Last year I claimed that the Panera Bread experiement called Panera Cares wasn't a feasible business model. The recent press that Panera Bread is doing promoting successful outcomes from the experiment claims otherwise.
My claim depended on the understanding that the business model of having the same menu as the for-profit Panera Bread but offering that folks could pay what they want wouldn't be sustainable. Looks like I am correct and Panera Bread is correct.
First, what outcomes does Panera claim? According to its press written-up in the Christian Science Monitor:
Most patrons, it finds, drop the entire retail cost, or more, into the voluntary donation box, in essence subsidizing a meal for someone who can't pay the full amount. Panera says about 60 percent leave the suggested amount; 20 percent leave more; and 20 percent leave less. The largest single payment so far? One person paid $500 for a meal. Few people seem to be taking unfair advantage of the system.
Next, my claim that the business model is not sustainable. Truth is: the business model means at minimum "no profits" but more likely, philanthropic subsidy. That of course is why Panera Bread made this hybrid a nonprofit. Does this mean everyone's a winner? I think so and maybe that's ok. Yes, some nonprofits may get a bit of money to support feeding the hungry. Patrons get "educated" and maybe make a donation. And Panera gets great press and a healthy tax deduction. A win-win-win. Good for Panera but let's be honest about the reality of the business: this is not an independently sustainable business model.