I get fairly numerous emails from a variety companies asking me to post about their products.  I generally ignore these emails.  More recently some have come with financial incentives – and last week I too received an email from a viral marketing company asking me to post a series of three videos from Douwe Egberts in return for money.  At the time I didn’t know how much but it turns out it is £50.

£50 – not a huge amount of money.  Easy cash or the destruction of any credibility?  Could you get away with it with full disclosure? Blogs cost money to run if you are hosting your own, the temptation is of course there.  It seems that invite went out to food bloggers too – interesting to see how many (or how few!) have disclosed that they are getting paid.

I hope I have been sufficiently clear in the past with disclosure with things I have not paid for – the ExtractMojo for example, though a freebie doesn’t guarantee a good review either.   If I have time I am happy to review things, but if someone asks I would rather give an honest opinion because the short term gain is easily outweighed by the long term relationship with a community.

The food blogging community is ahead of the coffee one (it is bigger, has a larger audience and a wider range of focus) and it is starting to see more and more issues with conflicts of interest, and non-disclosure souring reader trust.  There was an interesting LA Times article recently on the way food manufacturers (two words that shouldn’t really be next to each other) are interacting with blogging mothers.

We’re probably a little way away from Lavazza whisking Chris Tacy off to the factory, wining and dining Tonx or David Walsh in return for some nice press (though they did send Gwilym and I this year’s calendar which was genuinely very nice of them, thank you) – but if coffee blogging survives twitter then it suddenly doesn’t seem that ludicrous.

On a side note I’m becoming increasingly annoyed by the number of Press Releases I get sent for US companies, with US only special offers.  In the past I’ve just tried to ignore it, but doing that is hardly going to inspire a change in their practices.  However you can’t help but wonder about the skills of a public relations company whose efforts only sour my relationship with their client.

Thoughts?

It is no surprise that I am a big fan of barista competitions, but having recently gone through the UK judges workshop there are a couple of things I would like to post about and get some discussion going on.  First off an issue that both Anette and I find very frustrating:

The Scale of Words

For those unfamiliar with the words they are used to quantify the 0-6 scale used:

0 – Unacceptable
1 – Acceptable
2 – Average
3 – Good
4 – Very Good
5 – Excellent
6 – Extraordinary

Let’s start with 0 & 1.  I can see why they chose “Unacceptable” for 0 – if a judge is giving you no points whatsoever you must have done something pretty wrong.  However, I think using “Acceptable” creates an issue in the mind of the judge.  The drink might be very bad, but could certainly be worse.  Judges will often revert to the words – is this drink acceptable?  It may not be, but surely a single point out of six is punishment enough?

I guess it comes down to the difference in how numbers are perceived by judges and by competitors.  A score of 3 and below does not feel good.  Despite the words, a 3 feels mediocre.  However, a judge will often hold back from giving a 3 asking themselves if “good” is really the word to describe the drink.

Steps of 0.5 are allowed between 1 and 6, but these don’t come with words.  What is halfway between “good” and “very good”?  It is a question that needs to be answered as you see a lot of 3.5s awarded.  ”Really quite good” perhaps?

Using “Average” to describe 2 is also a bit depressing.  I would have thought average would have been in the middle – so a 3?  Are we saying that we expect the average competing barista to only score 2 in the 6 point boxes?

Choosing the language is obviously very difficult.  It would be hard to replace “Acceptable” with a word that wasn’t more damning.  I would argue that as a barista I would be happier with a numerical score, and then written feedback alongside it indicating both the problem and a possible solution.  (i.e. scoring 2.5 for tactile balance on an espresso, with a note saying “the shot was lacking in body, likely due to fast brew/underextraction.  Perhaps a slower brew would improve the body”)

I know a lot of people like and use the words, believing them to be an important frame of reference.  I’d be very interesting to hear people’s suggestions for alternative words in the comments.  Would people like to get rid of the words?  Do they think they are fine as they are?

The Scoresheets

It seems churlish to complain about something and not at least offer some sort of solution.  The layout of the scoresheets hasn’t really changed in 7 or 8 years.  Rules have come and gone but the layout has been pretty rigid.  I took the Sensory Scoresheet and moved a few things around, changed a couple of words but it is designed to be used with the current rules.

You can view it here.

The changes are based on how I use a scoresheet, so perhaps it says something about my judging!

First off – intros have changed a lot.  Competitors often deliver a lot of information in the first 90 seconds, including details about the coffee(s) they are using.  I wanted a dedicated space where I could take notes.  Previously I had used the espresso section, but it quickly becomes crowded, especially if you want to write detailed feedback on the taste of the drink.

Secondly – the boxes switched sides.  I wanted more space and a stronger emphasis on notes.  Leaving a wide open space to the right makes it even more explicit that judges should be filling this up completely with lots of useful notes.  Returning a scoresheet without detailed notes should be grounds for disqualifying a judge.  Only one barista gets a prize, the others get the scoresheets and feedback from the event – so it had better be damned good!

Thirdly – circles.  This is something a lot of judges do already – draw a little circle to better communicate what was wrong with the visuals of the espresso/cappuccino.  Interestingly the UK judges have come up with a slightly more complex system for noting down the visuals of drinks to better communicate scores – especially to other judges debriefing a competitors on sheets they didn’t write.  I like the idea – though I feel like it would make a nice ancillary piece of info, rather than replacing words, and helpful advice.   An area to watch nonetheless.

Fourth – a little rewording.  In an effort to squeeze more notation space onto the sheets I trimmed a few words.  In other cases I added words that the rules say to look for but hadn’t been included on the sheets.  Thoughts and comments on this very welcome.

Ultimately I wanted more space to write notes, because I think that will improve the use of the sheets returned to the competitors.  Would love to hear some feedback – from baristas, judges or anyone else?

I wish I could have wandered around Vienna for longer, in the end I only had a chance to pop into one coffee house – Hawelka – and those places are just no fun unless you have an afternoon to kill with a newspaper and an unusual desire for large quantities of whipped cream with your coffee.  They are possibly less fun if you are looking for an excellent shot of straight espresso, but I didn’t sample enough to know where local expectation lay, and how my own preferenes would fit into that.

The day after the awards was the symposium.  I don’t mind confessing that I felt a bit like the odd one out again – the speakers and fellow attendees came from Europe’s larger coffee companies and manufacturers.  However I am always interested in how that section of the industry views things, what is important, what their challenges are and what I can learn from them.

First up in the day was Jim Slater – the marketing director for Costa Coffee.  For those of you reading in the UK you’ll no doubt have noticed that Costa have pushed their marketing very hard this year.  Whether it is the “7 out of 10 Coffee Lovers prefer Costa” campaign, through to news stories about insuring their head cupper’s tongue for £1m, to more recent ads talking about their coffee being “Handmade by Baristas and Not Button Pushers”.

One thing that Jim said that really stuck was talking about the need to agitate the market.  I think that really is a perfect word for what is necessary.  Agitation is as much about movement, preventing stagnation, as it is about irritation.  You can’t really argue that those adverts agitate the industry.

Compared to the rest of the industry the Speciality Coffee sector has comparatively little budget/muscle when it comes to advertising and marketing.  However we should ask if what we are doing is agitating the industry and the public sufficiently.  I am not saying that we need to turn around and start throwing muck, start name calling and trying to pick on the rest of the industry.  Are we being too nice, too hopeful that people want to listen to our very specific message, rather than talking up traceability in a way that makes people question why the exact origin of the coffee they drink has been obscured. ².

To and from Vienna I consumed Made to Stick, which is a fun read on why some ideas stick and some don’t.  Simplicity of message is a key part of it, and it has made me think more about trying to condense down to a minimum number of words, with a maximum impact, what my business/speciality coffee does to distinguish itself.  This, combined with a goal of agitating the industry, is great for giving me direction and a goal.

That aside – I only managed to stay until just after lunch before having to hop on a flight back.  It was interesting to hear Paul Ettinger from Caffe Nero talk about their challenges and goals, and also to see their figures (they are a private company so rarely give much detail).  He, quite worryingly, mentioned an interest in facial recognition software to help baristas remember customers and their drinks.  I couldn’t quite tell if he was being serious.

Darcy Willson-Rhymer talked about Starbucks’  areas of focus.  They believe the shift in customer’s value expectations will last long after we’ve recovered from the recession.  He mentioned some new UK concepts would be unveiled soon, though I don’t think they will be anywhere near as radical as the 15th Avenue experiment.

I wish I had stayed for the Fair Trade debate – apparently it got quite juicy, and rumour has it that Fair Trade didn’t come out of it as well as they would have liked.  Anyone with more info please let me know!

1. Outstanding Contribution to the European Coffee Industry 2009
2. On a side note I’ve been thinking about how traceability could really be the best indicator of quality available, simply because the extra cost and work of keeping a lot separate is only likely to be done if that coffee is going to be able to fetch the higher price it needs to based on its cup quality – a discussion for another day perhaps

However, it is probably a bit of a rant.

There was much discussion on Twitter the other day (I know, that sentence still seems awkward and embarrassing to me too) about naturally processed coffees.  The discussion had started about how everyone seemed to be ignoring washed coffees from Yirgacheffe, having become distracted by the naturals – often the microlots from Beloya and Aricha. ¹

The problem wasn’t so much that people weren’t excited by washed Yirgacheffe coffees – more that these new darlings of the coffee industry contained flavours that many would consider defective.  Reading this I began to worry in an odd sort of way about our approach to coffee, as well as our approach to the consumer. ²

Firstly – I get why people really don’t like some naturally processed coffees.  There are undeniably strong fruit flavours within them but often the wild, barnyard, almost manure quality will deter some seasoned coffee tasters and amateurs alike.  Where I think we run into difficulty is when we start thinking how a coffee from Yirgacheffe ought to taste.  Granted – we want any coffee to taste clean (I hope – more on this in a second), but our expectations can start to work against us quite quickly.  When it comes to being a professional taster (outside of the realm of coffee) you can start to lose value when you stop tasting as objectively as possible and start to develop “oughts” – i.e. how things ought to taste.

However, I think if we focus on the negatives of the natural process then we close of some potential.  A lot of people love the quantity of fruit flavours you get in the cup, and they are extremely accessible to anyone tasting coffee.  That potential interests and excites me.

A quick aside on the natural process, and all processing in general.  Their roots are not in flavour development.  The natural processed is favoured in areas where access to large quantities of clean water is limited, and it is therefore most effective way of processing the coffee.  It is also the cheapest so lower quality/unripes will often be processed that way.  The wet process became the preferred process for speciality coffees not because of the increased acidity, or cleaner body, but because it resulted in a much lower rate of defective beans.  If your coffee is going to be worth more because you did a better job of cultivating it then you want to minimise damage post harvest.

Only relatively recently have people begun to explore the potentials of each processing method, and these Ethiopian microlots and other microlots of natural processed coffees are really just baby steps.  Processing great coffee this way is risky, and few producers are capable of taking the financial hit should something go wrong.  However, I’ve been lucky enough to taste a couple of naturals this year that really feel like a progression.  I look forward to cupping them more now they’ve landed, but one in particular made me very excited.  If we can experiment and improve this processes, and end up with something that is super clean but tastes nothing like “coffee” then isn’t this worth exploring?  Maybe it will amount to nothing, maybe it will turn out to be the emperors new clothes, but surely as an industry we have to pay attention to coffees that excite and interest so many people even if we don’t like them ourselves.

I don’t particularly like most coffees from Indonesia.  I find the earthier tones they have off putting.  However, lots of people really like them.  It does take a certain kind of arrogance for me to presume that what I like is somehow better/more correct/superiour than what someone else likes. ³  My subjective experience is more correct and important than someone else’s?  It frustrates me that, as a cupper, I just switch off when I hit a table of Indonesian coffees – because I don’t like any of them I am poor at distinguishing which might be appealing to people who like them.  I don’t do very well at finding the better one and I think that is a failure on my part. ⁴

I will, however, keep cupping tables of coffees from Indonesia because there is great potential there.  Whichever way you look at it there is potential – amazing soil, some interesting varieties and, if nothing else, huge potential gains to be made with better processing controls.  If we, as an industry, were to walk away from coffees like that now then we wouldn’t give them a real chance.  This would be a terrible shame.

1. I am aware that it really start with the discussion of the rather disturbing word “Beloyagasm” but that is kind of beside the point
2. It should be added that if twitter could work out a way to nicely present a conversation amongst multiple users then I would be very happy!
3. I do concede that it takes a certain type of arrogance to run a blog too, full of videos of myself, but that isn’t the point!
4. Another reason I am very grateful to work with Anette, who has a great objective palate.

I’d love to know which are your favourites for drinking from (rather than collectable favourites) and why.

Related links:

Gwilym’s WBC Performance

The internet is full of information, though it is also full of keyboard heroes, and has something of an issue with its signal to noise ratio.  Identifying who is a useful purveyor of information is tricky and, while there is growing use of indicators in forums, often it is he who shouts loudest that wins.

I started blogging to chart my own learning, and to share what I found out with others.  Sometimes this information was very useful, and sometimes it really wasn’t.  With the videocasts the idea was to share techniques that people could use at home that would be repeatable and help them make better coffee.  It was argued (quite correctly) that my Chemex technique was flawed – that the top of the cone was likely underextracted compared to the coffee at the bottom of the cone.

I was wrong, and this was a good thing – it was useful because I learned and hopefully others reading too. ¹

It could be said (and it was) that I shouldn’t abuse my position and ‘release’ techniques that hadn’t been completely tested, because I could (in theory) quickly spread misinformation. ² While I saw the point I couldn’t help but feel that if I had to reach some sort of perfection then I would never ever get there on any technique.  I don’t think we’ll ever reach close to perfection.  If I am brewing coffee in ten, or even five, years time the same way I am today I have failed as a professional or we have failed as industry.

Good scientific method is about throwing an idea out there to find out what is wrong.  The internet is a great way to communicate ideas, to spread them.  Being wrong is a very important step in learning and needs to happen regularly.  I am sure each and every one of us is appalled by something we used to do differently even a couple of years ago.

If you say you have the perfect technique – I don’t believe you.  If you say you have the perfect espresso blend – you’re going to look stupid very soon.

Distrust those with all the answers.

Test other people’s ideas and techniques.

If you disagree then throw your opinion into the mix.  If you agree then do so too.

Don’t take what I say, or what any other (coffee) blogger says at face value because I/we/they are going to be wrong. Often. And that is ok.  You only look a fool when you are wrong but refuse to accept it.

1. Because it was aimed at home brewing I had been trying to come up with a technique that could be done without special equipment – I am sure there are more chemex’s in homes than pouring kettles.  I hadn’t meant to direct the method at the industry.  I really don’t want this to sound like an excuse, though it probably does already.
2. I should be clear in pointing out that selling information does change all this a little

One of the questions he asked was about the influence of Italian populations on coffee cultures.  In Australia a good chunk of credit for the early rise of coffee culture there stems from the high standards of the Italian communities that quickly spread to a relatively small population and increased expectation.

He asked why this hadn’t happen in London/the UK.  Was it just that we have a larger population so it took time for a higher standard to spread?  My thoughts on this, and I’d welcome yours, is that in London certainly there doesn’t seem to be a dense pocket of Italian culture and whilst there are many Italian bars, cafes, restaurants and delis spread throughout the city, the are relatively dilute.  Coffee served in these places isn’t much better than any other coffee served in London and, while I’ve never been hopelessly in love with the actual coffee served in Italy, it is certainly worse than what one would typically find in an Italian city.

For me this dilution is key – without being surrounded by higher expectations many businesses just met the expectations of the locals (pretty low in this case).  Essentially we dragged them down to our level.  Perhaps places like Bar Italia lasted longer than others but certainly their coffee is nothing to shout about any more.

This got me think about London, and the changes in our coffee cultlure that I would love to see.  Is there a tipping point in all of this?  Could we work on one small area (let’s take East London for example) and build up a pocket of great coffee.  Once this pocket got dense enough would it then be able to spread and have impact on a larger scale?  If we want coffee in London to improve do we hope that all the outposts scattered across the city have an overall effect or is concentrating on one small pocket a better way to go?

No one in the coffee industry really likes decaf.  We excuse its taste, we get annoyed at how fast it stales, we treat it as a second rate coffee experience.  I was in that camp too for a while.  Coffee no good?  Well, it is decaf…..

Stumptown ruined that for me.  During our West Coast trip in 2007 we were hanging out with the former roaster Joel, chatting about the UG15 he was roasting on (we were just buying ours at the time), and having a great time.  Joel disappeared to the bar and came back with a shot for Anette and one for me.  It was very tasty, sweet, full bodied and clean.  It definitely wasn’t Hairbender.  I was nearly floored when he told me it was their decaf.  That caused a problem: I no longer had an excuse.

Anette does a great job roasting decaf, and I think that experience is one of the many reasons high.  As our memories improve and elevate that particular espresso it means our own bar will constantly be lifting.

I think we make a grave mistake alienating decaf drinks with tonnes of pre-ground, nasty coffee brewed without much care.  These are people who are buying coffee because they like the taste.  We are supposed to love these people – they aren’t the ones suffering through awful espressos or instant coffee just to get their caffeine fix.  And yet they are the people least catered to in the industry.  A shame.