simmermon vs. murky

[Mark Prince]

Motif #1: "Nobody should tell me how to drink my $#@% coffee." Something along these lines was expressed over and over in the commentary which supported Mr. Simmermon's actions, and indeed informed Simmerman's actions themselves. This is interesting. It seems like there is an undercurrent here that there is something fundamentally unamerican about treating coffee as a special foodstuff. Why is this? Is it because of coffee's legacy as "the people's drink", the inexpensive fuel of the industrial revolution? There may be another contributing factor- as my friend David Fritzler pointed out, the person in question might have been more receptive to being "told" how to drink his coffee had the barista been dressed in a waiter's uniform rather than a t-shirt. This leads into some of the "evidence" that supports the "nobody should tell me how to drink my $#@% coffee" concept; namely that baristas are simply glorified fast-food employees, that coffee knowledge is specious, and that the whole "coffee is special" concept is a crock.

Great post, Peter.

I always put Meme #1 in the category of "self-entitlement". Something certainly not exclusive to the American psyche, but definitely prevalent in the culture. It's how I read pretty much all the commentary responses that fit this meme.

I blame Burger King.

Mark

[Aldo1]

As a student of coffee and an observer of culture, this whole thing has been really interesting to me. First of all, how amazing that a simple disagreement over iced espresso could trigger umpteen different blog posts and links, references to "Rashomon" and "Six Easy Pieces", evoke BOTH "Third Wave Coffee" and "Web 2.0", and even get traditional media outlets into the mix.

And, I learned a bunch. I learned that there was actually a phrase, "Angry Internet Guy", that describes the bizarre mix of outrage, violence, and loss of common decency that happens to some people when they start posting and responding on the internet. We've seen these people here and elsewhere for years, it's comforting that there is actually a name for the syndrome.
...

Great post, Peter. I think that although you mention it, you do not list the catalystic motif, itself though, and that is the behavior of the participants. Because without the behavior of the Angry Internet Guy(s), I think this story does not get picked up or passed around. "How we treat each other" when an interesting issue like this arises is what this fracas is all about, imo, the customer's behavior was abominable: the respondant's not much better. Regardless of the stated real issue. Entltlement all around.

[Jim Saborio]

So, what I'm gathering here is this: if Murky had not responded, this would not have become the ICED SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD right?

Simmermon was SO proud of his clever self that he actually photographed the bill before he threw it into the tip jar, and he still thought it was righteous, cool, and reasonable when he posted the photo on-line. He was behaving poorly.

I guess you have to bite your tongue and choose your battles wisely. Would you have tried to appeal to the sensibility of this guy and the people who read his blog?

I know that Wilde said it's better to be talked about than not, but in the end will this make ANY difference for Murky? Will they loose or gain customers? Will the Washington Post hate him any less?

Coffeed has managed to distill worthwhile conversation from this, but I feel that I've just added myself to the parade of dumb asses who have commented about this "story".

[td]

The headline should read:
Pain In The Ass Customer Disses Smart Ass Barista, Generating Goofy Comments from Jack Ass Owner.

As a 13+ year retail roasting café owner (as well as an equipment manufacturer) I cringed, laughed, and cussed when I first became aware of this brewing brouhaha.

Here are a couple of thoughts on this issue.

1) The barista was correct to not violate stated store policy.
2) The barista was way out of line to make condescending comments to the customer while serving his drink.
3) The customer’s passive-aggressive dollar bill prank and subsequent blog posts were interesting?strange?childish?funny?..all of the above? Who knows? But they are hardly of a threatening nature.
4) The owner’s subsequent comments were goofy?silly?psychotic? Open to interpretation. But, they were most definitely unprofessional; and more than a little insincere.

Although, it was the barista that initially set the ball rolling with his “I know what you are you doing…” comment; and the customer’s silliness and stated self importance that kicked it up a notch. It was ultimately the owner’s actions that have caused this thing to be so public and, one can only hope, damaging only to himself and his business, and not to the rest of us. Although I fear that this particular exchange will end up in a Management 101 text book soon as a case study in how not to handle conflicts with customers over company policy. As well it may live forever in the nether regions of the Internet ( Google: punch in the d&+k).

Here is why I believe the owner’s comments were insincere.

When defending employees you do not knowingly put them in the middle of more shit. This is exactly what this owner has done in this instance. I hope the employee enjoys his turn at unearned celebrity, some of which will not be pleasant. To many of his service sector cohorts he will be seen as an anti-hero; to too many consumers he will be seen as an all too unseemly reminder of what is wrong with a) service in America b) millenials in general. Unfair, true enough, but people will draw their own conclusions here. Furthermore, instead of actually defending the employee this owner is standing behind him as an excuse for his own inappropriate and unreasoned response to the original incident. I mean hell, the barista did get an approximately 30% tip- exactly what are you defending this person from? Disproportionately high tips? This is a clear case of an employer unfairly manipulating an employee, not defending them.

If serving espresso over ice is truly a quality issue then you should be able to explain why- especially this espresso guru owner. Do you really expect us to believe that you made a quality oriented preparation decision based on opinion alone? How do you expect your employees to sound credible when stating that quality is the issue, if they cannot explain why quality is an issue; if you can’t explain why. This explanation sounds like a preference issue to me; not unlike wanting to drink my drip coffee at room temperature. But, I really do not believe that this was a quality issue at all. I believe it was a cost issue. If it is a “ghetto latte” issue, which it most certainly is- then there are other ways to handle it, including, but not limited to, a smaller cup. As a café owner, I agree that ghetto lattes are profit killers, and need to be addressed in company policy. But, do it straight up. This is a clear example of using quality as a cop-out for poor decision making somewhere else down the line. Sighting quality as the underlying reason for not serving your espresso over ice, and then stating that no one has yet been able to explain to you why it is a quality issue- is flat out BS. We know it, and you know it.

Using the evolving mores and norms of the Blog/Internet culture as an excuse for being a jack ass; is this culture really that much different? If it is, then why would you knowingly participate at that level? The customer’s post was over the top, asinine even. You don’t think people can figure that out for themselves. Who reads this kind of crap anyway? Why in God’s name would an owner elevate this customer’s comments; elevate this customer. Now you can add this strange customer to the “unearned celebrity” column as well- standing right beside the barista, kind of a matched set.



Threatening to punch someone in the d#$k then defending the comment as a credible defense because you believe that someone seriously threatened to burn your store down. Please, this is the most laughable and insincere comment of all. If you really believed that someone was threatening to burn down your livelihood, as is suggested on the owner’s Blog, wouldn’t you just call the police? I hardly believe that an aspiring arsonist would be put off by such a strange comment as this. ( Is punching in the d&$k metro speak for a serious ass kicking? killing someone? It seems about as masculine a threat as “ I’m gonna slap your head off”.)

So, who is actually damaged here? The customer got his drink, the barista got tipped, and the owner got more publicity, hurrah for all of them. The damaged party(s) here is ultimately the 15,000 or so café owners in North America that deal with more serious problem customers everyday- customers that may truly pose a threat to employees, other customers, or to the viability of the business itself. The difference being that these café owners handle these problems with tack, respect, and most often, with discretion. Pedophiles, sexual harassers, proselytizers, overly aggressive pan handlers and even drunks and drug abusers- these are true problem customers. Someone that writes an obscenity on a dollar bill and places it in the tip jar, and then writes about poor service on a blog, can hardly be considered a threatening customer. The saddest part is that most owners would kill for the amount of publicity that this owner is receiving. However, most would never stoop to the lows evidenced in this situation to get it, and yet all over America today- owners and baristas alike are having to field questions about this incident; they are being asked to defend the indefensible. So, it isn’t too difficult to see who the damaged party is here. As the offending owner would probably say as a defense- café owner’s are being damaged, not by his behavior, but instead by the law of unintended consequences.

Finally, it is impossible to try and analyze this situation without taking note of the fact that this particular café owner represents retailers on the board of the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA). The shame of it is that this owner had the ability to do great things for retailers, our organization, and our industry. His wit, charm, looks, personality, intelligence and uncanny ability to garner press made it look as if he would be a great asset to those of us with specialty retail and café businesses. However, it has become increasingly clear over the last 18 months or so that his inability to police himself, divisiveness, poor business practices and insincerity combine to make him fundamentally unsuited to represent or lead us. In the end, perhaps, the real lesson here is of opportunity squandered; personal, organizational, and industry.

[Keith]

great observations terry, you hit the nail on the head.

[SL28ave]

If serving espresso over ice is truly a quality issue then you should be able to explain why- especially this espresso guru owner. Do you really expect us to believe that you made a quality oriented preparation decision based on opinion alone? How do you expect your employees to sound credible when stating that quality is the issue, if they cannot explain why quality is an issue; if you can’t explain why. This explanation sounds like a preference issue to me; not unlike wanting to drink my drip coffee at room temperature. But, I really do not believe that this was a quality issue at all. I believe it was a cost issue. If it is a “ghetto latte” issue, which it most certainly is- then there are other ways to handle it, including, but not limited to, a smaller cup. As a café owner, I agree that ghetto lattes are profit killers, and need to be addressed in company policy. But, do it straight up. This is a clear example of using quality as a cop-out for poor decision making somewhere else down the line. Sighting quality as the underlying reason for not serving your espresso over ice, and then stating that no one has yet been able to explain to you why it is a quality issue- is flat out BS. We know it, and you know it.

Regarding quality or lack-thereof and the reason behind it... Simple empiricism (a taste comparison) is enough in this case, where one doesn't have NASA-like scientific resources. I would rather hear the "I don't know why" claim than a false claim or nebulous speculation. I believe this is obvious, so maybe there's some misinterpretation happening somewhere.

And, I personally can't remember ever comparing iced espresso to anything.

[Bill Sze]

I disagree Terry. If Nick pull some espresso over ice and decided it tasted bad, does he have to know why before he instituted his no iced espresso policy? You don't have to like his policy, but to speculate the reason behind it is pure speculation.

I am sure people can figure the intent of Nick's punching comment out for themselves. And I am sure people will figure out one owner's quirky sense of humor does not translate to all SCAA shopkeepers eagerness to dick punch customers who wrote about burning the place down in a silly blog.

I have not a single mention of this incident from my customers. I just don't see any guilt by association.

[mandy]

I mean hell, the barista did get an approximately 30% tip- exactly what are you defending this person from? Disproportionately high tips? This is a clear case of an employer unfairly manipulating an employee, not defending them.

So, who is actually damaged here? The customer got his drink, the barista got tipped, and the owner got more publicity, hurrah for all of them. The damaged party(s) here is ultimately the 15,000 or so café owners in North America that deal with more serious problem customers everyday- customers that may truly pose a threat to employees, other customers, or to the viability of the business itself. The difference being that these café owners handle these problems with tack, respect, and most often, with discretion. Pedophiles, sexual harassers, proselytizers, overly aggressive pan handlers and even drunks and drug abusers- these are true problem customers.

Terry: While I cannot speak for Nick's snarky comments or lack of sincerity, I do want to briefly address the above component of your articulate response.

As a former murky employee, I dealt with customers who were sexual harassers, drunks, aggressive panhandlers, and drug users on a weekly basis. Nick was, and I suspect still is, unquestionably supportive. In serious situations, he did, in fact, act with "tack [sic], respect, and most often, with discretion."

As a former barista, I'd happily accept no tip over a 30% "f-you." For any shortcomings Nick may have, I find it a stretch to call his snarky and perhaps childish response "unfairly manipulating an employee." I'm optimistic enough to believe the public can see that Nick's comments are as insincere and absurd as the original blog post and it's accompanying photograph. Insinuating that a barista should accept a "f-you" for a 30% tip is like saying a business owner should gratefully accept any customer that stumbles in the door. To me, this raises the question of whether or not it's possible for us to choose our customers. If so, and I think it is, how do we go about doing that?

My hope, though perhaps a long shot, is that what results from the coverage of this absurd but all too common incident, are real conversations about the tension between our (north americans') expectations of customer service and our (any vendor of specialty goods) commitment to the quality of our product. The simple fact that this story has been picked up and reprinted and e-mailed to me in different versions by most of my friends, shows that there's something of note happening here, something about our industry that has captured the public's attention and is more interesting and more complex than what someone should've done or said.

[Marshall]

Am I the first to comment on the exquisite irony that the furious customer is a Time Warner Cable executive? I sentence him to two hours on hold listening to TWC theme music.

[Sandy]

Am I the first to comment on the exquisite irony that the furious customer is a Time Warner Cable executive? I sentence him to two hours on hold listening to TWC theme music.

or worse, let him deal with a "customer representative" from TWC!

[barrett]

the post article was picked up by the Vancouver Sun today.

[Mark Prince]

the post article was picked up by the Vancouver Sun today.

Good ole' Vancouver Sun. Bastion of timely, up to the minute news.

Mark

[stormer]

I mean hell, the barista did get an approximately 30% tip- exactly what are you defending this person from? Disproportionately high tips?

The customer got his drink, the barista got tipped, and the owner got more publicity, hurrah for all of them.

I think I would like to echo Mandy's distaste for these comments. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about; after all, I'm just a barista and not a "13+ year retail roasting café owner". But I have done my time in the past standing between 1) customers who are hostile and abusive the moment they walk in the door and 2) owners and managers who tell the baristas that it's part of the job description to bend over and take it any way the customer wants to give it to them; like idiot kids standing on street corners with signs that say "WILL TAKE VERBAL ABUSE FOR MONEY". It is inhumane to expect any person to be demeaned and treated like a broken snack vending machine for one lousy dollar. And it is just as inhumane for a "13+ year retail roasting café owner" to expect it of them.

Do you verbally abuse your employees when you hand them their paychecks? If an employee has a concern about the way you treat them, do you start shouting and remind them who pays their rent? Do you also support relationship abuse and people who kick the dog after a bad day at work?

I started reading some of the comments on Simmermon's blog and had to stop because they made my blood boil and made me want to clock someone with a portafilter. It was a rude awakening, though, as I was reminded that the same kind attitude is forced on baristas from this side of the counter, too.

[Tim Dominick]

Do you verbally abuse your employees when you hand them their paychecks? If an employee has a concern about the way you treat them, do you start shouting and remind them who pays their rent? Do you also support relationship abuse and people who kick the dog after a bad day at work?

Sorry, this is over the top. If you knew Terry at all you would know this is not his M/O.

The heart of the matter is that there was an altercation between barista and customer. The customer was wrong, the barista might not have reacted properly and certainly the owner of the shop made the situation worse by taking the bait.

If Nick hadn't responded in the way that he did this would have died quietly ten days ago.

[Christopher Schooley]

So this is what it sounds like...
When doves cry.

Ditto what Tim said, Terry is a prince.

[Alistair]

When baristas attack
by Sarah Allen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... rbucks.usa

Roasting Raises the Coffee Bar
by Michaele Weissman
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 14_pf.html

[Daniel Humphries]

Do you verbally abuse your employees when you hand them their paychecks? If an employee has a concern about the way you treat them, do you start shouting and remind them who pays their rent? Do you also support relationship abuse and people who kick the dog after a bad day at work?

Sorry, this is over the top. If you knew Terry at all you would know this is not his M/O.

Tim:

I don't think Joe was in any way suggesting that Terry is like that, at all. I think implicit in him asking these rhetorical questions is the assumption that of COURSE the answer is "no."

I think it's only meant to lend force to Joe's assertion that a barista should not be expected to be happy to accept verbal abuse just because there's a dollar bill attached to it. Maybe a tad over the top, as you say, but not an attack on Terry or anyone else. Am I reading this right?

[Tim Dominick]

I'm sure he can answer better than you or me....

Regardless, it is irksome to see a paragraph of hypothetical and absurd rhetorical questions that are obviously strewn together in an effort to cast some of Terry's comments as equally absurd.

He implied Terry is "inhumane" if he stands behind his statement, I think that is bullshit, sorry but I don't read it any other way.

[stormer]

I think it's only meant to lend force to Joe's assertion that a barista should not be expected to be happy to accept verbal abuse just because there's a dollar bill attached to it. Maybe a tad over the top, as you say, but not an attack on Terry or anyone else. Am I reading this right?

That's correct, thanks for bringing that up. Since I don't know Terry it would be ignorant for me to accuse him of abusing employees, animals, or loved ones, but I won't hesitate to reassert that those statements were inhumane.

And I would agree with Tim that my rhetoric was "irksome" (and intentionally so), but it was by no means "absurd". One of the responses on Simmermon's blog was: "I think you were totally justified in going off on the dude. I mean, they are taking YOUR money. Just fucking make what the customer wants. That is called CUSTOMER SERVICE." How different is this quote from patriarchal relationship abuse in a culture where men are traditionally the primary bread-winners? My point is that these are merely differing degrees of the kind of abusive, lopsided power dynamics that run rampant in our society. I'm not calling for these power structures to be overturned (at least not in this forum), but I contend that it is the compliance from within by those members of this industry who have financial power that allows this abusive nature to continue in our shops.

[td]

Good customer service requires the following:
1) A good disposition; including a smile.
2) A certain thickness of skin.
3) An innate understanding of the customer/server realtionship.
4) Common sense.

Being a good owner requires:
1) A respect for your customers.
2) A respect for your employees.
3) The common sense to know the difference between 1 and 2.
4) The ability to excercise good leadership while setting a good example.

There is the very real perception in the U.S. that our industry lacks basic customer service skills. Incidents like this, as well as many of the posts attempting to defend some portion of this episode, would seem to reinforce this perception. It might be a good idea for our trade association to undertake a U.S. Specialty Coffee Consumer Survey, to find out if we truly have a poor service image. Antecdotal evidence would suggest that we do indeed have a problem.

Some would argue that poor service is a generational problem- but I don't believe that to be true. I believe that some of it arises from our own attempts to separate ourselves from other customer service dependent industries; bars, restaurants,etc... This is a mistake. I started my working life hawking sodas, candy and programs at IHL Hockey games ( Ft. Wayne Komets ), I have been a waiter, a bartender and yes, even a barista ( 7 years) I would not be surprised if I have served over 50,000 people, perhaps more. And while the technical aspects of these jobs were often very different, one portion was the same regardless of the job or money- customer service. Good customer service is a constant. That is it doesn't really change from one job to another.

Let's face it, some customers just seem to be out to wreck your day- so why let them triumph? For every customer that acts like the one at Murky there are literally hundreds, thousands even that just want to see a smiling face, or hear a stupid joke. As a cafe owner, a former barista, the father of a current barista, and a coffee professional I found the Murky incident unprofessional and embarrasing. This is not the kind of press , nor the conduct I expect from a sitting SCAA board member. Additionally, I also find many of the comments attempting to color, spin, explain away or rationalize the conduct of any of those involved in this incident to be unprofessional as well as ultimately short-sighted.

Finally, I would like to address directly an implication made by Stormin' that experience has no place in our profession, or at least in this discussion. Experience is, very simply, how we learn. To try and undermine someone else's comments, not because they are inexperienced, but instead because they are experienced, is the epitome of ignorance. It is one thing to play the Devil's Advocate, it is quite another to play the fool's.

PS- I'm gonna own up here- one of my employees has accused me repeatedly of being inhumane. So, I will be releasing the turtle back into the lake from which he came. Sorry.

[stormer]

Finally, I would like to address directly an implication made by Stormin' that experience has no place in our profession, or at least in this discussion.

I don't have time to reply in full, but I would like to clarify that my last name is Stormer.

[td]

Stormer. Sorry there is a infamous club around here called Stormin'. I passed by there late Sat. night, and still had it ( and the law) on my brain. No, slight intended.