Summary of Key Points
This article uses the Starbucks seating issue as a starting point to highlight the phenomenon of the breakdown of social tacit understanding. Public order, which was once maintained by unwritten agreements (such as "don't occupy seats for too long if you're not consuming"), is now being exploited by many due to the lack of clear regulations, putting both businesses and consumers in a dilemma. The underlying reasons include the price war in the coffee market, which has stripped Starbucks of its "upper-class aura" and turned it into a free place for people to rest; people increasingly rely on written rules and ignore unwritten conventions; and businesses, under public pressure, are hesitant to establish clear policies, which may ultimately lead to their inability to continue operating.
1. Starbucks Seating Issues: A 180-Degree Shift in Public Opinion Over Two Years
In 2024, when Starbucks in Xi'an asked customers who were not consuming to leave, public opinion overwhelmingly criticized the company for being "stingy," arguing that the "third space" should not have a consumption requirement. However, the 2026 incident in Huzhou, where three people who were not consuming occupied seats with tomato juice and even chased away customers buying coffee, led to widespread criticism of the seat-occupiers. Why the shift? The key factor is "public opinion favors the side with more supporters": previously, Starbucks was a high-end venue, so it was easy for a few non-consumers to gain sympathy; now that it has become a popular place for everyone to relax, those who occupy seats without buying coffee have become the target of public backlash.
2. Coffee Is No Longer "Luxurious"; Starbucks Has Become a Free Resting Spot
Ten years ago, a cup of coffee at Starbucks cost thirty to forty yuan, making it a place for elites to visit; non-consumers felt out of place there. Today, with Luckin's ice lattes at 15 yuan and Kudi's at 8.8 yuan, coffee has become an ordinary beverage, no longer a luxury item. This has changed Starbucks' role significantly:
- It used to be a gathering spot for elites who would sit there with their laptops for an afternoon;
- Now it has become a social meeting place in small cities, a place for dating, discussing matters, and children doing homework, as well as a stopover for passersby. As a result, 40 out of 50 seats are often occupied by non-consumers, leaving those buying coffee with nowhere to sit.
3. The Breakdown of Social Tacit Understanding
There used to be unwritten rules between businesses and customers. For example, KFC allowed students to order a Coke and use the restaurant to do their homework, with everyone understanding that they should leave when there were too many people; similarly, at Starbucks, non-consumers would not insist on occupying seats. This kind of unspoken agreement is known as "common law." But now, as long as there are no written prohibitions, some people pretend not to understand these rules:
- The seat-occupiers in Huzhou knew they were in the wrong but argued that there was no rule against sitting;
- At the Xiaocaiyuan restaurant in Changsha, customers fed dogs with public plates, claiming that the restaurant didn't prohibit it. Everyone only thinks about their own interests: those who occupy seats don't care about the business's profits, and those who feed dogs don't care about hygiene, adhering to the belief that "it's a shame not to take advantage of opportunities."
4. The Dilemma for Businesses
Businesses are in a difficult position: they dare not establish rules like "no sitting without consuming." The 2024 incident in Xi'an scared Starbucks into avoiding such policies, as they didn't want to offend regular customers who might occasionally use the seats but don't buy anything. Restaurants like Xiaocaiyuan had to refund money, offer tenfold compensation, and destroy dishes after a dog-feeding incident, fearing that food safety issues could damage their reputation. Even if rules were established, what would happen? Would servers have to constantly chase off seat-occupiers and deal with the high costs of enforcement (such as potential conflicts and public backlash)?
5. What's the Future?
With the breakdown of social tacit understanding, it's hard to establish clear rules. Starbucks in North America began requiring that non-consumers leave in 2025, but China hasn't followed suit due to the power of public opinion. Legislation for minor issues like seat-occupation and dog-feeding seems unrealistic, and no one knows who would bear the enforcement costs. The likely outcome is that businesses will muddle through, with occasional incidents causing a stir on social media until one day Starbucks can no longer afford to operate and closes.
The article concludes by pointing out that in a society where tacit understanding has broken down, even comprehensive rules cannot protect everyone's rights. If someone uses tomato juice to occupy seats today, tomorrow someone might use a public plate to feed a dog, and in the end, it will be the overall social order that suffers.
The essence of this article is that the Starbucks seating issue reflects the current dilemma of ineffective unwritten conventions and difficulties in establishing clear rules. Everyone focuses on their own interests, leaving dignity and mutual understanding behind, with everyone potentially becoming a victim.