Is this really a serious problem? Anecdotally, 9 out of 10 visits to a coffee shop, I just get coffee and leave. 1 out of 10, I am meeting someone, usually to go over some business. In the 21st century, this typically requires Internet connectivity.
Not offering WiFi or putting time limits on it would make me feel unwelcome. Feeling unwelcome will make me not want to patronize said coffee shop the other 9 out of 10 times.
What's the secret sauce that makes Starbucks so successful? They made it a comfy place to hang out...the "3rd place" between home and work where you can go and feel welcomed. Schultz is always talking about it. Obviously, Starbucks is one data point, but I think there's something to it.
Yes, this is a real problem some places. At the closest Starbucks to me, there is practically never a free seat because of all the people camped out for hours at a time every single day. That means people with more reasonable needs, such as a place to sit for a few minutes waiting for a friend to arrive or complete an errand nearby, are out of luck. Those few are degrading the experience for many more, quite likely costing the store more than their own paltry consumption could justify (especially in a market with many alternatives).
Of course, this is exactly what anyone familiar with the tragedy of the commons would have expected. Self-regulation is not nearly as common or as effective as many would have us believe. Those squatters could yield this quasi-public space to others and work from home. They choose not to, knowing full well that they are being selfish by over-consuming that shared resource. They probably even know that the free lunch will not last forever. Nonetheless they persist. The proprietors have no choice but to take matters into their own hands, protecting their own interest by setting and enforcing limits.
With the right hardware it would be easy to tell which MAC address corresponds to which seat, and of course the proprietor would know when the occupant last purchased anything. That information should be sufficient to do the right thing when seats run out. ;)
> That means people with more reasonable needs, such as a place to sit for a few minutes waiting for a friend to arrive or complete an errand nearby, are out of luck.
I'm not sure that Starbuck's or other coffee shops view their mission as providing for the needs of people with a place to sit for a few minutes while waiting for a friend.
> Those few are degrading the experience for many more, quite likely costing the store more than their own paltry consumption could justify (especially in a market with many alternatives).
I somehow doubt this. Most of the complaints I see is that people who want to do things other than purchase goods (i.e., use the coffee shop as a place to hold meetings or wait for people) feel that they are unable to do those things as effectbecause other people are doing things other than purchasing goods (e.g., camping out with their laptops.)
I don't see much reason to believe that there is a whole lot of impact one way or another on the stores' ability to actually sell coffee, snacks, or other goods.
"I'm not sure that Starbuck's or other coffee shops view their mission as providing for the needs of people with a place to sit for a few minutes while waiting for a friend."
Actually, that has been part of the coffee-shop value proposition as long as there have been coffee shops. It's why they have seats in the first place. They're selling comfort as well as coffee. Obviously those seats are supposed to be for those who have purchased something, but within that context the social-connection role has been part of the equation for far longer than the WiFi-connection role.
"I somehow doubt this."
Doubt and rationalize all you want. It won't change the facts.
> Actually, that has been part of the coffee-shop value proposition as long as there have been coffee shops.
Selling coffee is the mission. Providing a place to hang out -- whether for a few minutes waiting for a friend or for a longer time -- is something that may, for some shops, be a means to advance that mission. But I don't think its the mission, or even a core service. If it was, they'd be selling that directly.
> Doubt and rationalize all you want. It won't change the facts.
The unsubstantiated speculation that the people that are doing not-buying-coffee things that you don't like are worth less to the coffee shop than people (including you) who you feel are being blocked by them in your desire to do not-buying-coffee things that you do like is not in any way established to be part of "the facts".
It's not unsubstantiated speculation. Read the damn story. It gives multiple examples of proprietors who are concerned about the impact the squatters are having on their bottom line. Are they all fools? Au contraire, they probably understand their business far better than either of us. There's even an example of a store that cut off WiFi and demonstrated a 30% increase in revenue. Those accounts are further reinforced from the consumer side by people right here who have said that they regularly walk out of coffee shops when they see those are full of squatters - a clear loss for those businesses. Are they all liars? Or is it just slightly more likely that the world is actually not as you'd wish it to be?
Your use of the word "squatter" is somewhat offensive. I'm sure of the coffee shop owners/employees asked them to leave, they would comply. Squatting is a legal term and typically implies hostility towards owners/rightful occupants.
For one, it saddens me that when I travel and need a place to drink coffee/eat a snack and catch up on email, I might be viewed as a "squatter" the minute I pull out a laptop...
The article uses "hobo," which is perhaps less offensive :)
I tend to camp out, or "squat," at coffee shops early in the mornings when they have very few customers anyways (true here at least, not in the states of course with more of a morning coffee shop culture). It's never really a problem because I'm gone before it gets busy, but I can see why there would be resentment.
Basically, if you are going to squat, don't go when its busy. Sometimes at night, for example, SBUX might be actually busy, but usually due to other squatters, so no guilt there.
I'm not suggesting that you're doing something wrong the minute you pull out your laptop. I don't think anybody is. It's all about how much of the finite seating resource is consumed for how much business. Somewhere down-thread is another comment about the purchase price for a cup of coffee being only partly about the coffee but mostly about the experience. Yes, and that's just as true for the person who only needs to sit down for ten minutes. They paid just as much for their coffee as the person who has been there all afternoon, they have just as much right to enjoy that experience, but all-afternoon guy is effectively crowding out dozens of such others. That's simply not fair.
I'm generally not affected by this myself, BTW. I don't go to coffee shops very often, and have only brought my laptop (sans power supply) a few times. The longest I've stayed has probably been a bit more than an hour. I've done more "squatting" at my local McDonalds, which has better WiFi and is practically empty in the mid-morning so nobody cares. However, I consider it a basic rule that if somebody else is waiting for something and you've had your turn then you should yield. If you don't feel that you've had your own fair turn yet, then by all means make the newcomer wait. No problem at all. This is only about the people who seem to feel that they're above that basic rule.
Your notion that the word "squatter" is offensive is offensive to me. Squatting is a long, proud tradition whereby property is taken from the greedy or dead and redistributed to those who are actually in a position to use it. Squatters are the rightful owners of property, both in spirit and in many places in law. It is a well established legal precedent that the needs of the living trump the wishes of the dead, and squatting laws were created to honor that.
Coffee shops are similar to book shops wrt providing a frreebie, i.e. wifi in coffee shop and reading latest instore mags in bookstore. Iusually bought one mag after spending an hour or 2 reading thru them to show my appreciation. Iresented it when bookshops started displaying their magazines wrapped in plastic only. Icouldnt even read the contents. Isuspect coffee shops will get the same reactions if they cut off wifi.
This is a real problem for bookshops and customers. Some people come in several times a week read for free and even bring in lunch. Often the magazines and newspapers are left in a state which is no longer fit for sale.
So what can we do?
In my opinion those people are making things worse for the shop and all decent customers, so just kick them!
But after years of "the customer is always right, many people have become so arogant that demanding acceptable behaviour from your customers will definitly kill your shop.
They could take the example that some record stores use, where there is a store copy that is played and customers use to see if they like it. When they bring it up to the register to buy, the clerk retrieves a brand-new copy.
> Selling coffee is the mission. Providing a place to hang out -- whether for a few minutes waiting for a friend or for a longer time -- is something that may, for some shops, be a means to advance that mission. But I don't think its the mission, or even a core service. If it was, they'd be selling that directly.
Really? And this is based on your experience running how many coffee bars?
Just today I was helping a friend with his resume, one who has started a couple of successful bars. The heart of what he had to say was about creating spaces for people to unwind, interact, meet, and just hang out. They were charging for the food and alcohol, but what they were selling was an experience.
Well that might have been true in the 17th century but Starbucks is totally fixated on making the most optimal use of its space - got to keep the cash coming as much as they are in avoiding CGT the tax on it.
> Of course, this is exactly what anyone familiar with the tragedy of the commons would have expected. Self-regulation is not nearly as common or as effective as many would have us believe. Those squatters could yield this quasi-public space to others and work from home.
I'm not sure you get the concept of these coffee shops. When I pay a coffee more than 5 dollars, I am not paying for the 0.1 dollar that the coffee actually costs to make, I am paying for a place to sit as well and do something with my time. Be it 10 minutes or 3 hours, it does not matter. You are not paying for the coffee. I consider it part of the service. I know for once that if I can't stay in these coffee shops I wouldn't even consider paying that outrageous amount just for a drink.
This being said, I don't really like going to SB or places like that, but when I do I certainly don't for the drink only.
You're basically saying "I know it's not fair, but screw you I got mine."
You're not being asked to decide on a corporate policy that you need to weasel out with such statements. The god damn question is simple, "Do you think this is fair?"
Personally I don't see any difference between this and paying for a train ticket and being unable to sit during the journey. So yeah, I think it's fair. Whoever comes first gets the seat, and keeps the sit if they want to. It's not like you are renting the seat per x minutes or something.
When you are in park do you bitch about people sitting on benches for too long?
I'm not asking for justification. You think it's fair, and I respect you for that. I may have a different opinion, and that's fine too! It's just that it seems dishonest to deflect a question like the politicians do.
i sympathise with the local indie coffeehouse trying to cultivate an atmosphere and wanting to keep out the laptop workers. but starbucks? that's just about the only reason they exist - the only people who stay at starbucks are doing it to leech wifi. that is the atmosphere. it seems silly to fight it.
'Serious' is a strong word but I have this problem all the time.
2 of my favorite coffee shops (Filter and Peregrine in DC) are really small and constantly full of people working on laptops. I love the coffee but don't take guests or coworkers there because there are never open tables to sit and chat. I know other people who avoid them entirely because having sitting space is more important to them than the coffee itself.
People who stay for more than, say, an hour or two hurt turnover which is critical for smaller coffee shops that also serve food or snacks, whereas places like SBux make most of their money on people getting a quick morning fix, and can also afford bigger spaces.
I'd prefer if things bifurcated, big national chains that can afford the room offer wifi, smaller local places kill it to keep turnover up. I can see how it's a lose-lose for coffee shops having to choose one group or another. Some places turn it off after, say, 3pm which is a nice compromise.
One interesting tech solution I've seen at Argo Tea in NYC is the deployment of Wi-Fi codes on receipts: each code lasts for about half an hour or an hour.
Giving them codes that relate to the total cost of their receipt, so for example 1 coffee = 30 minutes, 2 = 60 so that way when you have a group you each get 30 minutes or something.
It doesn't need to be foolproof to work. Even an unenforced sign that said "wifi access limited to 60 minutes" would set expectations and deter most folks.
This happens at a highly-frequented SBux in Lisbon's Rossio train terminal. There's a code on the receipt for 45 min of usage but, the one and only time I went there, I used the net for hours and it didn't turn off. I think it's just to deter people.
Yep, I've had the same issue at those shops. Greenberry's in Arlington had the same issue. We tend to forget that, while, yes, most of us on rare occasions camp out on a table with a laptop, there are people who, day after day, do this for hours straight at the same coffee shops. Those of us who pop in and grab a coffee to go at these shops? You guys see it too: the same mooching assholes, day after day, taking up 4 person tables with their bag and their laptop.
I can't even count the number of times I went into a shop wanting to actually buy food (high margin item) and coffee and sit down for 40 minutes, but couldn't while one of the regular moochers took up a table with an empty for 3 hours coffee cup that he spent 2 bucks on.
Not only do they tend to take up a table, it's usually a table marked as handicapped. Not that there's an obligation to honor that designation, but if you automatically go there when your Macbook Air could easily fit on a tiny little round table, you're a prick.
Ask friendly whether the whole table is booked and sit down. If they don't respond, just move their bag a bit and sit down. Keep looking friendly and relaxed, signal that you're not a threat and everything's usually fine. It's not that difficult.
(Escalated version: If they start complaining in an unfriendly way, mix your coffee with their laptop. Accidents happen in crowded coffee shops.)
DC seems to be one of the worst cities for this. I suspect it's the general demographic in many of the areas (lots of students, recent ex-students, interns, short-term residents with minimal social circles) coupled with miserable weather.
I haven't seen it be as great a problem in SF or Manhattan, but that could be due to the relative distance of universities from the "interesting" parts of these cities. Berkeley does have this problem near Cal but that's to be expected.
Saturday I went to the Duboce Park Cafe in SF and all of the good tables (against the wall/window) were taken up by single laptoppers. The only available tables for us were in the middle of the room and at the counter. I even came up with the idea that they should build little walls for the tables to divide them into two single seats, like library carrels (http://rmulibrarian.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/new-library-fur...).
Even so, if laptoppers had better manners, they'd take the worst seats first.
There are multiple definitions of fairness. FCFS might be considered a fair admittance rule, but not an occupancy rule. Consider processes in a computer system. Do we let one process hog the CPU indefinitely while others are waiting? No, most usable systems will context-switch when the current process exceeds its time quantum. "First in, first out" is usually a better rule for occupancy. Applied to coffee-shop seats, that would mean that people who haven't bought anything for a long time should lose their place to people who purchased something more recently. It's only fair.
I think the parent's gripe is about single people taking up entire tables that could seat a group, hence the use of "single" versus "us" and the divider suggestion.
The four tables on the right were singly occupied, as well as another wall-row of four tables behind the photographer. None vacated, and none ordered more during our time eating there. By my napkin calculation, we paid the cafe 10x what the coffee/laptoppers did.
This seems to be something that the staff should resolve. Write an email to the owner/manager with your concerns. In the absence of a person's ability to determine appropriate behavior, it's the duty of the establishment to do so.
They may tell you that those people consistently buy enough to justify their discount-Regus space and they may tell you that those nerdlings are holding tables for the groups of coworkers who rotate in on an hourly basis.
They may also have no idea that it's causing a problem because they see acceptable revenues.
Be more aggressive in asserting change and you'll feel a lot better. Just asking the staff or the shift manager will let you know if it's an easy problem to solve or if you should probably find a different place to hang out.
Coffee shops have become workplace annexes since at least the mid-1990s. I like to take meetings in them because the risk of being overheard regarding internal politics is reduced, it gets interviewees a chance to refresh while you get to know them, and frankly, we all need the walk sometimes. A cup of coffee is also a good unit of time. You may need to wait five minutes for it to cool to a drinkable temperature (I'm a quaffer), you'll take sips from time to time, and you'll eventually finish and have an understanding that something is at an end and a change should be made. In this case, it's throwing away your trash and de-assing the place. :-)
(And if someone has the iron butt to sit in those chairs in your photo for 4+ hours, the muscle and nerve soreness should be motivation enough to go someplace else.)
we paid the cafe 10x what the coffee/laptoppers did
There's probably some price where the cafe would force people to move, but you haven't spent enough yet. I can't tell if you're mad at the cafe for not honoring you for spending money, or if you're mad at the people with laptops for existing.
I suppose, but my girlfriend and I were also eating brunch there. It's the only convenient place that serves both cucumber and capers with their lox bagel.
From the cafe's perspective, it sounds like everything worked perfectly. Even though you couldn't get the seat you wanted, you still had brunch there. And the people working on laptops bought something there; if they couldn't use their laptops, they probably wouldn't have bought anything at all. That, I suppose, is the advantage of being the only convenient place that serves both cucumber and capers with their lox bagel.
Short term gains for long term reputation losses as an acceptable mode of business?
Serving both cucumber and capers with their lox bagels is not much of a defensible competitive advantage, but I guess the owner just needs to ride out customer churn until they hit their ipo and can punch their exit strategy... well...
It sounds like you don't use (or "abuse") the facilities to the point where the owners are bothered. The problem probably stems from people who behave differently than you.
I no longer frequent coffee shops that are (nearly) 100% occupied by "laptop squatters," as it means no seating for those of us who want to sit and chat for 10-15 minutes over coffee. </anecdotal>
"The market" will resolve this problem. Just watch what happens when Starbucks not only tries to charge you $8 for a poorly made coffee, but also doesn't let you work there.
I suspect this wont actually happen, and also believe most of us only go to these establishments because a) they're everywhere / convenient, b) they let you sit there with a laptop and least importantly c) they have coffee
I have a similar ratio, but I would welcome a time limit. Web I go its usually just to hang out for a bit, read a book, and maybe comment about the passing customers on Twitter. But if it is one of those one or two in ten times I plan to stay and there are people at every comfy chair with laptop plugged in, I'll leave without buying anything. So I guess we have opposite philosophies there. I don't think it would at all affect my patronage when I want a coffee to go.
>What's the secret sauce that makes Starbucks so successful? They made it a comfy place to hang out...the "3rd place" between home and work where you can go and feel welcomed.
Starbucks even gives you free refills on coffee (plain old brewed coffee, not any more expensive drink) if you pay with their combination prepaid/loyalty card. Clearly Starbucks seems to have no problem with you staying there for quite a while, so long as you do it often.
There are a handful of coffee shops here in Seattle (Zoka immediately comes to mind) that I generally avoid because they're so full of people who use them as de-facto offices. That's not a huge loss for me, as there are plenty of other perfectly good coffee shops around.
You're in a different segment than me. I'm sure there's a few coffee shop customer segments and most of the folks on HN probably fit into the segment that this policy will alienate.
This would be beneficial for me. There's a really nice coffee shop in Brookline, MA (borders Boston and connects to the T) called Cafe Fixe. They make a great espresso. I try to go with my girlfriend every so often.
If I go there and there are no seats available, I leave without making a purchase. I know the same people sit at the tiny coffee shop for hours at a time. I'm sure the business lose hundreds of dollars (if not more) per week because seating isn't available.
This type of policy will probably help small specialty coffee shops more than the big chains.
So is the one by me. When I asked the barista why, she said it helps keeps the fruit-flies away from the bakery items. I just bring a sweatshirt with me when I go.
When I'm in the states, I bring a jacket in the summer to starbucks.
I actually had a problem with certain starbucks in Beijing that don't have adequate heating in the winter...my feet are just hurting after 30 or so minutes. I've mapped out all the stores with decent AC and heat now, though I switch stores seasonally.
I am just happy Starbucks banned smoking around their stores. The side effect is that I have seen some laptop users actually outside!
Locally in Atlanta I only see the problem get bad when school is in, then some of the various coffee shops become Apple show rooms. Its like a clique that has last longer than I expected, but I am a generation or two removed.
Not offering WiFi or putting time limits on it would make me feel unwelcome. Feeling unwelcome will make me not want to patronize said coffee shop the other 9 out of 10 times.
What's the secret sauce that makes Starbucks so successful? They made it a comfy place to hang out...the "3rd place" between home and work where you can go and feel welcomed. Schultz is always talking about it. Obviously, Starbucks is one data point, but I think there's something to it.