"Is a Minimum Purchase of One Drink Per Person Excessive?" Coffee Shop Owner's Post Sparks Polarized Online Debate

Recently, a coffee shop owner posted a scenario on a social media platform seeking opinions from netizens. The content was as follows: (Since the original post was in Cantonese, it will be presented here in Mandarin)

Our coffee shop has a policy requiring each dine-in customer to purchase at least one beverage. (Some netizens who have visited this coffee shop posted pictures and commented that this policy is clearly stated on the menu in the store)

Two customers sat down and bought a bag of coffee beans and ordered one drink. (Due to the policy requiring at least one beverage per dine-in customer), the barista asked the customers what other drink they would like to order. The customers indicated that they had already bought a bag of coffee beans (and also ordered one drink, so they felt there was no need to order an additional drink). However, the shop owner considered coffee beans as a retail product that couldn't count as dine-in consumption. Therefore, they posted online asking whether this thinking was reasonable. Is the practice of requiring at least one beverage per customer excessive?

A Public Relations Disaster

Once this post was published, it sparked heated discussions among netizens! Opinions on the incident were polarized, with some even calling it a "public relations disaster"...

Reasonable: Business is tough, and concessions are either zero or countless

Some netizens agreed with the shop owner's approach, arguing that since the menu clearly states the minimum purchase is a beverage, not any purchase, consumers who disagree can choose not to consume. One netizen commented: "When you're running a business, you have to pay rent. The shop owner isn't running a charity." "Many coffee shops in other regions have similar policies, and I personally don't see a problem with it." "The shop owner set a minimum purchase requirement for dine-in customers. They didn't force you to come in, so if you sit down, you should follow the rules."

Some netizens could understand the shop owner's approach, noting that business is difficult and daily operating costs are not low. "The shop provides air conditioning and a comfortable environment. If buying coffee beans could count as dine-in consumption, couldn't people just come in, order nothing, and sit for two hours enjoying the air conditioning?" "Business is tough. If a customer doesn't order anything, should the shop provide water or not?" "If you make an exception once, there will be countless times after."

Others expressed that there's no need to be so rigid, arguing: "Minimum purchase policies can exist, but the handling can be more flexible." The original intention of minimum purchase rules is to prevent customers from simply sitting without consuming anything... In this case, the customers bought coffee beans and also ordered coffee. Personally, I think the customers did consume. Rules can exist, but flexibility is also possible."

Some netizens believed this shouldn't be treated as an "offset comparison," explaining: "Retail means assuming customers will leave after purchase, not requiring much space cost (rent). Some might think a bag of coffee beans is expensive, but that doesn't mean the profit margin is high enough to offset the time they spend sitting in the store.

Unreasonable: The approach is petty and lacks human warmth

While the shop owner clearly stated on the menu that each customer must purchase at least one beverage, making the policy transparent, and the logic is on their side, some netizens felt that posting about this incident online was extremely petty.

"You win the argument but lose the business. If the shop owner insisted on enforcing the policy, they should have just informed the customers clearly at that time. Posting about it online is very petty." "The shop owner was right to enforce the minimum purchase policy, but posting about it already meant they lost. When you're running a business, don't let everyone see you being so petty. If you're confident in the quality of your coffee, be more open-minded. If customers don't want to comply, consider it their loss for missing good coffee. Moreover, the customers mentioned in the post weren't completely unwilling to pay... If I were that customer and saw such a petty post, I wouldn't come back to consume again."

Some netizens thought that being so petty while also selling coffee beans would make it difficult to retain repeat customers. "If customers like the coffee beans they bought, they might become potential long-term customers. But after seeing such a post, what would the customers think?" "They bought coffee beans and coffee. One person ordering shows they like and appreciate the shop's products. Maybe the accompanying person doesn't like coffee? Or perhaps they have other reasons not to want a drink? After posting like this, do you think customers would come back after seeing it?"

Some netizens argued that the consumption of coffee beans is higher than that of coffee, so since they did consume, there's no need to be so aggressive. "A bag of coffee beans costs more than two drinks! Plus, two customers sharing one table, I personally don't think it was necessary to post online." "They had reasonable consumption. Letting them sit for a while won't harm anyone. There's no need to post online for everyone to 'publicly judge'."

Resolution and Apology

As this topic sparked heated discussions across various forums and groups over several days, the shop owner who posted deleted the article and issued an apology. The shop owner stated that the post was deleted because they noticed that the atmosphere of responses among netizens with different opinions was not very harmonious, so they decided to delete the post to prevent the situation from escalating and causing netizens to become antagonistic.

Regarding the netizens' views, the shop owner stated: "The post was framed as a scenario question, and there was no deliberate exaggeration of the incident or customers, nor any attacks using inappropriate language. Therefore, there was no intention of 'publicly judging' anyone. However, I didn't expect so many people to interpret it this way. Our original intention in posting was to see if this policy itself has flaws or needs revision. That's why we wanted to ask for public consumer opinions through the post. But we didn't expect it would give everyone such a negative impression. Therefore, I apologize to every netizen who felt unhappy because of this post."

Image source: Social media platform

For professional coffee knowledge exchange and more coffee bean information, please follow Coffee Workshop (WeChat public account: cafe_style)

For more specialty coffee beans, please add the private WeChat of FrontStreet Coffee (FrontStreet Coffee), WeChat ID: qjcoffeex

Important Notice :

前街咖啡 FrontStreet Coffee has moved to new addredd:

FrontStreet Coffee Address: 315,Donghua East Road,GuangZhou

Tel:020 38364473