Panera (the bread restaurant people) have launched a new store -- well, sort of new. The store is selling the same stuff the regular Panera stores sell (soups, breads, salads) but with a twist. Consumers can pay what they want. Uh, ok. These are tough times and it's "nice" that some food vendor is thinking that maybe there's a recession and people are hurting and prices for their items should be less outrageous.
But wait! That's not all! This new Panera chain is a nonprofit. Consumers will be offered "guidance" as to what the "competitively priced value of their meal is (if they ask) and folks can give what they chose and the monies received will, I guess, be first applied to cover the costs of the store and next go to a foundation that will distribute the funds for some "community purpose". Panera plans to open these new stores in communities where they operate their for-profit stores.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, what Panera is doing is consistent with what some nonprofits have tried in other communities. I haven't seen one of these yet and clearly, as the Chronicle notes, the scale and back-up capacity by Panera makes this unique. I imagine that for Panera, rather than team up with a community soup kitchen or similar entity, this new restaurant offers a great opportunity to establish a presence as a community-responsive member that makes food affordable and accessible and with a bit of extra money, can do some good works. Although, I'm not that clear what the good works actually are.
That said, I'm not totally understanding why these stores are nonprofit. Is it because the business model clearly means that there's no profits to be made? Is it because the "profits", whatever they will be, will be distributed for good works? Or is it because these stores are social ventures of a nonprofit foundation and the trustees will not be personally profiting? Does that also means that the stores don't pay sales tax but the "donors' can deduct whatever they donate above and beyond the market value of their "purchase"?
Anyway, I'm stumped. Anyone who can provide some insights as to why the IRS thought this idea satisfies the criteria to be a nonprofit, let me know.
To see the article, go here.