[Maru]

Apparently they never did fire the manager.

[Maru]

Youtube video

[Maru]

Starbucks’ muddled ‘community culture’ was a contributing factor in arrest of two black men
https://www.marketwatch.com/Story/st...of2&yptr=yahoo

Starbucks has tried to be open to the community, but that may have been a factor in last week;’s racial incident.

Starbucks Corp. doesn’t just sell coffee. It sells the idea that it is a community meeting space where people are invited to gather whether they’re consuming Starbucks products the whole time or not.

That community culture may have set the stage for the company’s latest public relations crisis — the arrest of two black men in a Philadelphia café.

“Part of what has created this conundrum for them and the opportunity to make these stupid mistakes is they want to be a community center so that people aren’t always holding something that they’ve bought,” said Mark Lipton, graduate professor of management at the New School, author, and c-level business consultant. “There are consequences they have to be mindful of.”

To be sure, no one MarketWatch spoke with, including Lipton, discounts the racism involved in this case.

“This is not new. Blacks have been getting thrown out of restaurants far more than whites have for decades,” Lipton points out. Even Starbucks SBUX, -0.99% Chief Executive Kevin Johnson reiterated the company’s firm stance “against discrimination or racial profiling” in one of his statements over the weekend.

Moreover, the experts said that social media and the tireless work of groups like Black Lives Matter have not only spread information about these incidents but keep the attention focused on them.

“Black Lives Matter is doing a great job of keeping the heat on these events when they happen,” Lipton said.

Data provided by Sprout Social, a social-media marketing management and intelligence tool, shows that 46% of consumers have used social media to “call out” brands, and four in five think social media has increased business accountability.

But according to Lipton, the issue here is “contextual.” Starbucks has fostered an open environment in its stores, and front-line managers are responsible for making decisions in those locations.

“If you want to be a community, you better figure out in the confines of that store what community means and what it takes to maintain a safe, comfortable community,” Lipton said.

He highlighted Johnson’s call for more training to avoid “unconscious bias” during an interview this morning on ABC News’ “Good Morning America.” Lipton said he thinks the bigger issue is that a manager is responsible for making decisions in the moment, and companies have to be sure they have the right people for the job.

“Maybe it’s not only to Johnson’s point of throwing more implicit-bias training, but in the selection of who they have in a managerial role in their store at any given moment,” Lipton said. He suggested that companies ask, “[H]ave we looked at all the dimensions of their human interaction skills and if we have to pay more money to get those [qualified] people, we will.”

With so many consumer-facing workers — Johnson said there are “28,000 stores around the world” during his interview — it’s difficult, if not impossible, to control everything.

“To expect a company to have absolute control over its employees is not only unrealistic, it’s also antithetical to what Starbucks is striving for,” said Greg Portell, lead retail practice partner at A.T. Kearney, a global strategy-management consulting firm.

Both Portell and Lipton, as well as the “GMA” anchors, said they think the company responded well. In addition to the interview Monday morning, Starbucks issued three statements, including one from Johnson apologizing and calling the incident “reprehensible,” on Saturday and Sunday.

Further coverage from “GMA” said the manager who called the police on the two men “no longer works for the company.” MarketWatch was in touch with Starbucks for further comment or an update but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Matt Rizzetta, chief executive of North 6th Agency, a PR and social-media organization, said he thinks Starbucks reacted too slowly.

“With Starbucks, the incident happened on Thursday and the first statement wasn’t until Saturday,” he said. “This is a serious incident and there’s a disgraceful act that took place at one of your locations that reeks of racial insensitivity. That’s unacceptable.”

However, companies might want to slow down to make sure that systems are in place to avoid such incidents. He said that communication clearly broke down somewhere between the corporate level and the franchise level

“There’s an exaggerated premium on speed and sometimes they don’t think about common sense checks and balances,” he said. Rizzetta stressed the need for “common sense” more than once in his comments with MarketWatch.

“Obviously, any company of any size who’s worth anything needs to embrace diversity and an inclusive workforce,” he added.

In recent months, there have been other racial incidents that drew both anger and outrage from consumers, such as an ad from H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB HMB, -0.42% that featured a black child wearing a sweatshirt that said “coolest monkey in the jungle” and a Heineken ad with the tagline “Sometimes, lighter is better.”

Experts pulled no punches calling those incidents “tone deaf” and downright “stupid.” But they also differentiated between those incidents and this most recent one at Starbucks.

“[It] is an abject failure of management that those products/ads somehow got through the design process,” said The New School’s Lipton, talking about the H&M and Heineken examples. “It speaks volumes about the ad agencies and the designers who are hired.”

On the other hand, experts gave Starbucks credit for trying to be a good actor on different fronts, even attempting to tackle race in the past.

Ultimately, incidents such as these can have an impact on the balance sheet, with customers calling for boycotts, protesting, and in some cases deciding not to patronize the offending companies any longer.

“The behavior of the brand is the brand,” Lipton said. “In my head, I have rebranded what those organizations stand for. I have to assume that there are tens of thousands who feel that way.”

Starbucks shares closed Monday up 0.3%, and are up 3.5% for the year so far. The S&P 500 index SPX, -0.86% is up 0.2% in 2018.

[Maru]

Youtube video

This so well made. Where did they find someone to match his voice... he even mentions TS' favorite drink

[Alf]

Look like a couple of loitering, Trespassers to me. How was this an international news story?

[Marsh.]

"Trespassing"

[montblanc]

not trespassing at a starbucks

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Alf

Look like a couple of loitering, Trespassers to me. How was this an international news story?

well, i am shocked that this was allowed as a international news story cause most news in USA is Always about Trump

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

"Trespassing"

What else could you call somebody who refused to become a customer and then refused to leave the premises when asked?

And they were arrested for trespassing. So what else would you call it?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

What else could you call somebody who refused to become a customer and then refused to leave the premises when asked?

And they were arrested for trespassing. So what else would you call it?

A waste of police time I call it.

[Oliver_W]

It's a mountain out of a molehill all round - they didn't necessarily need to be removed by the police, but the media bumming them for it is quite unnecessary.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Alf

What else could you call somebody who refused to become a customer and then refused to leave the premises when asked?

And they were arrested for trespassing. So what else would you call it?

Basically, yeah.

Starbucks could've come back and said "Um... well, at some locations, we do have to do something about trespassers as it's a bit of a problem. And this was policy" ... and maybe that was a poor one and would create problems anyway given the mixed messaging they send about their business model (community meeting area, etc)... The outrage machine was out in full force though when they were simply just saying they were still investigating, they were being thrown under the bus by the social justice mob... so they panicked.

So they labeled it as racial profiling in the affirmative in order to make the story go away quicker. The problem is, it stirred various bees nest around social media (always social media...), and so here we are disagreeing with each other along partisan lines again...Keeping in mind, they didn't even fire the manager. She still works with them.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

A waste of police time I call it.

I agree it was that, and all because they wouldn't make a purchase and become a customer which would have given them access to Starbucks facilities.

I hear they sell sticks of gum in those places over there, why didn't they buy one of them and become a customer? or if not, why not just leave when asked too?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

A waste of police time I call it.

Agreed. I think police have much better things to do than deal with Starbucks ****ty policies.


They need to make clear if they're going to as a rest stop or not. But they won't, because as soon they announce this, they will have to cater to every abusive use of this no purchase necessary rule... it's not a good business model, but they want to encourage as many people as possible to stop by and maybe buy something... so they keep it in the grey

If they say, well we're restricting use of our coffee shops to people who only buy our overpriced coffee... then that's going to put more of negative focus on the more capitalistic traits of the brand. .. People who follow brands think they're member of a tribe... they'd like to think they are patronizing a company that is that is socially conscience... otherwise it's just another capitalistic chain store... nothing special there

And tbf, I do like Starbucks though I rarely patronize there since I started making my own lattes. They're in it to make money though... but yeah, I've used their shops without buying anything... but this was a mall. I think stand-alone stores though, I feel compelled to buy to use up their table space, so I buy... if I didn't and someone asked me to buy something, I would. They are in the trenches just as much as I am when it comes to dealing with clients and forcing difficult policies...

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

A waste of police time I call it.

they come because it's Starbucks, where they usually eat their donuts and drink their coffee from so it was important for the police

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

they come because it's Starbucks, where they usually eat their donuts* and drink their coffee from so it was important for the police

They should name them "donots", Nicky...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

I agree it was that, and all because they wouldn't make a purchase and become a customer which would have given them access to Starbucks facilities.

I hear they sell sticks of gum in those places over there, why didn't they buy one of them and become a customer? or if not, why not just leave when asked too?

Because they were being picked out for the way they look and nothing else. Others aren't treated in such a way and you're not telling me they're the first guys to go and use a shop toilet without buying anything or sit down in a public space whilst waiting for someone.

The manager making more work for themselves than is at all necessary.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because they were being picked out for the way they look and nothing else. Others aren't treated in such a way and you're not telling me they're the first guys to go and use a shop toilet without buying anything or sit down in a public space whilst waiting for someone.

The manager making more work for themselves than is at all necessary.

They looked quite normal to me, so I don't agree with your theory.

And if what you mean by the way they looked was that they was Black, then wouldn't every Black person who has ever entered that shop recieve the same treatment?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

A waste of police time I call it.

Yes Push Bike Cops
first there.

The Manager or Supervisor
on that day, should be sent to work at Head Office
or even Fired.

[Twosugars]

it all happened for the best.
anything that highlights a possibility of casual racism is raising awareness and forcing companies etc to clarify their policies
if they allow no purchase visitors then you can't eject people at random unless there're clear reasons like bad or suspicious behaviour
that was not the case here as far as we know

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

They looked quite normal to me, so I don't agree with your theory.

And if what you mean by the way they looked was that they was Black, then wouldn't every Black person who has ever entered that shop recieve the same treatment?

Who said anything about black?

Whether it was their skin colour, the look of their face, the clothes they were wearing, the way they walked or whatever they were discriminated against because they'll be far from the first to sit down and wait for friends or use the facilities without actually buying anything. Yet, they're not calling the police out to every incident.

They don't even have the back up of these people's behaviour being antisocial as it wasn't.

A complete and utter waste of police time and a ridiculously judgemental manager.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Who said anything about black?

Whether it was their skin colour, the look of their face, the clothes they were wearing, the way they walked or whatever they were discriminated against because they'll be far from the first to sit down and wait for friends or use the facilities without actually buying anything. Yet, they're not calling the police out to every incident.

They don't even have the back up of these people's behaviour being antisocial as it wasn't.

A complete and utter waste of police time and a ridiculously judgemental manager.

A statement from the Philadelphia Police commissioner at 3.50 in this video. I can see grounds for anti-social behavior from his statement, particularly when they wasn't gonna get arrested but were instead just asked to leave the premises.

Youtube video

[Marsh.]

He can see grounds for discrimination seeing as he apologised for such.

[Ammi]

...this is quite a good, balanced article about the arrests, I think...

As a native Philadelphian and frequent Starbucks customer, I was deeply disappointed by the arrest of two black men charged with "trespassing" in a local store. I was not surprised by the subsequent call for a national boycott of America’s favorite coffee shop as the public response. The issue of black men being arrested for unfair and unjust reasons at inequitable rates is a sensitive topic in this country. It is fair to expect that people want answers, solutions, and justice. I do too.

However, I patronized Starbucks this past weekend. Let me tell you why. I remembered the company’s 2015 Race Together campaign, the in-store initiative designed to stimulate conversation, compassion, and most importantly, positive action on race in America. The campaign failed epically. The execution was awkward and uncomfortable for baristas and customers. Regardless, I applaud Starbucks for being the only company to take a public stance on the issue of racism and implement action to help address it.

I have been closely following Starbucks’ response to this crisis. Racism is an issue that isn’t going away and consumer brands will remain vulnerable to scrutiny as it relates to discrimination. There are lessons we can learn from Starbucks’ approach:

Understand how critical a sensitive tone is in messaging
I was disappointed by the company’s first response delivered via Twitter. While it was timely and did convey the obligatory apology and promise of policy review; it fell flat for a community frustrated by racial inequalities. It lacked empathy and avoided the issue of race altogether. The tweet failed to reinforce Starbucks’ mission to help make the world a better place and its desire to nurture the human spirit.

Engage the CEO publicly to demonstrate a sincere commitment to resolving the issue
Starbucks released a strong video statement featuring CEO Kevin Johnson. He expressed regret using phrases such as, "disheartening situation," "reprehensible outcome," and "deepest apologies." He accepted full responsibility for the incident and outlined specific actions the company would take to rebuild trust and revise company policies. Johnson traveled to Philadelphia and offered a personal apology to the two men arrested. He also asked for their assistance in addressing this societal issue moving forward.

Leverage positive proof points
Starbucks has a track record of authentic commitment to diversity and inclusion to reinforce. That record is supported by partnering with basketball legend Earvin "Magic" Johnson in 1998 to open 105 stores in underserved markets; making Mellody Hobson, a nationally respected financial expert, whose personal mantra is to be "color brave," a member of the board of the directors; and hiring Rosalind Brewer, an African-American former CEO of Sam’s Club, as its COO.

Overall, I am impressed with how Starbucks has handled this crisis. It has expressed regrets and accountability, met with key stakeholders, willingly participated in media interviews, and apologized to the unfairly charged men. They also implemented actions for internal change, including plans to close 8,000 stores for a day of racial bias training.

However, their work is not done. They will have to establish long-term strategies internally and externally to rebuild and maintain the trust of African-American consumers. I will continue to monitor their actions and hope they live up to the brand I believe them to be.


Read more at https://www.prweek.com/article/14626...2hkjF35pvfR.99



...I do feel also that Starbucks have ‘handled this crisis impressively’ as the article states...they’ve made all of the right movements, done all of the right things, said all of the right words etc...the more I think about it though, the more I feel..(...imo obviously...)...that prejudiced profiling was shown in asking the men to leave when no disturbance or uneasiness was being caused in them being there...these things have to be consistent as a policy...and from so many comments from ‘Starbucks frequenters’...their experiences have not been the same at all..no asking to leave if restroom requests have been made when a purchase hasn’t been made...or if they’ve been waiting without making purchases...so nothing about this incident from the off would appear consistent with company policy and staff procedures within that...I would have thought ‘trespassing’ goes beyond individual company policy anyway...as it’s a legal law break...and in a public coffee shop or premises, would there not have to be trespassing signs up, stating when/reasons a trespassing would be seen to be happening...so everyone is aware if a law is being broken and that arrests and charges could be a possibility...laws have to be clear also, surely...anyways, Starbucks appear to be addressing it all, which is a good thing....

[arista]

"Starbucks appear to be addressing it all, which is a good thing...."

Yes Ammi
they want to stay in business.