Brandjack News

By Quentin Langley

Starbucks has a trendy, progressive, and internet-savvy image. It has handled difficult brandjacks before – such as a successful YouTube post contrasting the cost of a Frappuccino with the cost of saving babies in Darfur. On the whole, the company’s social media presence is skilfully handled.

Allegations of homophobia are especially difficult for a progressive company, based in Seattle. This long and detailed customer complaint is therefore a major issue, and Starbucks is treating it as such. The company has announced on its website, on Twitter and in the media that it is treating the allegations very seriously, and is investigating. Read the letter. It is worth it, but the short version is this, a customer claims to have overheard a manager dismissing a Starbucks employee for reasons which are not very clear, and berating him over his sexuality and politics while she does so.

Part of the problem it faces is that has a duty of care and of fairness to its employees. It cannot, in justice, simply fire people on the say so of one customer complaint. The company needs to establish – as a baseline – if the things stated in the letter are even true, and then investigate the background. Starbucks has to do that. Brandjack News can’t.

As the blogger who made the complaint herself accepts, she came in part way through a discussion. There was a background there which she doesn’t know and nor, of course, do we. But if we accept the customer’s account at face value, Starbucks has a major problem.

We cannot conclude from the account in the blog that there was no basis for dismissing the employee, Jeffrey. The dismissal seems to be related to allegedly inappropriate conversations with co-workers. Well, obviously, there are some types of conversation, especially those of a sexually explicit nature, which people would be wise to keep out of the workplace. But conceding this point raises more questions than it answers. Why was Jeffrey being fired in such a public environment? This is, surely, always inappropriate, but especially so if the reasons are this sensitive. Had he been previously advised that his conversation was inappropriate to the workplace? That would seem not only to be a matter of fairness, but of good judgement by the manager. It costs money to recruit and train people. It is simply foolish to dismiss someone who is otherwise a good colleague and worker over something that could better be handled with a quiet word. And, assuming there was no choice but to fire Jeffrey, and there really was no better place to do it, then extra care has to be taken over what is said.

It really is very bad judgement to dismiss someone for inappropriate conversation in the workplace while implying that the gayness of the conversation is what made it inappropriate. It would be better either to stress that this was not the case or not to mention that angle at all. In the specific circumstances – that the conversation was in public, and could be overheard by customers – not mentioning it at all becomes the overriding point.

If we take the facts outlined in the letter at face value, therefore, a Starbucks manager has behaved with appalling judgement. We cannot conclude with certainty that there was no legitimate basis for dismissing Jeffrey, but it was handled so badly that we have every reason to question the underlying act.

But Starbucks still has a duty to investigate the matter thoroughly. Perhaps the customer got the wrong end of the stick in one or more respects. And this takes time. Social media require instant responses, and they are not always possible. Starbucks has, necessarily, resorted to holding statements while investigations proceed. Down the line, firmer responses are going to be needed.

If there is a significant element of misunderstanding here, Starbucks is probably going to have to invite the blogger in for a chat, to try to explain things more clearly. If the blogger’s account is accurate and (more or less) complete, then the company probably has to part company with one or more of its employees, while finding a way to settle with Jeffrey. It probably also needs to review its training policies, so that managers fully understand how such sensitive issues should be handled. Firing someone is never easy. To screw it up this badly is terrible judgement.