The big question Starbucks customers are asking themselves this morning is: Will mine close? The answer continues to be “We don’t know.” The explanation comes in a somewhat amusing email from an anonymous Starbucks spokesperson (below).
The background: Starbucks announced yesterday it will be closing 600 stores soon. The closures will occur between now and March. And most of the Starbucks to close are new ones, having opened since 2006.
Naturally, I asked Starbucks which ones are closing. Today they responded — sort of. They said they aren’t going to tell even the employees until 30 days before closing. Since the responder requested anonymity, I have carefully obscured her identity.
Will you still be able to get yours? (The Associated Press)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: H?ffm?n, S?r?h
Subject: RE: Starbucks locations
Date: July 2, 2008 8:31:26 AM MST
To: steller@azstarnet.com
Hi, Tim –
Thanks for your inquiry. I am happy to provide you with some additional background information regarding yesterday’s announcement, however, please note that I cannot be quoted directly. You are welcome to attribute my comments below to a “Starbucks spokesperson.” Also, we are unable to grant any interviews with Starbucks representatives at this time.
Throughout Starbucks history, we have closed a small number of stores each year. Yesterday’s announcement reflects a greater number of closures after an intensified review of our entire U.S. company-operated store portfolio. The stores identified for closure are spread across all major U.S. markets with approximately 70 percent of them opened since fiscal 2006. Details for specific locations are still being finalized. Store closures will begin in July 2008 and continue through March 2009.
Out of respect and dignity for our partners, and our desire to share this information with impacted partners first, we are not publishing a full list of the stores. Individual stores will be notified by their district manager and/or regional director approximately 30 days prior to the anticipated closure date. Concurrently, the approximately 6,600 remaining U.S. company-operated stores will be notified that they are not affected by this announcement.
We commit to treating all partners with dignity and respect. As such, we expect to place many of the affected partners into available positions at nearby Starbucks stores. Those partners who are not offered a comparable position within a reasonable distance of their current location will be offered a severance payment to aid in their transition. All affected partners – including full-time and part-time – are eligible for severance based on job title and current pay rate.
It may be the point, but in promising a source that one will keep their identity a secret, and then doing something as blatantly ineffective as this, it really calls into question the journalistic ethics of the reporter in question. Very disappointing, Tim. I sort of thought you were above something like this.
Good for Tim Steller, paid corporate communication staffers have no right to assume anonymity without getting that agreed to prior to making a statement. IF only the reporters working Washington had half the morals…but then coffee is more important than faked war intellegence…
Considering the tactics Starbucks has employed for years against small local purveyors and their own employees, I’m glad to see that they’re having trouble. And that’s what closing 600 stores is. Not an “intensified review.” It’s trouble. And I for one am glad to see it. Just one more example of how shady business tactics simply don’t pay off in the long run.
'Clocking In' is the joint blog of the Star’s Business news staff. We're punching out news tips, outtakes and other morsels for people with an appetite for local business, consumer and workplace news. Have some news of your own to share? Be sure to drop us a line using one of the e-mail addresses below.
I bet Sarah Hoffman is really going to be happy to see this. Any idiot could decipher it.
— Bubba 07/02/2008 04:59 PM #
I believe, Bubba, that is – in fact – the point.
— Wandering Mex 07/03/2008 08:46 PM #
It may be the point, but in promising a source that one will keep their identity a secret, and then doing something as blatantly ineffective as this, it really calls into question the journalistic ethics of the reporter in question. Very disappointing, Tim. I sort of thought you were above something like this.
— Matt 07/03/2008 09:00 PM #
Point of information: I never promised anyone anonymity.
— Tim Steller 07/03/2008 09:37 PM #
Good for Tim Steller, paid corporate communication staffers have no right to assume anonymity without getting that agreed to prior to making a statement. IF only the reporters working Washington had half the morals…but then coffee is more important than faked war intellegence…
— unnamed sources 07/03/2008 10:13 PM #
Considering the tactics Starbucks has employed for years against small local purveyors and their own employees, I’m glad to see that they’re having trouble. And that’s what closing 600 stores is. Not an “intensified review.” It’s trouble. And I for one am glad to see it. Just one more example of how shady business tactics simply don’t pay off in the long run.
— Rob Ferrier 07/04/2008 06:54 AM #
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/USStoreClosureInfo.pdf
Wow only Eloy in Arizona is “losing” Starbucks.
— Bubba 07/18/2008 10:09 AM #