Rant: Non-Consuming Table-Takers in Cafes

Today I just wanted to have a sandwich and a cup of coffee at the cafe in the Borders at State and Randolph. But I couldn't. Because every table and every window-counter space was full. So I looked around. 90% of the seating was occupied by people who didn't have a beverage or food item in front of them.

Why don't places throw these squatters out? Because Borders apparently has a policy of not throwing these squatters out, they're losing revenue from people who would very much like to purchase food and drink from them, if only they had a place to consume it.

I asked this question of the store manager, who sympathized but said it was "corporate policy" and I needed to direct my complaint to headquarters. I intend to. But in the meantime--does this bug other people like it bugs me? If Borders just wants to designate a seating area for people to read books and do homework in (or whatever they're doing on those laptops), fine-- but why should it be where the cafe is? Those people clearly aren't cafe customers, and they're taking away seating from people who would be if they only could be.

Somewhat related: I've yet to partake of Wow Bao in the Water Tower Place(I know...great hardship) because I have an aversion to eating whilst standing up when the seating set aside for customers upstairs is invariably taken over by itinerant shoppers. I've never been there and seen a free table.

For a while the Barnes and Noble in Oakbrook had a small sign up saying that you had to make a purchase to sit in the cafe. At the Border's in LaGrange the cafe manager told me that they don't have a policy on purchases and seating. I stop in there often with my small daughter and we get a book from the children's section and then have a snack. One day when I was in the place was full of people that seemed to just be reading books from the shelves. I explained to her that I felt as if I came in and saw the seating area full of people not eating I would probably not purchase anything from the cafe. She didn't really have a comment on that but she told me that they are a wireless station as well and that people also come in for wireless access and they can't controll if they make a purchase or not.

Does Borders have employees who bus the tables? If so, it's hard to know that these pople are "squatters." It doesn't bother me much, and as far as I'm concerned, at a place like that, if I've made a purchase I've paid rent on my seat for as long as I want it, whether the trash is in front of me or not. But by the same token, I'm pretty good at not being a dick about it.

Bob S. wrote:Does Borders have employees who bus the tables? If so, it's hard to know that these pople are "squatters." It doesn't bother me much, and as far as I'm concerned, at a place like that, if I've made a purchase I've paid rent on my seat for as long as I want it, whether the trash is in front of me or not. But by the same token, I'm pretty good at not being a dick about it.

I believe that you bus your own items at the Borders. I believe it's the same thing at B and N too.

I believe that you bus your own items at the Borders. I believe it's the same thing at B and N too.

Which, of course, would mean that the people sitting at tables with no consumables on them are by and large squatters. Since it's unlikely they would have bussed their own tables before being "done" with those tables. Most people (maybe not all, but most) would wait until they were ready to pick up and go for good before clearing their tables.

As for those few who have consumed something, cleared their tables, and then returned to occupy those tables, you could make a case that they don't have a right to occupy those tables in perpetuity now that they're done with their coffee and cake. But certainly the people who have purchased nothing oughn't be allowed to occupy them, when there are people who would like to be customers of the cafe who can't. It's such a revenue drain for the business, the only reason I can see that they're not throwing squatters out is that the employees are afraid of "confrontation." Cowardice isn't a very attractive reason, but it may be the reason.

Are they charging for wireless net access?

That could potentially be far more lucrative than the cafe goods, couldn't it? It might actually be good business.

Just a thought.

Yeah it sucks when folks monopolize seats they aren't paying for, but don't skip the goodness of Wow Bao because of the incovenience. Hell, I'd sit on the marble floor in water tower for some Bao.

Are they charging for wireless net access?

That could potentially be far more lucrative than the cafe goods, couldn't it? It might actually be good business.

Just a thought.

Good point. Hadn't thought of that.

Still frustrating for us "old school" types who think of a cafe as a place for, you know, a cup of coffee.

When cities are universally "wired" for free wireless, as seems to be in our future, and there's no more money for the Borders and Starbucks of the world to make off the laptopping squatters, we can go back to that better world again.

riddlemay wrote:But in the meantime--does this bug other people like it bugs me?

Not me.

Dmnkly wrote:Are they charging for wireless net access?

That could potentially be far more lucrative than the cafe goods, couldn't it? It might actually be good business.

Their policy shows that they believe that allowing "squatting" is also good for business, and possibly more lucrative than cafe goods.

Borders is first-and-foremost a retail outlet (books,movies,music). The cafe supports that business in creating a environment that allows people to spend more time in that store.

In their corporate policy office, faving a friendly, permissive policy towards people "hanging out" in Borders is likely good for business in an indirect way. Yes, riddlemay, they lost the 80 cents in profit they would have made on your sandwich order (and possibly you as a customer), but they see the gain of a group of people who recognize Borders as a place where they can come and spend time. The more comfortable they are spending time there, the more likely they are to spend their money there.

I'm not endorsing or deriding this policy. I'm just trying to offer up the likely rationale behind their policy.

Best,
Michael

n their corporate policy office, having a friendly, permissive policy towards people "hanging out" in Borders is likely good for business in an indirect way. Yes, riddlemay, they lost the 80 cents in profit they would have made on your sandwich order (and possibly you as a customer), but they see the gain of a group of people who recognize Borders as a place where they can come and spend time. The more comfortable they are spending time there, the more likely they are to spend their money there.

I'm not endorsing or deriding this policy. I'm just trying to offer up the likely rationale behind their policy.

I did think of that. (I didn't think of the money they might be making off of charging for wireless, but I did think of that.) And that's all well and good. I just wonder if they've considered whether the good will they engender by the policy is equal to or greater than the bad will they engender by the policy. There are competing constituencies here. They can't make everyone happy. I think it's necessary to let them know that they are paying a price for the policy. It may be a price they're willing to pay, but they do need to know they're paying it, which they may not, depending on how much thought they've given it.

riddlemay wrote:

n their corporate policy office, having a friendly, permissive policy towards people "hanging out" in Borders is likely good for business in an indirect way. Yes, riddlemay, they lost the 80 cents in profit they would have made on your sandwich order (and possibly you as a customer), but they see the gain of a group of people who recognize Borders as a place where they can come and spend time. The more comfortable they are spending time there, the more likely they are to spend their money there.

I'm not endorsing or deriding this policy. I'm just trying to offer up the likely rationale behind their policy.

I did think of that. (I didn't think of the money they might be making off of charging for wireless, but I did think of that.) And that's all well and good. I just wonder if they've considered whether the good will they engender by the policy is equal to or greater than the bad will they engender by the policy. There are competing constituencies here. They can't make everyone happy. I think it's necessary to let them know that they are paying a price for the policy. It may be a price they're willing to pay, but they do need to know they're paying it, which they may not, depending on how much thought they've given it.

Personally, I think they know it and they know it better than you or I do. I think they have a market research team that has classified and named each type of customer, exactly how much they spend, how much time they spend in the store, how often they come, and exactly the types of items they buy.

I think that they have calculated the cost, down to the nickel, of pissing of cafe customers versus keeping the "squatters" happy.

I think that they have calculated the cost, down to the nickel, of pissing off cafe customers versus keeping the "squatters" happy.

Very possibly. I just had a conversation with Dawn at corporate, who registered my complaint and promised to have a corporate manager call me back about it in the next couple of days. I'll report the gist of that conversation when it's occured.

They also have an email address for such communications, and if the phone medium doesn't prove satisfactory, I'll use that and report any learning.

I don't mind the coffeebar squatters too much, although I think that providing more chairs elsewhere in the store would probably help this problem a lot. If you can have a quiet spot in the stacks to do your homework, you'd probably choose that over a place where you have to listen to the cappuccino machine.

What really bugs me about the bookstores is the way they have of announcing, beginning 40 minutes or so before closing, "Our store will be closing in X minutes. Please bring your final purchases to the front..." over and over again. It makes me want to drop all the books I've selected and run out of the store.

It has been many years since I worked in retail, but I can remember the store's owner, who wouldn't allow us to so much as hint to any customers left at closing time -- even by starting to vacuum -- that we weren't delighted to give them as much time as they wanted to finish shopping and give us their money. If a store wants all the customers gone by 11, then they should set the closing time at 10 or 10:30.

That's a particular pet peeve of mine at restaurants, too. The closing time they list on their door shouldn't be the time they put all the chairs on the tables and lock up -- it should be the final seating, the last time anyone can come in and order a meal. I get so annoyed at going into places 20 minutes before their signs say they close and being told they've already shut down the kitchen.

Well, I think the tables are attracting a lot more of these people than the chairs are, if they're doing homework or research or whatever. And I'd personally rather have them at the tables than sprawled out on the floor, which I see way too often. I really hate having to climb over people with jackets, backpacks, and three or four books and a notebook strewn around them.

Maybe the real question is why libraries aren't more popular with folks doing homework or research.

(Oh, as an aside, thanks for filling me in on the table busing issue. I've never once gone to a bookstore for food or drink and haven't ever paid attention, so it was thinking out loud.)

Bob S. wrote:Well, I think the tables are attracting a lot more of these people than the chairs are, if they're doing homework or research or whatever. And I'd personally rather have them at the tables than sprawled out on the floor, which I see way too often. I really hate having to climb over people with jackets, backpacks, and three or four books and a notebook strewn around them.

Maybe the real question is why libraries aren't more popular with folks doing homework or research.

(Oh, as an aside, thanks for filling me in on the table busing issue. I've never once gone to a bookstore for food or drink and haven't ever paid attention, so it was thinking out loud.)

I hope this isn't wandering too far off-topic: regarding libraries

I applaud the access(internet, etc.) given to all comers, but libraries have become virtual holding pens for the homeless. This is a hot button issue; for myself, for librarians themselves who see their charter usurped by
"progressive" pedagogy. However, I don't intend to lambaste the many given the behavior of a few. The atmosphere of public libraries just isn't conducive to unfettered research.

---

Then, there's laptop culture which I just don't get. I don't see
the attraction of Borders-as-studyhall. There're also the kids who litter the lobby of my building tapping away on their computers. Like the s/o once sighed, "this isn't a dorm." Both Borders(and my lobby) seem like the most distracting places to get anything done.

I haven't bought a book at a bookstore since 1998 or so as it is easier to have it shipped direct to my house. However, I do not understand how the bookstores stay in business when so many people go into the bookstore to READ the books, magazines, and newspapers (without buying them, of course) and don't even buy the coffee.

On my last visit at a B&N, I saw a couple grab three or four books from the stack, lay out lunch and coffee that they brought in, and sit and read. When they got up an hour later, they left the books on the table and left the store.

jlawrence01 wrote:I haven't bought a book at a bookstore since 1998 or so as it is easier to have it shipped direct to my house. However, I do not understand how the bookstores stay in business when so many people go into the bookstore to READ the books, magazines, and newspapers (without buying them, of course) and don't even buy the coffee.

On my last visit at a B&N, I saw a couple grab three or four books from the stack, lay out lunch and coffee that they brought in, and sit and read. When they got up an hour later, they left the books on the table and left the store.

Excellent observation. I've also pondered what the bookstores think of bringing unpurchased merchandise into an area prone to spillage. Then there's the feeling(maybe it's just me) of awkwardness in reading a book in a store as opposed to simply skimming it to see if you wish to purchase it.

On my last visit at a B&N, I saw a couple grab three or four books from the stack, lay out lunch and coffee that they brought in, and sit and read. When they got up an hour later, they left the books on the table and left the store.

Then there's the feeling(maybe it's just me) of awkwardness in reading a book in a store as opposed to simply skimming it to see if you wish to purchase it.

There's a word for people like this. Bums. Bums with laptops.

Somehow that laptop acts like a magic talisman to keep them from being thrown out, as an ordinary bum would certainly be. If only the homeless knew about the magical properties of this prop, they could camp out just about any place they wanted to.

Of course, as noted above, you don't really need a laptop. You just need to look like a "reader." People who fit the profile of "homeless" would be ejected, although the actions of both types of squatter (getting in from the elements, camping out comfortably for hours, not buying anything--including books) is identical.

jlawrence01 wrote:On my last visit at a B&N, I saw a couple grab three or four books from the stack, lay out lunch and coffee that they brought in, and sit and read. When they got up an hour later, they left the books on the table and left the store.

If you haven't bought a book in a bookstore since '98 what are you doing there for an hour?

Enjoy,
Gary

riddlemay wrote:You just need to look like a "reader." People who fit the profile of "homeless" would be ejected, although the actions of both types of squatter (getting in from the elements, camping out comfortably for hours, not buying anything--including books) is identical.

Riddle,

This may win LTHForum 'Sweeping Generalization" of the week. Certainly not the month, but quite possibly the week. I think we need to cool this subject out a bit. Thanks.

Enjoy,
Gary

Yeah, I"ve never had much fondness for brick and mortar chain bookstores now that Amazon, Overstock, and Half.com can get me the same product at 2/3 the cost. I can understand getting enjoyment from browsing the stacks, as it were, but, eh. That's not worth the awfully significant premium.

G Wiv wrote:

jlawrence01 wrote:On my last visit at a B&N, I saw a couple grab three or four books from the stack, lay out lunch and coffee that they brought in, and sit and read. When they got up an hour later, they left the books on the table and left the store.

If you haven't bought a book in a bookstore since '98 what are you doing there for an hour?

Enjoy,
Gary

My wife likes to shop. When I get to a place like Borders or Frye's Electronics which have a bistro or a coffee shop, I order a cup and spend an hour watching people.

Better than being led around a mall (g).


Seriously, people browse the bookstores and then buy on-line.

Many people read at the bookstore since a number of public libraries (there are exceptions) prefer to spend their money on internet access rather than books.

As for me, I have library cards in several communities and use interlibrary loan to get about 80%+ of the books that I require (for some reason a disproportionate come from Rockford and DeKalb). If that doesn't pan out, there is always Amazon Marketplace.

I wrote:

You just need to look like a "reader." People who fit the profile of "homeless" would be ejected, although the actions of both types of squatter (getting in from the elements, camping out comfortably for hours, not buying anything--including books) is identical.

Gary wrote:

This may win LTHForum 'Sweeping Generalization" of the week. Certainly not the month, but quite possibly the week. I think we need to cool this subject out a bit. Thanks.

I read your response, Gary, and felt chastened for going too far--I don't want to let my "miffedness" run away with me, and start shedding more heat than light, and all that--but then I reread the passage of mine that you quote, and it seems entirely reasonable to me! Almost inarguable, in fact.

riddlemay wrote:I read your response, Gary, and felt chastened for going too far--I don't want to let my "miffedness" run away with me, and start shedding more heat than light, and all that--but then I reread the passage of mine that you quote, and it seems entirely reasonable to me! Almost inarguable, in fact.

Riddlemay,

My point, LTHForum, a food discussion board, is not really the place to discuss the (subjective) difference between "readers" "homeless" and what constitutes a squatter.

Thanks,
Gary

Christopher Gordon wrote: I applaud the access(internet, etc.) given to all comers, but libraries have become virtual holding pens for the homeless. This is a hot button issue; for myself, for librarians themselves who see their charter usurped by
"progressive" pedagogy. However, I don't intend to lambaste the many given the behavior of a few. The atmosphere of public libraries just isn't conducive to unfettered research.

In the two public libraries I frequent, the problem isn't with the homeless contingent, who tend to try and be unobtrusive. The problem is that no one who works in the library seems to have any interest in making it a quiet place for reading and research. The staff sit at their desks and conduct loud conversations with each other across the room. Dedicated "quiet" rooms are small and often occupied by someone banging furiously on a laptop who gives anyone who tries to come in a dirty look.

jlawrence01 wrote:
Many people read at the bookstore since a number of public libraries (there are exceptions) prefer to spend their money on internet access rather than books.

Christopher Gordon wrote:I hope this isn't wandering too far off-topic: regarding libraries

I applaud the access(internet, etc.) given to all comers, but libraries have become virtual holding pens for the homeless. This is a hot button issue; for myself, for librarians themselves who see their charter usurped by
"progressive" pedagogy. However, I don't intend to lambaste the many given the behavior of a few. The atmosphere of public libraries just isn't conducive to unfettered research.

These sweeping generalizations regarding libraries and their budgets and policies (especially concerning the homeless) are off topic.
As a public and school librarian I'm offended by these generalizations.
Public libraries are open to the public and yes, the homeless are included as the public. Libraries aren't the problem in regard to this community issue.

Access to the Internet in libraries has made research for librarians and the general public easier and of higher quality through access to subscription databases. If one is so concerned about how libraries are spending their money, get involved. Read your library's annual report, mission statement, circulation statistics, budget allocations, and attend board meetings. They are all available to you.

Finally, librarians! We can rip into librarians! I was just at a library the other day, trying to get some WORK done, when one of them came up and bothered me-- in fact I have the actual recording of the incident right here:

http://new.wavlist.com/movies/336/shine-distract.wav

Well, much like that character, we seem to be developing a case of LTHForum cabin fever around here. Instead of picking on librarians (richly though they deserve it, the book-hoarding, paste-using finks), let's all make an effort, despite the 1/8" of snow that blanketed the city, to go out, eat something interesting today, and report back on it. Otherwise, I may have to deal with this in the harshest possible way:

http://new.wavlist.com/movies/336/shine-harshest.wav

Mike "Some of my best-friends are librarians" G,
former employee of this

My point, LTHForum, a food discussion board, is not really the place to discuss the (subjective) difference between "readers" "homeless" and what constitutes a squatter.

With respect, I'd say that an issue (like "readers" vs. "homeless") that impacts on customers' ability to find seating at bookstore cafes in order to have food and drink is at least as much on-topic in this part of the forum as discussions of jewelry stores, the Chicago Bears, and automated phone systems, all of which have their own threads here.

riddlemay wrote:With respect, I'd say that an issue (like "readers" vs. "homeless") that impacts on customers' ability to find seating at bookstore cafes in order to have food and drink is at least as much on-topic in this part of the forum as discussions of jewelry stores, the Chicago Bears, and automated phone systems, all of which have their own threads here.

Quite possibly, but this thread seems to be (quickly) heating up, whereas the jewelry store thread is not. Mike and I have both tried to cool this thread down without resorting to moderator action, but when you've got a librarian ready to kick butt and take names ( ) it's time to get back to the discussion of food.

Thanks,
Gary