4 ms·
The linked paper (even just the abstract) states there's ~7% less attendance, and ~4% less time spent at most Starbucks locations. Even if people vote with thei
by 29083011397778 7y ago
The linked paper (even just the abstract) states there's ~7% less attendance, and ~4% less time spent at most Starbucks locations. Even if people vote with their wallets, it doesn't seem to be making up the difference as others avoid Starbucks in response to this policy.
- Scoundreller 7y agoIt's less attendance/time spent compared to nearby cafes/restaurants. Starbucks might be up overall pre vs post. The problem is the lack of randomization. We can't know if something else Starbucks did at or around the same period caused the drop. E.g. the initial protests themselves upsetting customers in the first place or a change in pricing/promos by itself or a competitor. Maybe Starbucks jacked up its prices (or others starting discounting), which is why the public disclosures don't indicate the relative drop in traffic. But "The decline in visits is around 84% larger for stores located near homeless shelters." is quite damning.
- yellowapple 7y agoI had trouble opening the paper (keeps asking for some signup in which I have no interest), but it doesn't sound like they've adequately isolated other factors, e.g. people thinking Starbucks is overpriced and subpar compared to other coffee shops (myself included) or people preferring to support local businesses over some sprawling multinational (myself included). That is: it's hard to rule out the possibility of this being just coincidence.
- publicgood123 7y agoan ungated version can be found on one of the authors' website: http://www.umitgurun.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/privateprovision.pdf http://www.umitgurun.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/privatep...
- yellowapple 7y agoAwesome, thanks!