I'm standing in line at the counter of a Dunkin' Donuts shop at the corner of Murray and Church in Manhattan's gritty-but-chic Tribeca. It's 5 p.m, the downtown hipster's low blood sugar hour. I have a stop watch in my hand. Stepping to the counter behind a dude in pocket chains and dagger-toed boots, I announce my order: "One small skim vanilla latte, please" to the young clerk, and start the clock. The espresso machine hisses, the milk starts foaming, the counter boy hands over the goods. 2 minutes, 4 seconds, $2.16.
I travel a few blocks down the street to Starbucks at the corner of West Broadway and Chambers. I repeat the order to the register-manning barrista, making sure I specify "tall," which means "small" in the convoluted vernacular of the chain, hit the clock, and wait. The result: 2 minutes, 55 seconds, $3.69.
Digging deep into my lizard brain for traces of what I learned about the scientific method back in Chem 101, I repeat this exercise twice, each time matching location for location, order for order, time of day for time of day. You can check my T&E for proof.
The result: Dunkin' Donuts is the clear champ, taking less time to brew and froth, and doing it for about 40% less than Starbucks (an amount that overstates the difference between them a bit, given Starbucks's larger cup). So, what's the point?
Yes I agree Star Buck’s is more cash but they use less sugar in their product and that I like sorry D.D