September 20, 2013
Starbucks Stuck in Middle of Gun Argument
What do you do when you’re a retailer and you’re faced with a customer more interested in making political points than buying products? If you’re Starbucks, you try to find a middle ground, which quickly gets turned against you by zealots from both sides who equate compromise with failure.
While waiting for a plane on Thursday, I witnessed a couple of men get loud over a Fox News report that seemed to suggest — despite a statement to the contrary by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz — that the chain had banned individuals carrying guns from bringing their firearms into its stores.
In reality, Starbucks has not banned weapons. It simply asked those who typically carried firearms to please refrain from doing so in its stores because the practices made other customers feel uneasy.
In an open letter to customers, Starbucks’ CEO wrote that the company has always respected "open carry" laws, but the debate has "become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening."
He added, "Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called ‘Starbucks Appreciation Days’ that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of open carry. To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners."
Discussion Questions
What is your assessment of Starbucks’ request that gun owners voluntarily not carry weapons into its stores? Can you see ways that Starbucks and others can avoid getting caught in the middle of zealots on the left and right of political discourse in America today?
Poll
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
Will an In-Store Retail Tech ‘Confidence Gap’ Create Winners and Losers?
A new survey suggests that in-store retail tech could be a major factor in retailer success…Walmart’s Next CEO Era: From McMillon to Furner
Walmart CEO Doug McMillon will soon be replaced by John Furner. What’s next for the retailer?Which Brands Are Missing the Boat on Advent Calendars?
Advent calendars appear to be trending upward in popularity, with potential to move to other holidays…
The best thing would be to just be quiet and not say anything. It wasn’t a problem until the CEO just had to send out that open letter and start making waves.
Starbucks is in a no-win situation. Each side of the issue wants to use the company for its own purposes. Because the chain is a well-known national retailer, any demonstrations get coverage.
I think the letter was the best that can be done if you were going to try to formally communicate non-policy. It basically states that they know it’s legal but would prefer customers don’t come into Starbucks openly carrying a gun.
Both sides will likely claim victory. Those in favor will state Starbucks is “on their side” and those opposed will state they are not and that Starbucks acknowledges their right to carry their weapons into their location.
Unfortunately the open letter will likely have the opposite effect than desired at least in the short term. Instead of getting the company out of the middle of the issue it brought more attention to it and again both sides will want to use it for their own purpose.
There are certain words and phrases that are universal social and political lightning rods. Abortion is one of them and gun control is another.
Any suggestion of any policy change or, in this case, a suggestion of a suggestion of the possibility of a change will bring Second Amendment activists out of the hills and marching in front of your store. The pro open carry lobby isn’t interested in having the law on their side as they are in demonstrating that they have the law on their side.
Asking them to agree to what they see as a living statement of their personal philosophy is just waving a red flag in front of a bull – and Starbucks should have known it.
Love them or hate them, these folks live for the chance to demonstrate that they can carry a weapon without restraint. Asking them to see the open carry law in the same way that non-gun toters do is just silly. It isn’t going to happen.
If you want to stay out of the middle of this fight, sit back quietly and don’t take a public position. If you open your mouth, be prepared for the blowback.
As grateful as I am to be living here in Arizona and the privilege of having both US and Canadian citizenship, I just can’t get my head around the American gun fetish. Asking people to please not bring guns into a social environment is a big issue? Unreasonable? Un-American? Do you take your gun to your daughter’s wedding? Give me a break. Would you smoke if asked not to? Starbucks’ request was more than reasonable and graciously presented.
All kinds of Canadians own guns and it’s a major hunting culture…but you could go to a sleazy bar every day for six months and the topic would never come up and you’d certainly never see a gun.
So I bounce between being sad about this issue and being mad about it. The latter is set off when people claim that having a gun is a “God-given” right! “God-given?” Please…show me the Bible verse where that happened and I’ll go buy one myself. And now that you’ve got me riled, is the goal in life to not take a stand in what you think is right? My friend Larry Winget just released a new book and I really wasn’t very keen on the title…until now. It’s called “Grow a Pair!”
Full disclosure: I’m a Canadian, and up here, we just don’t get this whole ‘right to bear arms’ thing.
Setting that aside for a moment, no one seems to have a problem with a retailer asking someone to leave their backpack at the front desk. Surely, the rationale mind can understand a retailer’s request to leave your gun outside. Wasn’t that long ago that we made them tie up their horse outside too!
Well done, Mr. Shultz!
Starbucks shouldn’t have had to address this issue, but did as a result of the escalation on both sides of the argument.
This is a classic case of “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.” That applies to both sides.
In full disclosure, I am a Second Amendment supporter. I am a gun owner. I am gun safety trained by a 25 year NRA instructor. I am in the process of becoming a concealed carry permit holder. That being said, would I open carry a weapon into any retail establishment? No. When properly trained and licensed, will I carry concealed weapon where appropriate and allowed by law? Yes. Will the firearm be displayed to anyone at any time for the purpose of making a statement? No. Would it be used to protect life? Absolutely.
Selecting any retailer to carry out your political grievances is ineffective, regardless of the topic or policy.
It is sad that both sides of this particular argument – as important as the argument is – have those that wish to devalue the real issue by these types of actions.
Mr. Schultz did the best he could. Starbucks shouldn’t have been put in the position by either side.
Now, how about a great cup of coffee?
1. I appreciate Starbucks trying to navigate as sane a path as possible on this issue. 2. It is sad that the US has devolved to the point where we have to debate whether it is a good idea to carry firearms in coffee shops. 3. Retailers can’t win on this issue, so best to stay out of it as much as possible.
Starbucks is trying to do the right thing here. I object to people doing things just because they can, and I (as a gun owner) think the open carry folks were wrong in projecting their perspective onto Starbucks.
I agree with the earlier comments, especially Al who seemed to hit the nail on the head. I don’t understand why those zealous activists have to make it a public, one-sided debate whenever the subject comes up, which is too often lately.
It has been interesting to watch gun owners embarrass themselves on the national stage. My question is what are they so afraid of that they need to carry a gun into a store? Call me reckless, but I think that the only thing that will happen to me in a Starbucks is pure coffee deliciousness.
The whole thing would have eventually passed. The weapons are concealed, right? Nobody would know who is carrying and who isn’t.
The “voluntary” thing is just stupid, and was predictable to be perceived by both sides as being less than acceptable.
I am for civil liberties but am not going to boycott any company either way. Reasonable people won’t, whether they lean to one side or the other.
The extremists will destroy a business with conflict within the company. Their threats of boycotts and picketing and even some actual incidents will pass when they fail to get a reaction either direction.
The political fringe will do anything to advance their cause. Retailers should not be involved nor take sides in any political or religious issue unless they want to decrease sales. Retail is in the business of selling products to consumers. Getting involved is simply stupid. Walk away and focus on why consumers come into the store. The customer acquisition cost continues to increase. It is unlikely taking sides will bring in more new customers than will leave. Middle of the road solutions will not satisfy either side of these fringe groups.
In the last week I’ve spoken with two people who are not going to Starbucks because of this. Funny part is, they’re on either side of the debate!
Clearly Starbucks can’t win. I’d take a stand either way and then let the dust settle. The zealots will then move on to other things like healthcare.
I feel sorry for Starbucks. They are being singled out as the stage for these debates, probably because they symbolize affluence in America. Dreadful for them.
Starbucks has the right to ban guns in its stores. The company is well within its rights to turn away anyone carrying a gun as a matter of corporate policy. However, its unclear, overly polite stand on the issue only causes confusion. If the company wants to ban guns in its stores, it needs to clearly state the policy that “Starbucks does not allow guns in our stores.” Then consumers will have clarity on what is allowed and not allowed.
I’m not very impressed with “gun-damentalist” arguments about rights in this context. The Starbucks statement seems to be more about good manners and respect. In my opinion, weapons have no legitimate role in polite human interaction or in most peaceful gathering places.
Any business owner has a right to set this expectation on its own premises, for the comfort of all concerned. Gun owners who are afraid to leave their weapons outside Starbucks should consider cutting back on caffeine.
I am a conservative and defend the right to have a gun, but the radicals who make a stink about carrying a gun into Starbucks are over the edge. Our forefathers never envisioned the world we live in today when they gave us the right to bear arms. When was the last time somebody needed a gun to defend themselves and their latte?
Starbucks probably knew that there would be some controversy but thought that most gun owners are rational people who would respect Starbucks’ wishes.
For the many who bemoan “poor Starbucks,” I have to ask the question: why has SB found itself caught in a controversy? (Indeed, why do they seem frequently to be in the news for various issues divergent from selling coffee?)
I find it difficult to believe it’s by chance, as there are hundreds of national chains who deal with the same issues as SBX and yet avoid the spotlight. One possibility can be found in the first three words of Mr. Schultz’ letter: “Dear Fellow Americans,” rather than “Dear Starbucks Customers,” i.e., he feels a need to be not just the nation’s barista, but its conscience as well.
Howard Schultz is an activist CEO, and apparently could not resist getting involved in what has pretty much been a non problem. The “appreciation” events were very infrequent and were apparently not having any measurable impact on the business.
The gun rights advocates were abiding by the law, and the only “confrontations” were promoted by the anti gun activists. Howard’s new approach, while soft, amounts to saying “we do not really want you in here.” Now, it may snowball into a situation that costs the company traffic, sales, profits, and stock price.
Activist CEOs should be very careful in their fiduciary roles to not do things that might damage profits and the stock price. The SBUX board should pay attention.
I think this was geared to get rid of the demonstrators at some locations. Howard should have just said they don’t want demonstrations and no more. This is why many chains just ban the guns outright. Sure, you can conceal carry against the chain wishes but if somehow the weapon becomes visible then they can kick you out and you won’t be returning to that chain — let alone holding a pro gun demonstration in what should be a professional family friendly environment.
Starbucks is in a lose-lose situation. It is Starbucks’ right to not allow patrons to carry firearms in their stores. It is also the right of the patron to shop elsewhere. A number of businesses have put up legal signs to not allow firearms on premise. I just go elsewhere. It is not a boycott; I simply choose to not do business with establishments that are not 2nd Amendment friendly.