Cigarettes and coffee

Since Starbucks and smoking bans seem to be the only topics featured here lately, a post combining the two seems natural. A few posts ago I speculated about why we don’t have more bars catering to non-smokers. The opposite is true for coffee shops; smokefree options abound. This is despite the fact that tobacco and coffee seems to be just as much an established combination among some people as tobacco and alcohol is with others. Why the difference?

A comment left on Dan Drezner’s weblog entry about my previous Starbucks article is intriguing:

First, Starbucks changed Tokyo, where I lived for nearly five years in the mid-to-late 90s, for the better. Before Starbucks, it was impossible to find a non-smoking coffee shop and nearly impossible to find a coffee shop with a non-smoking section that meant anything. When I asked my friends and co-workers why doesn’t someone open a non-smoking coffee shop to cater to the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of coffee drinkers who don’t smoke, they all uniformly poo-pooed the idea. It would never work. And then Starbucks muscled their way into Tokyo in a few locations and the place was packed consistently.

I haven’t been able to find any authoritative articles about Starbucks and smoking. However, as Starbucks has expanded into countries where smoking is more ingrained in the culture than it is in the US the company’s non-smoking policies have often been an issue. The repeated pattern seems to be that outsiders predict failure and are proven wrong when the stores succeed. Searching through the Google results for “Starbucks” and “smoking” uncovers some interesting anecdotes.

One of the more interesting finds is this Japan, Inc. article on how Starbucks’ entrance into Japan has impacted the country’s largest coffee chain, Doutour. The biggest effect has been the predictable increase in demand for specialty coffee. Starbucks made consumers willing to pay higher prices. Doutour took advantage of the situation by expanding its line of high-end stores, called Excelsior Caffe. Since then Starbucks and Excelsior have become rivals, the latter differentiating itself by its food offerings, smoking areas, and brighter lighting. Starbucks helped expand the market for gourmet coffee and created the market for smokefree coffee shops. Now Japanese consumers can enjoy good coffee in smoking or non-smoking atmospheres, depending on their preference. Read the whole article here.

A similar pattern seems to be at work in China. I didn’t find much on the subject, but this undergrad research paper reports that the non-smoking aspects of Starbucks stores has received a surprisingly welcome reception. The sample size in the smoking survey is rather small, however.

An article in Expatica looks at how Starbucks has been received in Spain. There, the clean, smokefree Starbucks are finding a ready clientele among women, Americans, and the “metropolitan elite.” Meanwhile, traditional Spanish cafes offering alcohol and a place to smoke continue to thrive.

Breaking into Viennese cafe culture was even harder, with Starbucks closing two of its stores in the city. Selling their no smoking policy required some finesse:

But reactions to the nonsmoking policy have been only positive, Holzschuh insisted. Signs in Starbucks read: “Aroma-Schutz durch rauchfreien Raum” — aroma protection through a smoke-free space — and then thank the customers for their understanding. “We looked for a sentence that said, ‘Dear guest, it’s not about your health, it’s about the coffee,’” he said.

The lack of cigarettes and alcohol put Starbucks at somewhat of a disadvantage, but it has apparently made the place an oasis for non-smokers and mothers with children. The larger stigma the chain has had to overcome is customers’ false belief that they’ll have to drink from a paper cup when they go there.

This last example is my favorite. Blogger “Lounsbury” takes down a LiveJournaler whining about the Starbucks that opened up next to his favorite Amman hangout, The Blue Fig. In addition to railing against new, elitist forms of coffee like the soy latte, he laments that Starbucks is destroying his culture by enticing people to enjoy coffee without smoking:

This is what really bothers me. It’s not that they’re ruining the service for Blue Fig or even Nescafe (which has always been Jordan’s choice for coffee), and not that they’ve introduced these elitist forms of coffee, but that they’ve annihilated our culture by depriving a new generation of the beauty of having a smoke with your coffee. Smoking is such a large part of our culture, and Starbucks is slowly making the new generation smoke-free. I can just see it now: in twenty years you won’t even be able to smoke in an elevator in Jordan anymore. This thought makes me nauseous and very helpless. Last night I even cried for like, five minutes.

Lounsbury replies:

So it is imperialism to have a Jordanian use an American brand of his own volition, because he rightly judged there is a completely uncoerced native Jordanian demand for something other than the usual fare. (Never mind the risible posing that somehow Blue Fig is not elitist….) Of course we should leave aside the utterly incoherent idiocy with regards to imposing smoking with coffee. Fetishizing one’s own preferences as “Arab” or “Jordanian” culture is rather more imperialistic than merely offering a choice (never mind the silliness of fetishizing smoking as something of Arab culture per se).

This contemptible idiocy is precisely the kind of moronic half-baked thinking that drives anti-globalisation movements. Inept, ill-informed self indulgent idiocy.

I like this Lounsbury character. I’ll have to start reading him.

Enough examples. Let’s look at the common threads. All of these countries had a strong culture of enjoying tobacco and coffee together. Outsiders predicted smokefree Starbucks would fail. Instead, Starbucks succeeds by offering a market alternative that no one else thought was feasible. The question is, why Starbucks and not a local competitor?

This is speculative, but perhaps it comes down to the consumer base. Part of the pattern seems to be that the corporation appeals to two fairly distinct groups. One is the women, mothers, and non-smokers who just don’t want to be in a smoky room. The other is the young, fashionable, urban elite. The latter is attracted not by the smokefree atmosphere per se, but rather by the cultural statement going to a Starbucks provides.

Any local cafe in these countries could have tried prohibiting smoking, but they would have been perceived as just like the other local cafes except not as good because they don’t let customers smoke. They might have had a shot at the first group of Starbucks consumers, but not the second, dynamic group seeking cultural innovation. Starbucks accelerated a transition toward smokefree coffee options that otherwise would have taken longer.

Keeping this process in mind, it starts to make more sense that coffee shops in the US are often smokefree while bars have been slower to change. Our cafe culture is younger, and therefore more open to the non-smoking model. In addition, coffee is recognized as a high-end beverage with important aromatics. The sign in Vienna declaring “aroma protection through a smoke-free space” would seem ridiculously out of place in the average American bar.

In short, American bar culture isn’t doing anything as transformative as cafe culture. It tinkers around the edges and comes up with creative new drinks, but doesn’t do anything to really change the experience of going to a bar. Smokefree bars appeal to people who really want that sort of atmosphere, but otherwise do little to distinguish themselves from the competition. (And as I’ve said before, I think the number of consumers who really care about this factor is small.) Thus they don’t get the accelerated acceptance in the US that smokefree Starbucks gets around the world. The change is more gradual — frustratingly so to the nanny state types who demand non-smoking everywhere, all the time, NOW.

That’s a lot of theory with not a lot of data points, so I could be very off the mark. Any thoughts?

Comments

  1. ccobb says:

    As a former brand director for Starbucks (’95 to ’00), we entered Europe and Asia after having had a pretty focused debate on this very topic. But we had already seen the results of smoke-free environments in our backyard — our first international markets were in Canada, with Montreal and Toronto a particular test of the concept. The reason is actuall fundamental to the way Starbucks percives itself, and something you imply above — the coffee department was, is and always will be run by some of the foremost coffee tasters and purists in the world. Yes indeed, they work at Starbucks.

    Put simply, the smoke ruins the aroma, and it permeates the beans and the grounds, thereby ruining the taste. For the same reason, baristas are not allowed to wear perfume to work, and why Starbucks adds flavors like vanilla in the cup rather than infusing the beans. Love it or hate it, Starbucks has an intense focus on taste and smell.

  2. Howdy I am so grateful I found your website, I really found you by
    error, while I was looking on Askjeeve for something
    else, Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thanks for a marvelous
    post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the
    theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the minute but I have saved it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I
    have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep up the awesome work.

  3. Thanks in favor of sharing such a pleasant idea, article is good, thats
    why i have read it completely

  4. Toronto’s Medicql Officer of Health is advocating
    the city prohibition electronic cigarettes wherever smoking iis prohibited if Queen’s Park does not restrict their use province-wide byy
    February.
    Electronic cigarettes, known as cigarette, are
    battery-operated devices that mimic the usee and sometimes the look annd taste of cigarettes that are traditional, the report says.
    “Electronic do not include tobacco and generate vapor instead of smoke when utilized.
    The report states Toronto Public Health reviewed “accessible eevidence
    on e cigarette use, safety, heaslth effects, and potential as a cessation assistance,” together with government response in different authorities.
    A number of concerns were determined, including the “impact on youth smoking initiation, and possibility
    to normalize smoking behaviour and sabotage existing tobacco-control legislation.”
    Dr. David McKeown, the city’s Medical Officer of Health, is recommendcing the province amend its Smoke-Free Ontario Actt to include a ban on e-cigarettes wherever smoke use iss now prohibited in Ontario.
    For the time being, the Medical Ofticer of Health works with the town manager to investigate the development of an interior policy banning electronic cigarette use in town workplaces, the report states.
    James Long and part owwner of a Mississauga-centered e-cigarette business, says he understands McKeown’s cautious approach as thee city’s chief medical officer.
    Nonetheless, Long says he has see no evidence thast there is a prohibition crucial.
    “Cigarette create some odour, but Long’m not conscious of any noxious results,” the 8 9-year-old stated Monday.
    Though 26-year-old ecigarette user Nicole Rogersln sayhs she understands McKeown’sjustification, she considers policy makers should understand that thhere are no health concerns associated with e-cigarette smoking.
    “You are simply giving off the exact same vapour as clubs use in their smoke
    machines,” Rogerson says. “I know it is maybe not unhealthy.
    It’s maybe not placing any toxins in-the-air, like smoking a
    smoke would.”
    Long said he has seen lots of people quit smoking after transzferring to cigarette.
    But the e-cigarettes themselves are widely accessible, possibly because pros say they belong too a grey-area if they’re offered without nicotine. (McKeown can also be recommending thee governmrnt to amend laws to better regulate cigarette is asked by the board.)
    Yet, many pros say they have been not far more dangeroous than their tobacco alternatives.
    Samantha Grant, a spokeswoman for provincial Health Minister Eric Hoskins, stated thee ministry is monitoribg electronic cigarette use in addition to emerging research and has asked Ottawa “to consider a
    more effective part in regulating cigarette.”
    Municipalities have concentrated their coverage positions on e-cigarettes by driving the federal and provincial authorities to control sale, theikr manufacture, promo and display, the board of health report says.
    Several areas in Canqda have taken measures to foirbid their use, including Red Deer, Alta. Peeel Area also prohibits electronic cigarette smoking in its places of work as does York Region school boards.
    Thee Toronto Transit Commission board is expected to consider amending their smoking by-law to forbid electronic cigarette use on TTC house this autumn, the replort states.
    Wiith files from Rob Ferguson, Joe Hall and Tara Deschamps
    Earl Reyes tried froom a large assortment of “juices,” the phrase utilized for electronic cigarette liquids, accessible at a Saskatoon shop.

    The shop openeed in September and is part of an increasing trend oof e-cigarette shops popping up across the nation. According to the Electroic Cigarette Trade Association of Canada, there were 10 e cigarette stores in Canada in 2009. Now, as many as 400.

    In under a twelvemonth, Vapor Jedi proprietor Mitch Tarala said his business hhas grown tenfold. He figures his company is among the three largest mnufacturers of the liquids.

    Cigarette
    Earl Reyees samples from a big assortment oof “juices” accxessible at a Saskatoon store. (CBC)

    The wholesale juices — which come in flavours from bubble gum tto apple pie to root-beer — of vapor Jedii are shipped to retailers across the region.

    “The increase that we have found in the span has been overwhelming,” he said. it’s been practically hard at times to deal with how activve it’s gotten.”

    Heath concerns

    “Vaping,” as e-cigarette smoking iss generally called, has it’s
    own sub culture and is pulling a devoted community. While the
    vaping idustry is booming, it is still not clear what the principles arre about promoting
    the products.

    Health Canada said that blessing has never been received by cigarette
    and that selling thios fluid iss illegal. However, the goverjment isn’t clamping down on anyone selling these products.

    The Canadian Cancer Society states that Health Canada
    needs to clarify the rules.

    Cigarette
    Saskatoon’s Vapor Jedi is one among the greatest producers of the liquids.
    (CBC)

    “Themselves want to see kids kept from buying these e cigarettes and not having the capability to use them on college grounds in the same manner we prevent that with tobacco,” said Donna
    Pasiechnik, spokesperson with the Canadian Cancer Society Saskatchewan.
    “Themselves’d like these products never to be employed in places where smoking is not permitted — workplaces and public spaces. We believe the flavours, fruit and candy flavours, should be banned from these products. That’s really enticing to children.”

    She added that withoput greater clarity, vaping or smoking anything is a poor
    notion.

    “If you’re not smoking, if you’ve never smoked, don’t begin whether it is e cigarettes or tobacco, first and foremost,” she stated.

    Replay the live chat below, or if you’d like to weigh-in,
    leave your ideas in thhe opinion section.

    Charlebois needs the sale of cibarette to minors prohibited.
    She also wants to employ the same rules to e-cigarettes ass
    to aftual cigarettes under thhe Tobacco Actt — meaning people wouldn’t have the ability to usee cigarette
    freely in public spaces.

    Andre Beaulieu, spokesman stated it’s about time.

    E-cigarettes could savve hundreds off countless lives, scientists tell WHO
    Cigarette foster smokers’ quit successes
    “Themselves simply issued numbers two days past revealing children in high schools and even at level 6 in main colleges are using the product,” Beaulieu stated.

    “Merely in primary school, we estimate that 5,000 kids… have currently tried the endeavor and that 142,000 students have tried cigarette before.”

    Andd those are only Quebec statistics.

    He said e-cigarettes are marketed as a safe alternative too smoking, and iit is that perception of safety that’s causing young people who would never otherwise smoke.

    “We are re-normalizing the action of smoke,” Beaulieu stated.
    “We want to prevent a new generation of smokers.”

    Gray zkne that is legal

    Presently, e-cigarettes are not authorized for sale in Canada — but they are legal.
    E cigarette products containing goods or nicotine that produce health claims, nonetheless, are.

    ‘We’re re-normalizing the action off smoking.’
    - Andre Beaulieu, Canadian Cancer Society
    Beaullieu off the Canadian Cancer Society stated a recent study conducted with the University of
    Montreal showed that even e-liquids marketed and sold
    as nicotine-free actually contained the substance that was addictive.

    Still, Health Canada is not clamping down onn anybody promoting the merchandise.

    Julien-Pierre Maltais is the manager of ecigarette boutique Vaporus, on St-Denis
    Avenue.

    He said that egen though there is currently no legislatiln abou not selling tto
    minors, his shop hass made iit a policy to card anyone who looks
    under 25.

    “We never market e-cigs or e-liquids to minors. As a moral thing we’d never promote to anybody under-18, although there’s no law that prohibits us from doing that. Matter fact, we abide by sort of an identical rule as corner shops will, therefore if somebody looks younger than a 25-year old we’ll unquestionably card them,” he said.

    He doesn’t trust the proposition to prohibit e-cigarette
    use, or “vaping,” in the sam-e areas regular smoking is prohibited

    Maltais said when it comes to indepeendently owned businesses, it should be up
    to each proprietor to decide whether tto enable e-cigarette use on-premises.

    More Affordable, less toxic alternative

    Maltais additionally made the point that utilizing an electronic cigarette
    is not more expensive than smoke. Maltais estimated
    that a pack-a-day smoker who changed to an e-cigarette would invest on smokes about $20 every two wweeks
    oon good quality e-liquids, instead than aboujt $10 a day.

    So far studies reveal that there are no carcinogens in electronic cigarette vapour, Maltais stated,
    and that’s why many doctors send their patients looking tto stop smoking to retail stores like Vaporus.

    “Nicotine doesn’t give you cancer, it gives you dependence,” he said.
    “So, folks smoke for the nicoderm cq but they perish from the combustion.”
    They comprise a solution that is not cool and vapourizwd when an individual inhales.

    The non-nicotine products are pretty new, therefore health risks aare cloudy.
    Yet, Toronto public-health’s Dr. Barbara Yaffe claims the
    e-cigarettes are regularly cited as a gateway to smoking for adolescents.

    RELATED REPORTS
    Toronto’s medical officer recommends citywide cigarette
    ban
    Flavoured e-cigarette manufacturers of targeting youth accused
    PICTURES
    A smoker presents an e-cigarette in Wichita Falls, TX, Jan.
    17, 2014. (Wichita Falls Times Record News)
    “We are concerned about renormalization of smoking. It is taken a long time to get where we’re at, and we don’t want to go back,” Yaffe tol
    CTV News.
    A report writtten by Toronto Medical Officer of Halth David
    McKeown, which recommends the city prohibiot the use of e-cigarettes
    in pubnlic spaces will be exmined by tPH. McKeown additionally advocates banning e-cigarette dislays
    in shops and prohibiting the sale of flavoured e-cigarette products.

    The report mentioned tnat there were possible hazards linked with expossure to second-hand
    vapour, and srious injuries coould be caused byy
    treatment of the remedies that were fluid.
    Although health dangers of thhe battery-powered apparatus are unfamiliar, use
    is skyrocketing across the country because thnere prexently are no
    rules.
    Currently, e-cigarettes which contain nicotine, or that claim they could help users quit smoking, are controlled unrer the national
    Food and Drugs Act.
    Those without health orr nicotine -related statements advertised, can be imported
    and marketed across Canada without restrictions.

    “The public health community continues to be expressing a growing number of concern and we sense we should advocate for more activity before the situation becomes more significant,”
    Yaffe said.

  5. Great post. I was checking constantly this weblog and I’m impressed!
    Extremely useful info specifically the ultimate section :)
    I care for such information much. I used to be looking for this
    particular information for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck.

Trackbacks

  1. No smoking in the Starbucks

    A hot issue on my own weblog has been DC’s much contested ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. Of course, I prefer market solutions to an all-out ban, but even some of my usually libertarian readers argued that there…

Leave a Comment

*