Will Starbucks’ Smoking Ban Affect Its Business?
Smoking bans in the U.S. can still get some people riled up. A case in point was last week’s revelation that Starbucks was not only going smoke-free inside its stores, but 25 feet outside them as well (as permitted by leases).
People both happy and unhappy with the announcement took to Starbucks’ Facebook page. Some claimed to be big spenders who would never go there again while others who said they hadn’t visited before pledging to become regular customers.
Whether the ban has any real effect on Starbucks remains to be seen. Some states and towns already have limits on outdoor smoking. The question is how Starbucks plans to enforce the ban.
Jaime Lynn Riley, a spokesperson for Starbucks, told The Christian Science Monitor, "If there were any concerns, we would hope to resolve it amicably."
Discussion Questions
Do you think Starbucks’ ban on smoking outside its stores is a wise move? Is this action something that other food retailers are likely to follow?
Back in 1994 I convinced a Newport Beach hotel client to ban smoking on the property. Business went up. I can’t imagine this is risky for Starbucks nearly 20 years later when a majority of locales ban smoking in public.
Yes. This action is consistent with Starbucks positioning as filling more than bodies; filling souls. It also reinforces its commitment to the well being of its customers and staff.
Yes. Most Americans don’t smoke and do not relish passing through the gray zone, created by the smoking minority, on their way into the store. Starbucks has now given every retailer, food and otherwise, permission to remove the cloud.
I think it’s a moot point. My informal survey—post announcement—has found baristas smoking outside their stores. Rules don’t matter unless they are enforced.
I don’t think it will hurt their business one bit. If anything, it will improve their positioning as an upscale place to hang out. And, it will reduce the cleanup and maintenance costs for their outside seating areas and perimeter. Any loss in customers will be replaced by the anti-smoking crowd.
For Starbucks its probably a good move but honestly, I’ve never seen anyone smoking near a Starbucks. So this might just be for the press release effect. Smokers nowadays, in my opinion, have been reduced to the lower socioeconomic demographic that is not the Starbucks customer. As for other establishments I can see mid-priced and high-end establishments wanting to maintain a clean image. So they will want to follow suit. Pubs in the lower socioeconomic areas will probably remain status quo.
Long gone is the ironic image of the French cafe with customers sitting drinking a cup of coffee and smoking a cigarette—inside or out.
As others have indicated, it will be interesting to see how Starbucks and its customers handle those customers who knowingly or not, violate the new 25 foot rule. You can expect that some employees will take a Laissez-faire attitude to the smokers outside the building while others will approach the issue with uncompromising zeal, leading to confrontation.
My expectation is that this will lead to Starbucks gaining some new customers and losing others. Those who use Starbucks as their office and who smoke will certainly have to find a new home.
Interesting development as we honor the life of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, largely responsible for the ban of smoking on airplanes. What a tremendous quality of life accomplishment that was.
Smokers have learned to adapt to these regulations. I agree with those above in seeing this as an easy transition for Starbucks.
This latest policy change isn’t likely to create much negative economic impact on Starbucks. It’s far from the first shot fired at smokers, it’s simply the latest evolution of a non-smoking policy that has been evolving for years. If smokers wanted to vote with their wallet, they’d have done so already.
The new policy only effects outdoor area’s owned by Starbucks (a very small percent of overall leases) in areas where local ordinances don’t already ban smoking.
Obviously enforcement is always a problem (it’s a Starbucks policy, not a law), but it is going to help solidify Starbucks image as a family friendly environment, and will create a healthier environment for employees and customers in some stores. It’s not going to be be seen as a new assault on smokers (who already feel under siege).
To put it in perspective, smoking has been banned in Paris since 2008.
I can’t see this as a loss to Starbucks. I can see it as a gain. Surely they will be able to curtail smoking in their leased space, and outside their doors which should be their principle concern. The 25 feet area is going to be another issue that will probably be in name only.
Sorry smokers, but Starbucks is doing the right thing here and acting consistent with being a good (corporate) citizen that cares about its customers, at least the majority of them. Which sadly enough, makes them more customer-centric than most brands today.
I cannot recall the last time I saw someone other than an employee smoking outside a Starbucks. The positioning is probably a correct one and consistent with their corporate message, so it makes sense. I believe there is more upside than downside, and I also believe this is much ado about nothing.
Yes, it’s a wise move! As a former smoker, I absolutely hate to be around anyone smoking because it reminds me of what I am missing! I need a nanny to protect me from freedom and Starbucks has a history of being politically correct. I eagerly await the banning of piercings and tattoos from behind the counter and elsewhere in the restaurant. I fully believe that everyone in the world should comply to my standards and beliefs—there would be far fewer idiots at large!
Committing to a message that allows for consumer interpretation of content and appreciation is not smart business in any economy. Sponsoring one opinion or life style over another, even if it is supported by a majority in a controversial subject matter, is pure foolishness and invites backlash and negative sales. Providing an off site location for smokers to stink up and kill themselves with reduced risk to those that would rather live might have been a better idea.
The court of public opinion will always rule the day for business.
If the world was enthusiastic towards smokers, smoking bans would not be increasingly in place. Since the world has realized the health dangers of smoking and many consumers actively voice their distaste for smoking in and around a food establishment, more of these smoking policies are seen.
There is a difference between judging the person who smokes and smoking as an activity, and electing to have the activity take place at the business you own. Starbucks should be able to make this decision without fear, and will probably be rewarded by customers who are in pursuit of a healthy lifestyle.
I’m with Timothy and David. I can’t remember seeing anyone smoking outside a Starbucks. Their policy aligns with other of their policies and their overall image. It’s hard to imagine that a ban on smoking outside their stores will have any appreciable or long-term negative impact on Starbucks. Undoubtedly, they already know this. I’d like to believe Starbucks understands the values of its customers.
It’s a good message to send to their audience: “We care about you so much that we don’t even want people near you smoking!” There is the issue of enforcement which will be non-existent aside from the occasional scowl from an angry barista. But as this is about PR the ban will be positive for their image.
I’m surprised they didn’t build a smoker’s cabana! Great move as it actually accomplishes what you want for non-smokers—a smoke free environment. Walking through a gauntlet of smokers isn’t smoke free.
I’ll form a threesome of agreement with David and Joan (though I’ll be a little more cynical and remove the “might be” from the PR angle). In fact, given the collective yawn expressed here, I think the more remarkable news would be a major chain—national or even local—making some accommodation for smokers…any lowbrow-catering outlets up for the challenge?
Interesting move since I am not sure how you can enforce the rule. Will Starbucks employees walk outside every few minutes to check? As someone who does not enjoy second hand smoke or cigarette butts outside on the ground, I like the idea.
How it is enforced remains to be seen. Not sure other retailers will follow.