When I worked Starbucks retail, we were subject to a "just say yes" policy. So when a couple came in and said they had forgotten some item, or never received it earlier in the day, I gave one to them without hesitation. It helped that I also recognized them as repeat customers. A co-worker said "you just got scammed" with disapproval. And I explained that I probably did, but we were required to do it even if we didn't want to. Otherwise we risked pissing off honest customers. Or maybe it just made more sense to spend the time serving the next 2 customers faster instead of being suspicious with 1 customer.
Later on, though, I remember pissing one off when he had to wait in line behind people buying drinks and he declared he would not be buying the $300 espresso machine he had come in to buy. I wonder if my actions resulted in a net gain or loss to the store...
> he declared he would not be buying the $300 espresso machine he had come in to buy
FWIW I strongly doubt that people who say things like that ever really intended to buy the thing. If you were really planning on buying a $300 expresso machine today, are you actually going to change your mind because you had to wait an extra 5 minutes?
When I worked retail, I would give customers whatever they asked for because 1) it's not my stuff, 2) it belonged to a soulless corporation that did not need it, 3) I am not paid enough to be a store's loss prevention agent.
But Starbucks had this explicit corporate policy anyway, which lines up with the article and its principles.
And it takes a while to become that realistically cynical about retail work. We were actually treated pretty well, had mostly friendly customers, and got along with management. At least at the time.
> Later on, though, I remember pissing one off when he had to wait in line behind people buying drinks and he declared he would not be buying the $300 espresso machine he had come in to buy. I wonder if my actions resulted in a net gain or loss to the store...
Sorry, I didn’t understand this part. Did he expect to cut in line because he wanted to buy the machine rather than a drink? I don’t get what you were supposed to have done differently. Or maybe I do, but the expectation doesn’t make sense to me, I have never seen anything like that done anywhere.
Our store had a couple registers on either end of an L-shaped counter. We didn't always open both. Our main register near the drinks was open and had a line. He approached me as I was doing some task near the other, closed register, which was also near where we stored the espresso machines for sale. So he didn't want to cut in line so much as to have me/us start a parallel flow for his purchase.
It's not a crazy idea; we appeared to have some spare capacity for it (although we really didn't). And he may have spoken to someone else about it earlier. It also wouldn't have been unreasonable to expect that once he got to the front of the line he would have been directed to the other register to wait anyway. He may have been trying to minimize the disruption he caused to the line. He may have also thought the line was too long and we should have already opened up the second register. We were very efficient with a single-register flow, but customers always tried to start up a second line before it was really necessary.
I'm not confident I did the right thing by him; just that there may be situations where losing a $300 sale may be the most profitable choice.
I’m fairly brand-loyal to Starbucks precisely because of their relaxed attitude towards customers. I remember a few times in grad school going there to work for a few hours, using their wifi, and leaving without buying a single item. I never intended to do so, I just got lost in my work. I don’t think the baristas even noticed.
Later on, though, I remember pissing one off when he had to wait in line behind people buying drinks and he declared he would not be buying the $300 espresso machine he had come in to buy. I wonder if my actions resulted in a net gain or loss to the store...