By Julie Jargon
Starbucks Corp. tried to dig itself out of controversy Monday by
attempting to clarify a policy toward nonpaying guests that
generated an onslaught of weekend criticism.
The Seattle-based retailer on Saturday had said it would allow
all guests in its U.S. company-owned stores to use its cafes,
including its restrooms, whether or not they make a purchase. That
announcement, which attracted some support, also drew complaints
that cafes wouldn't have enough seats for paying customers and
would turn into homeless shelters and drug havens.
On Monday, Starbucks revealed more about the policy, telling The
Wall Street Journal that employees now have detailed instructions
on what to do if someone is behaving in a disruptive manner, such
as smoking, using drugs or alcohol, using restrooms improperly or
sleeping.
At issue, in essence, is whether Starbucks views itself as a
business that caters to customers, or a quasi-public place
generally welcome to all. While many other restaurants and
retailers also must manage the issue of lingering customers and
nonpaying guests who come in to use restrooms, Starbucks has
promoted itself as providing a "third place" between home and work
where people can freely exchange ideas. It essentially pioneered
the idea that is now generating controversy.
Other restaurants and cafes have followed suit in recent years.
McDonald's Corp. and Panera Bread now offer free Wi-Fi and
encourage customers to linger. Neither of those companies responded
to requests for comment.
"The whole Starbucks situation has opened up a can of worms. In
most cases restaurants leave it up to the discretion of the
individual restaurant and most are too busy to enforce a policy,"
said Joe Pawlak, managing principal at restaurant consulting firm
Technomic Inc.
Starbucks's piecemeal messaging on the issue and the outpouring
of commentary that ensued shows the challenges firms can face in an
era when every corporate move can be immediately telegraphed and
then dissected by the public at large.
"Often the people with the strongest views on either end of the
spectrum will be the loudest online," said Jeremy Robinson-Leon,
president of Group Gordon, a corporate and crisis communications
firm.
Views over the last few days ran the gamut. "It sounds like
Starbucks is turning their stores into homeless shelters. Their
coffee is strong but their management is weak," said Ron Raduechel,
a 64-year-old retired supply chain executive from Waukesha, Wis.,
who said he would no longer go to Starbucks.
"I believe Starbucks is doing what's right in their hearts
whether its outcome sparks negativity or not," said Johnny Varela,
a 31-year-old carpenter in Orlando, Fla. "I think Starbucks is very
humanitarian."
The uproar follows the arrest last month of two black men who
wanted to use a Starbucks bathroom in Philadelphia. Responding to
sensitive issues, especially ones involving race, are particularly
fraught for companies.
"CEOs today have to be political savants," said Eric Schiffer,
chairman of Reputation Management Consultants.
The dust-up is far from Starbucks's first. It has driven
attention to itself before by using its size to try to enact social
change. The company in 2015 tried to foster conversations about
race relations by urging baristas to write "Race Together" on
customers' cups, a move from which it backed away following
social-media backlash.
Before the Affordable Care Act was proposed, Starbucks Chairman
Howard Schultz decried the lack of affordable health-care for
millions of Americans. He caused an uproar among gun-rights
proponents when he told U.S. customers that firearms were no longer
welcomed in its stores.
Conveying a message of inclusiveness without alienating paying
customers is critical for Starbucks at a time when its cafe
business is more important than ever.
The company this month agreed to sell the rights to market and
distribute its packaged coffee in grocery stores to Nestlé SA so it
could focus on its coffee shops. Sales at its U.S. cafes have been
slowing.
"Starbucks is making a strategic bet that by defining its own
moral code they will continue to attract a core consumer group that
will remain loyal, but you max out on that demographic at some
point," said Mr. Schiffer, the consultant.
Starbucks, he said, had no choice but to take action rather than
just apologizing and then letting the news die down. "The whole
goal of managing a crisis is regaining credibility and that comes
from aligning words with actions," he said.
Under the procedures for handling disruptive guests, Starbucks
said Monday, managers and baristas should first ask a fellow
employee to verify that a certain behavior is disruptive and if it
is, respectfully request that the customer stop.
Other examples of disruptive behavior include talking too
loudly, playing loud music and viewing inappropriate content. The
company provided employees with examples of when they should call
911, which includes when a customer is using or selling drugs.
The arrests last month in Philadelphia came after a manager's
decision to call the police after the two men asked to use the
bathroom without purchasing anything and allegedly refused to leave
when asked.
Starbucks quickly apologized for the actions of the store
manager, who ultimately left the company. When a video of the men's
arrests went viral, people immediately took to social media calling
for a boycott of Starbucks.
A couple of days after the news spread, the boycott threats died
down.
The company announced a few days later that it would close its
more-than 8,000 U.S. company-owned stores on May 29 to conduct
antibias training for employees. Later, Starbucks said it settled
with the two men for an undisclosed amount.
Write to Julie Jargon at julie.jargon@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
May 21, 2018 17:54 ET (21:54 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2018 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2024 to Apr 2024
Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2023 to Apr 2024