I noticed this too with my local Starbucks stores.
It seems boils down to revenue. If too many people sit down and use the area as a third place, then their revenue is capped if people stay too long.
Ideally it's should be a balance between customers and business. Go to the coffee shop, work for an hour then leave, to free up space.
I've also noticed they reduce seating to battle homeless folks from nesting in. It makes sense, I avoid stores if feel threatened from confrontational/aggressive people.
Isn't Starbucks business very heavily biased towards takeout orders? They have higher through-put on coffee sales if all the seats are full - how many people leave without ordering if the seats are in use?
Datpiff, I've noticed most Starbucks bias towards takeout orders these days. I do think that their indoor seating serves as the "top of the marketing" funnel, to get people to develop a brand preference. Without the 3rd place seating, it feels like green Dunkin Doughnuts.
Pvdoom, I completely agree. But it's VERY tough to ignore the real operating costs of keeping the space available. (I'm saying this as a former small business owner)
There are ways to fix these things, but it would be an unpopular opinion. Similar to the experience of exabrial's comment.
It seems boils down to revenue. If too many people sit down and use the area as a third place, then their revenue is capped if people stay too long.
Ideally it's should be a balance between customers and business. Go to the coffee shop, work for an hour then leave, to free up space.
I've also noticed they reduce seating to battle homeless folks from nesting in. It makes sense, I avoid stores if feel threatened from confrontational/aggressive people.