Would you have done the "pay it forward" thing at Starbucks?

[LurkerInNJ]

No, I would not have “paid it forward” at Starbucks. It’s participating in a game, not a charitable act.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Sam_Lowry

That’s another thing I’ve wondered about, how easy is it for the cashier? Is it no trouble at all, just a mild annoyance, or a huge headache for the workers? I’d hate to think I was doing a good thing that turned out to cause major trouble for the already often harassed workers. Has anyone ever worked at Starbucks (or anywhere else) and dealt with this?

According to the staff at my Starbucks, it’s not that difficult in the drive-through line. There’s only one lane so you don’t have to worry about the cars showing up in the wrong order. It’s annoying for them because they have to explain it to each customer who pulls up. And because people often change their orders between the speaker box and the window.

@Inner_Stickler

I doubt most POS systems are really meant to handle paying for future tickets which is why I suspect it happens mostly in drivethrus where there’s a line of tickets that have been ordered but not paid yet, so you pay for your ticket, plus the next one. At a counter POS or a drivethru with no line, it would be kind of a pain in the ass. The best method would probably be to give the cashier a 10 and tell them to use it for their next customer.

That’s what I did (I gave them $6.)

[BigT]

I still say there’s a big different between not paying it forward and doing what this guy did. He deliberately sought out to ruin the chain. That’s why I think he deserves scorn. Not because he refused. That would have been perfectly fine.

Personally, I would refuse to pay more than a little bit over the drink I got would have cost me. It’s not charity but a game. I do what I can to not ruin the game, but I’m not going to feel guilty if I can’t afford it.

And yes, “can’t afford it.” I budget pretty tightly when it comes to these things. I grew up when money was tight, and it often still is tight. If I’m going to Starbucks, it’s because I’ve budgeted out enough money to do so. It’s a treat, not a necessity.

So I fully get breaking the chain. Just not going out of your way to do so.

ETA: I’d fully get being able to pay just for my drink, and having that go the person behind me. I could even call that charity, since then we’d actually be passing it back until it ran into someone who actually needed it. (Or was greedy, of course.)

[Just_Ed]

@Inner_Stickler

I doubt most POS systems are really meant to handle paying for future tickets which is why I suspect it happens mostly in drivethrus where there’s a line of tickets that have been ordered but not paid yet, so you pay for your ticket, plus the next one.

@BigT

I’d fully get being able to pay just for my drink, and having that go the person behind me. I could even call that charity, since then we’d actually be passing it back until it ran into someone who actually needed it. (Or was greedy, of course.)

I think some people in this thread are confused (including me, quite possibly). The “pay-it-forward” chain being referenced in the Fast Company article is set up by the first customer in the chain, who pays for their drink and the person behind them. Thereafter, the only thing necessary to keep the chain going is to pay for one drink–the drink of the person behind you. You don’t pay your own tab plus one, you simply pay for one drink of the person behind you instead of your own. This is why the Fast Company writer denigrates it as false. And yes, there is a question of what happens at the end of the chain when somebody decides to decline the game and simply pays for their own drink:

So, what is this chain? It isn’t people “paying it forward.” It’s people congratulating themselves on employing a generous-sounding rhetorical device. The chain here was broken when a person said “I’ll pay for myself” instead of “I’ll pay for someone else,” even though, economically, that meant the exact same thing. (And where does the leftover money actually go, once the chain is “broken” and $5 is still sitting in Starbucks? Unclear.)

So yeah, it’s nonsense. That said, disrupting a chain deliberately is a jerkish thing to do.

[Doctor_Jackson]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I messed it up last week. I paid for a couple of homeless people instead. The baristas seemed pretty relieved.

You can now buy homeless people at Starbucks???:eek:

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

They’re cheaper than a latte.

[handsomeharry]

@monstro

I just read this article:

Man deliberately scuttles “Pay It Forward” Starbucks line.

Summary: There’s this thing where people pay for the drink of the customer behind them at Starbucks. The barista asked this guy if he wanted to do it, and he said no in a non-jerkish way (he actually tipped her $100). The article explains why he said no.

I agree with 100%. I have a hard time saying “no” in situations like this, so I admire those who are brave enough to counter the social pressure, even if they risk looking like grouches in the process. I’m a fan of random acts of kindness, but this isn’t random. It’s a ploy. It’s fake. And it’s actually not helping anyone.

I wonder if this Starbucks would have been as equally successful with getting people to donate $5 to a cause like leukemia or homelessness. I usually donate to those kinds of things when asked at the register. But I don’t know what my reaction would be if I were asked to pay for someone’s peppermint latte.

I’m pretty much with you. Putting pressure on some schmucks to pay for somebody’s drink is totally for the birds. If somebody paid for yours, and you are given a drink for free, then given the option to pay for somebody else’s, that isn’t paying for somebody else’s-that is being part of a silly game.
If there is some other rule to this particular ‘pay it forward’ event, then, it is even worse, so, yeah, I’m with the grinch.

[handsomeharry]

@Doctor_Jackson

You can now buy homeless people at Starbucks???:eek:

Listen, pal, until you can find a better place to buy them, how 'bout knocking off the eeks!

[Balthisar]

If it were Tim’s instead of Starbucks, and I were in Michigan instead of Jiangsu, and I’d not read all of this pollution in my Google News feed, I might have played along. You know, just because it would have been new to me and something I thought was interesting.

But upon further reflection, I would never do it a second time.

[TBG]

@Uniqueorn

In Huddersfield, North England, they have a scheme called “Suspended Coffees” where you can pay for a suspended coffee and if a homeless person asks for a coffee, s/he gets the one you paid for.

@monstro

Something tells me a scheme like that wouldn’t go down well here.

“Homeless people don’t need coffee!”

“Yeah, like I’m gonna pay for a lazy bum’s latte. Get real!”

“Why would a homeless guy be in this kind of neighborhood?”

Not to mention, Starbucks probably wouldn’t want to attract “suspended coffee” clientele.

Plus what’s to stop some a-hole from claiming to be a bum just for free coffee?

[even_sven]

@TBG

Plus what’s to stop some a-hole from claiming to be a bum just for free coffee?

Most people have something better to do?