My Second Office
Last night I ran into some of my friends from CSULA while heading to “my 2nd office” - Starbucks. The irony of calling Starbucks my 2nd office is lost, however, if you don’t know two things - I don’t drink much coffee, nor do I generally feel obliged to purchase anything during my Starbucks work tours. I tried to explain this to my students last night.”But aren’t the tables and chairs for customers only,” they probed. “Yes, absolutely,” I responded, “and there are paying customers and non-paying customers.” About half the time, I’m a non-paying customer.
They weren’t buying into my arguement, however, so I told them to look up customer in the dictionary when they got home, certain that the definition would justify my practice. To my great surprise, however, I was wrong about the definition: “cus-tom-er — a person who buys, esp. one who buys from or patronizes, an establishment regularly.” I buy occasionally and am at the establishment regularly, but I don’t buy regularly.
Feeling a prickling of conviction, I attempted some research to see if Starbucks discourages my efforts in any formal policy. I couldn’t find anything discouraging my behavior (nor have I ever been approached by a Starbucks employee, mind you, questioning my free usage of their facilities). I did find this paragraph, however, on the website, that encourages my 2nd office usage:
“Starbucks has long been dedicated to creating a unique “third place” between home and work. We also draw on the centuries-old tradition of the coffeehouse as a place to gather, share ideas, and enjoy delicious beverages. We see this program as an extension of the coffeehouse culture – a way to promote open, respectful conversation among a wide variety of individuals.“
Did you read (nudge, nudge to Maite, Marina & Naomi) how they are dedicated to providing me a “unique third place between home and work,” and that this type of usage is not only acceptable, but “an extension of coffehouse culture.”In all of my cross-cultural training, I believe this falls under the principle - “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”
UPDATE: Apparently, this post is creating its own cult following. Check it out at barrioprophets.com
August 12th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
If you were in my Starbucks, I’d make you buy something. Starbucks, for a big corporation, is pretty benign and they let stuff like this slide most of the time. They aren’t there to provide a public service. They are there to gouge you into paying $4 for coffee.
-mark.
August 12th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Yes! I think I win, Webster agrees, and given your “prickling” of conviction, probly so does jesus (just kidding, its not that serious). But as to the 3rd space bit, I’m still unconvinced, b/c if space #1 is home (free) and space #2 is work (they pay you) than it only follows that #3, you pay. No crees? But aside from the right or wrong of it, I just know that if I had just bought a grande vanilla latte, and was all excited to sit and chill, but all tables were taken, and one was by a non-paying very tall man, I’d have issues, and not b/c I am short =).
August 12th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
You do this at EVERY coffee shop we got to. Have you checked into their policies also?
August 12th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
First of all, to my detractors (esp.Mark) - Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Secondly, to Maite: if home (space #1) is free, and work (space #2) involves money, then wouldn’t it follow suit that the “third space between home & work” that Starbucks feels obliged to provide me, would be free 1/2 the time and involve money 1/2 the time? That is generally my pattern.
Third, to Abner: Don’t make me go MMP on you. Clearly you are working out something of your own issues from the physical effects of drinking too much coffee as a youth. I’m not your Goliath. Stop throwing rocks.
Lots of love to all of you. XOXOXO
August 12th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
Abner said to the Philistine, “You come against me with excuses as to why you shouldn’t pay at your second office and the rest of us should, but I come against you in the name of Starbucks, Coffee Bean, Pete’s, Seattle’s Best, Michaelangelo’s, the providers of great coffee, whom you have cheated out of $4 every time you claim to be a “non-paying customer”.
August 15th, 2005 at 11:55 am
This is the best thread ever.
-mark.
August 15th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
For those of you keeping score at home, I stopped by “the office” this morning after dropping a friend off at the airport — and I did purchase a mocha & a coffee crum cake.
Let me explain my purchase, though. I made a purchase based on my personal desire for the product, not because of any sense of obligation to Starbucks (nor any other coffee shop), nor because of any policy requiring my purchase.
If Starbucks, or any other coffee place, required ALL guests to be customers - a reasonable right of any establishment - then I believe it would be clearly posted in their stores.
However, the absence of ANY such posted policy indicates that Starbucks - and other coffee establishments - assumes non-paying guests into the cost of business, just as any company provides free/promotional products to attract customers.
That I am not always attracted neither bothers nor surprises Starbucks (nor any enterprise that offers free/promotioanl products) and shouldn’t bother or surprise anyone else - with a Napolean complex or otherwise.
August 15th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
I would have to say that your argument is very appealing. I have always been very opposed to just chilling in a coffee shop, and thus bought many regular decaff coffee cups… the cheapest to apease my conscience.. but mabe you are right… maybe it is o.k. to buy a yummy coffee every once in a while… since the coffee shop has included my office time in their costs…
August 17th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Again, just for the record, I spoke with a Starbucks employee that confirmed for me there is no problem with non-paying guests taking advantage of Starbucks free services (read-tables).
I consider it just another promotional product, like a free sample of coconut mint frappacino, that Starbucks counts into the cost of doing business in their industry.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
OK ok. I think I am convinced (but only after the green light from a real deal starbucks employee that it is fine to go and not spend).
Come to think of it, I may have done that before myself…
August 17th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
“Come to think of it, I may have done that before myself…”
Hmmm. Interesting how that ‘little‘ fact just now showed up. If I remember, it was you who so humbly shared:
“Yes! I think I win… and given your “prickling” of conviction, so does jesus…”
Where was that prickling before… (Mt.7:3,5)
August 17th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
To add, my employee reference even gave me some coupons for a FREE beverage at my next visit. If that doesn’t say open door policy, I don’t know what does.
October 6th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Eric Wu forwarded me your blog so you can blame him for my comments. :). This is a fascinating discussion because we all spend way too much money at Starbucks…Here’s my $1.15 worth of thoughts (the cheapest thing you can get there). Though Starbucks is committed to being a “third place”, they are way more committed to their bottom line. No restaurant would post a sign that “requires” you to buy food at their establishment because that much is assumed. If you would like a truly free workspace, may I recommend the public library? They provide tables, chairs, bathrooms, drinking fountains, and sometimes even free wireless internet access, depending on the location. And all of this out of your tax dollars you are already paying.
October 6th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Anonymous,
Thanks for weighing in. Always appreciated.
My practice, however, remains unaddressed. If Starbucks assumes my unpaid patronage in their cost of business - unlike a restaurant that will ask me to make a purchase or give up a table - then why should I go to the public library?
The one in my neighborhood is not maintained well by my tax dollars and the downtown library - which is as you described - is not easily accessible for parking.
The reality is that Starbucks has no “bottom line” problem with my unpaid patronage because it doesn’t actually change their bottom line. People purchase their coffee regardless of open tables, no employee’s wages are impacted by the number of tables that are occupied, and the reality of promotional products that require no purchase reinforces that their tables & space are part of their operating costs that they build into their bottom line.
Certainly, if no one made purchases, they would change this policy. But the reality is that this practice does not diminish their bottom line. If it did, they would quickly change the practice.
That they haven’t probably means that not only is their bottom line not negatively impacted, but they’ve probably determined that it is positively impacted by my occasional purchase. If I was at the library, I would NEVER make a purchase at Starbucks.
Therefore, my occasional purchase increases their bottom line - sales - even at the cost of regular non-purchasing patronage.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Hmmm. I sense some latent guilt bro
October 25th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
More like latent denial of so many to see the logic (& Starbucks approval) of my practice. :p