’m sure glad these are good for people on a diet!”
Some people will believe, misunderstand and/or rationalize anything.
You know you would burn a lot more calories saying nonfat sugar free ;)
Well now. I’ve been saying “skinny latte” for years without thinking about it. Though I don’t go to Starbucks very often (it’s SO expensive and the coffee’s on the weak side). I don’t think the word “nonfat” is really current for milk here – skimmed milk is the term – but I don’t know what they tell the baristas to say. My personal bugbear at Starbucks is “tall” for the smallest-size drink. I constantly say “small” or “normal” without thinking and get corrected by the barista, which isn’t fabulous customer-service in my opinion. (And how can anyone hope to drink a Venti before it goes cold and yucky, or without having to take a toilet break in the middle? Am I a coffee wimp?)
Personally I hate the taste of whole milk, so I’d rather have skimmed, but I can see it’s a question of taste. After all I can’t understand who would want to drink mocha, either. Or those things with all the syrups – just too sweet for me!
My Starbucks was sampling these this morning (apparently they are selling them as of tomorrow).
I thought it was pretty good for sugar-free and fat-free. I didn’t detect an aftertaste. It’s not the deep, dark chocolate taste of the regular mocha, it’s much lighter (which I actually prefer in a drink). The store manager told me he thought it tasted like a Tootsie Roll. I didn’t think so at all. To me it kind of tasted like hot chocolate from a packet – but one of the better ones. I’ll certainly be trying one tomorrow.
Unfortuately their website isn’t updated with the new sugar-free mocha drinks yet so I can’t get the nutritional info.
I just tasted the mocha (my Starbucks baristas made me a free one because they are nice) and in my opinion it tastes like ass. I gave it a chance but ultimately threw half of it out. But I can see the Tootsie Roll thing.
It’s a syrup like the vanilla syrup, as opposed to (what I was picturing) a sugar free version of the thick mocha syrup–so that was slightly creepy.
And, Shae, the nutrition info is identical to all the other sugar-free syrup lattes.
I don’t visit Starbucks that often because the closest one is 15 miles away. I do have a Dunkin’ Donuts and a privately owned shop called Java By the Bay minutes from my house. I don’t drink hot coffee, and iced/frozen drinks are special treats for me, something I don’t get weekly. :-)
BTW, I got the link to this blog from Figure Magazine.
Mo, I went back the next day and got my standard size (triple venti) and ended up throwing half of it away. In the little sample cup (two swallows worth) it was fine. But by halfway through the venti it had developed the most god-awful aftertaste. I never got the Tootsie Roll thing but I won’t be drinking it again.
I was looking for the Nutritional Info to find out what the sugar substitute is. The barista told me the next day it is Splenda. I tried a non-fat, sugar-free Cinnamon Dulce de Latte that day and it had the aftertaste too. (I can not tell you how much it pisses me off that I’ve wasted $10 of my Christmas Starbucks gift card on two drinks I had to toss.)
So I’m cutting back on Starbucks again to just a tall light mocha frappucino on the way to class on the one day a week I have to stay at school until 10pm after working all day.
I will say that my locally-owned coffee shop near my house (but the wrong direction to hit before work) uses a sugar-free Ghiradelli chocolate syrup that is thick and dark like the normal Ghiradelli (and normal Starbucks mocha syrup). No aftertaste at all. I hit them on Saturdays before heading to school. Unfortunately the chances of Starbucks using another branded item in their stuff is slim to none.
Did the price increase for the “skinny” line? I got a grande skinny cinammon dolce latte this morning and it was $5.03. That can’t be right – can it??!
I’ve been working at Starbucks for a couple of months, and I have to say the “skinny” term is just a convenience. 95% of people who want nonfat milk want sugar free syrup and whip cream, and having one button on the screen simplifies things. If you don’t like artificial sweetner – you’re not going to like the SF Mocha. If you don’t like to drink nonfat milk, order whole. No difference in cost. I’m kind of surprised it’s gotten this much attention here – they’re just creating a button on the menu for drinks that people are already ordering.
Um, if you want quality, the last place you should be going to starbucks. Never mind that the prices are insane, they also use pretty sub-par ingredients. I work at one, I know. The usual corporate coffee answer to poor ingredients to ramp up the sugar content. Now with this silly “skinny” campaign, the jig is up, no more sugar. The result? A god-awfull tootsie-roll flavored “chocolate” syrup. This makes no sense, since the usual chocolate powder can be made in a sugar free version. The chocolate is terrible by the way, usually disguised with an incredible amount of sugar.
The “skinny” term is also incredibly offensive. Take this from a poor schmo that works at starbucks. patronize your local independent coffee shop.
No need to use sugar,sweet and low or any other form of man made toxic waste to entertain your buds..I have been using Stevia in my go juice for a few years now and it is with out exception the greatest beverage sweetener the planet has made!!I say planet because it is plant derived and is 100% natural..More benefits include helping your natural flora and lowering BP pressure etc ;)