The Business Of Delusions About Human Nature
Panera's pay-what-you-can restaurants shut their doors for good, reports Eater's Brenna Houck:
Nine years after introducing pay-what-you-can restaurants to several U.S. cities, Panera Bread is admitting defeat and closing down its last remaining non-profit Panera Cares location. The Massachusetts restaurant will shutter on February 15, according to Eater Boston.The chain opened its first donation-based community cafe in St. Louis, Missouri, in 2010. Under the model championed by the company's founder Ron Shaich, the restaurant operated like a typical Panera, but offered meals at a suggested donation price, with the goal of raising awareness about food insecurity. "In many ways, this whole experiment is ultimately a test of humanity," Shaich said in a TEDx talk later that year. "Would people pay for it? Would people come in and value it?" It appears the answer is a resounding no.
At its peak, Panera Cares operated five locations, including ones in Dearborn, Michigan; Portland, Oregon; Boston, and Chicago. Each restaurant was designed to sustain itself, but the restaurants weren't financially viable. The Portland-based Panera Cares was reportedly only recouping between 60 and 70 percent of its total costs. The losses were attributed students who "mobbed" the restaurant and ate without paying, as well as homeless patrons who visited the restaurant for every meal of the week. The location eventually limited the homeless to "a few meals a week."
The sort of thinking that led the Panera head to believe this venture would work is the well-intentioned cabbageheadedness of those who insist socialism (or worse, communism!) is a brilliant way to run a society.
If you want to give charity, just fork over money or time. Don't expect other people to behave like they dropped their human nature down a sidewalk grate.
I wish there was a way to let the homeless have the free food but not the students.
How do soup kitchens do it?
NicoleK at February 18, 2019 4:34 AM
At least as far as I know, Panera was trying this experiment on their own dime. It’s this process that allows businesses to improve and provide better products and services for their customers.
Mike S at February 18, 2019 4:48 AM
The way to feed the hungry is to serve food that is nutritious but not particularly appetizing.
I have no objections to feeding students under those standards.
Isab at February 18, 2019 4:49 AM
When I was a student, the Hare Krishnas used to serve a free lunch every Wednesday on the Green. Students lined up for it. It was vegetarian and mostly lentils, but it was free.
You could chow down on the Hare Krishna lunch and watch the various protest groups and soapbox preachers who showed up. Jed and Disco Cindy were favorites.
Conan the Grammarian at February 18, 2019 5:43 AM
NicoleK: "how do soup kitchens do it?"
I think the difference would be that your typical soup kitchen looks "down in the dumps." Which means it looks like the kind of place only those truly needy would go into. And only the needy eat there.
While on the other hand, Panera Bread (or other establishments that try this experiment) are more "upscale" looking. Which means the students (or other not-so-needy folks) have no problem going into.
Also, I've volunteered at soup kitchens and some of those managers who run the place have no problem approaching those who look like they really don't need a free meal and asking them if they are there to volunteer. Kind of shaming them into no being such moochers. You cannot do that at a place where you've already stated that folks only pay what they can afford.
Lastly, they mention the students mobbing the place in Portland - that it is in Portland speaks for itself as to why they have that problem. A city that has a lot of entitled brats who expect everything to be free.
charles at February 18, 2019 6:13 AM
Soup kitchens generally rely on volunteer labor. Panera uses paid labor with the attendant costs of insurance coverage, unemployment, and workers' comp.
And, as Charles mentions, Panera keeps an "upscale" look, providing a clean, well-lit place.
Conan the Grammarian at February 18, 2019 6:22 AM
In areas of Michigan that vote reliably Republican, here's what is done for the homeless and transients:
- They register with local government.
- They are then given a credit card that is usable at specific locations on specific days.
- Restaurateurs and franchise owners then sign up for spots to take care of people.
Groups like the Optimist Clubs, the Rotary, etc. all wrangle business volunteers. For example, near me, the Subway sandwich franchise feeds the homeless on Wednesdays. They come in as regular customers, and they pay with their cards. There is no rush of free-loading students, because UMC slackers don't get the card from the government. There is no requirement they go to a dumpy soup kitchen; God loves, and anyone with an ounce of feeling would like to have the homeless treated with human dignity, not luck some soul-crushing Communist regime needing to impress its power on the individual.
El Verde Loco at February 18, 2019 7:06 AM
Maybe the Panera soup kitchen would work better in Michigan
NicoleK at February 18, 2019 7:25 AM
The way to feed the hungry is to serve food that is nutritious but not particularly appetizing.
God forbid a hungry person get an appetizing meal.
Kevin at February 18, 2019 8:34 AM
The way to feed the hungry is to serve food that is nutritious but not particularly appetizing.
God forbid a hungry person get an appetizing meal.
Kevin at February 18, 2019 8:34
No objection to that at all as long as it isn’t government funded or part of some government mandate.
In my experience, Being picky about food indicates something other than real hunger.
As Conan says, bring on the lentils.
Isab at February 18, 2019 9:26 AM
Lentils can be quite tasty depending how you cook them.
NicoleK at February 18, 2019 9:57 AM
Mike says "At least as far as I know, Panera was trying this experiment on their own dime. It’s this process that allows businesses to improve and provide better products and services for their customers."
This was not market or process research by Panera, it was an experiment in do-gooderism in the context of a communist (to each according to his need) mindset. It is curious that in the other parts of their lives (like Panera making money or individuals spending theirs) the Left acts like they understand that people are motivated by incentives. Even a SJW will not work overtime at a company that never gives raises or promotes anyone. And yet they set up a restaurant or demand that others act not according to incentives. Everyone would like something for nothing. If you don't ration free stuff, you run out or costs sky-rocket. duh
cc at February 18, 2019 9:59 AM
"And, as Charles mentions, Panera keeps an "upscale" look, providing a clean, well-lit place."
It's also the menu. At Panera, you have a wide variety of tasty choices. At the typical soup kitchen, you either eat whatever they're serving that day, or go hungry.
And as far as Panera's experiment goes: It may have been noble, but it was doomed from the start. I'm not aware of any chain restaurant that has tried this, but lots of locally-owned ones have over the years, and they've all failed. The basic problem is that:
A. You have a menu price that is derived from the materials and labor needed to make the food, plus indirect costs (business management, taxes, etc.), plus some profit margin.
B. Some people will pay the menu price, but some people will pay less or nothing at all.
C. In order to balance the books, you need a bunch of people who are willing to pay more than the menu price.
D. But nobody will do that because they regard the menu price as the "fair" price, and if they pay more than that, they feel like chumps. (Which, in a sense, they are.)
Cousin Dave at February 18, 2019 10:17 AM
I give them credit for trying. And for not expecting a government hand-out to fund the experiment.
Conan the Grammarian at February 18, 2019 11:43 AM
Amy: "The sort of thinking that led the Panera head to believe this venture would work..."
The quote from Panera's founder Ron Shaich, which was in the excerpt you included, is:
I don't see anything in that quote which says he believed it would work. He said it was an experiment, a test. He probably hoped it would work but I wouldn't be surprised if he felt the odds were, at best, 50/50 that it would work.
JD at February 18, 2019 12:13 PM
Cousin Dave: And as far as Panera's experiment goes: It may have been noble, but it was doomed from the start. I'm not aware of any chain restaurant that has tried this, but lots of locally-owned ones have over the years, and they've all failed.
This is from the Eater article that Amy linked to:
JD at February 18, 2019 1:19 PM
I give them credit for trying. And for not expecting a government hand-out to fund the experiment.
Maybe. Or maybe they got some tax breaks locally. And those loses will be written off against their taxable income.
So, long term = money loser, but short term maybe break even. But once you are about to pass that point, pull the plug.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 18, 2019 2:29 PM
"A city that has a lot of entitled brats who expect everything to be free."
Perhaps you remember Mr. Rosemond's observation:
Why do we think that children raised without discipline will act otherwise as they age?
Radwaste at February 18, 2019 3:13 PM
"C. In order to balance the books, you need a bunch of people who are willing to pay more than the menu price. "
That's a good point. And it's not going to happen. There is no good reason for someone to pay a large national chain restaurant EXTRA because they want to 'test humanity'.
Honestly how f'ing self-righteous do you have to be to come up with a statement like that? Is Mr. Shaich going to rain toads down on us now because we didn't pay him extra for a lousy quinoa salad and tomato soup?
Also Portland is probably the worst place in the US to try something like this. It's filled with people who hate chains like Panera and will deliberately abuse the policy. The city is also filled with homeless people and squatters.
If they wanted to see how normal people would respond, they should have gone somewhere like Philadelphia where there are plenty of low-income people who have some pride and would try to pay what they could.
norma at February 18, 2019 5:12 PM
How did they do it?
If I were trying this out, I'd put the menu prices slightly higher than they should be, say $8 instead of $7 for your soup or whatever. Then I'd say those were the prices, sliding scale if you couldn't afford it. Is that what they did?
Because I feel like if I went into that restaurant I'd just pay it. I fucking hate, "Pay whatever you feel like" bake sales and shit. Just tell me the price, if it is a fundraiser I'm prepared for it to cost too much. I'm going to be paying 60chf for a fondue dinner next week, a meal I can make for under 20 at home. I'm doing it because ambiance and because it's for the middle school trip.
If one day I'm broke I'll pay less, and then put in a couple bucks more next time.
I mean basically you know if you're a charity giver or receiver. Stealing from poor people is pretty low. Did they make it clear this was a charity fundraiser to feed the homeless? Not many people will do it.
NicoleK at February 19, 2019 6:06 AM
"If I were trying this out, I'd put the menu prices slightly higher than they should be, say $8 instead of $7 for your soup or whatever."
Of course, if you aren't careful about that, you wind up pricing yourself out of the market for the paying customers, which makes the problem worse. Honestly, even noting JD's comment about the place in Denver, I just don't see any way for this to work in general. The higher you set the price, the fewer customers you will have that pay full price. It would be an interesting experiment to see where the price point is that maximizes revenue, but even at the max, I think it loses money.
Cousin Dave at February 19, 2019 7:21 AM
The way to feed the hungry is to serve food that is nutritious but not particularly appetizing.
_________________________________
Not the same thing, of course, but it reminds me of a 17th-century comedy by a well-known French satirist. One line was about how to save money when inviting guests: "Serve them food they hate!"
It also remotely reminds me of what I wrote years ago - things may have changed since then, of course:
My father taught English in Prague in the 1990s, and at one point his adult students wanted to know what a "pie" was. He explained simply and clearly, of course, but it turned out that the students couldn't quite grasp it, because they don't really have anything like that in Czech cuisine! (Prague is one of the few glamorous Western cities where no foreign tourist goes for the food - aside from the beer, of course. Vegetables, too, were only just making a comeback at the time - blame the lack of them on Communism.)
______________________________________
I found out recently that pie is mostly confined to Northern Europe. Even Poland doesn't really have pies. Germany does, though.
lenona at February 19, 2019 8:46 AM
Reminds me of what Noel Coward said about the food at Ian Fleming served at his Goldeneye estate, "it tastes like armpit."
Conan the Grammarian at February 19, 2019 10:58 AM
Bill Hensley at February 19, 2019 2:30 PM
Leave a comment