Starbucks shop

January 16, 2025

Photo by TR on Unsplash

Should Starbucks End Its ‘Open-Door’ Policy?

Share: LinkedInRedditXFacebookEmail

Reversing its open-door policy after almost seven years, Starbucks will require people visiting its coffee shops to buy something in order to stay or to use its bathrooms.

The new policy, outlined in a Code of Conduct, will be enacted later this month and applies to the company’s cafes, patios, and bathrooms.

In a statement to “Good Morning America,” Starbucks spokesperson Jaci Anderson said the new rules are designed to help prioritize paying customers. She said most other retailers have similar rules.

“We want everyone to feel welcome and comfortable in our stores. Implementing a Coffeehouse Code of Conduct is something most retailers already have and is a practical step that helps us prioritize our paying customers who want to sit and enjoy our cafes or need to use the restroom during their visit,” said Anderson.

“This means our cafes, patios, and restrooms are for customers and partners,” Anderson continued. “By setting clear expectations for behavior and use of our spaces, we can create a better environment for everyone. These updates are part of a broader set of changes we are making to enhance the cafe experience as we work to get back to Starbucks.”

The Code of Conduct will be displayed in every store and also prohibit behaviors including discrimination, harassment, smoking, and panhandling. People who violate the rules will be asked to leave the store, and employees may call law enforcement. Employees will receive training on enforcing the new policy.

The new rules reverse an open-door policy established in 2018 after two Black men were arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks where they had gone for a business meeting. The incident, caught on video, went viral across social media and sparked national outrage and calls to boycott the chain, leading to an apology from Starbucks and the temporary shutdown of 8,000 company-owned stores for a mass employee training on combating racial bias.

At the time, Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz said he didn’t want people to feel “less than” if they were refused access, according to The Washington Post.

“We don’t want to become a public bathroom, but we’re going to make the right decision a hundred percent of the time and give people the key,” Schultz said.

By 2022, Schultz indicated that Starbucks might not be able to keep its bathrooms open to the general public, blaming a growing mental health problem that was posing a threat to staff and customers and making it difficult for Starbucks employees to manage stores. In July of that year, Starbucks closed 16 stores around the country — including six in Los Angeles and six in its hometown of Seattle — for repeated safety issues, including drug use and other disruptive behaviors.

Starbucks has also been making widespread changes since new CEO Brian Niccol joined the company from Chipotle in September 2024 amid declining sales, eroding employee morale, and pressure from activist investors. Niccol has vowed to make Starbucks’ locations “inviting places to linger,” with the goal of reestablishing the chain as the nation’s “community coffeehouse.”

In an open letter to employees, customers, and stakeholders just after becoming CEO, Nichol said Starbucks is a beloved brand but that he found during conversations with employees and customers a “shared sense that we have drifted from our core.”

Starbucks is also trying to incentivize customers to stay in its cafes instead of ordering to-go by giving perks for in-store orders. Beginning Jan. 27, all customers can get one free hot or iced coffee refill served in its ceramic mugs or reusable glasses. Previously, the perk only applied to members of Starbucks’ loyalty program.

“It is a very, very risky move,” Subodha Kumar, a professor of statistics, operations, and data science at Temple University’s Fox School of Business, told 6ABC in Philadelphia, on reversing the open access policy. “Clearly some customers will feel safer, but there’s a second type that some people will just not come because they feel it will not be a welcoming environment.”

Limiting restroom access also comes at a time when many U.S. cities and suburbs lack adequate public access to them.

BrainTrust

"This is a smart move for Starbucks. As a private business, its focus should be on customers and employees, not the community at large."
Avatar of Georganne Bender

Georganne Bender

Principal, KIZER & BENDER Speaking


"I see it as driving more revenue from paying traffic by encouraging customers to make it a destination to a pleasant environment to unwind, socialize, and collaborate."
Avatar of Georges Mirza

Georges Mirza

VP Product Management & Advisory, ComTask


"My first thoughts go to the employees who have to initiate this change. Strong situational training will go a long way to giving them confidence in reinforcing the policy."
Avatar of Allison McCabe

Allison McCabe

Director Retail Technology, enVista


Recent Discussions

Discussion Questions

Do you see more benefits than risks in Starbucks’ move to end its open-door policy that allowed nonpaying guests to hang out at its cafes and use its facilities?

What potential problems do you see in reversing the policy?

Poll

12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

I see this as “they have little choice.”
Those who object, presumably, will be panhandlers, harassers, smokers and those the-road-to-Hell-is-paved-with-good-intentlons types who make it their cause to speak for them.

Georges Mirza

I see it as driving more revenue from paying traffic by encouraging customers to make it a destination to a pleasant environment to unwind, socialize, and collaborate. What problems or boycotts can arise will be overshadowed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Georges Mirza
Neil Saunders

Starbucks is a private business. If you want to use the facilities and services it provides then you will now need to be a patron. There is nothing remotely strange or controversial about this.

Bob Phibbs

Yes. Would you go into a bank and just sit down whether you’re a customer or not I doubt it. This idea that a for-profit company owns a public space is just wrong. The third place was for people to come and have coffee and do their work, etc.

Allison McCabe

My first thoughts go to the employees who have to initiate this change. Strong situational training will go a long way to giving them confidence in reinforcing the policy.

Gary Sankary
Gary Sankary

They gave it a try, and in many places, open door didn’t work. The policy put team members and customers at risk. Also in play, space in a restaurant is an asset that needs to be manged. The point of comfortable surroundings it to incentivize people to come in buy food and beverages, and enjoy them in the space the company owns and is paying for. This isn’t a public space.
Practically, I believe the Barristas who have to enforce this new rule are going to have their hands full dealing with angry, entitled folks who feel like the store is somehow their space. I wish them well, it’s going to be tough.

John Lietsch
John Lietsch

Ever get the feeling that extremism, domestic or otherwise, might not be optimal for us as a species? The challenge with this and other short sighted policies is that they don’t even treat the symptoms of the real problems. The other challenge is the effect that this reversal will have on the staff because we have empowered people to be absolutely and unequivocally disrespectful, rude and self centered – and I’m not referring to the staff.

Brian Numainville

This seems like a pretty common sense move. If a go into a restaurant and just want to sit there, it would be a bit odd. Simply doesn’t seem very controversial that you need to buy something.

Georganne Bender
Georganne Bender

This is a smart move for Starbucks. As a private business, its focus should be on customers and employees, not the community at large.

Neil Saunders

Yes, quite agree. They have focused too little on customers and the experience. And many cafes are now too crowded and frantic. So a closed door policy will help alleviate this – albeit only modestly.

David Biernbaum

Starbucks’ open-door policy was never a good idea. It was not good for business, employees, or customers. Starbucks is a retailer, a restaurant, not a free library or a YMCA lounge.

For many years, Starbucks has been positioned as progressive do-gooders. Homeless people were welcome to walk in, use the rest rooms, and sit down. That’s very “ideal,” isn’t it?

As with other idealistic endeavors, it doesn’t work out. Several high-end customers expressed dissatisfaction with the atmosphere, as well as how homeless people occupied tables customers needed.

It’s my opinion that Starbucks’ decision to curtail the open-door policy was influenced by the above situation. This was a polite way of saying, “no more.”

Moreover, Starbucks stores are not large enough, or have enough furniture, to accommodate freeloaders. The in-store employees were also burdened with monitoring, talking to, and cleaning around these customers.

Mark Self
Mark Self

This change is needed. Two of the three SB’s I frequent always have at least two individuals inside, nothing in front of them, with seemingly all of their worldly possessions just outside in a shopping cart. They are either asleep, or muttering to themselves, or watching something on a phone. That cannot be great for business.
However-changing the code of conduct is just a baby step. The bigger issue is enforcement-if I am behind the counter I am not going to be eager to be the individual going over there to tell them they have to leave. And will the police enforce this? Doubt it.
Good change, however good luck with the execution of this change!

12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

I see this as “they have little choice.”
Those who object, presumably, will be panhandlers, harassers, smokers and those the-road-to-Hell-is-paved-with-good-intentlons types who make it their cause to speak for them.

Georges Mirza

I see it as driving more revenue from paying traffic by encouraging customers to make it a destination to a pleasant environment to unwind, socialize, and collaborate. What problems or boycotts can arise will be overshadowed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Georges Mirza
Neil Saunders

Starbucks is a private business. If you want to use the facilities and services it provides then you will now need to be a patron. There is nothing remotely strange or controversial about this.

Bob Phibbs

Yes. Would you go into a bank and just sit down whether you’re a customer or not I doubt it. This idea that a for-profit company owns a public space is just wrong. The third place was for people to come and have coffee and do their work, etc.

Allison McCabe

My first thoughts go to the employees who have to initiate this change. Strong situational training will go a long way to giving them confidence in reinforcing the policy.

Gary Sankary
Gary Sankary

They gave it a try, and in many places, open door didn’t work. The policy put team members and customers at risk. Also in play, space in a restaurant is an asset that needs to be manged. The point of comfortable surroundings it to incentivize people to come in buy food and beverages, and enjoy them in the space the company owns and is paying for. This isn’t a public space.
Practically, I believe the Barristas who have to enforce this new rule are going to have their hands full dealing with angry, entitled folks who feel like the store is somehow their space. I wish them well, it’s going to be tough.

John Lietsch
John Lietsch

Ever get the feeling that extremism, domestic or otherwise, might not be optimal for us as a species? The challenge with this and other short sighted policies is that they don’t even treat the symptoms of the real problems. The other challenge is the effect that this reversal will have on the staff because we have empowered people to be absolutely and unequivocally disrespectful, rude and self centered – and I’m not referring to the staff.

Brian Numainville

This seems like a pretty common sense move. If a go into a restaurant and just want to sit there, it would be a bit odd. Simply doesn’t seem very controversial that you need to buy something.

Georganne Bender
Georganne Bender

This is a smart move for Starbucks. As a private business, its focus should be on customers and employees, not the community at large.

Neil Saunders

Yes, quite agree. They have focused too little on customers and the experience. And many cafes are now too crowded and frantic. So a closed door policy will help alleviate this – albeit only modestly.

David Biernbaum

Starbucks’ open-door policy was never a good idea. It was not good for business, employees, or customers. Starbucks is a retailer, a restaurant, not a free library or a YMCA lounge.

For many years, Starbucks has been positioned as progressive do-gooders. Homeless people were welcome to walk in, use the rest rooms, and sit down. That’s very “ideal,” isn’t it?

As with other idealistic endeavors, it doesn’t work out. Several high-end customers expressed dissatisfaction with the atmosphere, as well as how homeless people occupied tables customers needed.

It’s my opinion that Starbucks’ decision to curtail the open-door policy was influenced by the above situation. This was a polite way of saying, “no more.”

Moreover, Starbucks stores are not large enough, or have enough furniture, to accommodate freeloaders. The in-store employees were also burdened with monitoring, talking to, and cleaning around these customers.

Mark Self
Mark Self

This change is needed. Two of the three SB’s I frequent always have at least two individuals inside, nothing in front of them, with seemingly all of their worldly possessions just outside in a shopping cart. They are either asleep, or muttering to themselves, or watching something on a phone. That cannot be great for business.
However-changing the code of conduct is just a baby step. The bigger issue is enforcement-if I am behind the counter I am not going to be eager to be the individual going over there to tell them they have to leave. And will the police enforce this? Doubt it.
Good change, however good luck with the execution of this change!

More Discussions