Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

nber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 164 posts

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#111

Post by throwaway173738 »

kumarm wrote: post #89
lotsoweiners wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t need a kiosk; I have an espresso machine I can operate at home or in the office. You would probably enjoy the experience of a small, locally owned coffee shop then. Starbucks is optimizing for their profit. In my suburban city, Starbucks has closed most or all locations that were a few miles from the freeway. They built new locations with drive throughs and very little to no seating within a few blocks of e…

>> Starbucks is optimizing for their profit. Are we shocked businesses are optimizing for their profit? Isn't that their purpose?

Corporations were originally for some public benefit. It’s only recently that profit has become their sole aim.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#112

Post by throwaway173738 »

anovikov wrote: post #104
fragmede wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. For now, every business is run by a human being, not AI, so all of the small mom and pop businesses optimize for the whims of the businesses owner. Got that one vendor with the sales person that they like more than the other vendor's because they were rude? Guess who's winning the contract with no oversight? Mom or pop tired today? They're not optimizing for profit, they're taking a nap. Mom feel bad…

If so, it is natural that those businesses go under.

No it’s not natural. Many of those businesses survive very well and still maintain their essential humanity.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#113

Post by throwaway173738 »

graeber_28927 wrote: post #102
imp0cat wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every IKEA might be different, so YMMV, but there usually are (sometimes well-hidden) shortcuts.

IKEA regularly shuffles around it's layout. They won't let you learn shortcuts and exploit experience. I learnt this the hard way several times in my local IKEA, but I also read an article about how this is absolutely strategic in their thinking. Unfortunately I couldn't find it to back me up.

This is true. A lot of shortcut doors are very non descript too and they look like doors into some back room or warehouse you’re not supposed to enter. They do mark them on the store maps though. “You don’t have to be rich, just smart” indeed.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#114

Post by throwaway173738 »

asdff wrote: post #80
thundergolfer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People sitting on their laptops, usually with headphones, are actually themselves hostile to third places and that's why some cafes ban them on weekends. The definition of a third place is fully incompatible with it being just a remote work location: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place

The issue is that its a starbucks. I think if people are trying to hang out with their friends, at this point in 2024 they are not going to waste that moment of everyone's schedules aligning like the planets at merely starbucks. I hope at least. Not to mention the menu is basically optimized not to have you stay and hang out, its prepackaged or microwaved stuff, unlike most other local cafes where they will serve you…

Where I grew up it was either Starbucks or McDonalds. We didn’t otherwise have a lot of options as young people. The only other third places were bars.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#115

Post by TrueSlacker0 »

mettamage wrote: post #71

Wait, aren't third places public places? Like, squares or parks? I thought commercial establishments were second places.

In Howard Shultz book about Starbucks he said one of Starbucks goals was for it to be a third place to be able to safely go to chat and socialize. Home is one, work is two. He wanted Starbucks to be able to be a/the third. Similar to what a church or pub has provided throughout history but a lot of people no longer go to church.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#116

Post by kbos87 »

asdff wrote: post #84
shermantanktop wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d assume that the extreme difference in rent is a bigger factor than the amount of competition.

For some of the locations that have been takeoutified, they used to have chairs and tables but these were purposely removed. The room is awkwardly empty so they stuff it with random chochkys like insulated mugs to fill the void.

I think there’s some truth to the notion that they’ve done this in markets and stores where they are more likely to have a problem with homelessness and non-paying customers. I’ve seen first hand how much time and energy some Starbucks employees have to put in to waking people up who are sleeping in the store, cleaning themselves in the bathrooms, or trying to bring in a cart full of their belongings. Goes without saying (in my opinion) that it’s sad and a failing of society, but it also has to be a real problem for Starbucks.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#117

Post by kbos87 »

willsmith72 wrote: post #20
kbos87 wrote: post #17

This is an aside, but my how far has Starbucks fallen at the hands of profit optimization. A Starbucks used to be a great place to spend time. Today the interior of almost every Starbucks is cold, beat up, and (intentionally?) uncomfortable. (In the stores where they even still have seating, which another commenter pointed out.) The quality of the product is barely a step above a gas station. On the other hand, my ar…

It seems like everyone's experience is highly localised. Even within 3km of my place I have 4 starbucks. 1 is amazing, 2 are not great, and 1 is the takeaway variant. Which one is the true measure of "Starbucks"? It's the same for local cafes too. Also what's with the "they just want to make a profit" argument going round here? Why wouldn't they? They literally have a legal duty to do so. Should we instead incentivis…

I don't have a problem with profit motive at all, but I think it's completely valid to point out situations where it's taken to an extreme that destroys the brand or puts it in a vulnerable position, which is arguably being done to Starbucks in my opinion.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#118

Post by kbos87 »

jerkstate wrote: post #39
shermantanktop wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s segment this market! “Starbucks Deluxe” for the golfers and yacht owners. “Starbucks Influencer,” with pink cups and led rings at every table. “Starbucks Classic” for the retired and confused. And of course, “Starbucks Homeless” to capture the downtown vibe.

I think they are doing this already, I was in NYC a few months ago and saw a “Starbucks Reserve”

The Reserve stores are absolutely fantastic (and twice the price.) The Seattle location was the first one I had ever been to. Sadly it seemed to me like they stopped growing the concept... the one in Palm Springs is really just an ordinary Starbucks despite being branded as a Reserve, and they pulled the plug on an intended opening in Boston a few years back.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#119

Post by Nasrudith »

Ekaros wrote: post #98
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we get the good parts of gentrification without the bad? Is avoiding the bad really worth freezing an area in amber?

Is there good parts? Then again this forum is for those doing the gentrifying. So maybe it is wrong place to ask...

Depends on if you are a part of the crime rates that go down or not.

More seriously: lower crime, more services, reduced infastructural and service strain, higher income, and an area made more desirable.

The very hard part would be getting only the good, to bring in investment and raise incomes of individuals across all individuals at a neighborhood level instead of just importing richer people. The levels of sudden life changes required frankly suggest mind control being involved.

Post reply on HN