“At a certain point, stores must decide how much to curtail the provision of the good to non-patrons, who may also actively deter others’ purchases. It’s not “clear whether provision of public goods leads to increased shareholder wealth,” the paper says. While Starbucks’ latest results suggest it can withstand any potential negative impact from its bathroom policy, the study highlights the dilemma public companies like Starbucks face: how to engage in “socially responsible” activities that may not align with shareholder interests. Read what Starbucks employees have told me about the open bathroom policy. … None of this considers any extra staffing costs involved in greater bathroom maintenance.” “It’s unlikely that moving from the quasi-public bathroom policy to a completely open public bathroom has benefited Starbucks unless the customers increased their purchase significantly. “The small number of non-paying visitors who do linger and use tables and bathrooms have an outsized effect on the total number of visitors, who either stop coming and/or spend less time in the store,” the study says. Meanwhile, customers who visit its stores spend on average 4.2% less time in Starbucks compared with other coffee shops following the institution of the official policy, according to the research. The decline is also bigger at locations closest to homeless shelters. The average income of Starbucks’ customers has dropped compared with the average income of other nearby coffee shops, thanks to fewer visits from “its wealthier clientele.” “This would be consistent with them being more sensitive to crowding and the new visitors brought in by the bathroom policy,” the paper says. Customer traffic wasn’t the only thing that was hurt.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |