- Specialty coffee prides itself on its “superior” quality
- Yet, quality alone doesn’t always outshine local preferences
- Blue Bottle faced challenges in Miami’s Latino market, where darker roasts were favoured over third-wave offerings
FOR years, quality has been the hallmark of the specialty coffee industry, shaping standards for sourcing, roasting, and brewing in pursuit of what is considered objective excellence.
Through cupping protocols and grading systems, the industry has created a framework to classify universal standards of “good” or “bad” quality.
However, the industry may have overlooked essential factors – coffee preferences are deeply tied to cultural contexts, and what one group considers high-quality may be seen differently by another.
As specialty coffee continues to expand globally, finding the right balance between guiding and listening to consumers has become a crucial question. Should the pursuit of quality always take precedence, or should we pay more attention to cultural preferences?
The third wave of coffee was born out of a desire to differentiate itself from the commodity-grade beans that dominated global markets. Through its marketing and quality standards, specialty coffee sought to establish itself as a better kind of coffee.
By focusing on traceability, sustainability, and a clear articulation of flavours through cupping scores, the industry aimed to define what “good” coffee should taste like. However, as specialty coffee has expanded into new markets, it hasn’t always been welcomed with open arms.
Marty Pollack, Founder of Torch Coffee, argues that objective standards play a vital role in helping the industry communicate across the supply chain, and that having an agreed-upon standard doesn’t mean imposing certain tastes on consumers.
“If I want a floral, tropical fruit-forward coffee from Guatemala scoring between 86 and 88, I can simply call my team there and ask for a selection that fits the bill. It’s far easier than saying, ‘find me something good,’ because ‘good’ is subjective,” he explains.
“Customers are free to enjoy whatever suits their taste, whether it’s instant coffee with sweet cream or a light-roasted Geisha – and everything in between.”
Yet, some argue that these industry-driven definitions of quality have started to feel prescriptive, particularly when exported to regions with different cultural preferences. In these markets, the rigid focus on standardisation can overlook local tastes, imposing an idea of “good” coffee that may not resonate with consumers who have their own established preferences and traditions.
Dr Sabine Parrish, Research Fellow at the University of Aberdeen, observes that while quality standards across the coffee industry may facilitate trade, they are not always aligned with localised consumer tastes and preferences.
“ ‘Good’ coffee, as defined by importing nations in the Western Hemisphere – where much of the industry’s prevailing discourse on coffee quality originates – isn’t always accessible to consumers in other parts of the world,” she notes.
“Why should we accept this singular approach to ‘quality’ coffee as the only or superior way?”
This tension between defining quality and shaping consumer preference has sparked debate, especially as specialty coffee tries to penetrate culturally diverse markets. As the industry expands globally, the question arises: can quality truly be objective, or does it shift depending on cultural perspectives and local tastes?
Is quality objective, or does it exist through a cultural lens?
The Specialty Coffee Association’s Coffee Value Assessment (CVA) has acknowledged that preferences vary widely between cultures. In the Middle East, for example, rioy coffees are appreciated, while many in the West consider them defective.
Similarly, fermented coffees have found favour in China, where they align more closely with local culinary traditions.
“There’s a deep, complex connection between Brazil’s cultural history and its coffee preferences,” says Sabine. “The focus on exporting high-quality coffee has influenced both consumption habits and perceptions of quality within the domestic market.”
“Brazilians have often defined ‘good’ coffee to me as one that doesn’t require sugar or milk. Historically, only lower-quality, ‘leftover’ beans were available for local consumption, which has shaped the national preference for darker roasts.”
The global coffee trade is inherently dynamic, and regional preferences challenge established norms of quality. The rise of ‘experimental’ coffees and more complex fermentation techniques have further sparked debate about what ‘good’ coffee is, and which qualities are seen as favourable.
The challenge, then, is how the coffee industry can balance maintaining objective standards while acknowledging and accounting for such diverse preferences.
“The biggest shift I’ve seen in the industry regarding quality has been with high-fermentation naturals,” says Marty. “What was once considered over-fermented is now fetching premium prices in many markets.”
“This evolution highlights the flexibility of the system, where so-called ‘objective’ standards and consumer preferences continuously shape and influence each other.”
Quality metrics like cupping scores are essential for maintaining consistency and enabling global trade, especially for farmers who rely on these benchmarks to command higher prices. However, these standards often feel detached from the preferences of consumers in different regions, where the definition of “good” coffee can vary significantly.
The industry must strike a balance between upholding quality standards and embracing the diverse preferences of coffee cultures worldwide.
“Neither the industry nor its consumers should be treated as monolithic groups, and framing ‘consumers’ in opposition to the ‘industry’ exposes deeper issues in how quality is perceived,” says Sabine. “Consumers in different regions experience specialty coffee in vastly different ways, and it’s reductive to lump them all into a single category of ‘specialty coffee consumer.’”
“This fails to acknowledge the significant differences shaped by each nation’s political and economic history within the coffee trade. It also reinforces the idea that the practices of importing nations in the Western Hemisphere are the default for specialty coffee, casting other countries and their approaches as deviations from this norm.”
No matter how “good”, if you don’t listen, you won’t sell
Regardless of how well a coffee scores on the cupping table, this doesn’t guarantee success in every market.
Specialty coffee still caters to a relatively small – albeit, growing – segment of the global coffee-drinking population, and most consumers still prefer coffees that might be seen as “lower quality” by industry standards.
“Give people what they want,” Marty says, stressing the importance of understanding and respecting consumer needs. “Most cafes, mine included, sell many different kinds of drinks to meet the needs and wants of a diverse customer base.”
A failure to understand local preferences can lead to commercial flops. The third wave coffee movement in Miami serves as a cautionary example, where large brands like Blue Bottle struggled to gain traction in a predominantly Latino market, where darker roasts are preferred and influence the local market.
Brands that have aligned with specific cultural or demographic groups have shown more success. For example, Mayorga Coffee, which focuses on the Latino community, and Nguyen Coffee, which appeals to Asian Americans, have found a loyal customer base by tailoring their offerings to meet cultural expectations.
As specialty coffee continues to expand, it’s clear that quality cannot be understood in isolation from culture. While industry standards are essential for maintaining consistency and facilitating trade, they can’t fully account for the diverse preferences that exist across different consumer demographics.
“Our industry is dynamic and alive,” Marty says. “There should be a constant questioning and retooling of the standards and tools we use.”
The future of specialty coffee may lie in the industry’s ability – or lack thereof – to listen to and respect the varied tastes of global consumers.
In an increasingly global market, caring about culture and preferences around the world may become just as important as caring about the pursuit of quality overall.
Coffee Intelligence
Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter here.
