 |
By slim Jim Puvee
|
Starbucks Coffee's mission statement promotes embracing diversity as a mainstay of the way the company does business, but Starbucks is about to eliminate diversity from news racks in its retail coffee shops.
Last week Starbucks announced it will ban all free publications by Oct. 2. The shops will continue to offer a city's daily newspapers and The New York Times. The company says the decision will have no effect on its commitment to community.
"Importantly, Starbucks is not stepping back from its commitment to its local communities or to the local paid publications that represent those communities," says Alan Gulick, Starbucks director of worldwide public affairs.
Yet in many markets, Starbucks' move means stepping back from publications serving the gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and ethnic communities. Inside the shops, The New York Times will be a patron's only choice for national news. In what it calls an unrelated business decision, Starbucks granted the Times exclusivity in exchange for ad space. That decision appeared on Starbucks' Web site. The decision to eliminate the free publications did not.
Starbucks' regional offices will decide which local, paid publications will remain in each shop, Gulick says. Negotiations are underway with Cincinnati's local dailies.
Streamlining is the reason for banning the free publications, according to Gulick. Starbucks wants to make its stores more manageable for employees and eliminate the clutter caused by free publications.
Starbucks managers interviewed by Columbus Alive responded negatively to the company's decision. Starbucks managers in Cincinnati say they were instructed not to speak to the media.
Gulick says he understands Columbus Alive's point of view, because the alternative weekly will no longer be available in the store.
"It's not about content or reading selection," he says. "It's just about simplifying. Our customers have many opportunities to pick up other publications in other places. Many of our stores have racks out front."
In at least four of the 12 Starbucks locations in Cincinnati, CityBeat and Cincinnati Woman are the "clutter" the company will eliminate. Both publications say they are disappointed, because the shops are sizable distribution outlets. Approximately 850 CityBeat readers will have to look elsewhere for their papers. Between 600 and 700 Cincinnati Woman readers will have to do the same.
"Finding out we could no longer distribute there was a knife in my heart," says Cincinnati Woman Publisher Alicia Wiehe.
The ban hurt all the more, Wiehe says, because the last time she delivered 100 copies to the Starbucks on Madison Road, the manager ran after her, asking her to leave more.
Still, six or seven Starbucks stores out of 400 distribution locations will not hurt Cincinnati Woman that badly, Wiehe says.
"My advice to my readers is to frequent other coffeehouses that offer free publications," she says.
Nationwide, the policy's effect on alternative weeklies has been noticeable but not profound, according to Richard Karpel, executive director of the Association for Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN), whose members include CityBeat and Columbus Alive. Seventy-five of AAN's 123 members responded to an e-mail Karpel sent to gauge the policy's effect. Respondents indicate Starbucks' ban will affect distribution of a total of 20,000 copies.
The effect depends on the market, Karpel says. Some papers, such as Washington City Paper in D.C., do not use Starbucks for distribution. The Chicago market probably won't suffer much, either. Starbucks operates close to 70 coffee shops in Chicago, home of Chicago Reader. Yet that paper, with a weekly distribution of 138,000, will see only 800 copies displaced. It distributes in approximately 10 of the coffee shops, says Deron Grams, the Reader's circulation coordinator.
Starbucks is the leading roaster, retailer and brand of specialty coffee in the world, serving 11 million customers per week. But eliminating 20,000 AAN papers doesn't worry Karpel, because the decision wasn't based on content.
"I'm not paranoid, because we're different than most free publications," he says.
Being different from most free publications might call for different types of distribution points. Karpel says he has noticed distribution in national chains can be trickier than distribution in independently owned businesses.
Starbucks isn't the only company eliminating free publications. Earlier this year, Barnes & Noble Booksellers issued a policy banning some publications from store vestibules. But unlike Starbucks, Barnes & Noble will keep some publications while kicking out others, depending on content.
"Barnes & Noble tried to focus on keeping newspapers focusing on arts, the literary and education," says Michael Resnick, regional manager for the bookseller.
Barnes & Noble customers are not interested in the rental and retail guides that used to distribute in its store lobbies, Resnick says. Now the Cincinnati stores carry only CityBeat and All About Kids. Barnes & Noble does not limit the number of free publications, and store managers decide what publications to carry, Resnick says.
Cincinnati Woman is trying to get back into the Barnes & Noble in Hyde Park, Wiehe says. Losing Barnes & Noble and Starbucks has cost the publication about 1,700 copies of its 30,000 monthly distribution.
"It's guerrilla distribution -- one store at a time," Wiehe says. "We have a seek-and-destroy mentality. They should realize we can send traffic in there."
While Cincinnati Woman tries to get in, CityBeat is trying to get out of the newspaper section and back to the vestibule.
CityBeat does not move nearly as many papers in the store as it used to, says Dan Bockrath, the paper's general manager. Bockrath is negotiating with each of the Barnes & Noble managers in Cincinnati to get freestanding racks in more accessible places.
"We're losing our impulse readers," he says. "At least we're fortunate enough to retain a presence. It would've been nice if Starbucks had given us the same consideration."
But the company also realizes the high value of the vestibule space, Resnick says. It is more logical to keep its in-house products there. And, he says, the customers like less clutter.
Stores aren't the only battleground
Stores are not the only ones worrying about clutter. Cities are becoming more concerned with the way their sidewalks look. In late spring, the city of Newport removed all CityBeat distribution boxes because of a litter problem, according to Doug Roell, coordinator of an inter-department enforcement team for the city.
Because the boxes were placed without approval of the city manager, their removal was justified, Roell says. Bockrath says he wasn't aware of any such policy. The paper's circulation coordinator at the time tried to meet with Newport officials to find out if a permit process existed.
If challenged in court, the policy would be overturned, according to attorney Richard Creighton, who specializes in First Amendment cases.
"Freedom of the press should not be abridged," Creighton says. "If you can't distribute, there is no free press. Government can't put much in the way of distribution."
If daily newspapers can put their racks on the street, Creighton says, so can free publications.
"Newport knows it can't do the same thing with more traditional papers, because it's a big enough business to have enough money to fight it," he says. "It's a practical thing -- who's likely to challenge? I look at it in terms of money, power and influence."
In Cincinnati, officials hope news rack regulation will become a reality, while publishers collaborate to self-police. Retailers and citizens complain there are too many news racks lining downtown streets, says Assistant City Solicitor John Hanselman. In addition to appearance, critics argue public safety is at issue when the racks obstruct handicapped access, bus stops or parking spaces.
From 1990 through the mid-90s, Cincinnati had an administrative news rack regulation. City Architect Bob Richardson says he drafted the regulation to limit the number of racks per corner and to ensure all were bolted to the ground.
But the regulation, which was never enforced, was axed while the city was trying to rid itself of red-tape regulations.
Local publishers concede the need for some type of control, but they would rather see it come from within the industry. Six months ago, representatives of local and national dailies and weeklies formed the Downtown Central Business District's Newsrack Association. The association aims to enforce its own guidelines to distribute papers free of government regulation and without endangering public safety.
Taking a cue from similar associations with successful agreements in Pittsburgh, Alexandria, Virginia and Washington, D.C., the association conceived a preliminary set of guidelines for publications with news racks downtown.
Hanselman and Richardson say the city needs something with more weight to it.
"It's a tough situation with a lot of issues," Richardson says. "A good process has been started."
Downtown Cincinnati Inc. (DCI) works regularly with the news rack issue, seeking to ensure a safe, clean environment downtown, says David Ginsberg, senior vice president of DCI.
Publishers bristled last year when City Solutions made a presentation to the city. City Solutions makes modular racks, telling cities they're the answer to their news rack woes. The modular racks consolidate publications into one rack with numerous pockets. To pay for the rack, the company sells advertising to third parties.
Modular racks cost a lot of money if not paid for by third-party advertising, according to Dan Kauffung, single-copy manager for The Cincinnati Enquirer. Modular racks, he says, are generic and not as durable.
Publishers also believe they lose brand identity. Modular racks would mean no more red CityBeat boxes or yellow Enquirer boxes.
If demand outweighs supply for the pockets in modular racks, Ginsberg says, Constitutional freedoms are affected.
"I don't want another company operating my racks," Kauffung says, "because I don't trust 'em telling me where I can and can't put my newspapers."
At least Cincinnati isn't alone. The tug-of-war between publishers and city officials over rack regulation spans the nation. AAN's Karpel says a court case in San Francisco should be the most telling in how much a city can regulate distribution.
Local papers there filed suit to stop a contract between a private firm and the city. The contract enables the firm to install modular racks supported by third-party advertising. Opponents feel the contract gives distribution control to the city.
The AAN newsletter reports that in Nashville, City Solutions approached the city with a news rack plan. Publishers united to oppose the plan, saying they didn't want third-party advertising on the racks. The Gannett Co., which owns that city's daily, The Tennessean, says it will replace 260 individual racks with 27 modular racks by January 2002.
Karpel doesn't see retail stores' bans or cities' regulations putting a major strain on distribution of free alternative weeklies.
"If you ask any AAN publisher, distribution is probably a top-10 concern," he says. "Some of these problems are because there are more papers and more competition. But AAN started something new -- free distribution that was advertising-supported. In the end, we will get our papers to the people who want to read them." ©
