Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Check yourself before you wreck yourself

One of the big business news stories today is that Starbucks announces that it will close 600 stores.

Starbucks has been previously said to be an indicator of economic health--the profitability of the company being in direct relationship to a prospering economy, and vice versa. So, I'm not surprised that the company's announcement of store closures is big news.

I'm more surprised by the celebration by some people of these closings, and the way in which some people have really seen this as a victory over "the corporation." People, these stores and closing because our economy is going to pot--that's no cause for celebration! If you are one of the ones who hate Starbucks, well, that's your prerogative, and yeah, they might be suffering with the recession we're in, but all of us are suffering alongside them, too!

What's also surprising is that these people celebrating these store closings seem to think that Starbucks is only getting what's been coming to them, with total disregard for the 1200 employees that are scheduled to lose their jobs. Industry, corporations, and employees are different entities--interrelated for sure, but distinct nevertheless. It's not only the corporation that's being hurt here, it's 1200 people, too. That, too, hardly seems like cause for celebration.

Sure, Starbucks has its faults, like other corporations, but they haven't been on Fortune's Best 100 Places to Work for list (or Business Ethic's 100 Best Corporate Citizens) in the past for no reason. In all my part-time, hourly paid job experience, Starbucks has by far been the best in terms of hourly starting wage, promotion potential, medical benefits, stock and retirement benefits, corporate social responsibility, etc. They're able to offer these great benefits because they are a big corporation...so until we have universal health care and fix social security (that is, NOT through privatization), I wish people would at least acknowledge the good that comes with the faults.

And finally, let me just say this--people love to hate Starbucks because they think that Starbucks is the big, bad corporation that ate up all the small, independent, local coffee shops. Have some small, independent, local coffee shops closed? Yes. I won't deny it. But, let's not also deny that in the beginning there was one Starbucks (in Pike Place Market), and that it was a small, independent, local coffee shop, or that it grew to be the "big, bad corporation" in the vein of doing good business. Are we saying that we want small, local businesses to be successful, but only limitedly so? (Lest they become too successful and want to expand!)


C'mon people, if you're mad we live in a capitalistic society, I understand. The dependence on a large working class to labor for the profit of those few who own is exploitative. But that doesn't mean that taking down Starbucks does anything for overturning capitalism. So, give the Starbucks bashing a break, and get the more important discussion started and write about anti-capitalist measures.

2 Comments:

At 2:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, economic studies showed that in markets where a Starbucks moved in, the mom-n-pop coffee shops increased their business. Apparently, the Starbucks marketing machine created a much larger demand for overpriced premium coffee than existed before.

The mom-n-pops, however, can be more nimble with price and service, and can beat Starbucks over time.

That, and Starbucks CEO is admitting that all 600 of the stores on the list are close to other locations... maybe TOO close.

As for the overall "what does this mean for the economy" issue, there may well be more people buying 4-dollar lattes than last year, but they're not buying them at Starbucks.

 
At 10:51 PM, Blogger sprouthead said...

Okay, so some studies say Starbucks is a market indicator, and others say otherwise.

If in the future Starbucks fails to meet customer, partner (employee), and market needs and eventually goes out of business, then it goes out of business. I can accept that.

Seems, though, that my other point still stand--it's not simply a matter of Starbucks being "big, bad, and evil" (because, if it's as Ike says, then Starbucks has actually been boosting business at independent coffee shops).

This doesn't mean I'm less convinced, though, at the ability of small businesses to provide for their employees the extent of benefits that Starbucks has and continues to do so.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home