They are in business for my money
An oft noted consumer fallacy, but an understandable one, as we as a whole are generally more familiar with national chains than with independent stores, especially out in the burbs. Chains have an inexhaustible product supply and they profit not by product quality or uniqueness, but rather proliferation and accessibility. To establish market share they are hyper inclusive about their customer base, for the wares they vend are relatively homogenized in relation to those offered by their major competitors, differing primarily by highly touted superficialities.
Despite the wide net chains cast, a more apt statement would be "they are in business to make money". That's not petty semantics, especially when it comes to owner operated shops which establish market share not by brute numbers, but rather product uniqueness and quality. Concerns of production limitations, product exclusiveness, limited advertising and diminishing returns inhibits them for being "in business for your money". Instead they have to put their energies on their target consumer, the one who is their best fit. It's of course impolitical to announce that "our shop may not be the best fit for you", but it sure is the case. Especially in owner run shops like Juju's, 969 Cafe and the Arepa Lady, there are only so many hours in a day and so many things a Sammy, Oda or Maria can do in those hours. What's the name of the guy who runs Starbucks? If I spent $40 a week anywhere, you can bet me and the owner would be on a first name basis and I wouldn't need a rewards card to be appreciated come my birthday.
So with that, I'll readily acquiesce that walk-aways occur when there is a credit card minimum. That doesn't directly translate to a loss in business though. Walk-aways happen everyday for all sorts of reasons. Owners try to mitigate them without incurring undue costs, sacrificing identity or causing other walk-aways. Not having a credit card minimum has its benefits and its drawbacks and owners have to weigh the twain (credit card transactions take longer than cash, which can increase customer waiting times, which certainly does result in walk-aways, especially in grab and go situations and crush periods. Not having a cc minimum may result in swapping walk-aways while making less profitable transactions). There is no overriding right or wrong answer.
So while I think Mango's blanket statement is less concerned advice and more a moneyed demand, it is, much to my dismay, a growing one. As short as 10 years ago, if someone were to push forward plastic on a $3 item at my shop, eye rolls would flutter on the customers waiting behind them. Now, atleast once per day, sometimes more, a would be card user makes a 180, often in a huff and the eye rolls are rare enough that when I get them, it's like a warm secret between old friends. Not nearly enough of a thing to justify giving 30 cents (that's 10%!) to credit card company executives, but it's on my radar. Unfortunately, the future more likely belongs to Mango's ilk than mine and that sucks not just because I'm a tin hat wearing person who doesn't want businesses, hackers and the government to know how and where I spend my money, but because cashless benefits the chain, not the owner operated shop. They'll still survive, but it will be harder and they will be fewer. Till then, whenever I hear about an eatery that only takes cash, my ears will perk up, as there's usually a pretty good reason that they can survive without plastic.
