Lets talk starbucks

[Shiranu]

and yet if the videos themselves do challenge said biases...

Okay, but here is the thing; they don't challenge any biases because when they are literally lies or just, "Hur durrr liberls r stupodo!", there is no reason to address them.

You will note that I do respond to certain videos, and overwhelmingly they are one's that present something as being reality. I have no interest in watching 5 minutes of some hateful person throw insults at me with no real point any more than you have any interest in me linking the equivalent of some idiot leftist doing the same thing.

Do you think if I was posting video after video after video of TYT, Huffingtonpost. or whatever the equivalent on the left is of channels like Cornell (w/e that old british guy's name is), the guy in this thread... do you think it would "really" challenge your views? I doubt it. Maybe you would watch them all the way through, but I wouldn't expect you to because there is no need to sit through 5, 10 minutes of being called the scum of the Earth.

[Cavebear]

I have never been in a Starbucks (I hate coffee).  But I do know their corporate culture of "hang out".  To my general knowledge, they don't seem to care about race or ethnicity.  So this new event was rather a surprise.

I will be interested to learn details.  I assume they have cameras in their stores...

So, it will be interesting to learn how the particular customers acted.  I make no predictions about that.  If they were loud and disruptive and asked to leave, fine.  If they were "just like anyone else", that would be troubling.  So, in this case, I await further information...

[Poison Tree]

I will be interested to learn details.  I assume they have cameras in their stores...

It seems that Starbucks HQ decided early on that apologizing and bias training was the best response. I doubt they'd release camera footage now even if it supports their manager's actions. I with they would just so we'd know, but I suppose that would primarily serve to give the story another news cycle.

[Cavebear]

It seems that Starbucks HQ decided early on that apologizing and bias training was the best response. I doubt they'd release camera footage now even if it supports their manager's actions. I with they would just so we'd know, but I suppose that would primarily serve to give the story another news cycle.

When will companies learn that revealing information is better than hiding it?  The truth is often less condemning than than the rumors...  And if the video shows they were wrong, just apologize and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

[Blackleaf]

When will companies learn that revealing information is better than hiding it?  The truth is often less condemning than than the rumors...  And if the video shows they were wrong, just apologize and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Ehhh... It depends on the situation. In this case, showing footage would only prolong media attention on the controversy. Ever get into an argument in a YouTube comments section? Bring up a lot of good points, but everyone else replies with a bunch of ad hominems? Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you're right or not, and defending yourself just adds fuel to the fire. Just don't talk about it, and people will forget pretty fast.

[Cavebear]

Ehhh... It depends on the situation. In this case, showing footage would only prolong media attention on the controversy. Ever get into an argument in a YouTube comments section? Bring up a lot of good points, but everyone else replies with a bunch of ad hominems? Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you're right or not, and defending yourself just adds fuel to the fire. Just don't talk about it, and people will forget pretty fast.

*I* would respond to a rational argument from Starbucks based on video evidence of some cause of action.  Or negatively based on a failure to provide what they must surely have.  I'm sure they have evidence recorded.  The question is whether they will release it. 

[GSOgymrat]

Ehhh... It depends on the situation. In this case, showing footage would only prolong media attention on the controversy. Ever get into an argument in a YouTube comments section? Bring up a lot of good points, but everyone else replies with a bunch of ad hominems? Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you're right or not, and defending yourself just adds fuel to the fire. Just don't talk about it, and people will forget pretty fast.

Good point. Starbucks isn't like most restaurants. Many people go there regularly for their caffeine fix and to relax and socialize. For some, it is almost like a neighborhood bar where they know the staff and have brand loyalty. Starbucks also has a reputation for being progressive and inclusive, which explains the annual controversy by the FOXnews crowd over whether their Christmas cups are too secular. Closing their stores for bias training is a bold and controversial move and I am interested how this will affect their brand and bottom line in the long run.

[SGOS]

Deciding whether to draw attention to the controversy or allow it to die is a gamble.  There are advantages to either approach, but it depends on a lot of variables, and sometimes, even given a lot of thought, either one can backfire.  I would imagine Starbucks already includes training, possibly only informal, about how to deal with customers, but I doubt if there was much thought given to how to deal with non-customers. 

A Global or National training day is no small event no matter what the issue is.  The coordination and planning will be enormous involving regional and local instructions to the thousands of coordinators that have to plan and present it.  Starbucks is taking on a massive project for this PR move.  I'd be interested to observe the behind the scenes work that must be taking place already to make it happen.

[Cavebear]

Good point. Starbucks isn't like most restaurants. Many people go there regularly for their caffeine fix and to relax and socialize. For some, it is almost like a neighborhood bar where they know the staff and have brand loyalty. Starbucks also has a reputation for being progressive and inclusive, which explains the annual controversy by the FOXnews crowd over whether their Christmas cups are too secular. Closing their stores for bias training is a bold and controversial move and I am interested how this will affect their brand and bottom line in the long run.

I doubt most Starbucks employees are racist.  So I doubt forcing employees to undergo a day of "training" helps any of them.  The problem with sensitivity training is that that ones who need it just yawn, and the ones who don't, resent the obvious.

Such "training" mostly just annoys both sides.  You can't cure idiots with a day of training, and you really annoy the ones who don't need it by the implication that they do.

The simple solution is to fire the idiots and let repeated firings beat it into their dimwitted skulls until they catch on.

[Munch]

Deciding whether to draw attention to the controversy or allow it to die is a gamble.  There are advantages to either approach, but it depends on a lot of variables, and sometimes, even given a lot of thought, either one can backfire.  I would imagine Starbucks already includes training, possibly only informal, about how to deal with customers, but I doubt if there was much thought given to how to deal with non-customers. 

A Global or National training day is no small event no matter what the issue is.  The coordination and planning will be enormous involving regional and local instructions to the thousands of coordinators that have to plan and present it.  Starbucks is taking on a massive project for this PR move.  I'd be interested to observe the behind the scenes work that must be taking place already to make it happen.

several people have asked for the 'progressive training' to be secretively recorded. I'd like to know how this goes too, since it was thrown in on the fly.
Personally I'm hoping it reveals this as a massive joke just for a PR stunt

[Cavebear]

several people have asked for the 'progressive training' to be secretively recorded. I'd like to know how this goes too, since it was thrown in on the fly.
Personally I'm hoping it reveals this as a massive joke just for a PR stunt

As much as I distrust commercial businesses at this stuff, I oddly think Starbucks means it.  But they are still doing it wrong.  Their problem is that they just can't understand that they have to fire successful (profitable) managers who tolerate this crap.  It HAS TO BE stopped at the local level and they aren't getting that.  It isn't their business that is wrong, it is individuals.

[SGOS]

As much as I distrust commercial businesses at this stuff, I oddly think Starbucks means it.  But they are still doing it wrong.  Their problem is that they just can't understand that they have to fire successful (profitable) managers who tolerate this crap.  It HAS TO BE stopped at the local level and they aren't getting that.  It isn't their business that is wrong, it is individuals.

I think you are right about individuals.  Whether it's a win or lose economically, I don't know, and there are long term and short term goals involved.  Starbucks has a lot of money, so I don't think that short term it's going to hurt them.  They are already known among their patrons as being progressive.  This move may solidify that image, or it may just strike people as damage control, but may not affect their standing on Wall Street significantly.

The first time I had a Starbucks coffee, I went in a tried one, just to see what all the fuss was about, and I was impressed.  It was fresher and had more body than Hills Bros and the canned coffee at the time.  I started buying it at Costco and drank it all the time.  But since then, the secret of how it's packaged, which was the key to their success IMO, has been duplicated by many others.  The coffee is no longer special, and I buy the Dunkin' Donuts brand because it's a bit mellower.  Now Starbucks for me is just a pleasant place to have a coffee and drink it in a comfortable chair.  I like their PC image, but it has no other effect on me.

Incidentally, the packaging secret was that canned coffee was packaged after it started to get stale.  It had to be because fresh beans give off a gas that would cause the cans to explode.  I heard that on NPR years ago.  I don't know if exploding was just an exaggeration or if that could actually happen.  But Starbucks utilized a new method, which might be what that funny little button on the back of the package is all about.  It allowed them to package coffee that was fresh and more flavorful, or so NPR said during an interview with someone who wrote a book about coffee.   

[GSOgymrat]

I doubt most Starbucks employees are racist.  So I doubt forcing employees to undergo a day of "training" helps any of them.  The problem with sensitivity training is that that ones who need it just yawn, and the ones who don't, resent the obvious.

Such "training" mostly just annoys both sides.  You can't cure idiots with a day of training, and you really annoy the ones who don't need it by the implication that they do.

The simple solution is to fire the idiots and let repeated firings beat it into their dimwitted skulls until they catch on.

Training isn't going to change anyone who is already significantly prejudiced but I don't think training would be completely ineffective if done properly. In this Starbucks case, the manager may not have had a prejudiced thought in her head when dealing with this situation. She may have interacted with these black men exactly like she would have with white men. However, the men and some of the patrons, both perceived her actions as racially motivated. This is because there is a cultural narrative that black men are discriminated against in these kinds of circumstances. There is no "shopping while white" meme. Whether this narrative of discrimination is factually true or whether any individual involved is actually being prejudiced doesn't change the outcome as long as people believe the narrative. Training can help employees be mindful when interacting with people of different cultures that they need to be cognizant of how their behavior may be interpreted. If this manager had realized that calling law enforcement on two black men who aren't disturbing other customers might be perceived as racially motivated by both the men and other patrons she might have chosen an intervention that didn't lead to arrests, protests, national news coverage, being fired, mandatory training and profit loss for her employer. Treating everyone exactly the same seems like the fairest and most reasonable way to interact with people but because people are not all the same it doesn't always result in the same outcome.

[Munch]

As much as I distrust commercial businesses at this stuff, I oddly think Starbucks means it.  But they are still doing it wrong.  Their problem is that they just can't understand that they have to fire successful (profitable) managers who tolerate this crap.  It HAS TO BE stopped at the local level and they aren't getting that.  It isn't their business that is wrong, it is individuals.

As I've learned working in a big retail chain, the higher ups don't give a fuck about those on ground level, their ants to them, and they just want a machine thats running. Makes me think of that scene from the first incredibles movie with boss.
This then is just a PR stunt to appease people, rather then getting their hands dirty with the ants, they'd sooner wash their hands of the situation making claim this will fix it and convince people suddenly the human race only thinks one way and one way only.

[Baruch]

several people have asked for the 'progressive training' to be secretively recorded. I'd like to know how this goes too, since it was thrown in on the fly.
Personally I'm hoping it reveals this as a massive joke just for a PR stunt

Electroshock reinforcement ;-)