Skip to main content

891 replies

What coffee are you drinking?

W wine+artMember
quote:
Originally posted by Napacat:
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
<crickets>

PH


Close stores at a cost of $17-20M to train for unconscious bias? You’re going to change an Individuals perception ( right or wrong) in an afternoon? What is unconscious bias?



Have you ever taken the IAT ( implicit association test) test?

Seems to me you would have taken a moment to read and understand what unconscious bias is before your post and exposing your sheer ignorance. You also seem to think you are clairvoyant and have knowledge there will be no follow up in their training. Did it ever occur to you this might be just step ONE?

Corporations often have an all day kickoff for any type of corporate training then continue the training / education in more casual seminars.

A corporation with 20k plus stores and decades of overall positive reputation taking steps to better education their employees is what? A negative action?
N napacatMember
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
And why do you think 911 was called in this case? Do you think if the two gentlemen in question were white guys in business suits the same thing would have happened?

I wonder what the cost of a national boycott on Starbucks stores would have cost? Getting out in front on this is a good business decision, regardless of what you think of any of the rest of it.

PH


National Boycott? For what? To not open up their store for people to use as a meeting facility wihtout buying anything?

And the manager who called 911 is racist? Maybe two white guys would have been asked to leave, if they went to use the bathroom without purchasing anything then went to sit back down and wait for an appointment.

How do you know how these two reacted with the manager? Maybe they should have said...we are waiting to meet someone, in the meantime, I would like a cup of coffee or whatever...I then think they would have been allowed to stay regardless of color.

Not good enough...we need protests and a day of unconscious bias training (or follow up for you W & A).

I am familiar with the IAT test and it does not always show a racial bias.
patespo1patespo1Member
quote:
Originally posted by Napacat:
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
And why do you think 911 was called in this case? Do you think if the two gentlemen in question were white guys in business suits the same thing would have happened?

I wonder what the cost of a national boycott on Starbucks stores would have cost? Getting out in front on this is a good business decision, regardless of what you think of any of the rest of it.

PH


National Boycott? For what? To not open up their store for people to use as a meeting facility wihtout buying anything?

And the manager who called 911 is racist? Maybe two white guys would have been asked to leave, if they went to use the bathroom without purchasing anything then went to sit back down and wait for an appointment.

How do you know how these two reacted with the manager? Maybe they should have said...we are waiting to meet someone, in the meantime, I would like a cup of coffee or whatever...I then think they would have been allowed to stay regardless of color.

Not good enough...we need protests and a day of unconscious bias training (or follow up for you W & A).

I am familiar with the IAT test and it does not always show a racial bias.


Have you ever been inside a Starbucks (real question)? Every single one I have been in there are people sitting around, talking and carrying on meetings, some with coffee, some without. It is not out of the norm for two men to walk in, sit down, and wait.

I agree that the actions of one store or one manager don't necessarily reflect the entirety of the organization.

I also agree that Starbucks is making the right business decision, both from a PR perspective, and also from a training perspective, to hold this training. What is the harm? Lose one day of business (which they can afford) to better their company. How do you argue against that?
N napacatMember
quote:
Originally posted by patespo1:
quote:
Originally posted by Napacat:
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
And why do you think 911 was called in this case? Do you think if the two gentlemen in question were white guys in business suits the same thing would have happened?

I wonder what the cost of a national boycott on Starbucks stores would have cost? Getting out in front on this is a good business decision, regardless of what you think of any of the rest of it.

PH


National Boycott? For what? To not open up their store for people to use as a meeting facility wihtout buying anything?

And the manager who called 911 is racist? Maybe two white guys would have been asked to leave, if they went to use the bathroom without purchasing anything then went to sit back down and wait for an appointment.

How do you know how these two reacted with the manager? Maybe they should have said...we are waiting to meet someone, in the meantime, I would like a cup of coffee or whatever...I then think they would have been allowed to stay regardless of color.

Not good enough...we need protests and a day of unconscious bias training (or follow up for you W & A).

I am familiar with the IAT test and it does not always show a racial bias.


Have you ever been inside a Starbucks (real question)? Every single one I have been in there are people sitting around, talking and carrying on meetings, some with coffee, some without. It is not out of the norm for two men to walk in, sit down, and wait.

I agree that the actions of one store or one manager don't necessarily reflect the entirety of the organization.

I also agree that Starbucks is making the right business decision, both from a PR perspective, and also from a training perspective, to hold this training. What is the harm? Lose one day of business (which they can afford) to better their company. How do you argue against that?


Of course I have been to a Starbucks...practically everyday. And I do see people meet there without buying anything. The difference is, they wanted to use the bathroom, which is for paying customers.

The manager then asked them to leave (their right)...the two gentleman could have diffused this and said "sorry...right, I'll buy a coffee or a pastry...we are waiting for a third party". Then they would have been let into the restroom as well.

Instead, we'll close 8,000 stores and lose $20M (who cares if they can afford it, it's $20M).

Makes perfect sense.
purplehazepurplehazeMember
quote:
Originally posted by Napacat:
The difference is, they wanted to use the bathroom, which is for paying customers.


The horror!!!

One of the lamest policies on the planet.

On a recent long distance road trip, I badly needed a restroom stop. After finding the facilities locked, I asked the clerk at the register for the key. "Paying customers only, " the cretin smiled at me. I took a quarter out of my jeans and put it in the stupid gum ball machine by the counter. I got the key.

The bathroom was a s___thole, to borrow a phrase, so... so much for giving a flying F about "paying customers." I was planning on buying some sodas and snacks after my restroom visit, but returned the key and spent my money at the store down the road.

Just because it's your "right," doesn't make it right.

PH
A azwieseMember
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
You can lead a horse to water... Roll Eyes

PH


Obtuse and tone-deaf, which reminds me of someone. Big Grin


At the risk of opening myself to some not-so-passively aggressive insults, I tend to think Starbucks overreacted. Do I think that this episode warranted a national boycott? Not really. And a boycott would be somewhat counter-productive seeing as (to the best of my recollection) Starbucks has been a pretty big employer of minorities. I also remember when Starbucks tried to get dialogue going on the topic of race by writing things on your drink cups. If anything, Starbucks seems to be a leader in topics of race.

Shutting down the stores for one day also seems a bit much to me. I don't really find this episode to be some type of systemic failure at Starbucks. Can all the employees benefit from a day-long training? Absolutely. Could they have accomplished the same results via another type of training (say online) or spread out over time (instead of doing it all in one day)? I think so.

But Starbucks can do whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want. Good for them for trying to make the best out of a crap situation. But I also don't think its unreasonable to think they overreacted.
W wine+artMember
quote:
Originally posted by Azwiese:
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
You can lead a horse to water... Roll Eyes

PH


Obtuse and tone-deaf, which reminds me of someone. Big Grin


At the risk of opening myself to some not-so-passively aggressive insults, I tend to think Starbucks overreacted. Do I think that this episode warranted a national boycott? Not really. And a boycott would be somewhat counter-productive seeing as (to the best of my recollection) Starbucks has been a pretty big employer of minorities. I also remember when Starbucks tried to get dialogue going on the topic of race by writing things on your drink cups. If anything, Starbucks seems to be a leader in topics of race.

Shutting down the stores for one day also seems a bit much to me. I don't really find this episode to be some type of systemic failure at Starbucks. Can all the employees benefit from a day-long training? Absolutely. Could they have accomplished the same results via another type of training (say online) or spread out over time (instead of doing it all in one day)? I think so.

But Starbucks can do whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want. Good for them for trying to make the best out of a crap situation. But I also don't think its unreasonable to think they overreacted.


Well articulated.
purplehazepurplehazeMember
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by Azwiese:
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
You can lead a horse to water... Roll Eyes

PH


Obtuse and tone-deaf, which reminds me of someone. Big Grin


At the risk of opening myself to some not-so-passively aggressive insults, I tend to think Starbucks overreacted. Do I think that this episode warranted a national boycott? Not really. And a boycott would be somewhat counter-productive seeing as (to the best of my recollection) Starbucks has been a pretty big employer of minorities. I also remember when Starbucks tried to get dialogue going on the topic of race by writing things on your drink cups. If anything, Starbucks seems to be a leader in topics of race.

Shutting down the stores for one day also seems a bit much to me. I don't really find this episode to be some type of systemic failure at Starbucks. Can all the employees benefit from a day-long training? Absolutely. Could they have accomplished the same results via another type of training (say online) or spread out over time (instead of doing it all in one day)? I think so.

But Starbucks can do whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want. Good for them for trying to make the best out of a crap situation. But I also don't think its unreasonable to think they overreacted.


Well articulated.


Agree. But....

The incident didn't warrant a boycott, but that doesn't mean that one wouldn't (couldn't) have happened. Things are getting exaggerated more and more these days for effect.

Boycotters also aren't really concerned about the low-wage employees of the companies they boycott, so that argument is a non-starter.

I totally agree that this is "overcompensation", but the PR message they're sending is very powerful, and likely to dampen any future blowback.

Again, mostly a "business" decision.

PH
N napacatMember
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
You can lead a horse to water... Roll Eyes

PH


I don’t need you to lead me to your water. Those guys could have diffused it instead of creating more of a situation. If you and others can’t see that...you cannot be lead to water. How can it be this difficult? Everyone’s a victim. And Starbucks is just doing PR mgmt. Glad to hear they’re close sing at 4 and not all day.
W wine+artMember
quote:
Originally posted by Napacat:
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
You can lead a horse to water... Roll Eyes

PH


I don’t need you to lead me to your water. Those guys could have diffused it instead of creating more of a situation. If you and others can’t see that...you cannot be lead to water. How can it be this difficult? Everyone’s a victim. And Starbucks is just doing PR mgmt. Glad to hear they’re close sing at 4 and not all day.


You must be correct, boy wonder. Those Starbucks executives have truly built a poor business model. Just think if they would have followed your way of thinking!
N napacatMember
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by Napacat:
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
You can lead a horse to water... Roll Eyes

PH


I don’t need you to lead me to your water. Those guys could have diffused it instead of creating more of a situation. If you and others can’t see that...you cannot be lead to water. How can it be this difficult? Everyone’s a victim. And Starbucks is just doing PR mgmt. Glad to hear they’re close sing at 4 and not all day.


You must be correct, boy wonder. Those Starbucks executives have truly built a poor business model. Just think if they would have followed your way of thinking!


Starbucks has too much to lose by not being politically correct. It would be refreshing if they weren’t though.

If you don’t think those two should have bought something and ended what never should have been an incedent....you’re too far gone!
G gregtMember
quote:
Instead, we'll close 8,000 stores and lose $20M (who cares if they can afford it, it's $20M).


But they're not.

If you look at it that way, it's a dumb business decision and they're not dumb.

Instead, as others have suggested, it's a branding decision. It can even come out of their marketing and advertising budget. They were the favored hangout for the baby boomers, now they'll be the favored hangout for the millenials or whoever it is we're supposed to be interested in today.

They could have spent the money on a Superbowl ad, or on something else, but they're getting a lot more publicity and PR this way.

People are talking about it now and will be talking about it until the day comes. They will get huge media play on the day they do it, and they'll be discussed for a few weeks after. And they'll come out as aligned with all that's good an righteous in the world.

All in all a well-spent $20M and anything but a loss.

I still don't like their coffee.

But I will continue to use their restrooms on long travels.

After all, they won't kick me out!

PreviousNext

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×