« A Starbucks barista decides to hang it up -- literally! | Main | Why would a Starbucks in Hawaii sell Ecuadoran bananas? »

September 14, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jeff Tom

It all comes down to foottraffic. If mom/pop is not doing their share, then it is the property's owners duty to fix that for the other tenants.

RubyRod

moving down the street constitutes "fighting back" ? how militant.
The Landlord has the right to rent to whomever they see fit, if Sbux was willing to sign a long term lease for more, who are we to say boo?

TimeToGO

As someone who frequents The Bean, the atmosphere is nice and the people are friendly. The coffee beats Starbucks by a mile and I hate to see it move out of its space. The East Village doesn't need Starbucks, keep them in Midtown where the tourists are. I guess the bums on the Bowery have a new place to go to the bathroom though.

Starbux Star

News Flash: Location of Starbucks No 189 has also been announced!!! It will be located across the road from store 188. :)

Vicki C. Decker

This has been Starbucks pattern since day one. Offer a landlord a price no mom & pop store can afford, force them out and take over. This is why I will never support Starbucks, buy the stock, or drink their coffee. And I am a Seattleite!! They are bullies and allowed concealed guns to be carried into their stores.

Broyling Water

Vicki, if you're going to bash a company, at least have your facts straight. It's safe to assume that you're one of those uber liberal, anti-capitalist crusaders, but let's use some logic. Starbucks doesn't force landlords to accept their offers. If Starbucks wants to overpay for a lease(Which wouldn't be in their own best interests), it's perfectly legal. It's called capitalism, and the market will easily correct itself. If Starbucks overpays for their lease, and they get less than expected foot traffic due to an oversaturation of the brand in a geographical area, then the profits won't be there, which means that eventually the store will close.

Go look at the closing of over 300 stores
nationwide for proof of this phenomena. It's not like Starbucks is preventing the indy shop from existing, maybe if the store had built a successful relationship with their landlord, they would have had a long term lease, but something prevented that. Why would you tolerate having a month to month lease for over a year? Something doesn't smell right.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Search Site

Ads (2)