3 ms·

So we're gonna pile on Starbucks for negotiating lower tuition fees for their employees. What the hell is wrong with you people? Consider that if they had no p

So we're gonna pile on Starbucks for negotiating lower tuition fees for their employees. What the hell is wrong with you people? Consider that if they had no program at all, they wouldn't be getting the bad press right now. This article is asking us to punish Starbucks for doing something, because it doesn't conform to some childish stereotype for the proverbial rich giving some of their infinite money to the poor.

vtlynch 12y ago
Well the problem I see is that this could change the intent of Starbucks. Perhaps it wasent about them wanting to help employees, but instead was a mutually beneficial program for Starbucks and ASU. With online courses and MOOCs being seen as a new way to raise funds for schools, perhaps this is just a marketing tool for ASU to increase enrollment and attract attention (obviously this would happen for ASU either way, but if that was the goal that seems like a substantial change to the nature/effect of the program). If Starbucks was making a bigger financial investment, it would indicate they were really doing this because they value the benefits of education enough to trade the financially tangible for the intangible. With this clarification, that seemingly falls out the door. Im not sure how I feel about that. Its still a good program, because at the very least it is encouragement. EDIT: So it seems this isnt the whole story. So its good to see Starbucks is indeed contributing, which one again, changes their intent.
jjoonathan 12y ago
No, we're going to pile on them for implying that they did something other than what they actually did and hoping it would slip under the radar.
Zigurd 12y ago
Would a reasonable person equate "scholarship fund" with "negotiated discount?" The Starbucks program has a lot going for it. They didn't need to stretch the truth.
pdabbadabba 12y ago
I agree that what Starbucks is doing is admirable whether or not they're putting up their own money. But what irritates me, for one (and, I'd wager, other HNers), is that if this article is true, then the Starbucks PR blitz accompanying this decision has been, at best, badly misleading. I seem to recall, for example, Howard Schultz's making an appearance on the Daily Show the other day and telling the American public that paying tuition for all their workers was going to cost them millions upon millions of dollars. If that was a lie, it seems to me that's worthy of condemnation. EDIT: This article is clickbait, and it fooled me. If you read to the end you'll see that Starbucks is, indeed, paying for the students' last two years of college: > The program would work much the same way for the junior and senior years, except that Starbucks would reimburse workers for their out of pocket costs, once they completed 21 credits.
- russelluresti 12y ago
  Finally, someone actually read the whole article.
brandonbloom 12y ago
I understand your perspective, but it should be pretty clear while people are going to "pile on Starbucks". If they had come out and said that they negotiated lower tuition fees for their employees, they'd have gotten a small PR bump and some deserved good will. However, they were intentionally misleading. Furthermore, there's a pretty good chance that a large number of folks who got wind of the original PR blitz will never hear this follow-up story. Starbucks' PR team took an intentional calculated risk in running the story the way that they did. The savvy public has a moral obligation to make these sorts of scummy marketing bets produce a lower expected value.
fleitz 12y ago
Yeah the article seems stupid, while technically they aren't contributing to the scholarship they do pay tuition for the last 2 years. I'm not the biggest fan of starbucks, mostly because their coffee doesn't taste that good, however, I don't why what they've done shouldn't be applauded. It's kinda funny that I see more people upset about the business practices of Starbucks/Wal-Mart than Lockheed Martin.

vtlynch 12y ago

Well the problem I see is that this could change the intent of Starbucks. Perhaps it wasent about them wanting to help employees, but instead was a mutually beneficial program for Starbucks and ASU. With online courses and MOOCs being seen as a new way to raise funds for schools, perhaps this is just a marketing tool for ASU to increase enrollment and attract attention (obviously this would happen for ASU either way, but if that was the goal that seems like a substantial change to the nature/effect of the program). If Starbucks was making a bigger financial investment, it would indicate they were really doing this because they value the benefits of education enough to trade the financially tangible for the intangible. With this clarification, that seemingly falls out the door. Im not sure how I feel about that. Its still a good program, because at the very least it is encouragement. EDIT: So it seems this isnt the whole story. So its good to see Starbucks is indeed contributing, which one again, changes their intent.

jjoonathan 12y ago

No, we're going to pile on them for implying that they did something other than what they actually did and hoping it would slip under the radar.

Zigurd 12y ago

Would a reasonable person equate "scholarship fund" with "negotiated discount?" The Starbucks program has a lot going for it. They didn't need to stretch the truth.

pdabbadabba 12y ago

I agree that what Starbucks is doing is admirable whether or not they're putting up their own money. But what irritates me, for one (and, I'd wager, other HNers), is that if this article is true, then the Starbucks PR blitz accompanying this decision has been, at best, badly misleading. I seem to recall, for example, Howard Schultz's making an appearance on the Daily Show the other day and telling the American public that paying tuition for all their workers was going to cost them millions upon millions of dollars. If that was a lie, it seems to me that's worthy of condemnation. EDIT: This article is clickbait, and it fooled me. If you read to the end you'll see that Starbucks is, indeed, paying for the students' last two years of college: > The program would work much the same way for the junior and senior years, except that Starbucks would reimburse workers for their out of pocket costs, once they completed 21 credits.

russelluresti 12y ago
Finally, someone actually read the whole article.

brandonbloom 12y ago

I understand your perspective, but it should be pretty clear while people are going to "pile on Starbucks". If they had come out and said that they negotiated lower tuition fees for their employees, they'd have gotten a small PR bump and some deserved good will. However, they were intentionally misleading. Furthermore, there's a pretty good chance that a large number of folks who got wind of the original PR blitz will never hear this follow-up story. Starbucks' PR team took an intentional calculated risk in running the story the way that they did. The savvy public has a moral obligation to make these sorts of scummy marketing bets produce a lower expected value.

fleitz 12y ago

Yeah the article seems stupid, while technically they aren't contributing to the scholarship they do pay tuition for the last 2 years. I'm not the biggest fan of starbucks, mostly because their coffee doesn't taste that good, however, I don't why what they've done shouldn't be applauded. It's kinda funny that I see more people upset about the business practices of Starbucks/Wal-Mart than Lockheed Martin.