500 108th AVE NE
Bellevue, Washington
Starbucks
Harrah's Casino
Las Vegas
BY "JUAN VALDEZ"
So, here I sit, in the concrete jungle otherwise known as downtown Bellevue. Bellvue is due east from Seattle across Lake Washington. Amidst the gleaming half filled office towers (damn you recession), sits several Starbucks. This particular one is a stand alone unit that clearly serves the surrounding buildings as well as the Bellevue transit center. Almost directly across the street is another Starbucks which presumably serves the same function for the buildings on that side of the street. Thanks to a maniacal need in the early 2000s to jack up the number of stores, folks in this part of Bellevue don't have to walk across the street to get their SBUX fix. Although I have to say parking in this area is a bitch.
The four partners on duty at this cafe-store were just outright nice. No pushiness, just sweet, well intentioned folks who did their job in an efficient manner. Smiles were the order of the day and there was actual conversation going on between the partners and their customers. The pastry case had a few holes in it when I walked in but they got those filled quickly enough. The lobby was clean except for the walk off mat near the front door which was capturing dried leaves from customer shoes. This particular store didn't appear to have a bathroom so I am unable to give you the normal snarky evaluation of the bathroom's cleanliness. /CONTINUED IN THE FIRST COMMENT
The design of the store reminds me of my Westlake store visit...a rectangular box that is pretty much all windows. This means there is lots of ambient light but it also means, in the fall/winter, there are multiple drafts and it can get kinda cold inside.
Again, interestingly, there was no mention at all of Via; much less a concerted push to sell it.
There isn't much else to say about this particular store...it was a good visit and there wasn't really anything for me to latch on to and jump up on my coffeebox.
But that doesn't mean I still can't do it. Only this rant covers a different store; one that I only looked at from the outside because I was too busy to do a normal visit. I was in Vegas last week and stayed at the Paris hotel/casino. One night, the burro and I hoofed it down the strip to the Venetian where I met several associates for dinner at Tao. While navigating through the disgusting swell of sidewalk vendors trying to force flyers and cards full of naked women at me (pro tip – don't make eye contact with these folks...the moment they catch your eye, you are flooded with the aforementioned cards and flyers), I happened by a Starbucks which was attached to Harrahs casino. This was a full fledged self contained store, not a kiosk and, even though it closed late, when I walked by at 8pm, there was no one inside.
No one except for two really surly looking partners whose main focus seemed to be leaning up against the back counter and staring out at the crowd walking by. In and of itself, this was no big deal except I happened to notice, through the window, a messy condiment bar, several napkins scattered about on the floor and a couple of dirty tables.
Well, I said to the burro, that's interesting...I'm sure they'll be getting to all of that as soon as they awake from their stupor. And I went about my way.
On the return trip, at 10:30pm, I glanced inside again. The same two partners were in the same exact position, staring out at the crowd with their arms folded across their chests. And....the condiment bar was messy, the same two tables were dirty and the napkins lay scattered about the floor as before. I'm sure the partners had to have moved at some point in the previous two hours but it certainly wasn't to clean anything up. This looked like a classic case “why bother cleaning it now, I just have to do it at close anyways”. Shame on these two for letting the lobby look like that; especially when there wasn't any business to get in the way.
The stats below are just for the Bellevue visit.
Grade: A
* Time of day: morning
* Number of partners on the floor: 4
* Service time: 3 minutes
* Business level: steady
* Was the bathroom cleaner than a gas station bathroom?: No bathroom
* Legendary service: Yes
* Would I recommend to a friend: Yes
COLUMN STATS
* # of stores reviewed where a partner has tried to connect with a customer – 23 out of 47
* # of stores where they've offered samples of anything – 4 out of 47
* # of stores that could have been considered "understaffed" - 2 out of 47
* # of stores with a clean bathroom – 26 out of 46
* # of stores with a chair sitting in the bathroom – 1 out of 46
"Juan Valdez" is the nom de cyber of a former Starbucks manager who became disenchanted with the increasingly bitter taste of the Starbucks experience and fled to the mountains of Colombia where he now rides his burro and ponders the glittering sunsets. On a crisp clear day, when atmospheric conditions are just right and the moon is in the seventh house, he can be reached at [email protected]
Posted by: JUAN VALDEZ | December 02, 2009 at 06:56 PM
A standalone store with no bathroom? Very strange. No offense to Juan, but either he's wrong, Starbucks is seriously violating some labor and sanitation laws, or I have misunderstood what Juan means by standalone.
By standalone, I'm assuming Juan means a store that occupies an entire smallish building, with no other units in the building (like a mall or an office building). I'm pretty sure in most states businesses have to have some place for their employees to go to the bathroom (a bathroom in the common area of a mall or office building sometimes fulfills this requirement). I'm pretty sure food and beverage establishments must also have somewhere for their customers to go.
I've occasionally come across restaurants where access to the bathrooms is not in the customer area (though customers may still go back their for that particular purpose). Maybe this space was something else before a starbucks (surely Starbucks would design a new store with bathrooms in the customer area) and the layout just did not allow for bathrooms in the FOH?
While Starbucks does break some laws wantonly, I don't think they would intentionally let a store go without any restroom access. Nor do I think they could get away with it during inspection time. Surely the store would be closed immediately (unless I'm mistaken and there are no laws saying restaurants have to have bathrooms for customers and employees).
Posted by: Aaron | December 02, 2009 at 07:47 PM
BUSTED
Posted by: ohhhhhh | December 02, 2009 at 08:33 PM
JUAN IS BUSTED
Posted by: ohhhhhh | December 02, 2009 at 08:34 PM
That particular store at Harrah's is licensed, so those employees work for Harrah's, not Starbucks. The Fashion Show Mall CO/O store has always been fantastic for me, and drip coffee doesn't cost $3.00.
Posted by: BAYAREABUX | December 02, 2009 at 09:16 PM
@aaron
Actually, the Westlake store doesn't have a restroom. People are directed to nearby Westlake Center.
In this store's case, standalone means in it's own separate building. It sits right next to the main office building. As my column specifically states, it appeared not to have a bathroom. I didnt see one. There could have been one.
Posted by: Juan Valdez | December 02, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Regarding Harrah's, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one company-owned Starbucks in a casino in the US or Canada. All the others are licensed out, and it is well-known that licensed stores are often not up to snuff. I avoid them like the plague, and on several occasions where I felt compelled to patronize a license store, I have had several experiences.
Of course it is only fair to point out that there are probably plenty of baristas at licensed Starbucks who care about the job and the company and strive to do a good job. Nobody is going to deny that.
But in general, I think Starbucks continues to hurt its brand by licensing out so many stores. For all I know the licensing is wildly profitable for the company, but it is leaving a bad taste in the mouths of many customers.
Posted by: Winterene | December 03, 2009 at 09:44 AM
I only care about licensed stores because they have brought down our store sales so much. Our store is barely financially successful due to Target and Kroger.
Posted by: spence | December 03, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Hahaha... "I'm pretty sure" this and "I'm pretty sure" that. Why are you calling somebody out for being wrong when you don't really know what you're talking about yourself? Lovely.
Posted by: eleanor abernathy | December 03, 2009 at 11:04 AM
This is what I love about coffee shops is the drama that you get even when you are not involved. I have worked at a coffee shop for nearly 6 years and you suddenly become the person people feel they can talk to because you know their coffee drink so you must be able to solve their problems....granted I have never worked at a Starbucks but I have worked at local coffee shops so I don't know how much time workers at Starbucks can spend talking with customers but how much you find out about them amazes me and entertains me.
Posted by: Mary Helen | December 03, 2009 at 05:40 PM
My store is a "stand-alone" and doesn't have a bathroom. As are many others.
Posted by: javagirl666 | December 03, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Aaron: My store is also a 'stand alone' and doesn't have a bathroom. We share a bathroom with the building next door and we aren't don't have to have a customer bathroom because the law is you only have to have one if you have 20 or more seats.
Posted by: cheapredapron | December 03, 2009 at 06:37 PM
Actually, if you pull up the 10K, you'll see that licensed stores are NOT very profitable for Starbucks...
Company operated stores represent 84% of Starbucks Corporation's net revenue
Licensed retail stores account for 8% of net revenue.
Company operated stores only outnumber licensed stores by 2,000, and we have a store base approaching 20,000.
Simple math reveals that net revenue per licensed location is VERY VERY low.
Why we use this way to devalue the brand is beyond me. Something about prime real estate access, the idea that we can incrementally drive traffic into COO stores by having stores in airports and hotels.
Posted by: BAYAREABUX | December 03, 2009 at 07:27 PM
Put a different way, the TOTAL REVENUE generated by licensed stores in 08 represents only HALF of what we've saved through our labor, er, cost cutting initiatives.
Posted by: BAYAREABUX | December 03, 2009 at 07:38 PM
@bayareabux
The amount of revenue shown on the 10K for licensed stores is not the sales those stores generate. It's the licensing fees that Starbucks receives from their licensees which is much smaller than the overall revenues those licensees bring in.
Posted by: Juan Valdez | December 03, 2009 at 11:19 PM
since we're whining about licensed stores, i thought i hop on the wagon. Any time a customer comes and asks something beginning with "I usually go to the starbucks in the...." I know its going to be a pain. chances are she wants a drink completely void of recipe or reason, with a name she created, and ingredients we don't use. I couldn't count how many times we've had a drink brought back becuase 'thats not how "they" do it', or because they have been overly catered-too so much that they don't actually know what they drink. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should tell customers 'I dont have that - Next!' but simply, if a customer wants a "Cookies and Cream" and every day a certain store makes their drink and never tells them what it really is, its not very pleasant when next week that customer is in my drive thru telling my barista she should learn to do her job better because she doesn't know how to make one. Baristas work at starbucks. not kroger employees. Licensed stores need to go.
Posted by: Shift Misto | December 04, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Juan Valdez, yes, that's true, all of that revenue ends up as gross profit for Starbucks, but given in inordinate amount of licensed locations it really does look like we're shilling out the Siren for some pretty small royalties, as it were.
Posted by: BAYAREABUX | December 04, 2009 at 01:04 PM
I've been in that one at Harrah's. It's actually adjacent to Harrah's, though it might be part of the same building/owned by them. It is crazy busy during the day.
Posted by: Al | December 08, 2009 at 02:06 PM
I bought a Venti Americano w/syrup at the Nashville airport (Concourse) store, and the total came to $3.93! (Seattle area price is about $3.05) When asked why I didn't receive a free syrup with my card purchase, I was told "We don't honor that."
Really? Starbux now has stores that wear the name, jack up prices by 33%, AND don't honor the obligations?
In addition, the barista apparently knew nothing about espresso - I caught her furiously stirring down the crema. When I picked up the cream thermos, I found it full of ice.
I ended up with the flat, watered down Americano that nightmares are made of. Shoulda just bought the drip with plastic cream by the gate.
One of the reasons to go to Starbucks is that we always know what we're getting.
Not anymore. Starbucks has just turned into another hit and miss chain with no consistency, uneven quality, and no integrity in honoring obligations.
Posted by: RayeHawk | December 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Hi RayeHawk - You might already know this but the airport Starbucks locations are all licensed. Since they're licensed it can mean that they don't always offer Starbucks promotions (free syrup) and probably they can be a little harder to control. By the way, almost always the Starbucks you see in grocery stores, or inside some other big business, are all licensed locations.
You could always call customer service and let them know about your experience:
http://www.starbucks.com/customer
Just so you know, I don't want to paint all licensed stores as terrible. I don't know what it is like everywhere, but here in Seattle for example, the QFC store (a grocery store chain) Starbucks do a pretty good job of maintaining a good brand image - They honor gold card discounts, cup discounts, and are pretty friendly and helpful.
Posted by: Melody (Reply to RayeHawk) | December 10, 2009 at 01:42 PM
Was at the Starbucks in the Honolulu Hawaii airport and they wouldn't honor my Starbucks gold card. They let me pay with it but wouldn't give me my discount.
Then was at one of the Starbucks in Atlanta, think I paid cash there, and the drink wasn't up to par as a regular company owned Starbucks. Really wish Starbucks would take back all their licensed stores as they aren't as good as company owned locations.
Posted by: Lee Ann | December 13, 2009 at 11:56 AM
It was highly contagious.
--It came on very suddenly and killed very quickly. It was said that
an infected person could be "dancing at nine o'clock and dead by
eleven."
--It was, as the name suggets, characterized by a high fever and sweating.
--It wasn't the plague, and it wasn't smallpox.
Posted by: differences between men and women | April 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM