Retail Watchers

Starbucks are not necessarily company owned. the ones in airports mostly are run by HMSHost under a license. My local Starbucks is owned by one of Magic Johnson's enterprises which has other stores in the DC area.

buckguy wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 12:25 pm Starbucks are not necessarily company owned. the ones in airports mostly are run by HMSHost under a license. My local Starbucks is owned by one of Magic Johnson's enterprises which has other stores in the DC area.

Magic Johnson hasn't owned any Starbucks in 10 years.
https://www.laweekly.com/magic-johnson- ... locations/

I believe most, if not all, "standalone" Starbucks are company-owned. The ones inside other locations (airports, supermarkets, Target, etc.) are "licensed" operations, but not franchises.

Licensed locations still have the same district managers. The standards are still quite strict for licensed lications.

Alpha8472 wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 3:03 pm Licensed locations still have the same district managers. The standards are still quite strict for licensed lications.

That isn't correct. I know the local DM over *only* the licensed stores. The corporate stores have a separate DM.

Back in 2007, a Target Starbucks barista mentioned that they had the same district managers. Maybe I misheard her.

Alpha8472 wrote: ↑March 18th, 2020, 2:55 pm Back in 2007, a Target Starbucks barista mentioned that they had the same district managers. Maybe I misheard her.

I think this has changed one way or the other and perhaps back again over the years. I know at one time the district managers for licensed stores and corporate stores were the same. It may also depend how many licensed stores are in a given area.

So here in Nevada, governor Steve Sisolak ordered all dine in restaurants closed as of Noon 3/19.

I drove around tonight to see how things were going and came across a couple of Subway locations. Of course, Subway has no drive through so people have to at least go in to get their sandwich. At both locations I also saw people seated inside the locations eating food.

Many fast food such as Jack in the Box and Carls Jr. have closed their dine in entirely and are drive through only.

In N Out and Raising Canes had posted that they were drive through or take out only, but physically their dine in was open and I saw people sitting inside those as well. I think in In N Out it may have been a homeless person who was not consuming food but just sitting in an empty table.

Maybe the order does not disallow sitting inside as long as you are not eating (what sense would that make?)?

I would think these places need to put the chairs up, push the tables together, or something to make it so people can't sit inside given the current situation.

Sitting down and eating is a violation. They are supposed to tape up the tables and put up the chairs. This is the whole purpose of the regulation. They want people to grab their food and go. The more they wait around, the more they can spread this airborne disease. They should enforce the no eating policy.

On the other side of that, if the restaurant has space, wouldn't it be more logical to position some seating in some sort of pattern to allow people to wait for their orders while still be spaced apart, rather than having them in a line and likely closer together?

I know one location (a locally owned restaurant here) that had the space and has a patio is setting it up such that people come in one door and exit via the patio, with several stops (an order if needed, pay, and pick up), which it seems is sensible to keep people moving through in a pattern that helps keep them apart as much as possible.

Even a fast food place might be able to do that with both ends of a counter, then using their normal sitting areas to space out those waiting for stuff and exiting via that back door that many have near the restrooms.