The Instigator
papasmurf420
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WaVoter
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Should Starbucks sell more food items

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
WaVoter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 920 times Debate No: 49606
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

papasmurf420

Pro

Personally I feel that with it's current menu Starbucks is a very fine establishment with a lot going for them, this being said, even in the greatest of corporations there is room for improvement. I find my self wishing that around my third hour of sitting in Starbucks looking at facebook on my Macbook Air, that there was some way I could get something substantial to eat. While I do love to snack on a marshmellow dream bar or a piece of lemon loaf, it would be nice to have something like a nice fresh sandwich, and I just dont feel that the pre-made wraps can cutit for me. If you disagree with me on any of these points feel free to enter what is going to become a very heated debate on a subject that is very close to my heart.
WaVoter

Con

I'll be arguing as Con so my stance is that Starbucks should NOT sell more food items. I'll parallel the viewpoint as an everyday citizen who is not a shareholder or employee of Starbucks. I argue that should Starbucks sell more food items it would have a negative impact on land use/environment, small businesses, and the customer experience.

1. More options, more inventory, more space needed - Land use and environmental

a. Assuming all things equal, meaning the other aspects of Starbucks remain the same such as serving a variety of beverages, customer seating areas, restrooms, etc., it is more than likely that selling more food would require more space for storage, display, and/or preparation. There would also be more pollution as a result of increased transportation needs for the delivery of ingredients.

b. Urban spaces - Starbucks branches have significant success in high density areas where walking and public transportation more commonly places customers in front of their doors. There are more than enough instances of multiple Starbucks within viewing distance of one another. An increase sq. footage of space to accommodate selling more food items would mean a larger corporate footprint in urban areas. I advocate that more diverse land use, even in the case of a similar and competing business, would create for a more vibrant community.

c. In areas where a larger Starbucks would not impact land use and planning, the environmental footprint would be a consideration; costs related to the heating/cooling of a larger space plus energy usage for freezing/heating the new selection of food items.

2. Small/Local businesses

a. Not unfamiliar to Starbucks is its criticisms for putting out local mom & pop coffee shops and other local options. Customer purchasing power may decide who wins and loses, however it should be taken into strong consideration that due to its size Starbucks would have the ability to outlast most any independently owned coffee shop in a pricing/perks war in additional to their economies of scale.

b. Currently direct competitors would include coffee shops and perhaps small shops who serve coffee and small snacks like a bagel or muffin. Starbucks and those who sell "more food items" than Starbucks does may actually have a mutually beneficial relationship. Based on location, they benefit from one another by being able to provide those in the area with food and coffee options, making it more of a food area than being apart from one another. However, should Starbucks compete in the same space as a sandwich shop, small business competitors are likely to face an uphill battle against a branch with extraordinary financial backing should it appeal to them to invest in that branch location.

3. Decreased Customer Experience

a. Upon personal reflection, and having wished the same thing as Pro before as well, I argue that should Starbucks sell more food items, it could have a negative impact on Starbucks patrons, the audience that would be served in providing the increase food options.

b. Most Starbucks don't necessarily have adequate seating to host a respectable dinner crowd, so looking and breakfast and lunch items would provide value at already peak times of day. Wait lines would be longer with larger orders (coffee and a sandwich) and/or more customers (coffee patron and sandwich patrons). Also consider prep time for the food. And some people like to sit and eat their lunch, making seating in higher demand.

c. Starbucks creates a great ambiance for working and casually chatting. Not only would more food items generate an increased preference for seating as noted above, it would also decrease table turnover. With food, drink, bathroom, and wifi, there will be less need to relocate to elsewhere; home, library, someplace to grab lunch. And with seating at a premium, it's harder to give up knowing you may not get it back if you return.

d. Not sure if it is written in any policy one way or the other but I like being able to bring in outside food in Starbucks, enabling me to not have to only have Starbucks food with my Starbucks coffee. Should Starbucks sell more food items like sandwiches and outside food becomes competition, patrons will then have limited options for their Starbucks experience.

In summary, Starbucks should not sell more food items.
Debate Round No. 1
papasmurf420

Pro

papasmurf420 forfeited this round.
WaVoter

Con

Waiting for Pro's arguments and/or rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
papasmurf420

Pro

papasmurf420 forfeited this round.
WaVoter

Con

Well that was uneventful. Hope I at least get some points for my efforts.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
papasmurf420WaVoterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF + Uncontested arguments.
Vote Placed by sewook123 3 years ago
sewook123
papasmurf420WaVoterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Good arguments by Con.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
papasmurf420WaVoterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF