[_dps]

> a customer that sits half a day with a laptop costs Starbucks money.

First, congratulations on your launch! I hope to try Wheelys out soon!

A bit of well-intentioned feedback regarding your positioning strategy: as I am often the customer you mention who sits at Starbucks (or other coffee shops) all day, I can assure you that the owners don't perceive me as a cost even though I don't buy much (I often speak with them and ask about life as a small business owner). In fact, at locations I often visit, it's very common (say 1 in 3 visits) for the managers to give me a tiny freebie. Maybe I'm just a likable guy, but I don't think I'm so charismatic as to completely warp their perception of me being a drain or a benefit.

I think one important point is that I make sure to buy something any time I'm taking up space and the place is crowded (say 70+% fill rate on seating space). But that's at most 2 hours per day (the morning pre-work rush and the lunch rush). In those peak hours I would agree that I am taking up valuable real estate and should contribute something to their upkeep.

Anyway, congratulations again and I hope to see one of your sites soon!

[pedalpete]

Starbucks Owners?? I thought Starbucks owned most of the shops. http://www.starbucks.ca/customer-service/faqs/business

That is why the 'owner' doesn't care.

[_dps]

Sure, I elided a bit of complexity. I visit many coffee shops, including Starbucks. Some are owner-operated, some are not. Indeed Starbucks doesn't have a franchise model. And yet the managers both there and at owner-operated shops always seem happy to have me around "taking up space", and often offer me a free something-or-other.

That doesn't change the fact, raised in a sibling comment, that given the fixed cost of rent, having someone in the shop during off-peak hours is in a sense "advertising" the desirability of the place. Trickle revenue + "advertising" using up slack capacity seems like a clear win for them, given the pre-existing real estate investment.

[eru]

Restaurants (and probably coffee shops) seem to have an easier time attracting customers when there's someone already in there. So, at high utilization you'd be a cost, but at low utilization every bum in a seat is an advertisement.

[danellis]

> Starbucks doesn't have a franchise model.

Interesting. Then how come there are so many non-corporate Starbucks outlets? The ones that don't get the same new products and don't take their gift cards -- like airports, for example.

[clearf]

I believe it's a licensing arrangement. Those locations often buy and license Starbucks coffee (though often not their baked goods), but are not run by Starbucks. e.g., Barnes and Nobel, Safeway.

[tonyarkles]

Just to confirm, that's exactly what it is. From what I can tell around here, it's mostly for places that already have a larger unionized food service organization. Two examples that come to mind are the local university and a local hospital. These "Starbucks" use all of the branding and coffee, but are staffed by the organization that hosts the store.

Agreeing with you, I'm pretty sure there's no way for an individual to open their own Starbucks store; the licensed stores pretty much have to exist within a larger organization where it would be impossible to open a store independently (in the local cases, that'd be due to the food service unions).

In Canada at least, there's also instances where Starbucks has worked out some kind of cross-renting deal. Chapters/Indigo Books is a prime example. Every Indigo I've gone into has had a Starbucks, but those are staffed by Starbucks employees and not Indigo employees.

[seanmcdirmid]

All Starbucks out of a few markets are operated by Starbucks. And even the ones that aren't operated by Starbucks are operated by Sodexo, Marriott, or some other big company.

[ecubed]

In his reply he mentions '(or other coffee shops) ', I would assume those are the owners he's talking about