|
?:reviewBody
|
-
In these days of heightened patriotism and concern among Americans for their military troops, any rumor about a corporate giant's snubbing those who are putting their lives on the line overseas is bound to make a number of folks hot under the collar, which is what a message originally circulated via e-mail back in 2004 did. That viral missive proclaimed that Starbucks had not only refused a request for free product from some U.S. Marines serving in Iraq, but had retorted that they don't support the war [in Iraq] and anyone in it: A September 2008 version changed marines to Royal Marines, thereby altering the group of soldiers being slighted from American to British. We first encountered the Starbucks story in late April 2004 when it turned up in our inbox. We got in touch with the e-mail's writer and asked him about the events that led to his penning the note about Starbucks' response to Marines who had come to them looking for a donation of coffee. Sgt. Wright heard the story from a friend, who had gotten it from someone else. He talked things over with the Marine who had supposedly contacted Starbucks, and that, coupled with that night's televised news about the goings on in Iraq, made his blood boil. He pounded out his thoughts into the form of an e-mail, which he mailed to ten of his friends. It is that e-mail which continues to circulate to this day. Sgt. Wright has since learned that what he heard was in error, and he has subsequently tried to set things right by issuing the following retraction: Sgt. Wright has been unable to produce the reply his buddy supposedly received from Starbucks, and the folks at Starbucks deny engaging in any correspondence on such matter prior to this rumor coming along. Given that no copy of the letter appears to exist, neither one resting in the hands of the Sergeant's comrade, nor one residing in Starbucks' files, the rumor about the java vendor's harsh response to a coffee-hunting Marine should be dismissed. As for what Starbucks has to say about the matter, they have long since refuted the rumor on their website, stating: Although Starbucks does not themselves directly donate to military personnel, they do get their coffee into the hands of those serving in the U.S. armed forces through their partnership with the USO. Under the terms of the Starbucks' corporate giving policy, had such a request as presented in the much-circulated e-mail been made, the coffee giant would have had to say no to it. Such a refusal would have been in keeping with the corporation's donations policy, in that Starbucks chooses to direct their charitable resources within the global community through grants from The Starbucks Foundation programs and to communities where its stores are located through local involvement. According to the guidelines in place at the time, a request for coffee from soldiers serving overseas would have been turned down. However, while it is true Starbucks as a corporate entity could not have donated coffee to java-seeking Marines, it would have passed along such a request to any number of its employees looking for military mailing addresses to send product to, as they have already done on many occasions. Starbucks partners receive one pound of free coffee each week as an employee benefit (known as partner mark-out). Many of them have elected to send their weekly mark-out to members of the military or military families, and related organizations. The claim that Starbucks would ever have said they don't support the War and anyone in it is false, in light of what various news accounts show us about the coffee retailer's attitude towards those who serve in the armed forces. In addition to what Starbucks themselves say of their beneficences to soldiers, we know from different newspaper articles of other instances of glad-hearted support. In July 2004, a Starbucks in Cincinnati was reported to have been practically overflowing with people making yellow ribbons in support of Keith Matt Maupin, a soldier whose fate was then uncertain (it has subsequently been reported that his remains have been found and positively identified), along with red, white, and blue ones to show support for American troops in Iraq. In June 2004 in Cleveland, when the mother of one serviceman called her local Starbucks to arrange for the shipping of some java to her son, the employees at that store insisted on paying for 30 pounds of coffee as their gift. As to another of the claims made in the e-mail, while it is true someone working at a New York City Starbucks did indeed charge ambulance workers $130 for three cases of water on September 11, 2001, it would not be quite fair to say Starbucks did this. However, act of a single, misguided employee or not, the corporation alone bears responsibility for afterwards spurning a number of opportunities to offer the rescue workers their money back or apologize to them — though the coffee giant finally took both those actions, they did so only after the story attracted online and print media attention. In addition to the rescue workers charged for water and the spurned servicemen story that is the focus of this piece, Starbucks has been the butt of a number of other unsavory rumors and mistaken beliefs just in the past few years, including: Starbucks, like any other successful corporation that has a strong public presence, is fated to operate with the Damocles sword of public opinion hanging above its head. No corporation can fund everyone who comes to it looking for assistance, which means some deserving groups will always be refused. In less emotionally-charged times, the logic of such a policy is better understood, but the current climate makes it a dicey public relations proposition at best to say no to anything having to do with soldiers. Variations: An April 2007 version of this rumor changed Starbucks to Oscar Mayer and coffee to hot dogs. In response, Oscar Mayer posted a denial on its web site:
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}