In the unilateral statement provided by the netizen, he said that he had called the relevant store two days before the incident and asked if he could accept makeup in the store. The clerk replied at that time, as long as it didn't disturb other customers.
On the day of the incident, the netizen reconfirmed after drinking a cup of coffee and two pieces of bread. The clerk said to stay in the corner and not to disturb others. But in the process of makeup, he was driven away and abused by the manager on duty.
Because the store involved is close to the Civil Affairs Bureau, the makeup artist who broke the news made up more than 20 times in the same Starbucks store in one year and was not opposed. Therefore, he was very dissatisfied with this situation on the day of receiving the certificate.
Afterwards, the media called the store involved to inquire about the matter. The store manager responded that if something was sprayed during the makeup process and affected other customers, the store would come forward to remind them. That day, the manager on duty did speak loudly during the reminder.
After the incident, the customer has returned the full order and given two apology coupons (free wine coupons). Regarding the impact of this incident, the regional manager of the store involved has come forward to communicate, and the store has no right to know the results.
For this incident, netizens did not feel that the person who broke the news was reasonable. Even for going to Starbucks to make up, everyone said they didn't understand. Many netizens said why they should make up in the coffee shop instead of at home or in the wedding company, and the facilities and environment of the hotel hourly room are more suitable than the coffee shop.
Some netizens also said: If it really doesn't affect other guests, no one will stop normal makeup and lipstick. It is estimated that all kinds of powder products and spray products have affected other guests and need to be handled by the clerk. There must be other conflicts in this incident, not just because of making up in the store.
Some netizens said that the media claimed that the unilateral statement provided by the report was reasonable, paving the way and guiding Starbucks, and claimed that this behavior was right, basically ignoring the interests of Starbucks and other consumers.
For this kind of incident, many independent coffee shops have been disturbed by online celebrities and celebrities before. Many people start shooting for a long time after drinking a glass of wine, occupying public space.
At the same time, it will also affect the consumption experience of other guests. For example, sitting in the position of other guests to take pictures, picking up other customers' drinks to take pictures and so on. , seriously affected the image of the coffee shop.
Maybe the clerk of Starbucks doesn't handle things roundly enough, but if it is necessary to dress up exquisitely, go to a special place, or at least a place that really doesn't bother others at all.
In recent years, Starbucks behavior has been questioned. There was an incident in which Starbucks was fired by the clerk for eating a box lunch at the door. Then the news broke, Starbucks raw materials and other issues. Now there are things that make-up is abused and driven away. My view on this matter is that the whistleblower's behavior is really not worth promoting. Obviously it is an act of occupying public resources. As for Starbucks' handling method, I think it is totally acceptable. This kind of incident, I hope everyone can consider the problem from each other's point of view and try to reduce such friction.