How coffee business operations can be impacted by a stance on gun violence

Hot Coffee should take the middle ground on the issue of guns on their premises. Similar to Starbucks, Hot Coffee should request that owners voluntarily refrain from brining weapons into their stores. This allows the organization to respect the second amendment allowing customers to have a firearm, but also helps to limit the experience of customers within their store. According to PEW research, more Americans died from gun-related injuries than on any other year on record. This period marked very high-profile deaths such as those of George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery. In these two instances white police officers, killed unarmed black men using firearms. With minority communities and society at large, these increased incidents of gun violence have created a very contentious and argumentative atmosphere. Here, many minorities, who are customers of Hot Coffee believe their needs and demands as citizens are not being met. Likewise, those who do not carry firearms and are law abiding citizens do not want to be punished for the terrible acts of a few rouge gun owners. Unfortunately these events are not “rouge” and instead are becoming very common place, resulting in the political and legislative upheaval current being experienced in the country today (Jones, ).

As an owner of coffee franchises, it is important for the business to not only recognize the issue but also acknowledge both sides of the argument. By taking a more democratic, middle ground stance, the business can better mitigate losses for those refusing to purchase coffee due to a perceived affiliation on one side or the other.

This tactic works for a number of reasons. As indicated in the case study, Odonga’s brother was wounded due to gun violence from a robbery. Although very unfortunate, the fact that Odonga’s brother was a victim of gun violence is irrelevant here and should not be considered in the decision as it relates to the overall business of Hot Coffee. For one, the circumstances surrounding the violence of his brother are unrelated to the business element surrounding the coffee shop. Although there is a potential for overlap, the brothers circumstances should not enter the considerations set as the variables related to both issues are different (Ziegler, 2017).

Instead, Hot Coffee must consider the financial impact of taking a hardline stance on gun control will be on its overall operations. By taking the middle ground Hot Coffee effectively excuses itself for the conversation of gun control which is beneficial for operations. In this instance as a coffee shop, its product is a very routine and seamless purchase. The consideration set for a coffee purchase is not predicated on political affiliation like other industries such as defense, airlines, or automotive. As a result, there is little need for Hot Coffee to take a side on the gun violence issue as it will be detrimental to their overall profitability and sales of the business. By taking a middle ground, the company effectively acknowledges the views of all parties involved and therefore looks to appeal to both sides of the argument albeit to a much more limited extent. It is difficult to imagine a precipitous decline in consumer purchase volumes as a result of a political stance towards gun violence, which has little to no bearing on consumer coffee purchasing behavior. The variables that enter the consumers purchasing decision are heavily related to price, value, convenience, taste, and location. These variables ultimately determine when a customer will purchase a coffee product. As a result taking the middle ground position on the gun violence issue will effectively mitigate any issue related to a loss of sales or profits.