Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
‘Pay what you can afford’ runs Panera out of bread
‘Pay what you can afford’ runs Panera out of bread
Nov 2, 2025 10:12 AM

Panera has announced that it will close the last of its charitable stores, which allowed people to pay whatever they wished for a meal, because it was costing too much dough.

The Boston store will shut its doors permanently this Friday, February 15. “Panera Cares” were indistinguishable from other Panera eateries in their branding, menu, or furnishings, except they announced that no one would be turned away if they did not pay one cent of the “suggested prices.” Those who could not afford to pay full price could volunteer for an hour at the store in exchange for the food.

The first store debuted in 2010 and, soon, they served 4,000 people a week. At its height the unique model had four other locations in Portland, Oregon; Chicago, Illinois; Dearborn, Michigan; and the St. Louis suburb of Clayton, Missouri.

Panera founder Ron Shaich said part of his motivation in opening the stores was “torturing the cynics, who were arguing” customers would pour in to enjoy “lunch on Uncle Ron.”

What happened next was predictable. Swarms of high school students helped themselves to lunch each Monday through Friday. The homeless dined there every meal, every day.

At one point, Shaich confessed the free riders nearly drove him to physical violence:

I can literally remember a couple of kids – local kids walked into our store in Clayton, Mo. And they walked up to the counter kind of laughing. And they said, I’ll have three smoothies and two roast beef sandwiches. And here’s my dad’s credit card. Put three bucks on it.

I just wanted to jump over that counter, and I wanted to grab the kid around the neck and whack him. And I just wanted to say, don’t you get it – right? – somebody else has got to pay.

So after offering an bottomless supply of potentially free goods, Panera Cares found itself forced to restrict supply…otherwise known as rationing:

Panera has trained staff to turn away anyone drunk or on drugs, and the cafe works with Portland Police, the Hollywood Neighborhood Association and the Hollywood Boosters when issues arise.

Cafe managers met with the Grant principal and a letter was sent to parents. … Panera Cares now allows students to visit only after school hours.

Panera also educated the homeless about its mission. No one is no longer allowed e every day, for every meal — only for a few meals a week.

“We’re not a soup kitchen,” [manager Dave] Hardin said. “We’re only one piece of the puzzle.”

plained on Yelp that Panera used other disincentives to prevent misuse or overuse, including publicly shaming poor and elderly customers. Employees were accused of profiling, and Shaich ordered them to undergo “sensitivity training.”

The charity experiment produced other negative externalities: The homeless began injecting intravenous drugs in the bathrooms, and neighbors said residential crime increased. One employee remembered, “We’d open the door and look, and there’s blood everywhere. So then we’d have to close that bathroom.” By the end, the Boston location changed the code for the women’s restroom several times a day to prevent drug abuse.

But the real problem was economics – and public misperception of just how much damage large corporations will absorb.

The price model depended on having an equal number of people willing to pay more than the “suggested price” as those who paid less. pany assumed 60 percent of people would pay menu price, 20 percent would pay more.

But the Boston store claimed in January it earned 85 percent of its operating costs. (Its manager, Barry Combs, also confidently asserted, “I know it’ll be here in a year,” last month.) Other Panera Cares stores reportedly covered 60 to 70 percent of their expenses.

Planners guessed wrong, in part because of the belief that wealthy corporations can absorb any loss. The Boston Globe paraphrased Ayelet Gneezy, an associate professor at the University of California San Diego:

Consumers are willing to pay more under such circumstances, she said, if it’s clear to them that the proceeds will go to charity. In the case of Panera, however, some customers may have figured pany was successful enough to keep the stores running, no matter what they did or didn’t pay for food. In other words, it wasn’t evident to them that the e depended on their charity.

People simply believed multimillion-dollar corporations could, and would, pay any cost out of their endless vat of corporate profits. And ultimately, they killed the goose that laid the golden egg-on-brioche.

The first Panera Cares store closed after eight years, with the rest following.

Shaich, who sold Panera to JAB Holding Company in 2017, still believes it was a huge success, and they only closed because of high rent. “Excuse me, right? This thing worked,” he says. “You’ve served millions of people over many, many years.”

The closures of every single store due to insufficient funds “by no means means that this wasn’t a success,” he said.

But even Shaichadmittedin 2018 that Panera Cares faltered, because “the nature of the economics did not make sense.”

The chain may have fared better to follow a different charitable strategy. Susan Dobscha of Bentley University, who co-authored a study of pay-what-you-want restaurants, said Panera Cares proved a case of “misplaced resources.”

Until 2010 the chain focused on maximizing profits and donating a percentage of food and money to extant charities serving those struggling with food security. That is, it followed the traditional Wesleyan formula, “Earn all you can; save all you can; give all you can.” These undertakings will still bear fruit…and would likely would have done far more good for far more people than the handful of pay-what-you-wish stores.

Panera Cares’ failure presents a teachable moment during one of the West’s pivotal turning points.

National leaders across the Atlantic dream of offering “free” services – from college tuition, to health care, to “healthy food” – insisting that “millionaires and billionaires” will simply agree to foot the bill.

Socialism does not understand scarcity or incentives. Eventually there are limits – and e faster than even their most devoted supporters conceive. In time the well runs dry, economic activity ceases to be profitable, the food stops being served – and the vulnerable pay the real price.

This photo has been cropped and transformed for size. CC BY-SA 4.0.)

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Protestants and Natural Law, Part 6
If the mon Protestant objection to natural law revolves around sin, as we saw in Part 5, we should now address the second mon objection that natural law is a rival to God and Scripture. Contemporary evangelical critics, such as Carl Henry, object that natural law elevates autonomous human reason above divine revelation. Henry thinks the Thomist doctrine of natural law teaches a universally shared body of moral beliefs that exist independently of divine revelation. This contrasts, he thinks, with...
Politicizing Scripture
There’s some discussion at Mirror of Justice (here and here) of Martin Marty’s recent piece in The Christian Century, “Snookered,” which raises the issue of the validity of politicians invoking Scripture, using the example of Tom DeLay. The new progressive Christian approach seems to be to assert, rightly of course, that “God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat,” and is rather more nuanced and convincing than, say, “Jesus is a Liberal.” And since so much politics, aside from a...
Milosz
“…can one build something lasting if the goal is not truth, but power? The few, most penetrating minds of that time understood that what constitutes the sickness of contemporary culture is the repudiation of truth for the sake of action…” Czeslaw Milosz, 1942 ...
How Just Must a Just War Be?
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post about just war, I’m passing along this TCS Daily piece by Prof. Bainbridge, “Just War for the Sake of Argument” (it’s also discussed at The Remedy and Bainbridge’s own blog). Bainbridge’s piece measures the current Lebanon/Israel conflict by the standards of just war, and finds it wanting. He makes the following important point: “Although Catholic scholars and theologians have thus made valuable contributions to the just war tradition down through the centuries, the principles...
Classical Liberalism, Foreign Policy, and Just War
One of the more lively and illuminating discussions at last week’s Advanced Studies in Freedom seminar revolved around the question whether and how classical liberalism is applicable to foreign policy, specifically with regard to questions of war. In the New York Times earlier this week, Robert Wright, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, wrote a lengthy op-ed that bears on the relevant questions, “An American Foreign Policy That Both Realists and Idealists Should Fall in Love With.” Wright...
Businesspeople are Evil!
A very, very interesting piece in WSJ this week detailing a study by the Business and Media Institute that looks at how businesspeople are portrayed on television: The study, titled “Bad Company,” looked at the top 12 TV dramas during May and November in 2005, ranging from crime shows like “CSI” to the goofy “Desperate Housewives.” Out of 39 episodes that featured business-related plots, the study found, 77% advanced a negative view of the world merce and its practitioners. On...
Money for Nothing, or So it Seems
These kinds of stories make me sick, and they are all mon. In today’s Washington Post, a lengthy article examines the Livestock Compensation Program, which ran from 2002-2003, and cost over $1.2 billion. In “No Drought Required For Federal Drought Aid,” Gilbert M. Gaul, Dan Morgan and Sarah Cohen report that over half of that money, “$635 million went to ranchers and dairy farmers in areas where there was moderate drought or none at all, according to an analysis of...
Answers to just war questions
After ruminating earlier this week about foreign policy and just war, I asked a series of interrelated questions yesterday about just war. Prof. Bainbridge was kind enough to respond, and offered the critically important distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello, that is, justness up to war and justness in war. This gets at the difference between justification for the cause or occasion for war, causus belli, and the way in which that war is conducted. Bainbridge concludes,...
Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil
In this mentary, “Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil,” I ask the question: “Why did God create oil?” I raise the question within the context of debates about global warming and the burning of fossil fuels, including Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth and the work of the Evangelical Climate Initiative. I argue that nonrenewable resources, especially fossil fuels, “have the created purpose of providing relatively cheap and pervasive sources of energy. These limited and finite resources help...
Debating the Ethics of Chimeras
My piece on the debate over chimera research and the relevance of your worldview to the debate appears today at BreakPoint, “A Monster Created in Man’s Image.” Drawing on the work of C.S. Lewis, and among the questions and conclusions included, I write, “Chimera research may indeed have some potential benefits, but we cannot ignore the question of potential costs. What toll does such research take on the dignity of human beings? Must we destroy the human person in order...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved