End of road for Starbucks laptop loungers?

August 4, 2011 By Trevor Mogg

According to reports, several Starbucks stores in New York are covering up their AC outlets, preventing some customers from using their laptops for long periods of time while sipping on a single coffee.

If you haven’t done it yourself, you’ll have seen others at it. Starbucks (or any coffee shop with free Wi-Fi, for that matter) is a magnet for laptop owners who love coffee and the Internet in equal amounts….or perhaps the Internet a bit more than coffee.

Those that have time on their hands might spend all afternoon in their seat, surfing the web, checking emails, and downloading songs, the long-ago bought bean-based beverage slowly metamorphosing from hot coffee to iced coffee.

Well, if a practice reportedly operating in some of Starbucks’ New York stores becomes more widespread, it could spell the end for the so-called laptop lounger.

According to Cnet (via Gawker), several stores in the city have started covering their AC outlets with solid plates in the hope that the lounger will drink up and leave, thereby allowing another person (with a laptop?) to take their place and spend some money.

Cnet said that a poster on the Starbucks Gossip site mentions two Starbucks stores where the AC outlets have been covered over: one at 14 West 23rd Street near Madison Square Park and the other at 8th Avenue and West 39th Street.

Another poster wrote: “I will tell you that the NY Metro leadership team has stated they are against covering the outlets because it is a passive aggressive way to deal with the issue. However, in extreme cases, they have approved this action because (and let’s be real here) some people just cannot be reasoned with.”

The Wall Street Journal has been informed by a Starbucks spokesman that there is currently no company-wide policy regarding the availability of power outlets, although individual stores are permitted to make a decision on the matter if they feel it is necessary.

We can understand it if the store is full of loungers sipping on one coffee for eight hours, preventing customers who want a quick drink from getting a seat. But just blocking the outlets without any announcement may be the wrong way to go about it. Of course, they could always start charging for Wi-Fi, or limit the time allowed on the net.

For those who use Starbucks as their office and are keen to continue their nine-to-five shift there, the simple solution would be to turn up at the coffee shop with a bagful of fully charged batteries.

Image: Elvert Barnes

Showing 5 comments

Cynthia GC at 1:01pm 6th August 2011 Two things amaze me about this "trend" with Starbucks: 1) These outlets are as much for laptops as they are for getting the cell phone recharged on the go. When I have my business meetings in Manhattan, I choose (actually, "chose") to have those appointments at Starbucks because I could "plug in" and charge my cell phone. After spotting "blocked outlets" at both the 1st Ave-17th St Starbucks, and the 8th Ave-35th St Starbucks, I no longer schedule my meetings at Starbucks. That adds up to 2 Tazo tea purchases per week that have gone elsewhere (multiplied by the other folks like me). 2) For a Starbucks spokesperson to indicate there is "currently no company-wide policy regarding the availability of power outlets, although individual stores are permitted to make a decision on the matter if they feel it is necessary", I am flabbergasted, as the number one rule in successful "franchising" (which applies to a company-owned network of stores) is to make uniform decisions that effect the brand of the company coming from "higher up", as opposed to allowing folks at the store level - who "can't see the forest for the trees" - to make the kind of decisions that damage the customer's perception of the company. Knowing what I know about Starbucks, it would make more sense that this was an orchestrated move, after weighing the pro's and con's of this decision's impact on revenues - taking into consideration the loss of electricity-dependent customers, the projected savings on the electric bill, and the anticipated gain of revenue from those customers who come in the door and head right out the door without making a purchase because it appeared too long a wait for a table. I would hope that the corporate team did extensive studies on how much additional revenue is generated by non-electricity customers who get a table (do they finish their coffee and then get up for "seconds" and order additional items? My "unsubstantiated take" on this is once you've ordered and sat at a table, it's rare to want to fight the line and go back for more). Though not a coffee drinker, I have had so much respect for this enterprise over the years, fascinated by the vision, the powerful systems that replicate in the hands of the young people who run the stores, and the brilliant demonstration of the power in leveraging one’s existing distribution network (via their "product line extension” model through gourmet food, kitchenware, CD’s, books, etc). However, this action of covering outlets – whether a calculated, unified move, or bad policy in allowing stores to act “independently” on this matter – has produced the following result: I am no longer a fan, nor a tea-drinking regular at their stores.
1. Ian Bell at 1:23pm 6th August 2011 I think the real problem is when customers just want to order a coffee and sit down and they can't, or they perceive it to be too crowded. That's becoming an increasingly large problem as people start to conduct business in Starbucks. If I decide to get a coffee and I see that Starbucks is too crowded or there is no where to sit, I will simply go somewhere else for coffee (there are tons of coffee places out there). Your 2 Teas a week could be nothing to the lost business they are getting from countless customers like me deciding not to get coffee there.There needs to be a time limit. Sit down for 30 minutes and then you have to go. No reason to camp out there.
  1. Cynthia GC at 1:35pm 6th August 2011 I'm with you, Ian. The question is did Starbucks crunch the numbers? How many others like me? How many like you? How much lower is the ConEd bill? The missing link is making a statement from the company that "does damage control" with all their outlet-addicted customers (laptop or phone chargers) since that is a large base of consumers to mess with. Folks like you aren't necessarily loyal/regular customers; you're the folks (I'm assuming here) that they are trying to gain back - to turn into the "regulars". Even more reason for a "big announcement" so the people like you who haven't read this article or stopped in for a while can get word that Starbucks has "86'd the laptop loungers by blocking outlets". Thanks, Ian, for engaging in this dialogue!
    Ian Bell at 1:47pm 6th August 2011 I would agree to some extent. And for the record, I have had plenty of business meetings at Starbucks too. My guess is that Starbucks has crunched the number and come to the conclusion that people camping out there simply are not buying enough coffee to offset electrical costs and the lost of business from other customers. Just guessing here.I also think that these people doing business there in Starbucks are the very same people that helped make the company successful in the first place.
Jeffrey Van Camp at 5:18am 5th August 2011 Nearly every Starbucks I've been to in downtown and Midtown Manhattan covers its outlets. This has been going on for at least several months, as I first noticed it in March. I really don't see it as much except greed though. There are just so many people running through New York that Starbucks wants to keep the churn rate at their stores high. They aren't alone either. Almost no businesses downtown have places to plug in. I have yet to find a place to work from on the go.