this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
578 points (96.0% liked)

News

23301 readers
3847 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Because the ingredients cost maybe less than a cent more and they change nearly a dollar for it.

Can you show your work on milk alternatives costing Starbucks less than a cent more?

No. They cannot. They cannot charge for tap water. They cannot charge for using the bathroom. They can't lock you in the Cafe and charge you to leave. They can't advertise for one price and sell another. They can't charge half price for milk that's gone rotten etc. There are lots of things they can't do. This is another.

Quite the specious analogy, but I fail to see how kidnapping is equivalent to charging a different price for a different product.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Open a grocery app. Search for oat milk, dairy milk, almond milk, soy milk. Alternative milks don’t really cost more than dairy anymore.

I don’t agree with the lawsuit, but I also don’t agree with Starbucks’ ridiculous upcharge for non dairy.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Open a grocery app. Search for oat milk, dairy milk, almond milk, soy milk. Alternative milks don’t really cost more than dairy anymore.

Does Starbucks shop at grocery stores? They likely buy non-consumer packaged milk, think 5 gallon plastic sacks, and cases of consumer packaged milk alternatives. Not to mention extra man-hours and extra refrigerated space.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Visit a Starbucks. They pull a gallon plastic milk jug from a drinks fridge under the bar when making drinks.

While there might be slight discrepancies between grocery prices and wholesale prices, the sheer size of Starbucks means they’d save on all varieties of milk (not just dairy) and I seriously doubt they pay 50 cents more per cup for alternative milks.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

the sheer size of Starbucks means they’d save on all varieties of milk (not just dairy) and I seriously doubt they pay 50 cents more per cup for alternative milks.

You literally have no idea though, unless you work in supply chain for Starbucks. You're guessing. Do they do their purchasing as a single corporation from one dairy farm, I doubt it. Plus you ignore the additional hours and need for refrigerated space. There's more to consider than just cost per unit. Also if you use less there's a greater chance of spoilage.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

We will never know the exact numbers. However, from reported figures we know that $SBUX, $DNKN, $PNRA, $MCD all have similar margins across gross, ops and P&L (50-70, 10-20, 10-20 respectively).

the goal of all fast food centers is to produce a unit cost as close to $1, preferably lower, as possible and we also know from reported figures that 1 cent is the expected associated labor cost of a starbucks unit.

Knowing that the price of milk on commodities market is 16.42hwt or 1 cent / oz, knowing that SBUX coffee beans are 7cent/oz we can extrapolate that suitable extra costs for alternative milks must be in the single figure cent range.

Further supported by how if you are to go to a post-supply-chain-shipping-and-procurement wholesale vendor then the price of oatly barista edition oatmilk is 10c/oz and we can very safely assume that SBUX gets it much MUCH cheaper so we at least know the ceiling is $0.1

So, while I was exaggerating for effect in my original reply, the actual numbers- even if they are paying the same price as I would walking into a wholesaler (EXTREMELY unlikely):

  • price of 16oz cow milk latte: $4.25, unit cost $1, milk cost 1c
  • price of 16oz oat milk latte $4.95, cost $1.1, milk 10c

So in the extreme worst case scenario for starbucks they are making an extra 6% profit per ounce on oatmilk over cow milk, so not at cost-to-price parity.

And that's the worst case, they are probably making more.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So in one comment you've gone from less than a cent to possibly 10 cents. And the price increase isn't a dollar, it's 70 cents.

Your calculations don't seem to include increased refrigerated space required, additional man hours, increased inefficiencies, and possible increased spoilage. The price increase does not strike me as unreasonable given the circumstances.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

cf supra—

exhibit a:

"So while I was exaggerating for effect in my original post"

exhibit b:

"extreme worst case scenario"

exhibit c:

"almost a dollar"

waaaay ahead of the gotchas and objections my dude.

Additional space isn't an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for "reaching for a carton slightly further away"? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds

oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months) than cow milk (5 days) and when opened too (10 days vs 2)

The price doesn't have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not. To me it's obvious they are making more of a margin on oat over dairy, whether or not that is good/bad, reasonable/unreasonable, fair/unfair is an entirely different conversation

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Additional space isn't an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for "reaching for a carton slightly further away"? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds

Either they added a new refrigerator or made room in an existing refrigerator. To make room something needs to be removed, less room for regular milk means more trips to a walk-in to restock. More SKUs means more time on ordering and inventory. If they added a refrigerator then there's added electricity costs.

oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months)

I meant once opened, which is more like a week. Which means they likely all need day dots put on them. More man hours (or minutes, or seconds)

The price doesn't have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not.

They're a business, I assume they make a profit on everything. Oat milk lattes would seem to be a strange loss leader.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

again I already addressed those objections in my post before you commented. Shelf space is cheap, refrigeration already exists and is not an added cost, expanded refrigeration is a single point cost that is quickly paid back by sales, I dont think adding day dots is putting starbucks out of business.

they already have separate supply chains for paper cups, crockery, beans, syrups and milks — I know this because I worked on a project that used their paper cup supply chain a few years ago. Plus they already have an oatmilk supplier so they're not even adding an additional sku.

I assume they make a profit on everything

yes, the point of this thread is "should companies by allowed to significantly profit more on allowances made for not being ablebodied" && "is charging more for dairy intolerance the same as charging more for using a wheelchair ramp or a braille menu"

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Hand waiving something away isn't addressing it, but fair enough.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

it's not Hand waving - an extra fridge is just cost of doing business.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

it's not Hand waving - an extra fridge is just cost of doing business.

Everything is a cost of doing business: payroll, electricity, inventory, etc.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

yes, and what I was inferring is refrigeration is understood to be a necessary part of food service, so you can't really say "food companies shouldn't be regulated by preventing them charging extra for disabled patrons because they have to refrigerate the food!"

I can't fathom why you're constantly trying to drag this thread into a discussion about the minutae of drink service operation instead of the topic at hand.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I can't fathom why you're constantly trying to drag this thread into a discussion about the minutae of drink service operation instead of the topic at hand.

Providing additional options, especially options that require refrigeration, have additional costs associated with them. My central thesis has always been that a business should be able to recoup its cost and make a profit, that is the purpose of a business. The "minutiae of drink service operation" is central to that discussion.

It's clear that this conversation is going in circles and serves no purpose. I find it quite reasonable for a company to charge $0.70 when their costs increase by $0.25 cents, and you don't. The ADA requires only a reasonable accommodation, there are several reasonable accommodations available in the form of non-dairy beverages. It isn't even clear that lactose intolerance would be considered a disability under the ADA.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

literally Para 4 in the article

The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Ohhh...the Plaintiffs said it in their complaint! Well then it must be true! It would be impossible to list unsubstantiated claims in a complaint.

The ADA statute does not make specific reference to lactose intolerance. A court would have to determine that lactose intolerance is a disability under the statute, and I don't think it's clear on its face that it is.

The ADA protects qualified individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities; has a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment.