There are both: there are some cafes that use Mojo beans (such as Espresso Republic), and thus have some Mojo branding; and there are the Mojo cafes themselves, such as the new ones in Bond St and at Kumutoto.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "plague". Each one is independently owned, and each one has quite distinctive décor that responds to the surroundings. Some are not much more than holes-in-the-wall with counter food, while others are licensed and some have full kitchens. If it weren't for the Mojo name, would you even be able to tell that they were related?

I can understand that people get worried by the expansion of chains like Starbucks and Gloria Jeans, and I loathe them too. They're naff and interchangeable, aimed at a mall crowd, make bad coffee, and are known for often questionable business tactics and industrial relations. I don't see Mojo as a "plague" in that sense at all, and as long as they keep varying their design and don't push out established "old school" Welly cafes such as Lido and Midnight, I look forward to them.

So even the Mojo cafes are independently owned? Mojo has always confused me.

I guess I just have a (potentially irrational) problem with ever expanding chains of things.

Sort of. As I understand it (and there's an article in the current Cafe Culture that explains it, but I don't have it with me), Mojo sets up each new cafe in partnership with individual owners, who are often long-term staff members. So there's an element of chain or franchise about it, but an element of independence as well.

I also have an aversion to chains, partly for political reasons, partly because of the homogenisation of the city, and partly because large chains usually aim at the less discriminating and adventurous end of the mass market, so everything ends up plastic, predictable and impersonal. I just don't get that feeling from Mojo.

The owner is called Tony Gibbs...possibly he source of confusion.