A New "Fast Food" Charity

[Kondor3]

I'll call them 'charitable' when they build a few in the Austin neighborhood, or at, say... the intersection of Madison and Cicero on the West Side...

If they build one of these in a poor area, there will not be enough people frequenting the establishment that have money to donate and the experiment will fail.

There's a very specific reason it's placed in a nicer community within Chicago.

Get the point?

.

Yes, I get the point.

I got the point before I even wrote a single word of my original post.

And MY point is that if they want to do more than feed the occasional homeless guy roaming wealthier neighborhoods or the occasional down-on-their-luck unemployed or under-employed person in their midst, then...

There are much more efficient ways to give.

The money they're blowing with such publicity stunts could be made to stretch much further by donating proceeds to the Greater Chicago Food Depository or some other regional food bank or even neighborhood mini-food-banks or food pantries or soup kitchens or missions.

This is more cynical and self-serving Public Relations Stunt than it is Charitable Giving.

And given that I've been connected for more than twenty years to both national-scale charitable feeding operations and large municipal-scale 40+ location social service agencies in the inner city neighborhoods of Chicago, my opinion on this matter is just a wee bit more well-informed than your average poster - one of my own modest core competencies.

Hope that helps you to understand why I look at this with the ol' Fish-Eye and why I am spectacularly UNimpressed with the initiative...

 

[KevinWestern]

I'll make my own sandwich for my lunch.. and donate canned goods and money to an actual soup kitchen or homeless shelter... it will do more good than falling for a PR stunt....

Great dude, and that's nice of you. However most people won't donate canned goods and are more likely to just give a dollar or two at Panera because it's quick an easy.

Why are you so cynical about a corporation is feeding a few homeless people through the help of the community? This is like one out of thousands of stores nationwide, lol.

Sheesh.

I have an idea, let's just do away with the whole thing and those few hundred people who get a discounted meal every week can figure out something else. Would that make you a bit happier, lol?

.

 

[DiamondDave]

If it is about the charity, it is not about getting 'money people' coming in... though it is more likely to get a charitable person with money to come to a poor area for the sake of charity than it is to get a poor person to pay more for transportation for 1 discounted or free meal

Dave- Let's get real here and try to be just a tiny bit practical. When you build in an affluent neighborhood, you're (naturally) going to bring in donations because you're likelier to get wealthier people to come through the doors and donate.

Without people donating above and beyond, this doesn't work. Therefore, this model ONLY works in affluent neighborhoods. Sure, you can build this in a crappy area, but when I'm looking for some dinner at 7:30pm do you think I'm more likelier to take a 40 min bus ride just to donate to Panera or grab something quick around my house because I worked all day and I'm tired?

And by the way, a slew of poorer folks do frequent the Panera so apparently they're not having any trouble getting to the establishment. There are homeless people all throughout Chicago, regardless of the neighborhood.

.

BUT THE HOMELESS OR HUNGRY ARE NOT TRAVELING THE THE AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOOD.. that is getting REAL... Jesus...

As stated.. it is more likely, for the guilt or the image or whatever else, that the people with the money will travel for the charity than it is for the hungry and poor to travel to the affluent area for 1 discounted or free meal... that is reality, bub.. you're more likely getting more freeloaders and discounts to the not so poor than you are getting a meal to a truly hungry person

More good will come from a direct donation to an organization with a presence where the poor really are, than doing this and falling for the PR stunt...

It is no different than thinking that buying a bottle of brand X beer where "$0.05 cents is donated for every beer bought" is doing as much good when you buy that case of beer as it is when you give a dollar or a couple cans of beans to a homeless shelter... you are falling for the ploy and pushing into the profit coffers, no more no less....

There is perceived good (the marketing campaign.. and precisely why experts design them like they do) and there is actual good... I'll continue to donate to my charities rather than thinking that an extra 5er at the PaneraCares in the upper middle class neighborhood is making a difference

 

[DiamondDave]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8qnu2bqMYg]Kingpin - Hot MILF Charity Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

or

Start Something for a child today - Big Brothers Big Sisters

Ploy or reality.. THAT is the key... and I see the Panera ploy as just as absurd as the Kingpin mockery

 

[KevinWestern]

Yes, I get the point.

I got the point before I even wrote a single word of my original post.

And MY point is that if they want to do more than feed the occasional homeless guy roaming wealthier neighborhoods or the occasional down-on-their-luck unemployed or under-employed person in their midst, then, there are much more efficient ways to give. The money they're blowing with such publicity stunts could be made to stretch much further by donating proceeds to the Greater Chicago Food Depository or some other regional food bank or even neighborhood mini-food-banks or food pantries or soup kitchens or missions.

Panera is a public company with stockholders who expect to return a profit on their investment. They can’t simply just donate all of their money covertly to local charities (whether or not that’d be a more efficient way to feed the homeless). They need to get creative, which they did. This is a business-model that not only drives brand efficacy and awareness, but also helps to feed those in need around the community. It’s again – a win win – and not too bad of one for a public company.

Also, how do you know they’re blowing money and not coming close to breaking even? Are you just making that assumption?

And given that I've been connected for more than twenty years to both national-scale charitable feeding operations and large municipal-scale 40+ location social service agencies in the inner city neighborhoods of Chicago, my opinion on this matter is just a wee bit more well-informed than your average poster - one of my own modest core competencies.

Hope that helps you to understand why I look at this with the ol' Fish-Eye and why I am spectacularly UNimpressed with the initiative...

Again, it’s a company doing something. It’s taking a step in the right direction. They made this location not-for-profit in a place where I’m sure a for-profit establishment would flourish just fine, and there’s something to be said about that.


.

 

[KevinWestern]

BUT THE HOMELESS OR HUNGRY ARE NOT TRAVELING THE THE AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOOD.. that is getting REAL... Jesus...

Dave – who lives next door to this restaurant and has been there over 30 times: you or me? Speaking from a position of personal experience, there is a steady stream of homeless people frequenting the place. As I estimated I bet it feeds a few hundred individuals every week – not bad.

As stated.. it is more likely, for the guilt or the image or whatever else, that the people with the money will travel for the charity than it is for the hungry and poor to travel to the affluent area for 1 discounted or free meal... that is reality, bub.. you're more likely getting more freeloaders and discounts to the not so poor than you are getting a meal to a truly hungry person

So your proposition is move this restaurant to a poor area and expect that people from affluent areas will travel there for dinner simply to suppor the charity? Not happening. The model won’t work if too many poor people eat there, and the model won’t work if not enough rich people donate. It simply won’t work in a poor area, period. Maybe something else, but not this.

More good will come from a direct donation to an organization with a presence where the poor really are, than doing this and falling for the PR stunt...

This is a public company that is simply getting creative. They’re doing something when otherwise could be doing nothing.

Question: would you rather them do nothing and go back to a for-profit model at this one location?

Would everyone be better off in that scenario?

.

 

[DiamondDave]

BUT THE HOMELESS OR HUNGRY ARE NOT TRAVELING THE THE AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOOD.. that is getting REAL... Jesus...

Dave – who lives next door to this restaurant and has been there over 30 times: you or me? Speaking from a position of personal experience, there is a steady stream of homeless people frequenting the place. As I estimated I bet it feeds a few hundred individuals every week – not bad.

As stated.. it is more likely, for the guilt or the image or whatever else, that the people with the money will travel for the charity than it is for the hungry and poor to travel to the affluent area for 1 discounted or free meal... that is reality, bub.. you're more likely getting more freeloaders and discounts to the not so poor than you are getting a meal to a truly hungry person

So your proposition is move this restaurant to a poor area and expect that people from affluent areas will travel there for dinner simply to suppor the charity? Not happening. The model won’t work if too many poor people eat there, and the model won’t work if not enough rich people donate. It simply won’t work in a poor area, period. Maybe something else, but not this.

More good will come from a direct donation to an organization with a presence where the poor really are, than doing this and falling for the PR stunt...

This is a public company that is simply getting creative. They’re doing something when otherwise could be doing nothing.

Question: would you rather them do nothing and go back to a for-profit model at this one location?

Would everyone be better off in that scenario?

.

Creative.. .PR wise...

I would rather them go back to a for profit model, give even half as much as they spent on this in an affluent place directly in cash to a homeless shelter and soup kitchen.... the 'needy' would indeed be better off...

It is like being at the golf course and having people buy extra bottles of water for the thirsty, and expecting the thirsty to come there and get it.. and while there may be an infrequent poor thirsty person in walking distance, the poor thirsty would be better served by TAKING THE WATER TO WHERE IT IS NEEDED MORE

 

[Pogo]

I think the Ayn Randers have meltdowns at the thought of a concept where somebody's doing something more universal than "I got mine".

Sad world to live in.

 

[KevinWestern]

BUT THE HOMELESS OR HUNGRY ARE NOT TRAVELING THE THE AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOOD.. that is getting REAL... Jesus...

Dave – who lives next door to this restaurant and has been there over 30 times: you or me? Speaking from a position of personal experience, there is a steady stream of homeless people frequenting the place. As I estimated I bet it feeds a few hundred individuals every week – not bad.



So your proposition is move this restaurant to a poor area and expect that people from affluent areas will travel there for dinner simply to suppor the charity? Not happening. The model won’t work if too many poor people eat there, and the model won’t work if not enough rich people donate. It simply won’t work in a poor area, period. Maybe something else, but not this.

More good will come from a direct donation to an organization with a presence where the poor really are, than doing this and falling for the PR stunt...

This is a public company that is simply getting creative. They’re doing something when otherwise could be doing nothing.

Question: would you rather them do nothing and go back to a for-profit model at this one location?

Would everyone be better off in that scenario?

.

Creative.. .PR wise...

I would rather them go back to a for profit model, give even half as much as they spent on this in an affluent place directly in cash to a homeless shelter and soup kitchen.... the 'needy' would indeed be better off...

It is like being at the golf course and having people buy extra bottles of water for the thirsty, and expecting the thirsty to come there and get it.. and while there may be an infrequent poor thirsty person in walking distance, the poor thirsty would be better served by TAKING THE WATER TO WHERE IT IS NEEDED MORE

Do you know for a fact they're losing money on this venture, or are you just saying that as an assumption?


.

 

[Granny]

I don't care for the idea that much. I guess I'm not that trusting. It may be a very good PR or marketing idea, but how do you actually know the money is going where they say it is going?

But let's just go ahead and say it really does go to some charity - when all is said and done, the money is collected at the end of the month, Penara's will write out a check for the total amount and be able to write it off as a cost of business expense and/or a charitable deduction on income taxes. Over the course of a year it could be a pretty good sum of money that is collected from customers.

 

[KevinWestern]

It is like being at the golf course and having people buy extra bottles of water for the thirsty, and expecting the thirsty to come there and get it.. and while there may be an infrequent poor thirsty person in walking distance, the poor thirsty would be better served by TAKING THE WATER TO WHERE IT IS NEEDED MORE

I get what you're saying. I get it. Yes, there are more homeless/poor in different areas of the city. But just as I can't order a magical unicorn to pick me up from work every day to take me home, Panera is unable to put one of these restaurants in those locations and make this experiment work at the same time.

They also can't just be giving untold dollars to unrelated charities and that's because they are in the business of making money (as a public company) and are bound (by law) to try to turn a profit on their shares. They have limitations on what they can do; do you realize this?

They need to do one thing while doing another, and this experiment is what came out of it..



.

 

[KevinWestern]

I don't care for the idea that much. I guess I'm not that trusting. It may be a very good PR or marketing idea, but how do you actually know the money is going where they say it is going?

But let's just go ahead and say it really does go to some charity - when all is said and done, the money is collected at the end of the month, Penara's will write out a check for the total amount and be able to write it off as a cost of business expense and/or a charitable deduction on income taxes. Over the course of a year it could be a pretty good sum of money that is collected from customers.

The money - as I understand it - stays at the location as the business there is technically a "non for-profit". I think they need to keep these $'s somewhat separate from their other for-profit locations (likely) due to tax reasons and other regulations surrounding non-profits.

I guess there's no way of telling if your money actually goes to the homeless person, but same goes for really any charity.

.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave – who lives next door to this restaurant and has been there over 30 times: you or me? Speaking from a position of personal experience, there is a steady stream of homeless people frequenting the place. As I estimated I bet it feeds a few hundred individuals every week – not bad.



So your proposition is move this restaurant to a poor area and expect that people from affluent areas will travel there for dinner simply to suppor the charity? Not happening. The model won’t work if too many poor people eat there, and the model won’t work if not enough rich people donate. It simply won’t work in a poor area, period. Maybe something else, but not this.



This is a public company that is simply getting creative. They’re doing something when otherwise could be doing nothing.

Question: would you rather them do nothing and go back to a for-profit model at this one location?

Would everyone be better off in that scenario?

.

Creative.. .PR wise...

I would rather them go back to a for profit model, give even half as much as they spent on this in an affluent place directly in cash to a homeless shelter and soup kitchen.... the 'needy' would indeed be better off...

It is like being at the golf course and having people buy extra bottles of water for the thirsty, and expecting the thirsty to come there and get it.. and while there may be an infrequent poor thirsty person in walking distance, the poor thirsty would be better served by TAKING THE WATER TO WHERE IT IS NEEDED MORE

Do you know for a fact they're losing money on this venture, or are you just saying that as an assumption?


.

I can lose money on a venture to help the starving in Africa by renting a space, bringing in equipment, and offering discounts to any starving African kid who walks in to my establishment.. and I can cl;aim look, it has to be good, I am sacrificing and losing money... but the reality of the situation is.. it is nothing more than a stupid stunt.. and if I wanted to make a difference, I would make it at the source and not put some campaign around it where the money I spend in the campaign would be better used by those in need

If, somehow, the media found out about Panera quietly and without publicity giving 45 tons of food to various soup kitchens and paying quietly to train homeless to work in their restaurants.. THEN I would give credit for charity and not PR... I will still contend that this action you have cited is nothing more than a PR stunt with MINOR levels of any impact whatsoever. I will still contend that it is more about bringing in your dollars at any location than it is about the very few it will actually help in the location where it is (and the other locations as well)

 

[KevinWestern]

I can lose money on a venture to help the starving in Africa by renting a space, bringing in equipment, and offering discounts to any starving African kid who walks in to my establishment.. and I can cl;aim look, it has to be good, I am sacrificing and losing money... but the reality of the situation is.. it is nothing more than a stupid stunt.. and if I wanted to make a difference, I would make it at the source and not put some campaign around it where the money I spend in the campaign would be better used by those in need

If, somehow, the media found out about Panera quietly and without publicity giving 45 tons of food to various soup kitchens and paying quietly to train homeless to work in their restaurants.. THEN I would give credit for charity and not PR... I will still contend that this action you have cited is nothing more than a PR stunt with MINOR levels of any impact whatsoever. I will still contend that it is more about bringing in your dollars at any location than it is about the very few it will actually help in the location where it is (and the other locations as well)

But they are a public company - right? Will the shareholder jive with donating 45 tons of food? Probably not.

They have to work within a certain construct. It's not a situation where "anything is possible".

Sure, it's a PR exercise, but it also does help out some poor in the community. I have viewed this with my own eyes first hand. The company could be doing little to nothing like 99% of the other fast food restaurants in the area.

Again, would you prefer they quit this all together and do nothing?


.

 

[DiamondDave]

I can lose money on a venture to help the starving in Africa by renting a space, bringing in equipment, and offering discounts to any starving African kid who walks in to my establishment.. and I can cl;aim look, it has to be good, I am sacrificing and losing money... but the reality of the situation is.. it is nothing more than a stupid stunt.. and if I wanted to make a difference, I would make it at the source and not put some campaign around it where the money I spend in the campaign would be better used by those in need

If, somehow, the media found out about Panera quietly and without publicity giving 45 tons of food to various soup kitchens and paying quietly to train homeless to work in their restaurants.. THEN I would give credit for charity and not PR... I will still contend that this action you have cited is nothing more than a PR stunt with MINOR levels of any impact whatsoever. I will still contend that it is more about bringing in your dollars at any location than it is about the very few it will actually help in the location where it is (and the other locations as well)

But they are a public company - right? Will the shareholder jive with donating 45 tons of food? Probably not.

They have to work within a certain construct. It's not a situation where "anything is possible".

Sure, it's a PR exercise, but it also does help out some poor in the community. I have viewed this with my own eyes first hand. The company could be doing little to nothing like 99% of the other fast food restaurants in the area.

Again, would you prefer they quit this all together and do nothing?


.

So nothing is the only other option? NO... it is not.. and this was a board/corporate decision just like the donation of 45 tons of food would be a board or corporate decision...

Again.. nothing more than a PR move, and I am not afraid to call it what it is... and I will not lavish phony praise on a phony PR stunt that is more image than impact

 

[KevinWestern]

So nothing is the only other option? NO... it is not.. and this was a board/corporate decision just like the donation of 45 tons of food would be a board or corporate decision...

Again.. nothing more than a PR move, and I am not afraid to call it what it is... and I will not lavish phony praise on a phony PR stunt that is more image than impact

Are the hundreds of homeless eating there every week not real people benefiting from the experiment?

Again, this is one store that's giving back to the community. I think you're being overly cynical on the subject.

Again - they can be doing nothing like 99% of the other fast food chains.


.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Panera is a public company with stockholders who expect to return a profit on their investment. They can’t simply just donate all of their money covertly to local charities (whether or not that’d be a more efficient way to feed the homeless)..."

Restaurant chains and grocery supermarket chains - nearly all of them public companies requiring accountability to stockholders - donated millions - billions - in both cash and goods in kind, every year.

Including Panera...

Panera Bread ? In the Community ? Community Involvement

...which donates its unsold bread-products to Feeding America -member food banks and agencies at the end of each day.

They already have a huge commitment to Corporate Good Citizenship and are to be applauded for their efforts over time.

So much for public-company-accountable-to-stockholders as an excuse for not giving more, because they already do. It's on their own website, and in their Annuals.

"...They need to get creative, which they did. This is a business-model that not only drives brand efficacy and awareness, but also helps to feed those in need around the community..."

It's an exercise in showboating; it's their money, and they can do what they like with it; just don't try hanging a saint's halo over Corporate in connection with this one.

Cynical folk who know something about the ins-and-outs of Corporate Philanthropy see it for what it is; a PR stunt with a charity heart-strings-tugging twist.

"...It’s again – a win win – and not too bad of one for a public company..."

Well, it's a win for the Individual Donors, and the relative handful of folk that it helps, but it's the company getting 95% of the benefit here; a cold, calculated use of PR tactics.

"...Also, how do you know they’re blowing money and not coming close to breaking even? Are you just making that assumption?..."

By 'blowing it', I am not referring to operating at a loss.

I am referring to a far less-than-optimal use of money.

As in, they are 'blowing' their dollars on near junk-food when they could be getting a lot more mileage from those dollars.

For every dollar donated/spent to feed a down-and-outer at that Panera store, they could feed FOUR people by putting that money into the hands of a reputable charitable feeding agency...

An agency whose buying power will yield more food - and more nutritious and varying food - than one obtains at a Panera outlet in an upscale North Side Chicago neighborhood.

"...Again, it’s a company doing something. It’s taking a step in the right direction. They made this location not-for-profit in a place where I’m sure a for-profit establishment would flourish just fine, and there’s something to be said about that."

Yes.

Doing SOME good is better than doing NO good, I suppose.

Even if MORE good could be done, if done a different way.

Again, it's their money, and they can do what they want.

Maybe they should get a lightweight 'attaboy', but the Saint's Halo is off the table...

 

[DiamondDave]

So nothing is the only other option? NO... it is not.. and this was a board/corporate decision just like the donation of 45 tons of food would be a board or corporate decision...

Again.. nothing more than a PR move, and I am not afraid to call it what it is... and I will not lavish phony praise on a phony PR stunt that is more image than impact

Are the hundreds of homeless eating there every week not real people benefiting from the experiment?

Again, this is one store that's giving back to the community. I think you're being overly cynical on the subject.

Again - they can be doing nothing like 99% of the other fast food chains.


.

1) Hundreds for thousands upon thousands in spending.. not only at the location but in the very PR crap they spend money on in coverage and in IT on their own site
2) Your ASSumprtion that 99% of the others are doing nothing is preposterous.. perhaps you should hear about Taco Bell and associated partners and their support and donations to United Nations World Food Programme.. or to several other similar actions and programs out there.. Panera is FAR from the only one

 

[KevinWestern]

So nothing is the only other option? NO... it is not.. and this was a board/corporate decision just like the donation of 45 tons of food would be a board or corporate decision...

Again.. nothing more than a PR move, and I am not afraid to call it what it is... and I will not lavish phony praise on a phony PR stunt that is more image than impact

Are the hundreds of homeless eating there every week not real people benefiting from the experiment?

Again, this is one store that's giving back to the community. I think you're being overly cynical on the subject.

Again - they can be doing nothing like 99% of the other fast food chains.


.

1) Hundreds for thousands upon thousands in spending.. not only at the location but in the very PR crap they spend money on in coverage and in IT on their own site
2) Your ASSumprtion that 99% of the others are doing nothing is preposterous.. perhaps you should hear about Taco Bell and associated partners and their support and donations to United Nations World Food Programme.. or to several other similar actions and programs out there.. Panera is FAR from the only one

Wasn't a great statement, I admit. I meant as in an interactive, integrative way that Panera chose. Anyways..

Beat the shit out of this one...

.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This may only feed a small portion of low-income people, and is probably not-sustainable in many areas, but the fact of the matter is that it has feed a portion of people. Is this upsetting to you, lol? Rather them just make all of their restaurants for-profit and not try anything new?

If this is a publicity stunt, it's a poor one as I've only seen a handful of local websites covering it.

.

Then you didn't open your newspaper, or watch the news.
Again, don't know if you know the area, I invite you to check it out. This is one of the better areas in the whole city and plenty of tourist in the area as well. They won't be feeding any poor there because it would cost more for a Taxi or riding the L to get there from where they live than the food would cost.

I have lived within 2 blocks of this restaurant for 4 years, I'm quite familiar with the area. I've even eaten AT the restaurant maybe about 30 times over that span.

I ride by it with my bike just about every weekday when I head to work and believe me, there is always an abundance of (what appears to be) lower income folks eating there from the morning time until the evening. Yes, Lakeview/Lincoln Park is a nice area, but folks from all walks of life seem to make it there successfully without issue.

You shouldn't jump to so many conclusions about a place that you've never been to, lol.

And again, this restaurant is put in this area for a reason, as it wouldn't be sustainable in a poor area. It needs to be in a wealthier section of town.


.

.

I have ate at that Panera once or twice. My brother lives in Chicago, and I do business there so I am in that very area a good 4-5 times a year. Love that Pancake place just down the street.
I should apologize for yesterday, wasn't a good day. Wasn't really intending to be such an ass. Having said that, Panera along with others have started these "charity restaurants" - but like this one, they are always in well to do areas. My point was if charity was the real object then they would build them where they are most needed.