While I'm occasionally offered refills at no charge at my local independent coffee shop, I'm never offered free drinks at either that establishment or my local Starbucks Corporation (NADSAQ:SBUX) outlet. (And I'm nice, really I am!) Yet many customers, if a recent thread at Starbucks Gossip is any indication, are. One (must be extremely nice) customer writes in to say that she's comped as much as 2/3 of her drinks.
The post started quite a discussion about free beverages, with one angry district manager writing in to claim that this was theft, and if he were their boss, he'd fire the whole lot of 'em. Some other equally angry and righteous commenters agreed, but the general consensus was that occasional free beverages were good for business -- "Surprise and Delight" 'em, the concept goes, and they'll keep coming back and spending their money in your store. And putting lots of extra bills in your tip jar!

Sure, if a customer is getting most of her drinks free, and putting the $2 in the tip jar instead of the till, that equation is pretty straightforward: sorry guys, that's just a tiny bit of bad ethics there. But a once-a-week freebie for great customers or even (as one barista mentioned) confused out-of-towners? I'm thinking that it will serve to increase business and customer goodwill.

At Starbucks Gossip bloggers and commentators are talking about Friday's $114 million suit against Starbucks (SBUX) for the coupon debacle, which my colleague Sarah Gilbert reported on right here. A class-action suit was probably inevitable given our litigious age and the company's profile. Starbucks has given the fact that the coupons were alterted and distributed beyond their intended scope, and the reason for cancelling the promotion.

Comments at Starbucks Gossip are running about 2/3rds against the suit (by my very rough estimate) last time I checked. Some posters sound bemused over the whole mess, while others are outraged. P. Scranton said, "No wonder attorneys are held in such low esteem." Some people did write in to express feeling "betrayed" by Starbucks -- angry that a large company should get away with pulling back this freebie without some sort of penalty. Starbucks (some consumers seem to feel, anyway) picked up the ball and went home after too many people decided to play. JavaGrrl, who identifies herself as a longtime employee, says that the company was "embarrassed" (all caps) by the entire episode. For me, that embarrassment is punishment enough. I don't want to see a suit go forward, the stock fall, and the costs passed on to the consumer.

The comment that had the funniest, and to me, the most sensible take on the entire matter was this from DeusX: "I think I will be suing my ex-gf of ten years ago, I have a 'good for one free backrub' coupon signed by her with no expiration date."

Starbucks Gossip is an attractive and highly active blog "monitoring America's favorite drug dealer" as they word it. Unaffiliated with the Seattle corporation (SBUX), the blog presents company "partners" (employees), as well as customers both frustrated and pollyanna-ish, with a chance drop by and mix it up over Jim Romenesko's imaginative and provocative posts. Commentators tend to get lengthy and rather confrontational,  as the great tipping debate shows. That post originally went up in 2004 and still gets new comments today. Another interesting thread is this question for Starbucks employees: Do you feel obligated to acknowledge customers in non-work settings?

A fun and valuable site for investors and prospective investors who want the skinny on what Starbucks employees are thinking and saying outside the workplace -- as well as what consumer/addicts want cyberspace to know about their favorite (or favorite to hate)  friendly-neighborhood, international-behemoth, Third Place.