The company also announced Tuesday it expects to open fewer than 200 new company-operated stores in the United States in fiscal 2009. (Listen to the conference call.) Starbucks says the stores that will be shuttered are spread across all major U.S. markets with approximately 70 percent of them opened since the beginning of fiscal 2006. The company says it will try to place workers from closed stores in remaining Starbucks. (Wall Street likes the news; at last look, Starbucks' stock was up 6.5% in after-hours trading.) (Read the AP story || Read Starbucks' press release || Read Starbucks CFO's prepared statement)
July 01, 2008
I have been a $120 a month starbucks customer since 2000. It is part and parcel of who I am really. people know that about me.
I am cutting out starbucks because of rising costs of food and gas. And my wife and I are in the top 10% of wage earners in the US, so this is not just hitting the lower middle and lower classes. At some point you have to ask if it makes sense to buy $4 venti latte when you bitch about gas all day.
I would have cut it out completely if I did not work across the street from a store. I can walk over in the afternoon.
I suspect this store will be closed. It is newer and it is not that busy compared to other stores in the area. I cannot decide if I will be happy or sad it is gone. :)
Ad far as drive thru's - they are a catch 22. period. I understand that they do not encourage the starbucks experience and thus maybe hurt the image over time. They are not environmentally great I suppose to. however, if you have small kids (I do) there are times that if there is a drive thru I will get a coffee plus 2 kids milks and if there is not a drive thru I get nothing.
McD's is going to really hurt the drive thru market when their espresso based drinks hit all their stores. I mean, if I am going to only do a drive thru (and thus not get to chat much with the staff) I might as well pay 60% as much and hit McD's. I tried their drinks at a test market over a year ago in Gaylord, MI and it was not bad. They have similar automated espresso machines anyway, so the difference is small. Now if I were going in, I would not consider McD's over SBUX.
Last thing (sorry, losts of thoughts here) they have to offer more discounts and rewards to people like me. Losing a $120 a month customer is big and there are tons of us out there. You have to figure out a way to keep us on the hook, even if it means us only spending $100 a month. The current rewards suck for me as I only get lattes (hot or iced) and I dislike any flavors. Something like a free latte a week if I got one the other 6 days.
And some other thing for casual customers.
Posted by: Indygreg | July 02, 2008 at 08:17 AM
License stores are a good thing for Starbucks. I have many loyal customers and new customers that become regulars that went to a company operated one and did not get what they expected, either in service or quality
Posted by: licenseebarista | July 02, 2008 at 08:19 AM
CANCEL LEADERSHIP
Posted by: Concerned SM | July 02, 2008 at 08:19 AM
hmm, interesting. My store is super small and only busy for about five hours in the morning. I fear for the continuing presence of my store....
Oh well, sucks to be me. But you can find another job, even in the current economy. It's merely a matter of what you're willing to do and how hard you're willing to work.
This too shall pass. Every partner who's being cut back should remember that. There is opportunity in all adversity. It's not Starbucks, so it's time to find another.
Posted by: Blindsided | July 02, 2008 at 08:38 AM
I hope that our store gets a Mastrena from one of the store's that's closing.
Posted by: jenna | July 02, 2008 at 08:39 AM
Jamie, i agree with you. we ceased to become partners when we started using automated machines. any half wit can hit a button. baristas are not artists at starbucks anymore. our value went down significantly.
Posted by: jenna | July 02, 2008 at 08:43 AM
Agree with the comment about not being partners once the automated machines came in. As a customer, that was the end of the true starbucks experience. I loved the sound and smell . . . a real coffee shop.
Posted by: Indygreg | July 02, 2008 at 09:01 AM
RE: the stock price... The fact that the market has essentially shrugged off the news yesterday should be cause for concern.
The pop in the evening was likely the work of a few small amateurs, speculating on a big run today. However, with the stock trading flat since the news, this tells me that a) the news was already priced in to the stock price and b) the market is waiting for bigger news.
I honestly expected bigger movement today on this news. It's concerning.
Posted by: truth | July 02, 2008 at 09:56 AM
I'm a reporter working on this and I don't expect media relations to be getting back to me anytime soon.
Local Starbucks stores have been told not to talk to the media, but they did say that a list of the stores to be closed was going out this afternoon.
Does anyone have any idea if this is true and if so, has an advanced copy leaked?
Much thanks
j
Posted by: JP | July 02, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Howie sold a basketball franchise with 30+ years of rich history away from millions of fans - everyday Seattle people - to a group he knew would not stay in Seattle. He crushed millions of people's hopes and dreams - mostly children. All in the name of a few bucks he doesn’t need.
Do you think he stops and thinks for once second about the 12,000 people he puts out of a job? No way! No hesitation - no problem. He has no soul, and no conscience. Classic definition of a narcissistic psychopath.
Posted by: Chase M | July 02, 2008 at 10:52 AM
With such a giant in the industry cutting back it gives a chance to the little companies to increase their business. Competition is great to a certain extent.
Posted by: Curtis van Kempen | July 02, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Howard sacrificed 600 stores so that all 12,000 won't be bought out (which there is still a chance of happening). Become profitable or else he will have no choice but to sell Starbucks to a company who will convert us all into licensed stores (they are FAR MORE PROFITABLE).
So yeah, it sucks... but he saves 150,000 partners from a buy out.... at least temporarily.
Posted by: temporarysolution | July 02, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Saved the other 12,000 stores? Prevented a buyout? Based on what?
Someone bought 72 million shares on Apr 24. On Aug 11, we'll find out who that was, and I think you'll find that you've already been bought out. 65% of shares are already owned by institutions. It's not like this company is 'partner-owned'. It's not.
Posted by: truth | July 02, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Remember that video where some guy visited all 171 (or however many) Starbucks stores in Manhattan? If that wasn't proof that there are too many Starbucks stores around, nothing is.
I'm sad that 600 stores are closing. And I'm definitely worried about my job (as an almost ready ASM, do they really need me right now), but I still understand it.
But it also sucks. Work isn't fun right now, and it won't be until the dust settles.
Posted by: waltie | July 02, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Truth, I'd like to know why you have such a personal vendetta about ensuring that on the hour, every hour, you are committed to seeing this ship sink.
We're you not hugged enough as a child? are your days of working from home, without human contact, losing money on investments, getting the best of you?
In all seriousness, why do you post here so often, and with such vengence? Sure, I don't dispute that some of your arguments have data point to support them, but just wondering why you feel like you need to be Gargemel in the land of the Smurfs?
Posted by: stillhereandhappy | July 02, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I do not work here nor have I ever . . . so this is not my job .. . but I never get these reactions when companies cut back. This is a business. Sorry that the leaders of said business have to make some cuts. NO COMPANY should ever go for decades without trimming back the bushes. Blame the leaders for putting in too many stores. The people that are being laid off had a job for a few years do to this overgrowth.
I have worked at companies that once were on top and then fell apart (dot come anyone) and people where the same way. Acting as if the leaders somehow owed them a job even it made the company lose money. Nuts.
Good luck to all and sorry for your loss if you get cut. But this hatred for one man is nuts. His job is to make this profitable. Trust me that if gas and food prices stay like this or increase, starbucks will have much more to worry about than 600 stores going away. Luxury items like lattes are only just now starting to be cut out.
Posted by: Indygreg | July 02, 2008 at 11:22 AM
My thoughts on the Drive-Thru:
I just started at a store here in Phoenix, AZ. People in Arizona live in their cars. They go from an air conditioned house to an air conditioned car. A car out here is a necessity because public transportation is below par with most major metropolitan cities. So, understandably, drive-thru sales are going to make up a good portion of the business.
Personally, I don't like them. I have friends who have been long time customers of Starbucks are in fat, very loyal. A few of them have complained that at stores with drive-thru's, the drive-thru takes priority over people who walk-in. Some of them even refuse to go to a location with a drive-thru because the service is usually really bad and the drinks are inconsistant. Before I started at SBUX, I experienced the drive-thru lag more than a few times.
Now, not all locations with drive-thru's have been lacking in service. There's one store I can think of that has been consistant, friendly and fast. It's one of the busier locations here. A large part of that I think depends on the staff.
But then again, I'm not the type of person who is in a hurry. I don't have kids to get to school or really have anything that's so dire and immediate that I can't get out of my car and order a beverage. I prefer coffee from a coffee press and enjoy taking time out to appreciate a good cup of coffee.
I'll probably be transferring to a store without a drive-thru when I can.
Posted by: dharmacup | July 02, 2008 at 11:24 AM
As I've said all along, the company has reached 'meat-grinder' mode, and I've seen lots of families chewed up in similar situations. Including mine.
I'm trying to provide some rational discourse amongst the 'cleansed'.
People need to be warned, not soothed. This is gonna get a lot worse.
So make all the personal attacks you want. I'm comfortable knowing that I've had good intentions, unlike most of the crew running the show in Seattle.
Posted by: truth | July 02, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I've heard whisperings that in certain remote markets, many stores will have to give up their assistant managers, and duties will be redistributed to supervisors. Where I live, rumor has it that only 1 store in our town will be keeping their ASM. That leaves 6 ASM's to be demoted or relocated,and that isn't even considering partners from stores that might possibly be closed. If this is a widespread theme, more partners may be affected this year than we think. Just imagine, you are a newly hired/promoted ASM, finally making ends meet with your salary, starting a family, buying a car... What happens when you suddenly are forced to relocate your family 500 miles or be demoted to supervisor? Tough decision.
Posted by: Fancy Barista | July 02, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I closed a store as a DM due to the demolition of the shopping center that it was in. At least half the partners decided it was time to move onto something else, in spite of the fact that there were several stores within a 2 mile radius that would have been happy to have them. A few of them even had stores closer to their homes that would have taken them, but they still chose to leave. They made the right decision for them and I fully supported them in whatever they decided to do.
Some markets will probably do better than others at absorbing hourly partners: shift and management may be a bit more difficult though.
It's bad news when any company starts laying off, but I am a bit flabbergasted to read in articles related to this announcement that SBUX leadership still thinks that 25-30% cannibalization is an OK business model. That worked early on, but at this stage in the game....it's another story entirely.
Posted by: former sbuxgirl | July 02, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Large incorporated institutions, like health care, the airlines and retail stores are all experiencing this backlash of their previous greed-motivated decisions. I'm sure most of those decisions were made by management that was hired from outside--with theoretical degrees and absolutely no experience.
Diluting the brand kills business. I witnessed this first hand in Arizona with Krispy Kreme. I'm sure most of you are very familiar with KK and it cache the brand has. Well, someone here in AZ took it way too far. They opened a few stand-alone stores to rave reviews and lines around the block. They had a few locations that did very well.
Someone got greedy at KK. They started to place donuts in all of the major grocery stores, gas stations, car washes, ANYWHERE they could get a kiosk into. What was the result? The market was completely and I mean, completely, over saturated with donuts. It got so ridiculous that they eventually closed all the stores here in Arizona!
Posted by: dharmacup | July 02, 2008 at 11:45 AM
TRUTH... we already know who bought the shares! It is no secret! He bought them about a month ago. 842,000 to be exact.
Nelson Peltz bought the shares. He is also the person who "TRANSFORMED" Wendy's. Exactly. We needed to get rid of the weakest. Is a buy out possible still? HIGHLY.
Peltz has great potential for a buy-out and turning us into licensed-stores. However, the greater our profits, the less likely a buy-out.
Posted by: temporarysolution | July 02, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Is 842,000 enough to give your controlling stock?
Posted by: jzojzo | July 02, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Suddenly I don't feel so bad about being fired last week. Hopefully my former DM will be next to file for unemployment!
Posted by: baristajoe | July 02, 2008 at 12:27 PM
You guys have the stock thing wrong.
The Peltz ownership stake was announced a few weeks ago, but was for the FIRST QUARTER of 2008 only. That's why I keep harping on the Aug 11 date. That's the day the big investors have to file the report for the SECOND quarter, which will account for the April 24 stock volume.
Yes, we know how much Peltz owned as of Mar 31. On Aug 11, we find out how much he owns as of June 30.
And of course, we all know he likes to buy a little stock and a LOT of options, which don't have to be reported.
Posted by: truth | July 02, 2008 at 01:08 PM
Transferring 12,000 partners will not be as daunting a task as some are making it out to be. There will be no "you need to move 500 miles away" silliness -- in areas where we have saturated the market, stores can be within blocks of each other. As one former DM pointed, many may find its just time for them to move on and accept the severance. For those that wish to stay, I can say with confidence that if they're in my region, they'll be welcomed with open arms. As far as the cost of a new hire vs. tenured? Starbucks' raises are not that significant, and there is a salary cap even for baristas. Paying a partner $2 more per hour because of tenure will more than pay for itself with the skill, knowledge and experience that tenure brings vs. the sheer confusion and sometimes trying experience a customer will have with a partner they may be expecting to handcraft their 2/3 Decaf Triple Venti 2 pump Vanilla Soy Extra Hot No Foam 1.5 Splenda Caramel Macchiato with expertise. And could you double cup that, please?
To clarify someone mentioning Bean Stock, they are not stocks given to you. It is an -option-, which means essentially that those stocks are put on reserve for you and you can choose to exercise them (buy and hold, buy and sell) within a 10 year period of their grant. You do not own those stocks until you purchase them at the grant price which, right now, would be a foolish thing to do. In a time where the stock price rises, it's super awesome, though. (Our company's stock purchasing plan is very different, however- you do own those.)
As for notifying partners first, I personally feel that the company really needed to control how this information was put out. Our competitors would've been chomping at the bit to release this information to the press on their terms. The reality of the situation is, even if partners would've known an hour before the press conference, the press would've known 45 minutes before the press conference.
In regards to Espresso Excellence being a stunt because they were re-training us to push a button... What a fiscally irresponsible "stunt" that was, indeed. I speak for my store when I say that our Beverage Quality has been fantastic since EE, and I think it was well worth the investment. Yes, I am owning the fact that our priorities were not in line with perfect beverages and great customer connections before EE, but that is the past and it is what it is. We rock that jank, now. And pushing a button! Tee hee! Ladies and Gentlemen, if you wish to critique my ninja-like barista skills, and you think you can do my job better, the applications are at the register. There's no button to push for the love that goes into all of my beverages. The only difference between the old machines and the new is that we tamped your espresso by hand instead of the precision quality of the machine tamping it.
We didn't call each other "partners" because we all got Carpal Tunnel Syndrome together using your romantic less automated Espresso Machines. We call each other "partners" because we are all given the opportunity to purchase stock in our company at a discounted rate, and therefore, have more invested in the success of the company. In the "salad days" of Starbucks opening 2 stores within a 5 square mile radius every month, lines so long customers were holding the door open, and 100 beverage 1/2 hours, it seemed undoubtedly feasible to surge the growth to our Senior Leadership. I do not fault them for capitalizing on that time, and I do not fault them now for addressing the blowback of such aggressive growth. I applaud the decision and wish every partner well that chooses to stay or to go.
Posted by: strbcks | July 02, 2008 at 01:38 PM
MEDIA RELATIONS WARNING
Starbucks' media relations warning posted earlier on this blog (aimed at a Seattle-based journalist and lippy partners) is standard stuff for a PR dept during time of change like store closures. But the staging of this one was pretty lame, and probably just the work of a jr. PR manager, and not approved beforehand by dept.
- PR dept.'s don't get into a pissing match with a journalist in a blog; they pick up the phone.
- PR communicates to company employees about media policy by way of company intranet.
Having said that, IF the gossip posting was approved by Starbucks PR, then the company has another dept to clean.
Posted by: viet coffee | July 02, 2008 at 01:42 PM
Somewhere a bunch of Dunkin Donuts execs have huge smiles plastered on their faces. Sheesh, there must be a thousand business books and business models that say Starbucks did it all wrong for the long haul...growing too fast kills nearly every type of business if you are in it for the long haul....and raping customers on the price of coffee finally crossed that fine line between trendy and rediculous. Hate to see people lose jobs, but not sad to see Starbucks getting spanked for the GREED over the past couple years.
Posted by: troll | July 02, 2008 at 01:58 PM
I worry about the poor SMs that will find out that in 4 weeks their stores will close, and how much hard work they will be expected to do. They won't get their vacation paid out and will probably have to cancel any plans they have.
Respect and dignity my ass.
Posted by: Lilith | July 02, 2008 at 02:09 PM
Lilith --
After the news last night, I sat around talking with my husband trying to anticipate the ratio of SMs to be moved or take the severance.
Do we go on the assumption that an unprofitable store is run by a 'bad' SM? If so, why not just put in a 'good' one? If its due to major factors beyond SM's control, will nearly all 600 be retained?
(When I said 12,000 partners would be easy to move, I meant to say baristas. No idea what they'll do about management.)
Posted by: strbcks | July 02, 2008 at 02:16 PM
On a side note, I had at least 12-15 job offers today from customers, head hunters etc. It's nice to know that people still care.
Posted by: Darleen | July 02, 2008 at 02:20 PM
If you know anyone at those closing stores or otherwise looking for , I am a business owner looking for quality people with integrity, and conviction. I don't know if this opportunity is right for them or if they are the right fit for my company, but I have found Starbucks Partners and Leaders to have those qualities I listed abouve. Email me at: wfgschweitzer@gmail.com
Posted by: John | July 02, 2008 at 02:46 PM
“We call each other "partners" because we are all given the opportunity to purchase stock in our company at a discounted rate, and therefore, have more invested in the success of the company.”
In response to your post above STRBCKS, I forget, were those unfortunate souls who worked at Enron prior to its implosion the “partners” of Enron’s CEO Skillling (just like all the baristas/SSs/ASMs/SMs, etc. who are soon to be without a job are Howard’s partner)?
Or were the Enron folks just ordinary employees who got the shaft -- unlike the 12,000 Starbucks partners who, of course, know Howard is a visionary who would only treat them with dignity and respect?
Posted by: Enron II ????? | July 02, 2008 at 03:27 PM
STRBCKS -- my wife and I were discussing the same thing last night. Kind of scary to think of all those SMs who have been working so hard having to take the severance package. But with 600 stores closing and only 200 slated to open in fiscal '09, even if they were to fill those positions with exising SMs (which means no promotions for ASMs!) there's still 400 SMs out of luck. My wife and I were just about to put in a bid for a house when this broke. I don't feel safe at all right now.
Posted by: Mark | July 02, 2008 at 03:48 PM
I think that you should all be looking out. If you think that your jobs are safe, think agian. If you are am SM or ASM that has been given corective action on your or your stores performance keep in mind that anyone can be laid off. under performing managers could be let go and replaced with managers from the closing stores.
I was a partner for 9 years. The first 5 were great. We cared about our partners and customers. The last four I witnessed the company become a numbers driven machine. It was a hard dission to leave, but I saw the direction the company is headed and made the best dession of my life to leave.
Good luck to all who think that changing direction every week is what will restore the company to its former glory.
Posted by: Get out now | July 02, 2008 at 07:46 PM
nobody from the MEDIA department would be dumb enough to post on here, but it is company policy to ask people not to directly talk to the media. i mean, who at the barista level, or even the SM level, knows enough about what is going on to do more than speculate? aren't any of you tired of all the stories in the papers and online that are full of misinformation because somebody who didn't know what they were talking about talked to a reporter? dollar drip anyone?
Posted by: media? | July 02, 2008 at 09:14 PM
Hugs to the poor people who will be losing their jobs. The rest of us will survive.
Posted by: Seraphine | July 02, 2008 at 11:24 PM
We found out today and are taking it pretty hard. Most of us will be able to transfer, but it is definitely a loss.
Posted by: jd | July 03, 2008 at 12:38 AM
A change is as good as a rest. They say....
Posted by: Grardie | July 03, 2008 at 12:48 PM
ESPRESSOBLEND-
Did you or did you not state that you would no longer be coming to this site due to bias on the webmasters side? Be a man/woman of your word and troll along!
Posted by: carol | July 03, 2008 at 06:38 PM
I left one Starbucks SSC in an international market not that long ago and hearing this news saddens me, but also comes as no surprise given the current economic climate. Starbucks represented itself as an affordable luxury. People can no longer afford their homes!
I'm just surprised they've sustained it for this long and I imagine I'll be reading news of some international closures in the near future.
From available information, internal communications have been poorly handled. They have had the list of stores closing, yet held off on announcing to partners of that decision. Imagine the fear and anxiety these partners would have been facing and you will know that this has not been in keeping with the message of respect and dignity.
When I made the move to leave, I no longer found resonance in the values that were once the heart and soul of the business. And all of the recent introduction of more complexity in drinks and offerings is great for customers, but with no compensation or additional support for partners is a nightmare from an operational perspective.
I remember life behind the bar and I'm kind of glad I don't wear the green apron anymore.
Operations should have stood up to product development. Marketing should have told store and property development that the current store portfolios weren't great.
Anyone in the leadership group who caught even a whiff of dissonance in the decisions that have been hamstringing Starbucks should be hanging their heads in shame. They've allowed it to get to this point.
People company serving coffee?
Not anymore.
Posted by: Bucky Barista | July 03, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Anyone that thinks that the closure of 600 stores will be the end of it is naive. There will be future closures, I'm guessing of 3-400 stores sometime in the next couple of quarters. They will be so enamored with the results of this closure (big expense gone, only some revenue gone) that they (corporate SB) won't be able to resist another chop. Hear me now and believe me later.
Posted by: Barista Bob | July 06, 2008 at 01:16 PM
I believe you barista Bob. You all know that old saying "things will get worse before they get better." The only problem is, is that when something at Starbucks gets "worse" (i.e. Vivanno, PPR, labor cuts, layoffs, new fraps, etc.) nothing gets better, it only seems to be getting worse and worse.
Anyways, here's hoping!
Posted by: Cali ASM | July 06, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Cali ASM-- You complain of low sales (the reason for the layoffs and closures) yet when new products come out like Vivanno and the new frapps which our customers want, you complain. There is a reason we are loosing huge market share to Pink Berry and Jamaba Juice and we must respond to that as a company in order to survive. Labor cuts are affecting every company now, and PPR , some people love it and some hate it.
Posted by: Cali ASM reponse | July 06, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Cali ASM Response: I'm not sure I agree that we have to respond to Jamaba Juice in order to survive. It depends how you define our, and their, market. Are we in the 'Drink Business' and compete with everyone that serves any beverage? or are we in the 'Coffee Business', competing against other coffee companies? It does get a little hazy at times. Will SB start serving Coke and 7-up, those are certainly in the 'Drink Business' and some of our customers would buy them, so why not? Because it is not our market, that's why. Keeping it new and interesting is certainly a good strategy, and will keep customers coming back, but you can't be everything to everybody.
Posted by: Barista Bob | July 06, 2008 at 03:54 PM
I am a shift manager and Starbucks has become like part of my family over the past few years. I actually take pride in my store and the effect we have on the entire company. There are so many great partners in my district! The news is disappointing for all, but had to be expected if you have paid attention this year at all. Those with the most to lose will be ASM, SM and above. The baristas and alot of shift managers in most stores do not work more than 30 hours so typically are students, have additional employment, live at home, etc, ie; not completely financially dependent on Starbucks alone etc. In this economy, most people or someone close to them have been through a "reorganization", been laid off, etc, so you always have to do your own homework and be prepared. It isn't your managers fault you are not getting hours and Howard Schultz doesn't need to send you a memo to spell it out for you.
Posted by: Juditha | July 06, 2008 at 08:24 PM
Juditha - just know, there are students, like myself, that do work over 30 hours a week (I work 37-39) and maintain a 16-18 credit hour semester schedule, and DO depend on Sbux as a primary source of money to live on, pay rent with, etc.
Starbucks has definitely lost its luster, and I hardly ever ENJOY work anymore. I just exist there, and don't get me wrong - I'm efficient. I'm just tired. Every day when I walk into work I dread what I may encounter - running out of essentials like till drop bags and vanilla, no call no shows, complete and utter understaffing, baristas who are incompetent, etc... every day is like running through and obstacle course and is never a smooth track. I'm exhausted. An 8 hour shift feels like 12, we as shifts hardly ever lunch anymore because we do not have the coverage, if anything goes wrong, it falls on the heads of the shifts, even if we cannot do anything about it. Nobody recognizes anything that is done well, and on top of this... our company is falling.
We have a lot of great customers which are one of my only reasons for smiling at work - granted, big reasons, but they're just about the only reasons. Of course, I still smile because that's my job - but I feel hollow.I'm no longer excited about new drinks and promotions, store meetings and new tumblers... I just want to work my shift and go home.
I'm exhausted.
Posted by: AliCat | July 07, 2008 at 12:23 AM
My local Starbucks in Bluffton, Indiana is closing on July 27th. They opened last year in a brand new building. I visit the store 2-3 times per day, know everybody by name (and they know me). Nearest store is in Fort Wayne about 35 minute drive away. Why this store is closing is a mystery to me. According to the employees the store is doing okay, lots of customers and positive balance sheet. In this town we enjoy having a place to meet, enjoy a cup or two and hang out every so often. Starbucks Corporate is not to be taken serious when closing a new store within 2 years. Not fair to the City and not fair to our local economy. I am considering abandoning Starbucks alltogether. Go back to drinking weak lukewarm crap coffee from the gas station (aaah).
Posted by: Bo Alstoft | July 17, 2008 at 12:33 AM