Analysis of Starbuck's Open Carry

Part A

1. What demands were presented and must they be taken seriously, or are they just another case of ridiculous requests, which can be safely ignored by the company?

There are basically two sides to this issue. One side wants Starbucks to “continue sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it’s legal” (Regis University, 2011), while the other wants Starbucks to exercise its individual rights to exempt itself from some states’ open-carry rules. With regards to taking the demands seriously, I would strongly urge Starbucks to take the opinion of those carrying the firearms very seriously. I kind of make that statement in jest, but seriously, any major retailer will eventually have demand made of it by two competing groups of patrons. Retailers must weigh the demands made of its customers and decide if action needs to be taken or if the demand can just be avoided. Even that decision in itself can be very tricky because, as any married man will tell you, avoiding issues sometimes just makes them much worse. As for this demand being made in this case study, it would be unwise of Starbucks to avoid them. Allowing clientele to openly carry weapons on the premises is a seriously divisive issue that Starbucks needs to address with its customers. Addressing the issue will force Starbucks to at least seem to be taking sides on an issue, but the company must respond if for no other reason than to simply provide clarity of the company’s policy for its regulars.

2. Is there a reasonable way to satisfy all customer segments?

I do not think so. The demands of the two parties are completely at odds with each other and on opposite ends of the spectrum. One group will only be satisfied as long as it is allowed to keep carrying weapons openly into Starbucks while the other side will only be happy when Starbucks refuses to allow any patron to openly carry weapons in its stores. Starbucks could try to compromise by only allowing customers to...