Yes, this is a real problem some places. At the closest Starbucks to me, there is practically never a free seat because of all the people camped out for hours at a time every single day. That means people with more reasonable needs, such as a place to sit for a few minutes waiting for a friend to arrive or complete an errand nearby, are out of luck. Those few are degrading the experience for many more, quite likely costing the store more than their own paltry consumption could justify (especially in a market with many alternatives).
Of course, this is exactly what anyone familiar with the tragedy of the commons would have expected. Self-regulation is not nearly as common or as effective as many would have us believe. Those squatters could yield this quasi-public space to others and work from home. They choose not to, knowing full well that they are being selfish by over-consuming that shared resource. They probably even know that the free lunch will not last forever. Nonetheless they persist. The proprietors have no choice but to take matters into their own hands, protecting their own interest by setting and enforcing limits.
With the right hardware it would be easy to tell which MAC address corresponds to which seat, and of course the proprietor would know when the occupant last purchased anything. That information should be sufficient to do the right thing when seats run out. ;)
> That means people with more reasonable needs, such as a place to sit for a few minutes waiting for a friend to arrive or complete an errand nearby, are out of luck.
I'm not sure that Starbuck's or other coffee shops view their mission as providing for the needs of people with a place to sit for a few minutes while waiting for a friend.
> Those few are degrading the experience for many more, quite likely costing the store more than their own paltry consumption could justify (especially in a market with many alternatives).
I somehow doubt this. Most of the complaints I see is that people who want to do things other than purchase goods (i.e., use the coffee shop as a place to hold meetings or wait for people) feel that they are unable to do those things as effectbecause other people are doing things other than purchasing goods (e.g., camping out with their laptops.)
I don't see much reason to believe that there is a whole lot of impact one way or another on the stores' ability to actually sell coffee, snacks, or other goods.
"I'm not sure that Starbuck's or other coffee shops view their mission as providing for the needs of people with a place to sit for a few minutes while waiting for a friend."
Actually, that has been part of the coffee-shop value proposition as long as there have been coffee shops. It's why they have seats in the first place. They're selling comfort as well as coffee. Obviously those seats are supposed to be for those who have purchased something, but within that context the social-connection role has been part of the equation for far longer than the WiFi-connection role.
"I somehow doubt this."
Doubt and rationalize all you want. It won't change the facts.
> Actually, that has been part of the coffee-shop value proposition as long as there have been coffee shops.
Selling coffee is the mission. Providing a place to hang out -- whether for a few minutes waiting for a friend or for a longer time -- is something that may, for some shops, be a means to advance that mission. But I don't think its the mission, or even a core service. If it was, they'd be selling that directly.
> Doubt and rationalize all you want. It won't change the facts.
The unsubstantiated speculation that the people that are doing not-buying-coffee things that you don't like are worth less to the coffee shop than people (including you) who you feel are being blocked by them in your desire to do not-buying-coffee things that you do like is not in any way established to be part of "the facts".
It's not unsubstantiated speculation. Read the damn story. It gives multiple examples of proprietors who are concerned about the impact the squatters are having on their bottom line. Are they all fools? Au contraire, they probably understand their business far better than either of us. There's even an example of a store that cut off WiFi and demonstrated a 30% increase in revenue. Those accounts are further reinforced from the consumer side by people right here who have said that they regularly walk out of coffee shops when they see those are full of squatters - a clear loss for those businesses. Are they all liars? Or is it just slightly more likely that the world is actually not as you'd wish it to be?
Your use of the word "squatter" is somewhat offensive. I'm sure of the coffee shop owners/employees asked them to leave, they would comply. Squatting is a legal term and typically implies hostility towards owners/rightful occupants.
For one, it saddens me that when I travel and need a place to drink coffee/eat a snack and catch up on email, I might be viewed as a "squatter" the minute I pull out a laptop...
The article uses "hobo," which is perhaps less offensive :)
I tend to camp out, or "squat," at coffee shops early in the mornings when they have very few customers anyways (true here at least, not in the states of course with more of a morning coffee shop culture). It's never really a problem because I'm gone before it gets busy, but I can see why there would be resentment.
Basically, if you are going to squat, don't go when its busy. Sometimes at night, for example, SBUX might be actually busy, but usually due to other squatters, so no guilt there.
I'm not suggesting that you're doing something wrong the minute you pull out your laptop. I don't think anybody is. It's all about how much of the finite seating resource is consumed for how much business. Somewhere down-thread is another comment about the purchase price for a cup of coffee being only partly about the coffee but mostly about the experience. Yes, and that's just as true for the person who only needs to sit down for ten minutes. They paid just as much for their coffee as the person who has been there all afternoon, they have just as much right to enjoy that experience, but all-afternoon guy is effectively crowding out dozens of such others. That's simply not fair.
I'm generally not affected by this myself, BTW. I don't go to coffee shops very often, and have only brought my laptop (sans power supply) a few times. The longest I've stayed has probably been a bit more than an hour. I've done more "squatting" at my local McDonalds, which has better WiFi and is practically empty in the mid-morning so nobody cares. However, I consider it a basic rule that if somebody else is waiting for something and you've had your turn then you should yield. If you don't feel that you've had your own fair turn yet, then by all means make the newcomer wait. No problem at all. This is only about the people who seem to feel that they're above that basic rule.
Your notion that the word "squatter" is offensive is offensive to me. Squatting is a long, proud tradition whereby property is taken from the greedy or dead and redistributed to those who are actually in a position to use it. Squatters are the rightful owners of property, both in spirit and in many places in law. It is a well established legal precedent that the needs of the living trump the wishes of the dead, and squatting laws were created to honor that.
Coffee shops are similar to book shops wrt providing a frreebie, i.e. wifi in coffee shop and reading latest instore mags in bookstore. Iusually bought one mag after spending an hour or 2 reading thru them to show my appreciation. Iresented it when bookshops started displaying their magazines wrapped in plastic only. Icouldnt even read the contents. Isuspect coffee shops will get the same reactions if they cut off wifi.
This is a real problem for bookshops and customers. Some people come in several times a week read for free and even bring in lunch. Often the magazines and newspapers are left in a state which is no longer fit for sale.
So what can we do?
In my opinion those people are making things worse for the shop and all decent customers, so just kick them!
But after years of "the customer is always right, many people have become so arogant that demanding acceptable behaviour from your customers will definitly kill your shop.
They could take the example that some record stores use, where there is a store copy that is played and customers use to see if they like it. When they bring it up to the register to buy, the clerk retrieves a brand-new copy.
> Selling coffee is the mission. Providing a place to hang out -- whether for a few minutes waiting for a friend or for a longer time -- is something that may, for some shops, be a means to advance that mission. But I don't think its the mission, or even a core service. If it was, they'd be selling that directly.
Really? And this is based on your experience running how many coffee bars?
Just today I was helping a friend with his resume, one who has started a couple of successful bars. The heart of what he had to say was about creating spaces for people to unwind, interact, meet, and just hang out. They were charging for the food and alcohol, but what they were selling was an experience.
Well that might have been true in the 17th century but Starbucks is totally fixated on making the most optimal use of its space - got to keep the cash coming as much as they are in avoiding CGT the tax on it.
> Of course, this is exactly what anyone familiar with the tragedy of the commons would have expected. Self-regulation is not nearly as common or as effective as many would have us believe. Those squatters could yield this quasi-public space to others and work from home.
I'm not sure you get the concept of these coffee shops. When I pay a coffee more than 5 dollars, I am not paying for the 0.1 dollar that the coffee actually costs to make, I am paying for a place to sit as well and do something with my time. Be it 10 minutes or 3 hours, it does not matter. You are not paying for the coffee. I consider it part of the service. I know for once that if I can't stay in these coffee shops I wouldn't even consider paying that outrageous amount just for a drink.
This being said, I don't really like going to SB or places like that, but when I do I certainly don't for the drink only.
You're basically saying "I know it's not fair, but screw you I got mine."
You're not being asked to decide on a corporate policy that you need to weasel out with such statements. The god damn question is simple, "Do you think this is fair?"
Personally I don't see any difference between this and paying for a train ticket and being unable to sit during the journey. So yeah, I think it's fair. Whoever comes first gets the seat, and keeps the sit if they want to. It's not like you are renting the seat per x minutes or something.
When you are in park do you bitch about people sitting on benches for too long?
I'm not asking for justification. You think it's fair, and I respect you for that. I may have a different opinion, and that's fine too! It's just that it seems dishonest to deflect a question like the politicians do.
i sympathise with the local indie coffeehouse trying to cultivate an atmosphere and wanting to keep out the laptop workers. but starbucks? that's just about the only reason they exist - the only people who stay at starbucks are doing it to leech wifi. that is the atmosphere. it seems silly to fight it.
Of course, this is exactly what anyone familiar with the tragedy of the commons would have expected. Self-regulation is not nearly as common or as effective as many would have us believe. Those squatters could yield this quasi-public space to others and work from home. They choose not to, knowing full well that they are being selfish by over-consuming that shared resource. They probably even know that the free lunch will not last forever. Nonetheless they persist. The proprietors have no choice but to take matters into their own hands, protecting their own interest by setting and enforcing limits.
With the right hardware it would be easy to tell which MAC address corresponds to which seat, and of course the proprietor would know when the occupant last purchased anything. That information should be sufficient to do the right thing when seats run out. ;)