What is the basis for the conviction that specialty coffee is so much better in many respects? To explain specialty coffee, we often use average coffee as a reference and highlight the differences. However, to precisely articulate these differences, one must first understand average coffee.
My first specialty espresso contained 10% Robusta. Today, this would probably no longer universally qualify as specialty. Not only have definitions become stricter, but sometimes I get the feeling that in the specialty world there is a drastic rejection of anything that is not "different," "artisan," "specialty," "direct trade," or "micro." Unfortunately, these are not necessarily quality features or explanatory approaches. They are often just buzzwords that apparently don't need to be explained, because it's so easy to hide behind them.
Yet, these very terms offer a good starting point for explaining the differences from average coffee. But to do that, one must know average coffee, so as not to dismiss the plus or minus 90% of the market.
Highlighting differences by disparaging coffee varieties, certain countries of origin, companies, etc., is unlikely to be worthwhile in the long run. Rather, one should understand the consumer and their quality standards.
Criteria such as harmonious, mild, delicate, strong, intense, elegant, refined, and a beautiful foam are sought in vain on the standardized SCA evaluation sheets. Their explanatory power is limited. But they mean a lot in the language of the uninitiated, so we should embrace and expand on them. This may also mean that we should try pretty much every type of coffee at some point.
Reality Check 1: The great espresso at the Italian highway rest stop
We know that many people like coffee in Italy. There are reasons for this. But have each of us also drunk such espressos and objectively analyzed their sensory attributes, as one would do with a score sheet à la SCAA? Most coffees have some attribute that performs better than the others. We need to understand what these are and why they convince the average coffee drinker. My idea? Syrupy consistency and "intensity."
Reality Check 2: Robusta
Ever done a Robusta cupping? If not, why not? It would be high time, because the still widespread 70/30 Arabica-Robusta ratio myth must give way to reality. Demand, climate change, and politics mean that today we have an almost 55/45 ratio. Projections assume that in ten years at the latest, we will have more Robusta than Arabica on the market. The economic and natural conditions of many coffee farmers today limit a rapid increase in more specialty coffee.
Moreover, Robusta farmers are also coffee farmers. If the story is that higher prices for good quality help coffee farmers, then one should think the story through to the end and include the Robusta farmers in the narrative. In a few years, they will form the majority of coffee producers. One should probably face reality and deal more with Robusta again. After all, many consumers like it. Very many, in fact.
Reality Check 3: Dark Roasts and Defects
Roasting philosophies are a delicate topic. Just this much: lighter doesn't necessarily mean better, underdeveloped doesn't taste particularly good, and there's more to coffee than just acidity. Those who offer such coffees will probably have more difficulty reaching average coffee drinkers. These have become accustomed to roast aromas, and these don't always have to be bad. Especially when they are used to cover up defects. And these are also a reality. Commercial Turkish coffee has many defects and is very dark roasted. However, this gives it a highly recognizable flavor profile. Many coffee drinkers have also become accustomed to this. To understand them, one must also understand Turkish coffee.
Reality checks help us not to go overboard and to approach certain things a bit more loosely. If we listen to consumers and convey our acquired knowledge in their language, we will probably reach more of them.
