Panera Bread's Socialist 'Pay What You Want' Experiment Fails Miserably

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
How is this socialist? This is capitalism diluted to its most basic principles. A company gets paid what the public thinks their product is worth.

...

Is that really the way you see? I don't see how this business model (its not a business model) can be seen as a capitalist venture at all. I wish you could explain your view in better terms so I can get a better idea of your perspective. At this point I think we disagree on what capitalism is in general.

*Edit* Had no idea when I posted that you were already being challenged and have explained your position a bit. A capitalist would never open a "pay what you want" business. A capitalist would at the very least have a set price for their product or service that factored in their expenses for said product or service and operational overhead.

originally posted by: projectvxn
This isn't socialism. But it is economic illiteracy from leftist idiots who don't understand how money works.

Socialism IS economic illiteracy from leftist idiots who dont understand how money works.

Actually this could've been a good business strategy if the goal was to put all competition or of business and then control the markets.

That would be an illustration of what China is trying to do to the US. They currently maintain lower prices on good not by being inherently more efficient but instead by playing slave labor type wages and polluting their environment in completely unsustainable ways but by the time they have to change our domestic industry in those markets have been forced out of business and we won't have a choice but to pay the higher prices because the cost to enter market will be too high for us at that point.

Jaden

a reply to: Xcalibur254

"based on those two definitions" you appear to be correct.
I do not think those two definitions are all encompassing.
IMO it was a socialist model that failed miserably, and deservedly so as it was ridiculous to think us citizens will EVER pay for what they can obtain for free.

there is a 'pay what you want' cafe in my city, they have been successful for maybe 10 years now, it is not socialist, they still act as a business to make money paying taxes, you americans have some crazy ideas of what socialism is lol
and why are y'all crying about what a private company decides to do in a capitalist society?

a reply to: SerenTheUniverse

Is your city inside the usa?

a reply to: Anathros

As I said before, capitalism dilutes down to supply & demand. Panera thought their product was worth more than they were charging and so they had people pay what they want because they thought it draw higher profits.

If it was a socialist maneuver they would talk to their workers and the public as a whole and set a price that is consistent with what they said regardless of profit.

a reply to: shooterbrody

no UK, you know, that socialist hell hole with healthcare funded by taxes where folk don't go bankrupt when they get cancer

a reply to: shooterbrody

Because a major city drinking lead polluted water for years is proof that capitalism is the end all, be all of economic theories.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96

The basis of capitalism comes down to supply & demand. A product's worth comes down to how much the populace is willing to pay for it.

That's exactly what Panera was doing in this instance.

How can you argue against those basic facts? The only reason I can see is that it makes capitalism look bad.

The only part of this experiment that is capitalist is that Panera was free to try giving a product away while competitors didnt.

The lesson learned is that people will not pay for what you are willing to give them for free. In addition, no matter how heart felt your motivations, a business still has to make money. The world does not operate on unicorn tears and elf farts.

en.wikipedia.org...

By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm, or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.

it appears to me to have been a failed attempt at a "socially owned enterprise"
not enough profits generated because of too large of a social dividend

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Anathros

As I said before, capitalism dilutes down to supply & demand. Panera thought their product was worth more than they were charging and so they had people pay what they want because they thought it draw higher profits.

If it was a socialist maneuver they would talk to their workers and the public as a whole and set a price that is consistent with what they said regardless of profit.

So instead of referring to this venture as capitalist or socialist we should deem it as the "Fustercluck Business Model".

a reply to: Anathros

i would agree with that, the socialist spin is just a stupid sidetrack by someone with political bias

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Talking about the Animus River?

www.cbsnews.com...

Go socialism!

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Because a major city drinking lead polluted water for years is proof that capitalism is the end all, be all of economic theories.

No the Flint Michigan lead crisis which started in 2014, was proof of the total failure of the OBAMA EPA.
Your discussion of such here is no more that a distraction from the thread topic, and a very poor one at that.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: projectvxn
This isn't socialism. But it is economic illiteracy from leftist idiots who don't understand how money works.

Socialism IS economic illiteracy from leftist idiots who dont understand how money works.

That's fair. But this isn't a government. Its a corporation.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Anathros

As I said before, capitalism dilutes down to supply & demand. Panera thought their product was worth more than they were charging and so they had people pay what they want because they thought it draw higher profits.

If it was a socialist maneuver they would talk to their workers and the public as a whole and set a price that is consistent with what they said regardless of profit.

No, the original purpose of the experiment was to help homeless and poor. Panera figured the homeless may not pay but others would and it would offset the losses from feeding the freeloaders. It didnt... hence why they stopped doing it.

a reply to: SerenTheUniverse

Thanks for the reply.
Good luck with that brexit.
www.washingtonpost.com... 1e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.283e34315192
we have pay what you can restaurants
I don't know if we previously had a "chain" attempt such.

At the end of the day, it's just a failed experiment. It's something that has been tried and tested and may prove as a useful example to someone thinking of doing this with their company. That's the one redeeming quality for the "fustercluck business model" I can come up with.

a reply to: Edumakated

No. The original purpose was to make money. They've seen similar campaigns going back to at least Radiohead's In Rainbows release which earned more money than if they charged market price.

This was a money making move and every similar instance in recent history supports that claim.