Beginning today (Monday, March 15) Starbucks is selling USA Today -- in addition to the New York Times and a local paper. Regular readers know that one of my gripes -- as someone who's worked in the newspaper business -- is that so many customers steal newspapers. I recently argued with a customer who said there was nothing wrong with taking a paper if he folded it back up and returned it in the sale box. I said that kind of thinking gives me permission to take a mug off the shelf, use it, wash it out and return it to the shelf. YOUR THOUGHTS ON ADDING USA TODAY TO THE NEWSPAPER LINEUP? || Read "Starbucks stores to sell USA Today"
I swear Starbucks used to sell USA Today years ago. Or I should say they offered it years ago and nobody bought it.
Posted by: Doppio | March 15, 2010 at 01:17 PM
@ Doppio, perhaps it's that you were at an airport (licensed) Starbucks or at one near a bookstore or newsstand?
I have to say that I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it is stealing. There was a period at my store where it seemed every Sunday there would be gaggles of women stealing the Michael's (a craft store) discount coupon circular. We have a Michael's in our shopping center so it was a huge deal to them. ugh.
I take our unsold New York Times to a local low-cost animal clinic to be repurposed, when I can. (We have a guy that "scrapbooks" and collects from all the local stores on a pretty regular basis [we think he sells it for bulk recycling] and I don't always get to them)
I am interested in what other stores do with extra papers when they can't be recycled at the store.
Posted by: Sample Cup | March 15, 2010 at 01:50 PM
My experience tells me Starbucks never made $$$ from selling the USA Today. The company viewed it as a "customer experience" opportunity more than a money-making opportunity.
Theft is a problem. Cleaning up discarded papers is also a problem. Biggest problem back in the day was the reconciliation between sold/unsold copies. SBUX knew they weren't gonna make $$$ selling the USA Today. They just didn't want to lose money in the process, especially with the labor time it took to stock/sell/tidy the papers.
I wonder what arrangement was made to bring back the USA Today paper. When SBUX switched to the NY Times, there was a backside benefit of SBUX having a yearly allotment of advertising space in the NY Times. That's why you've see SBUX print ads running in the NY Times, they came with no cash expense. The advertising allotment was one of main drivers behind the switch from USA Today to the NY Times.
Posted by: john moore (from Brand Autopsy) | March 15, 2010 at 02:05 PM
Starbucks only pays for the papers that are rung through the POS (NYT and USA Today), all others are at no cost to us...so who cares if they take one and walk out?
Posted by: Xabi | March 15, 2010 at 02:07 PM
>>> .so who cares if they take one and walk out?
Who cares? Try honest people who don't believe in stealing.
Posted by: Jim Romenesko | March 15, 2010 at 02:19 PM
One more thing for people to complain about.
Posted by: javagirl666 | March 15, 2010 at 02:19 PM
I have even seen people take and fill out the crossword puzzle.
Posted by: Jason Coffee | March 15, 2010 at 02:34 PM
Well, it is appropriate: a fast food newspaper for a fast food joint. Maybe if enough people do steal it, they'll stop carrying it? Just sayin.
Posted by: Shifted | March 15, 2010 at 03:40 PM
Theft on any level, regardless of the technicality of it, is wrong.
You see the customers who PURCHASE a paper NEVER take the top issue - they always go three or four down, to ensure they don't get a "pre-read" copy.
Fork over the FIFTY CENTS for crying out loud. If you want a free paper, go to the library. I should not have to be the newspaper police.
Posted by: hearbutloud | March 15, 2010 at 04:44 PM
This is funny to see how time changes opinions. A few years ago USA Today was sold at Starbucks and was replaced by the NY Times and customers and partners were upset. Now there will be the best of both worlds and people are commenting negatively on the USA Today. Can anyone stay the course?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 15, 2010 at 05:20 PM
I don't care what we carry - variety is always good. Just pay for it and save your bitching (about what we carry) for corporate, not your barista.
Posted by: hearbutloud | March 15, 2010 at 05:30 PM
In NYC do they carry "other" local papers? Like New York Post or Long Island Daily News?
Posted by: LEGENDARY OR BUST | March 15, 2010 at 05:49 PM
While it's true that stores only pay for the newspapers that our purchased, newspaper sales still count towards top line sales. That impacts stock price, manager bonuses, store performance, etc.
Posted by: Joe | March 15, 2010 at 06:10 PM
I think its ironic that Starbucks does offer a more politically balanced newspaper selection. For example, why don't they sell the Wall Street Journal?
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | March 15, 2010 at 06:50 PM
"so who cares if they take one and walk out?
Who cares? Try honest people who don't believe in stealing."
Jim, I think you have my point all wrong...I'm not condoning stealing by any means, I'm simply saying that it's not worth the hassle of approaching a customer about 50 cents to be retaliated against (lets face it, they prob. bought a $2-$5 cup of coffee that we make crazy profit on and i'd rather get that money and "lose" the paper sale...it's just not worth it).
My point was that stealing the papers doesn't count against us, the cost goes to USA Today and the NYT (I see Joe's point, and yes it does take away top line sales, but seriously, the stock price is not affected one bit by newspaper sales, and the SM's bonus will 999 times out of 1000 not be decided by such a minor detail).
Posted by: Ste_Gerrard | March 15, 2010 at 06:58 PM
All stores, when possible, should move the newspaper stand closer to the POS. In doing so, theft will drop dramatically.
Most stores put the stand by the door.
Posted by: short drip | March 15, 2010 at 07:49 PM
Even the sales of newspapers barely make Starbucks any money. Does that make it okay to steal newspapers? No. But its still not worth it to do much of anything about it. The labor it would take to police paper stealing would probably negate the profits that could be made from the increased sales. Preventing a paper theft doesn't really translate into increased opportunity for profit. The person most likely will just put it back and try to get out of paying for it and make some excuse (which according to Starbucks policy we should just let slide at that point), and if the paper goes unsold after that, it costs Starbucks nothing. So a bit of labor will have been wasted on nothing.
Newspapers just want people to read their ads. If they can recoup the cost of printing and delivering, great, but they factor in plenty of "shrinkage" into their business model. There's a reason the street machines work on an honor system, and papers are usually kept places that are easy to steal: it's just not worth it to do anything about theft, and if someone flips through the paper, at least they've seen some ads.
Posted by: Aaron | March 15, 2010 at 08:09 PM
Lets assume 1 paper stolen per store per day with an average price of $1 (New York Times is more, some local papers are less).
With 8,000 stores and 365 days per year, that comes to just under 3 million dollars in lost sales. Not quite as minor as one might think.
Plus, as the webmaster pointed out, stealing is wrong. Particularly in the context of the significant troubles in the printed newspaper business.
Posted by: Joe | March 15, 2010 at 08:18 PM
Starbucks should have a weekly puzzle handout paper with ken-ken, sudoku and xrword puzzles, for those of us who aren't computer squatters. They could offer a cheap "treat" coupon inside possibly also, maybe something like a buy 3 get 1 free thing for brewed coffee.
You can thank me later, Howard
Posted by: Ben Farden | March 15, 2010 at 08:28 PM
@shortdrip- yes most stores put the stands by the doors. why? (when it seems to invite theft?) b/c that's what the Siren's Eye (store merchandising/layout) says! To me that just says Sbux really doesn't care about them being stolen...b/c if they did then they would be distributed similair to the "fake" displays of VIA (only available for sale directly at or behind the counter/register).
Stores no longer have to count/reconcile copies rec./sold of NYT or USA T-day...all #s pulled auto by corp from POS.
Webmaster Jim- stealing arguement aside, are these publications both local & national really counting sales OR are they really counting circulation? Aren't they getting the benefit of numbers of copies seen by sbux customers/in stores (and promoting as such to potential paid advertisers) regardless of purchase?
Posted by: black & read all over | March 15, 2010 at 11:31 PM
Wait, they still print newspapers on paper?
Posted by: Hank | March 16, 2010 at 12:43 AM
Aaron - They have no way to determine if you read the ad or not. They get ad dollars based on circulation. A paper sold = a paper in circulation.
Joe - You're assuming all those people would still buy the paper if they had to pay the $1. Plus, the margin on the papers is so minimal (if anything at all), the actual revenue for Starbucks is basically zero.
Bottom line, SBUX carries this stuff because it creates more of a coffeehouse feel. Someone reading a paper is more likely to stick around longer, and enjoy their time at the coffeehouse more, thus increasing the likelihood they go back for another drink, or a pastry... Or at the least it makes customers more likely to return in the future.
Posted by: adoubleshotofclarity | March 16, 2010 at 12:47 AM
Agreed, I don't think newspaper support Starbucks Shared Planet.
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | March 16, 2010 at 03:52 AM
"Particularly in the context of the significant troubles in the printed newspaper business."
So I should feel sorry for the newspaper industry for being behind the times? (No pun intended.) Why would I pay for "news" that's already a day old? Anything printed in the paper was already available to me for free on the internet the day before.
I don't condone stealing, but I don't see a problem with borrowing. When you go to a bookstore and read a portion of a book to see if you want to buy it, are you stealing? If you go to a clothing store and try on a shirt, does that mean you have to pay for it? You've used it. If you don't leave the store with the paper, and you don't damage the paper, then you haven't stolen anything.
Posted by: (former) FLA SM | March 16, 2010 at 08:04 AM
Most boring... conversation... ever.
Posted by: Waltie | March 16, 2010 at 09:14 AM
Yeah, as if you're helping it with your boring comment, Waltie.
Posted by: Jim Romenesko | March 16, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Wow, what an odd conversation ... debating the ethics of "borrowing" vs. buying ... kind of like it's not cheating unless you get caught ... kind of like if I buy a coffee and only sip a bit I could get my money back if I didn't leave with the remainder of the cup ... get a grip folks ... taking that which is for sale without renumeration is not justifiable regardless of the goods taken or other spin you try to put on it.
Posted by: cwm2 | March 16, 2010 at 01:57 PM
Given how Starbucks branding is about quality, it's surprising that they've decided to sell such a subpar newspaper in their stores.
Posted by: Smalrus | March 16, 2010 at 02:44 PM
Sample cup -- are you serious?
PLEASE talk with your SM and your newspaper distribution immediately.
Usually, the day's newspapers are sold on a "papers in minus papers out" basis, meaning, the shop gives back unsold ones to the vendor for recycling, and only pays for the difference.
In several retailers in two states, I have NEVER heard of a shop having to eat the cost of unsold newspapers.
That is why there is no employee discount on them -- the margins are very small.
Posted by: Argentius | March 16, 2010 at 04:48 PM
Argentius, the local paper here is sold on a "papers in minus papers out" basis, but stores here are only charged for the copies of the NYT and USA Today actually rung through. So when someone steals one, it really costs the store nothing, unless it's the last one and someone else would have paid for it (which is very rarely the case that we go through all our papers).
Is okay to steal newspapers? No. But it costs the business a lot less than when you steal other products. They can't just give them away, sure, so its still not okay, but they don't suffer much from each paper stolen.
Joe, no, that's not quite how it works. Each paper stolen is not really a lost sale. First of all, nobody pays for papers up front, and in the case of NYT and USA Today, Starbucks doesn't even have to give back the unsold ones, they pay only for the ones that are rung up. So they lose nothing on a stolen copy of USA Today. Also, in my store we hardly ever go through all our papers. I would assume the pars are set similarly in every other store, so that there are usually copies left in most of the 8000 stores, so that stolen copy doesn't mean someone else will probably miss out on buying it. Also, that person who stole the paper probably isn't gonna pay for it if confronted. They'll just make some excuse and put it back, and based on the low profit margins of paper sales, if you waste your time arguing with them you're just costing Starbucks more money in labor. So no, Starbucks is not losing very much money at all in any way shape or form (not even in POTENTIAL sales). Not to mention, even if that reasoning did work, that $3 mil dollars in potential SALES translates into a pretty measly profit, because the margins are really low.
Posted by: Aaron | March 16, 2010 at 05:42 PM
@Boston Rebel
I imagine the reason WSJ is not offered is that they probably realize it is more likely to be stolen than sold. Pure conjecture. Sure, stealing annoys me, but if you are not being charged, it has got to be low on your list of worries.
Of course, I am clueless, as I always assumed other people acted like I did. If I buy a paper and read it in a cafe, I leave it for any one else to use. I assumed others did the same, and that is why there were papers out.
Posted by: Erik | March 16, 2010 at 07:06 PM
I wonder if it's a Canadian thing, the only copies we don't pay for are perfect, un-flippedthrough unread copies, apparently. That means that we pay for every copy customers decide they don't feel like paying for. Whether or not that makes business sense is another issue.
To a certain extend, reading the paper without buying it—or even doing the crossword—is kinda like stealing music or software. That would also then apply to reading books in a bookstore. (http://xkcd.com/294/)
In any case, I would think that this is an issue newspaper publishers would have thought of this issue way ahead of all of us? Is this taken into consideration when calculating costs and pricing?
Posted by: tea-rex | March 16, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Perhaps USA TODAY should give them away like they do to hotel guests.
Stay in any half-decent hotel, say from Comfort Inn or Best Western or better, and chances are you will get a free USA TODAY.
If its a profitable business model in a hotel,why not at Starbucks too.
Posted by: Bill | March 17, 2010 at 06:14 AM
Actually, Bill, you DO pay for the USA today at the hotel, UNLESS you check the "opt-out" box at registration; and then you are credited $0.50/day on your stay.
As to the local paper, they only want the cover page back - we have to recycle or toss the rest. And the profit is negligible; a $2.00 Sunday paper costs us $1.80, so we make a whole $0.20 for each one sold.
However, if a customer walks out with that local paper and doesn't pay for it, that means WE (the store) pay for it.
Posted by: suxnewbie | March 17, 2010 at 08:27 PM
HAHAHA. thank you waltie...
Posted by: SPORK | March 18, 2010 at 07:10 AM
omg haha this is going on in my store where they rich people come in and try to get free refills on top of stealing the paper no wonder they have money cheap bastards
Posted by: joe | March 18, 2010 at 09:25 PM
as a supervisor in a Long Island, NY. my customers are infamous for sealing papers. it got so bad that my DM told my SM to put the papers behind the line. most of are customers did not mind since the knew they would be getting a paper with everything in it. but some customers got so mad at us that the would walk behind the line a grab a paper without our permission. then one customers called out DM all mad that we would not give him a paper for free, and guess what my DM caved in no time and the papers are out back out and being stolen right and left and all over the lobby.
Posted by: geoamunera | March 18, 2010 at 09:56 PM
Ever since USA Today started being sold the local newspaper is never there - it sells out early in the morning. Sigh.
Posted by: Justin | March 19, 2010 at 04:10 PM
Newspapers are a convenience item. We actually lose money on them. On my P&L, it costs us about $1.18 for every $1 in sales.
Posted by: Karl Kenya | March 20, 2010 at 12:48 AM
I think the USA Today is hilarious! Its has so many picturesthat it comes off as a newspaper for children. Factor in the fact that they don't print a paper between Friday and Sunday, and you have a joke of a newspaper on your hands.
Posted by: Josh | March 21, 2010 at 06:44 AM