Isn't this like the whole point of gift cards etc.
They already have your money and they hope you don't spend it.
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
295 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
4100 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In a former life, I sold point of sale (POS) machines. We got bonuses for selling stuff like gift card add ons and the number one selling point to retailers was that some significant percentage of cards are never redeemed at all.
A decade ago, I worked on POS systems as a software engineer.
The selling point was absolutely hawking gift cards. Since we saw the data from companies, and we had a clause that gift cards expired (before the government stepped in) I remember being blown away by how many millions it was in pure profit.
Gift cards. Bleh
I have been actively fighting gift cards in my family by giving cash. I'm all, it's like a gift card but you can spend it anywhere! I took awhile, but little got into it.
Same. I've managed to convince my family that gift cards just tie you into their ecosystem. With cash you can spend it anywhere.
I totally agree, and I definitely prefer cash too. Though, I think gift cards would make a tiny bit more sense if they were worth more than their selling price, since those money are getting tied into their ecosystem. However, that would effectively make them work like infinite discount coupons; E.g. pay 80€ for a gift card worth 100€ (20% off), then just instantly redeem it to save those 20% on anything you want to buy that costs 100€.
the number one selling point to retailers was that some significant percentage of cards are never redeemed at all.
That's not a good thing though. Companies can't recognize the money as "income" until it's spent (until the gift card money is used). Until it's income it can't be paid as dividends to investors. It's just stuck in a bank account gathering dust.
That makes the company look more sluggish. Its "working capital" has increased but income doesn't go up. So the stats look bad. No, the interest from the money sitting in the bank isn't worth it. Starbucks isn't a bank and its investors expect more.
Nope, the money is counted as income straight away. Think about the process: person gives cash for gift card. Merchant now had the money and a promise to give that amount of inventory at a future date. Some of those promises are never acted upon, in which case merchant has the gift card money AND the merch which they can also sell.
Why would you comment on something you know nothing about?
Basic gift card revenue recognition
Companies cannot recognize revenue upon the initial sale of a gift card because of a key revenue recognition principle that states that revenue is recognized when or as an entity satisfies a performance obligation by transferring a promised good or service to a customer.
https://blog.leapfin.com/how-to-properly-recognize-gift-card-revenue
This is a good read. And also looks like it does mentioned unredeemed gc balance can be (partially) considered as breakage income? ( I don't know anything about accounting, just want to point this out)
Ha, completely forgot about this.
You should read that article carefully though. They even outline why this is a money maker later:
You might be wondering, how did I get $1650 in total revenue from a $1500 sale? Well, it’s true, because you were able to take 10% of the gift card in breakage income, and on an individual order/customer it can look funny, but on the whole, with your P&L, it’ll be offset by another gift card purchase not being used and money that was “indefinitely deferred!”
So, uhhh, I guess I'd ask, why would you comment on something about which you know nothing?
I represent that demographic.
I get gift cards given to me, and put them in my wallet with the best intention of using them, then after 5 years I clean out my wallet and find them. And where I live they don't expire, so I put them back into my wallet so I can not use them for another 5 years.
Wait, is that illegal? Basically every app with in-app currency does that. My laundromat does that.
This sounds like bullshit. When your card empties you can pay the rest with a credit card or cash. Starbucks doesn’t force you to reload a card, or use the card for the entire transaction price. You can even move your gift card balance to the app to consolidate multiple gift cards if you have trouble keeping up with multiple cards.
When I use the app it forces me to reload my balance, I can’t just pay what is owed. I support this investigation. Starbucks is basically forcing you to always leave a portion of unspent money on in your “Starbucks” account.
This is not my experience with the app. When the balance on my card runs out, they tell me, “it says you still owe x” and then I can pay that with a credit card.
Edit: I’m specifically talking about using the app to pay at the counter though, not to order ahead.
Chick-fil-a does this to me via online / abead orders but does let me use a credit card if I’m doing it in store. I assume Starbucks is the same.
And yet they still claimed an average of $180,000,000 a year the past 5 years that people didn’t spend.
I’m with you this is something Starbucks probably doesn’t engineer, it’s just people being dumb.
It’s definitely a dark pattern built into the app / gift card experience.
Kind of. The app doesn’t in any way tell you that you can use the card balance to pay part of your bill and then use a credit card for the rest; I only found out when a barista told me
Does this include people that just use their Starbucks cards for frequent purchases? I always have up to $25 on my card for the one or two times a week I get something. That is just money I haven't spent yet, and I'm fully aware that I could just use it up if I stopped going to Starbucks.
Well… as someone who thinks he spends more money at Starbucks than is smart I’d go as far to say anyone going there is a little dumb lol
You say it sounds like bullshit, but are you disputing the article?
Over the last five years Starbucks has claimed nearly $900 million in unspent gift card and app money as corporate revenue, boosting corporate profits and inflating executive bonuses.”
Are you saying this never happened? If not, where is the bullshit?
They didn't provide proof of that allegation. At least, not in this article. The consumer group alleges that Starbucks claims unused gift card balances as revenue. Are we sure they aren't showing a liability for the respective amount? I didn't look through their corporate filings, and the article doesn't provide citations from public filings. Just accusations.
So, in the linked complaint (not a full lawsuit yet, btw), they cite "breakage" where Starbucks corporate makes an estimate each year as to the amount of banked gift cards they reasonably believe will never be spent. It looks like it has averaged about $185M in the last few years. This can be moved from deferred revenue to actual, and thereby improve the financials. This could theoretically be fucked with on the margins and allow execs to pocket more money, and to some extent it obviously encourages Starbucks to promote gift cards (in the broad sense) over other payment methods.
The whole complaint is odd. Starbucks obviously feels like they have a winner in this scheme, and almost everything alleged in the complaint is kinda fucky, to the point that I think it's worth pointing out as a consumer protection issue. That said, the individual impact on any one consumer is very small and there are numerous workarounds for a slightly motivated person, and the tone of the complaint comes off kinda like pearl-clutching and paternalistic. Maybe you have to write it that way to make sure it's taken seriously, but it's not making for very persuasive reading.
Thank you for the citation and explanation.
I know I'm coming off all boot-licky, but this all seems legal. If Starbucks is disclosing the gift card amount as a potential to be moved from a liability to revenue, and if this is legal in tax laws, then this lawsuit is overreach and makes it seem like they're just looking for a payout.
It's been pointed out already that you can use the remaining balance of a gift card to zero it out and pay whatever is left in the order with another means of payment.
This lawsuit is describing how gift cards work. Might as well sue all merchants.
Is that explicitly verboten? Can you not claim unspent gift cards as revenue?
I genuinely don't know, but if it's allowed or a business's choice, then I don't know what the hell the story is here. If they are doing shady accounting practices it's one thing, but if they are just reporting their revenue/profit from gift cards...who fucking cares?
Gift cards are, by design, a way for companies to increase revenue and profit. They are known to get lost and go unspent. That's straight cash for the company. The ones that get used, get used at the company.
I'm no law expert, but I have dealt with POS and retailers, and their tax people. My understanding is that you always report the loading of a gift card as a liability. It may be categorized as a different liability because you don't necessarily owe that money back. As in, most gift cards are non refundable.
When the holder of the gift card redeems it for products, the balanced used gets deducted from your liability and is added to revenue.
If Starbucks were straight reporting it as revenue with no explanation, I can see that being scrutinized. But if they are reporting it as potential revenue, then that's up to shareholders to weed through that and make investments based on that.
I'm not understanding the illegality here.
Yea, sounds like a dumb lawsuit and clickbait lazy reporting.
It never occurred to me that I should use a combination of my remaining balance + another payment method to zero out my app balance. I always felt I needed to top off before I purchased, especially because I would go with my coworkers during the day.
I suspect a lot of people fall for this dark pattern
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A consumer action group is accusing Starbucks of exploiting customers via its gift card and app payments, forcing them to enter a spending cycle where they will never be able to fully spend the remaining balance of prepaid amounts.
“Starbucks rigs its payment platform so consumers are encouraged to leave unspent money on their cards and apps,” said Chris Carter, campaign manager for the group, in a statement.
“A few dollars here and there left on a payment platform may not sound like a lot but it adds up.
Starbucks spokesperson Sam Jefferies told Fortune the company “is committed to working with the State of Washington to ensure it remains in compliance with all state laws and regulations.”
The group, in a 15-page complaint, alleges the platforms for Starbucks’ mobile app and digital payment cards are akin to an “involuntary subscription.” Customers can only reload money in $5 increments, with a $10 minimum purchase.
Today, drive-through and app orders make up the majority of the company’s purchases.
The original article contains 316 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 47%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Starbucks disputes this, noting that customers can pay for their purchase with whatever money remains on the app or gift card, then pay the balance in cash at the store.
Seems pretty clear cut
What a bizarre story.
Nice people