顯示具有 business 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 business 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2009年2月27日 星期五

Same Cafe

http://www.westword.com/2009-02-26/news/same-cafe-the-restaurant-where-you-pay-what-you-can/1

SAME Cafe: The restaurant where you pay what you can

By Jared Jacang Maher

published: February 26, 2009

To find out what recent customers paid for meals at the SAME Cafe, go to westword.com/slideshow.

The first thing Brad Birky does is hand me an apron.

"Would you mind starting on soup duty?" he asks, guiding me toward two large industrial cookers near the front counter. "This is tomato corn bisque, and this is lentil."

The lunch rush is just starting at So All May Eat (SAME) Cafe, and soon I'm ladling steaming servings of soup into a mismatched collection of bowls and mugs. With me behind the counter are three more volunteers preparing pizza and dishing out salad and cookies to the growing line of customers, a cross-section of East Colfax Avenue foot traffic: latter-day flower children, sunburned day laborers, older women in librarian attire, laptop-toting students, professional bums, khaki-wearing businesspeople, vegan-core punker kids and the general miscellany of society that never appears in restaurant-industry demographics.

SAME has a menu that changes daily but always features food that's made from scratch and is largely organic. It has tables, chairs, bus bins, plants in the windows and overhead music (usually a mix of classic rock). But there's one thing SAME doesn't have: a cash register. There's no credit-card machine, no change drawer, no receipt book. That's because SAME doesn't have prices. Diners come in and order — some ask for just a cup of soup or a small slice of pizza, while others go for a whole meal, maybe even seconds if they're really hungry — and then pay what they want.

The concept is the exact opposite of Denver Restaurant Week, now under way, in which more than 200 restaurants in the metro area are offering a meal for the set price of $52.80 for two. DRW's goal is to entice diners to eat out more by removing the uncertainty of the final tab.

After only an hour behind the counter at SAME, I can pick out the new customers the minute they step in the door. Their eyes seek out numbers, first falling on the handwritten menu board, then drifting along the counter, searching for a printed menu with prices. Before puzzlement becomes full-blown confusion, Brad usually steps in.

"Is this your first time here?"

"Yes," says a young couple, him with a beard and her with an extra-long scarf. "We just moved into a place down the street."

"Okay," says Brad. "So we're a non-profit restaurant. We operate on a pay-what-you-want model. So we have no set prices. We let our customers pick what they want to eat and then pay afterward, however much they wish. If you can't pay anything, then we ask you to volunteer an hour helping in the cafe."

"Oh," both members of the couple reply. "Okay. Cool." They glance at each other to make sure it really is cool, then place their orders and make their drink selections from a choice of coffee, tea, iced tea or water. Brad hands each of them a small orange envelope with the number of their order.

After customers have eaten, they will put their payment in these envelopes, which then go through the slit of a small wooden box. That's the high technology upon which this business rests. The cafe will serve 55 people over a three-hour period today — a stat that multiplies out to roughly 15,000 customers a year. Some pay less than their share, some pay more, some pay nothing at all. And yet somehow it all works out.


Libby Birky still remembers the reactions of their families when she and Brad first confessed their desire to open a restaurant with no prices. Behind the smiles, the words of support and the offers of assistance were looks of deep concern. Friends were intrigued but skeptical. Loan officers and government officials were a bit more blunt. "They told us we were crazy. In those exact words," she says. And maybe they were a little crazy. It was the kind of utopian, half-baked, vaguely Boulder-ish concept you'd expect from old hippies or naive undergrads with more money than brains, not a pair of young professionals raised in the rural Midwest.

Central Illinois, to be precise. The town closest to the farm where Brad grew up had a population of 900. His family is Mennonite, which is like being Amish but with less old-timey hats and butter-churning, and with more social-justice work among worldly folk. Libby lived thirty miles away in a town that was a bit more cosmopolitan — it had a small college — but was still removed from the complexities of urban life. She went to a Catholic elementary school and a Catholic high school and spent summers on missions building houses for the less fortunate. After her freshman year at a Catholic college upstate, she met Brad through a mutual friend. They clicked. Not only did they share similar backgrounds, but their family setup was identical: dad in construction, mom working in the schools, brother, sister.

Brad and Libby married in 1998 and moved to a house situated exactly between their two families. Libby was getting her master's in gifted education; Brad was working as an IT consultant. But eventually they grew weary of their familiar surroundings and longed for a bigger city. After visiting Denver for a wedding, they moved here in 2002, found jobs and bought a handsome little place in the Baker neighborhood. Brad still had an itch, though. The IT gigs were bringing home the bacon, but what he really wanted was to cook the bacon, understand what flavors might go with the bacon, and serve the bacon in a way that maybe no one had thought of before. He realized he wanted to be a chef, and enrolled in the two-year culinary program at Metropolitan State College of Denver.

"He really wanted to cook, and I supported that," says Libby, who'd gotten a job as a teacher. "But I had worked as a waitress in high school and college, and I didn't want to live the restaurant lifestyle. I didn't want him coming home at two in the morning because he closed at eleven and it takes three hours to close. We thought, 'What can we do?' We'd already been volunteering at soup kitchens and shelters and stuff — how could we connect these two ideas?"

On a return flight from visiting relatives in Austin, Brad and Libby began brainstorming ideas, jotting notes in the margins of an airline magazine. They thought about their past volunteer work in Illinois and serving meals at the Catholic Worker House in Five Points, and they decided they wanted to focus on the homeless population. But they also wanted to break away from the traditional soup-kitchen model (see story, page 12). Though they recognized it was highly efficient at filling bellies, they felt there was "a disconnect" between the people serving the food and the people eating it.

"We were on one side of the table and we were serving people on the other side of the tables and there was no dialogue, no conversation," Libby remembers. "It was like nameless faces, just a sea of masses of people." Even though they saw the same people week after week, they never really got to know any of them. And the food? Well, it was soup-kitchen food. "There were lots of times when Brad and I would look at each other and say, 'Oh, we're going out to eat after this.' And we had that privilege."

But what if a soup kitchen served food so good that people with money chose to eat there, too? The cash from the customers who had the ability to pay would offset the cost of the people who couldn't.

It turned out the Birkys weren't the first people to stumble on the pay-what-you-want restaurant concept. A Google search found the One World Everybody Eats Cafe in Salt Lake City, which had been serving buffet-style meals without set prices, but with a paid staff, since 2003. Brad and Libby took a trip to Utah to meet with the owner, Denise Cerreta, and see how her place worked. The dining room was set up like a cafeteria, with a sign that suggested customers calculate payments based on what they would expect to pay at a normal restaurant — $10 to $15 for a full meal. They were then supposed to deposit their payment in a wooden "treasure chest." For those who couldn't pay anything, One World offered such "complimentary" items as rice and lentils.

After seeing One World, the Birkys started thinking seriously about how their own place could work. "We saw that One World was operating as a nonprofit, and we were wondering: What are the benefits for us, and what makes the most sense? Is it a nonprofit, or is it a quirky little restaurant?" Libby recalls. "That's when we really decided to go for it, when we came back from One World." Unlike Utah, Colorado does not require a food handler's permit for people working in commercial kitchens, so that would make it easier to find volunteers and do work-for-food trades, which would definitely help the budget. So they started the process of applying for non-profit status in late 2005 and began looking for people to sit on their board of directors. Finding them was easy. Finding financing was not.

"Banks weren't loaning to us," says Brad. "There was no way we were going to get a loan, even in 2006, when the money was still flowing. Not for a restaurant, and especially not for a non-profit restaurant with no set price, for people who had no restaurant experience."

"They really thought we were crazy," Libby adds. So the Birkys decided to cash in their IRAs and loan their business $30,000, signing a promissory note to pay themselves back.

It took them six months to find a place for their restaurant, a storefront at 2023 East Colfax Avenue, and even though it had been a coffeehouse, they had to deal with all the city's red tape. By September 2006, their money was draining away as they paid five grand for this, a thousand for that. If they didn't open by November, they realized, their project would be dead before it even got off the ground.

On the phone with their architect one day, Libby broke down in tears. "I can't believe we're going to throw all the money at this project and never even see anything come out of this," she recalls saying. "We sunk all of our money into this, and we're not even going to get to try it." But somehow the architect was able to pull the right strings so that SAME Cafe could open on October 20, 2006.


I was at SAME's grand opening, an event attended mostly by friends, family members and other well-wishers. I'd heard about it from a local book publisher, Susan Newton, a member of SAME's board of directors. I found the cafe in a turn-of-the-century building on Colfax near York, surrounded by dive bars, thrift stores and a martial arts studio. The space was small, maybe 1,000 square feet, with seating for only a dozen people. The open kitchen area was also spare, with a few sinks, metal counters and a fridge.

The scene that night was hectic. Brad, Libby and their supporters were darting around with beatific smiles, doing their best to act like they knew what the hell they were doing. And the food was good. I had a big salad. My daughter gave a very positive review to the lemon sugar cookies — an endorsement no seven-year-old takes lightly. I slipped ten bucks into the box and told the Birkys I thought their cafe was great.

When we got back into the car, I told my girlfriend they wouldn't last six months.


Brad is in the produce section of the Whole Foods in Capitol Hill, staring at the green peppers. He picks one up and rolls it once in his hand like a baseball, then tosses it in the cart, where it joins cucumbers, carrots, boxes of green leaf lettuce, goat cheese, artichoke hearts and kosher salt.

It's about ten degrees outside, and the tips of Brad's ears are still tender from a two-hour run he took yesterday. With his gaunt form and cloth eco bags, the 33-year-old looks less like a restaurateur loading up on supplies than a guy getting ingredients for a large dinner party.

"I'm shopping for today and tomorrow," he says, maneuvering through the aisles. "Got to get some corn — I'm doing a roasted corn and green bean salad with roasted bell peppers. I'm doing a turkey veggie soup with vegetables — some squash, bell peppers, celery, carrots, onions. Oh, and I've got to get some portabellas for the pizza."

He's committed to buying organic produce whenever he can, even if it means paying higher prices. Once a week, he drives out to a warehouse near Denver International Airport to pick up bulk items and produce from an organic-food distributor. For paper goods and other stock supplies, he'll hit up a Sam's Club or Costco. During the summer, he has a deal with Denver Botanic Gardens to get fruits and vegetables from its large, on-site community garden. But the majority of Brad's shopping is at Whole Foods. SAME doesn't get a discount, but last month the grocery store had a fundraising deal where it donated five cents from each sale to SAME; it raised $1,200 for the cafe.

Brad's total today rings up to $92.92.

As he's paying, he runs into James Foy, a friend and regular at the cafe. Not so regular lately, though — Foy's been slammed at work. So Brad updates him on the new developments. After SAME's grand opening, supporters donated a new mixer, a refrigerator, chairs and a new van. People were paying; the model was working. Within ten months, they'd repaid their loan to themselves.

Last year, Brad was able to quit his part-time job doing IT work for Qwest and pay himself to run the restaurant full-time. SAME was doing so well that they leased the adjacent storefront, knocking out a wall, doubling their square footage, putting in a second bathroom and adding 24 more seats. And last month, they hired an employee — a teacher Libby had worked with — to operate the Saturday-evening shift, giving the Birkys time to catch up on other duties like rotating stock, crafting the next week's menu and answering the deluge of e-mails they receive from would-be volunteers.

"So you and Libby are actually going to get a Saturday evening off?" Foy says. "Brad, that's so hedonistic. Shameful."

Foy remembers when the couple was pulling seventy- to eighty-hour weeks. Brad would be at the cafe all day while Libby taught; at 4 p.m., she'd come in to do the cleaning and stocking while he left for Qwest. Maybe they'd have time for a high-five as they passed each other. So compared to that, yes, it does seem a bit hedonistic for Brad to get the chance to really craft his menus, working off the basic theme of soup, salad and pizza.

While Brad loads the SAMEmobile — a new Dodge truck recently donated by a small family foundation — Foy ponders a restaurant that feeds the poor buying its food stock from one of the most overpriced, affluent grocery chains on the planet. "Business is business," says Foy, who works in software sales. "If you understand business and margins, you can make it work."

He met the Birkys six years ago through local charity work. "People want to help people who are helping people," he says. "As a Catholic, I understand goodwill, I understand what motivates people to help. But really, it's because their food is good."

Foy is a self-proclaimed foodie who thinks about such things as fine wine, aged meat and stinky cheeses. He likes going to SAME because the food is fresh and stripped down. "It sounds simplistic, but they've reintroduced me to tomato soup," he explains. "I love tomato soup now. Things don't have to be that complex. And for some people who have been eating so bad, it can awaken their sense of things tasting good and knowing what that feels like."

"There's a lot to be said for simplicity," Brad agrees. "You go out to a lot of restaurants, and a lot of the pastas are pre-packaged stuff. There's so many flavors in there that people don't know what chicken tastes like. What salad without thousands of calories on top tastes like. We like to keep it basic, because sometimes simple is good."

But not that simple. Brad's particularly proud of one soup he concocted. "Apple bacon tomato," he says. "The sweetness of the apple, the smokiness of the bacon. It had this great contrast to it."


I'm standing at the counter holding the sharpest knife I can find, trying to chop a fig. I tell the other volunteer, Era Strelnikova, that I have never seen a whole dried fig before. She's shocked.

"Really?" she says. "I can't believe that. They're so good."

Eventually I figure it out and make long slices in the withered little balls. The figs are for a salad that Strelnikova has devised from ingredients she found in the fridge. Strelnikova lives nearby and helps out at SAME a couple of times a week as a way to indulge her passion for experimenting with food. In real life, she's the head of the economics department at Red Rocks Community College.

I ask what she thinks about the concept of a restaurant without prices. She says that when she tells relatives in Russia about the place, "they all say it has to be a front for some kind of scam. They are certain of it."

She doesn't see any scams at SAME, but she does see an interesting economics lesson. "If you're talking about a regular, neo-classical economic model, at the onset of that there is the assumption that a person is rational, meaning they will not deliberately make themselves worse off. Incentives in the regular neo-classical, free-market economy are always monetary," she says. "There really is no place for reciprocity. And we know now that in reality, people respond not only to monetary incentives, but they also respond to reciprocity. You can't explain giving using free-market theory."

Still, the concept isn't far from the free-market-inspired policies used to reform large-scale public housing in the United States over the past decade. "It's called cross-subsidization," says Karen Lado, who runs the Denver office of Enterprise Community Partners, a national organization that provides financing for affordable-housing projects. Since the mid-'90s, housing authorities across the nation have been tearing down the huge residential towers — you know, the projects — that had concentrated poverty into epicenters of unemployment, crime and drug use. Now governments work with non-profit development corporations to build mixed-income affordable-housing projects, where an individual who pays a relatively high price enables another individual to pay a relatively low price.

The Denver Housing Authority's ongoing redevelopment of Curtis Park, for example, strives for a mix of small rentals, townhomes and houses, some of which are subsidized and others that are rented at market rate. The motivation is both economic and social. "If it looks like public housing, it's stigmatized," Lado points out. "People are more willing to accept mixed housing." But the principle works on the lowest rung of the income ladder, too. In recent years, the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless has used a complicated system of tax credits and grants to construct several loft projects to house homeless individuals with little or no income. To cover debt payments and other costs such as maintenance, the buildings include nicer, multi-bedroom units for downtown workers who qualify for affordable rent.

By mixing the soup-kitchen crowd with everyday eaters, the Birkys hope to create a similar community. In a way, they want to de-ghettoize food.

They're part of a growing movement. In 2005, Indian diners were delighted to discover a restaurant where you could pay what you want. Similar spots have popped up around the globe: a French bistro in London, a bakery in Ontario, Lentils as Anything in Australia, Der Weiner Deewan in Vienna. One World recently opened pay-what-you-wish restaurants in North Carolina. South Carolina and Spokane. The Terra Bite Lounge, a coffee shop/deli based in the upscale Seattle suburb of Kirkland, also operates on a "voluntary payment system." Customers order their soy lattes and bagel sandwiches and then pay whatever they want. "We don't ask for charity," pronounces Terra's website. "We believe we have better coffee and much better food than the cafe chains. All we ask is that those who can pay what they would elsewhere."

But not every experiment has been successful. The Shell Creek Grill & Wine Bar in Washington experimented with a price-free model last year but closed in December; owners blamed the poor economic conditions. For four years, the upscale Six 89 restaurant in Carbondale offered a "Pay What You Think" night every October, when prices were deleted from the menu and customers asked to pay whatever they thought the meal was worth (drinks and tip not included). But the restaurant gave up on the idea in 2006, after it became clear that diners were confused about overpaying or underpaying.

Marketing researchers in Germany recently published "Pay What You Want: A New Participating Pricing Mechanism," outlining the results of pay-what-you-want experiments in a buffet-style Persian restaurant, a cinema and a delicatessen. (It cost me $22 to buy the study online; personally, I would've rather paid more like $7.) During the study period, revenues at the cinema fell, which the researchers attributed to a customer perception that the movies were already overpriced. The average payment at the buffet went down slightly, but the owner ended up making a larger profit because volume increased so much. And at the deli, the average payment for drinks actually rose. This could have been because of the relatively low cost of beverages, but the researchers also pointed to the high amount of face-to-face contact that the deli owner had with his customers. This, they suggested, contributed to positive feelings toward the cafe, and customers didn't want to shortchange someone they'd built a relationship with. "By implementing PWYW, the seller can demonstrate to consumers that he or she believes in the quality of the products because lower prices can compensate for inferior quality," the researchers wrote. "It may also increase the chance of word of mouth and build up a positive pricing image among consumers."

Back at SAME, Strelnikova is really cooking. "You keep on thinking that if these people have an incentive to freeload, they will. But economic theory is just inept at explaining that. Here you are, giving someone an incentive to freeload or get something for a penny," she says. "But here they are making quite a bit of sales and quite a bit of money. So I do think there has to be something else at work, because, again, people don't only operate on monetary incentives. If they like something, they are willing to pay a little bit more for it. Music, food, books, anything. If they really like it, you don't have to persuade them to pay for it. They will be willing."

The idea of letting consumers pay what they want got lots of play early last year when Radiohead decided to release its new album on its website using a model that let fans pay whatever they wanted, even nothing. The band reported that downloads of In Rainbows out-grossed all previous albums put together, sending it to number one on the Billboard charts.

Good vibes might work if you're a mega-popular British band or a neighborhood deli, but how far will they go when you're catering to skid row? Brad reports that in the past six months, the average donation has gone down by about a dollar, while the number of people coming through the door has increased roughly 20 percent. If SAME's model relies on the benevolence of people who can pay, what happens when fewer people have the money to be benevolent?


On a recent Saturday, both Brad and Libby are working the counters, even though their part-timer is on hand, along with several volunteers from a local running-shoe store. One little kid helping out with his mom is flattening pizza dough into a disk with the concentration of a chess champion. The list for volunteer slots is sometimes booked weeks in advance — perhaps because an hour of labor earns volunteers a meal, and today's menu board lists "Turkey, Cranberry and Brie Pizza," "Wisconsin Beer Cheese Soup" and "Orange, Fennel and Greens Salad." Brad's inspiration for the pizza was a sandwich he ate at a Capitol Hill sandwich shop right after Thanksgiving. "I liked it so much, I pretty much decided to copy it," he confesses. "Just spread out into a pizza."

During the months away from the computer screen, Brad's yakking abilities have flourished. But 32-year-old Libby is still the unquestionable extrovert in the relationship. A teacher for gifted fifth- and sixth-graders at the Logan School, her conversations seem to move in one long flow between volunteers, patrons, friends and friends-of-friends stopping by to chat about the soup, the kids, the weather, types of tea, warm jackets, cookies, etc. Finally, she heads to the back and down the narrow stairs to the basement space they use for an office and storage, where it's easier to really talk.

On a table are several wooden boards painted with words like "Believe." Signs bearing such inspirational quotes as "A person's true wealth is the good they do in the world" account for a majority of the art in the restaurant upstairs. Libby says they display these inspirational sayings from Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Barbara Bush in order to cultivate an uplifting, positive environment for their customers, many of whom may need some inspiration: single mothers with multiple jobs, elderly with fixed incomes, recently laid-off workers and the homeless, some who struggle with mental illness.

Running the cafe has "really opened our eyes," she says, explaining that when you're poor, sick or living on the streets, you tend to eat badly, which makes you feel worse. "That's why I think that everyone deserves to eat really well. When you're putting good stuff in your body and you're feeling good about what you're taking in, you can put good energy back into the world. I think it's really important. If nothing else, it alleviates a lot of health-care costs."

But buying that good food is a major cost for SAME — about $2,000 a month. That's also what the Birkys pay for rent. Utilities run about $175 a month. Though their non-profit status gets them out of some taxes, they still must pay the city the 8.1 percent tax on all sales, plus a small payroll tax. Paper goods run about $50 a month, although some of that is donated.

According to John Imbergamo, a longtime Denver restaurant consultant, every dollar spent at a typical restaurant breaks down something like this: 30 cents goes to food costs, 25 cents to labor, 10 cents to rent, another 25 cents to things like utilities, insurance and other services. What's left over for potential profit averages around 8 to 10 cents.

Imbergamo thinks the pay-what-you-want model would be very difficult for a for-profit restaurant to pull off. "The fact is, there are people who walk into a restaurant and leave thinking, 'Well, I could have made that at home for much less than I paid,'" he explains. "And the food cost of what we're putting on the plate in most cases is only 30 percent. So if you pay ten dollars for a meal and you walk out of there thinking, 'I could have made that for three dollars,' you're probably right." But most people don't take into account all the other expenses that go into a restaurant meal, like rent and labor.

Imbergamo is on the board of Work Options for Women, a Denver nonprofit that trains women on welfare for jobs in the food industry. WOW currently operates a cafeteria inside the Denver Department of Health and Human Services building; next month, it will open a restaurant at 1650 Curtis Street. Cafe Options will have the look and feel of a commercial breakfast and lunch spot, a "Panera Bread/Paradise Bakery sort of thing," he says. "The interior design was done by a professional firm. It's going to look cool and nice. There might even be people who don't know there's a mission involved with this."

The decision not to portray Cafe Options as a non-profit effort was a conscious one, since informal focus groups indicated that some consumers looking for a quick bite were less likely to come in if they thought the place was a charity. "And, more important," Imbergamo adds, "the women who are working there need to understand what the real world is, so we wanted to portray it as a real-world situation."

He points to two reasons why SAME is making it in the real world. First, most of the workers are volunteers, and the owners have been getting paychecks from other jobs. "Plus, there's the benevolence factor among clientele that allows them to make up for people who don't pay enough to cover cost," he says. "There must be people who go in there and spend more than what they would in an average restaurant because that would support the mission. Instead of giving ten dollars to the Salvation Army, they're giving it to the cafe."

The Birkys certainly recognize the benevolence factor in SAME's success. Brad says he's struggled with how to deal with those customers who take advantage of other people's benevolence. "I've had to approach a few folks to tell them, 'Hey, you need to start contributing, even if it's doing dishes,'" he says. "It's a tough balance. We wanted it to be like there's no pressure, there's no one watching — to a point."

The few times that point has been crossed, it was by a person uncontrollably drunk or rude to staff. "And we walk them to the door and still try to be nice, but say, 'You're not welcome here,'" Brad says. "Every once in a while you have to say something to somebody because they're blatantly abusing the privilege of being in here and, just like, 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody.'"


At SAME one day, I meet a 43-year-old man who calls himself Coyote and says he's been living on the streets since 2002, after a bad divorce. He sleeps in an alleyway nearby, in a spot he refuses to divulge; he's fearful that others might take his place if word gets out. And he knows there's demand: The economy is so bad that his daily panhandling efforts have been netting far less of late.

"I eat sometimes out of the garbage over there behind Popeye's," he says. "I eat out behind Pete's over there and then sometimes I go behind Burger King." He'll also go to free weekly meals at places like the Church in the City, but he avoids heading downtown to the shelter kitchens. "Sometimes it's not worth going fucking five, ten miles out of your way to go get something. Then you've got to panhandle money to get on the bus and got to go there and got to transfer. Sometimes it's pretty good, but sometimes when there's a lot of people, there ain't nothing left and you gotta wait in line. And they got cookies, and people are taking three or four and there's a whole line — c'mon, now, there's other people, man. Grab one and go. There's just not enough to go around, I guess."

Even though he hangs out in this neighborhood, for a long time he thought SAME was a normal restaurant, so he stayed away. But then someone told him he could come here to eat even if he didn't have money. "It's pretty good here," he says. "I got a slice of pizza, the one with the tomatoes on it."

"That's all you got?" I ask.

"I only had 35 cents," he replies.

But there's no set price, I point out. "You could've gotten as much as you wanted."

"I don't know." He shrugs. "I only had 35 cents."

Michael Loveland is wearing full camouflage fatigues and army boots. He just got back from a fifteen-month stint in Iraq and is still waiting for a check from the Army, he explains between bites of pizza. His girlfriend, Julia, an eighteen-year-old with sad eyes, sits across from him.

"And she's pregnant, so, yeah, I'm having a hard time right now," Michael says. A guy from a veterans' assistance group told him about SAME.

"It's different," says Julia. "It's like a healthier choice. It's pizza that has good stuff on it."

"She's pregnant, so it's good for her," Michael notes. Although he won't say how much they'll pay for this meal, he adds that "we'll probably come back after I get my check."

But for every hard-luck story, there's another from someone who chooses to spend money at SAME over other restaurants. I catch Kendra and Sarah on their way out. Together they had four slices of pizza, two salads and two iced teas; they paid twenty dollars. I ask how they calculated their payment. Kendra says she thought about the cost of the food, "the implications of how many people they have to serve," and big-picture stuff like how local, organic fare is "easier on the environment." Sarah notes how trust factors into the decision. "When I tell people about this place, they say, 'Well, I would pay a fair price, but nobody else would,'" she says. "But you have to get over that because it does work. People do pay."

Greg and Brad, another pair of diners, wouldn't look out of place grabbing lunch at some sit-down joint on the 16th Street Mall. When this Brad first heard about SAME, "I thought it would be full of homeless people, dirty, crowded," he admits. "But then I walked by one day and said, 'Hey, it's not supposed to look like that.' It's very clean and well organized, and I like the food." Today at SAME, he and Greg each ordered single slices of chicken, goat cheese, spinach and cranberry pizza, as well as small garden salads and coffee, and each paid $5.

Bob and Iris also paid $5 each. James paid $1.50. Greg and Becky threw in $15. Raven paid nothing but signed up to volunteer. Dewey paid $5. Renda, who's been living in her truck for the past year, paid no money — but she spends several hours every day at SAME washing dishes. "I have the cleanest hands on Colfax," she laughs, then grows wistful. "It means everything for me to be here. Everything. It keeps me out of the bars. It keeps me straight."

The envelopes keep actual payments confidential. They also serve as helpful reminders for customers of their duty to pay for meals through work or cash, Brad says. But Brad doesn't really care who pays what. He doesn't even look to see what's in each envelope, preferring to pour the money out and then count the entire pile.

After a full day of volunteering, I ask if he would be willing to count the amount in each envelope. "We've really tried to focus on the idea that everyone deserves to eat, no matter how much they can pay," he protests. But eventually he agrees. Out of 55 envelopes, seven are empty. One has a piece of string with beads on it; two others are stuffed with bits of napkins to make it appear that money was included. Some contain as little as 25 cents, but other envelopes hold tens and twenties, and one has $23. The total take for the day is $201.45. This averages out to $3.66 per meal. Brad figures his food cost per meal at around $2. As long as he can cover that, the rest can go back into the business.

The Birkys keep food costs down by reducing waste. By buying ingredients fresh every two days, things rarely go bad. And since customers know they can come back for seconds, they're less likely to over-order. An entire day's trash from SAME will usually fill just half of a large trash bag — a striking fact in contrast to the National Restaurant Association's estimate that 20 percent of all food goes to waste.

The Birkys have been approached by people who say they want to start similar restaurants in other Colorado cities, and a woman in Boulder is currently raising funds to start a pay-what-you-want eatery, Brad says. SAME is doing well enough that the Birkys are now thinking about diversifying the menu, maybe expanding their hours beyond lunch Tuesday through Friday, and until 8 p.m. on Saturday.

"I knew it all along it would work," says Libby. "Even in this kind of economy in the last three months, when we've seen an increase in customers and a decrease in the amount of the donation box, it still works because our overhead is so low and because we rely on the majority of work to be done by volunteers. We only need a couple bucks a person to make ends meet. Pay the electric bill, put gas in the truck, pay the insurance, buy the good food."

And serve it with dignity. Libby talks a lot about dignity. Cooking with dignity, working with dignity, eating with dignity. Dignity in the belly, dignity in the mind. I think about this as I sweep the floors in my apron. It's near closing time, and I work the broom around a table where a man is finishing the last of his soup. He's in his late forties, maybe, African-American, with an overstuffed backpack and an old windbreaker. He looks like the type of person that SAME was created for, the sort of customer others would subsidize. I ask for his name and his story, but he declines to give either.

Then, out of the corner of my eye, I see him pull a dollar bill and all the change from his pocket — probably just over two bucks — and stuff it into his envelope. He puts his bowl in the bus bin and carries it around to the sink. As he walks out, past the front windows, I see that he has a sign of his own tucked under his arm: "Will Work for Food."

2009年2月24日 星期二

Chart

http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-extended-large.gif
http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-extended-large.gif

2009年2月11日 星期三

外行的裝內行?

‧udn / 網路城邦 (網誌) / 法蘭西國境之南 / 文章
‧原文網址:http://blog.udn.com/suewanleetw/2637757

一位溫柔內向又老實的法國女友最近被付予一個本行之外的工作,她必須幫忙一個賽車團隊尋求廣告贊助商。但是她投遞出去的提議書一一如同石沉大海,整個人於 是變得非常沮喪。大家都知道全球正在不景氣,不景氣得時候,肚子吃飽、衣服穿暖最重要,其餘的消遣姓活動… 嘿嘿 …能省就省了吧! 所以,娛樂性消費,尤其是奢侈性的高娛樂消費,就是排名第一個被砍。我認識這個朋友十年有餘,知道她的修養。人美氣質佳,非常客氣有禮善良心腸軟是她的優 點,但也可能是她在事業上的缺陷。比如說,她絕對不能去從商。為什麼不能從商呢? 因為心太軟,任何人跟她哭窮哭可憐,她可能會答應讓人賒帳永遠,然後自己借貸度日,最後變成她自己窮自己可憐。我還沒有看過像她這樣的法國人,除了我哈尼 之外。那天,她支支吾吾地跟我說,能不能麻煩我將一份提議書翻成中文,她必須寄到中國大陸去。我先請她轉寄到我電子信箱來,答應先看過了再說。簡短的提議 書並不難翻成中文,但是長達十六頁的 PPT 檔我就不保證有耐心撩下去翻了,這一翻可能天昏地暗起來,還有很多專業術語,必須邊翻邊討論的。 況且,翻提議書我倆交情可以套用,她不必欠人情,我估計十五分鐘可以搞定。翻大部頭的 PPT 檔,即使她的老闆願意出錢,我也不一定有熱情去做。當然,如果老闆願意出一百萬歐元的話我馬上捲袖子翻…( 開開玩笑…)我 的估計稍有差錯。提議書大約花了十二分鐘翻完。但是我越看越不對勁,於是自己又雞婆地花了三十分鐘改寫,用自認為最具行銷性的寫法。寫好後跟她及她的老闆 討論,最後說服大家以我改寫的版本郵寄出去。其實,我覺得大家聽我的,大部分原因是因為反正都看不懂中文,也沒有過跟亞洲的公司交手過,除了日本之外。我 又想,可以寄給大陸的,為什麼不能寄去台灣 ? 況且很多位於大陸的企業根本是台灣人在掌管經營;與其寄去大陸子公司,何不寄到台灣母公司? 所以,又雞婆地做了一些功課花了一點時間蒐尋台灣企業廠商,提供聯絡方式。當我忍不住得意地跟哈尼獻寶時,哈尼笑得斯文,但是一副 “妳不要再外行的裝內行了行不行啊?!”我知道自己從來沒做過產品行銷,不過,凡事都嘛有第一次,一回生二回熟,不幫忙則已, 要幫就幫到底,外行如我,只要能得到一點點好的回饋就會很有成就感的。三天後,朋友的公司接到回音。一家台灣廠商願意提供價值不菲的機械工具以換取廣告曝 光度。期間我又幫忙修改潤飾了英文版的提議書,也很快地接到英國一家機油大廠的善意回覆及應許,對方願意免費提供一整年的機油所需。老闆說,我修改提議書 之前,都沒有接到任何好消息,尋求贊助廠商其實就是找顧客,簡單的說,就是要大企業掏腰包買廣告。原先友人寫的提議書大多著墨在於介紹公司以及賽車團隊, 我所修改的新提議書則是站在可能贊助的廠商立場,消費者通常會問 :Where is the beef?Voila! 牛肉就是要先端出來,鮮美大塊多汁誘人,才會有人願意挑腰包買不是嗎? 台灣沒有世界級的賽車比賽,只有經由電視運動頻道的轉播看得到F1方程式賽車或摩托車GP(Grand Prix)的比賽轉播,這些比賽中常常可以看到很多廣告,張貼在賽車場圍牆護欄上的、貼在車體上的、賽車手衣服上的、甚至umbrella girls 的衣服跟傘上頭….的,這些都是廣告, 隨著賽車在全世界進行,經由電視轉播,報紙雜誌等平面媒體,廣告的曝光率是直接且全球性的。對於任何走國際化的企業,這是最好的全球性宣傳手法之一,當然 比起單一國家的個別廣告宣傳強多了。

再者,任何商品只要跟 F1 或 MOTO GP 連在一起,就已經代表身價不凡,有時候甚至是花錢也不一定買得到的。如今,因為全世界經濟的不景氣,本來可能需要幾百萬幾千萬才買得到的曝光率,現在或許 不到一半的付費就可以了,根本就是買方市場。景氣低盪的時機,有時可能正是布局消費或聰明投資的契機。舉例來說,如果我有閒錢,我可以讓一個方程式車隊或 摩托車GP用”七琴”的名稱去跑車,想想多拉風啊?! 車體上寫中文耶…. 啥人甲我比?! … 說笑而已啦! 這也太自戀了吧?! 再胡思亂想下去,哈尼可能又要用那迷人地微笑來嘲笑老婆外行裝內行了。不 過,話說回來,這外行的裝內行,一開始也裝出了一點點小成績來了。後續最新消息是說, 聽到英國機油廠願意提供一年份機油,原先拒絕贊助的法國機油廠起了同行相忌之心,不願意看到英國機油的廠牌大辣辣地掛在法國車隊上,所以競爭性地開出更好 的條件要擠掉英國機油廠。好啊,鷸蚌相爭,漁翁得利;廠商相爭,我們得利。友人跟我說,她的老闆很開心, 鑑於大中國市場區塊的潛力不可限量,說是搞不好將來可以請我去公司當秘書云云。我馬上就回答說:才不要!後來想想,why not?! 為何不要?! 經濟這麼低迷,裁員如此滾滾的時代,有人送工作上門來還說不要的太不道德了吧?! 說不定我可以在家裡用電腦上班,說不定我可以偶爾才去公司,說不定我可以撮合更多的交易,說不定….說不定有一天…我可以外行不用裝就變內行….~ ~ 先自首一下,這篇文章裡的圖片都是孤狗抓來的,對於賽車攝影我是真的完完全全的不用裝就是外行!

2009年1月20日 星期二

Meetings Are a Matter of Precious Time - with Chinese translation

January 18, 2009
Preoccupations

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/jobs/18pre.html?_r=1

Meetings Are a Matter of Precious Time

By REID HASTIE

THE meeting spills over into its second hour. We are discussing an employee productivity initiative. At the moment, our most talkative committee member is describing a similar effort at another company. Her descriptions are peppered with self-consciously clever turns of phrase and images.

Another participant chimes in with the idea that we need some kind of incentive system to reward employees for behaviors we want from them. This is the same solution he offers for every problem, at every meeting.

Then, our self-appointed parliamentarian interjects a long story about a previous institutional effort — to make the point that our team is not the proper entity to recommend the kinds of changes we are proposing.

I, meanwhile, contribute nothing useful.

Finally, the woman who set the meeting calls it quits and tells us we’ll continue the discussion next week. We drift back to our offices wondering what went wrong and how to make up for the wasted time.

This meeting occurred many years ago, but others that are distressingly similar happen at companies everywhere, every day.

Part of the problem at such meetings is that the leader has not set clear objectives or an agenda, and didn’t assign pre-meeting preparation tasks. Instead, the leader seems to hope that magic will occur, producing a serendipitous solution to some of the problems addressed. Of course, that doesn’t happen. As a general rule, meetings make individuals perform below their capacity and skill levels.

This doesn’t mean we should always avoid face-to-face meetings — but it is certain that every organization has too many meetings, and far too many poorly designed ones.

The main reason we don’t make meetings more productive is that we don’t value our time properly. The people who call meetings and those who attend them are not thinking about time as their most valuable resource.

In business, we like to convert time to money, and the reverse. But in practice, time and money are different. We can get more money, save it, move it between accounts and use it on demand. These operations don’t apply easily to time.

Time is the most perishable good in the world, and it is not replenishable. You can’t earn an extra hour to use on a busy day. Nonetheless, we usually have a vague feeling that there is plenty of time — somewhere in the future — so we waste it now and carelessly steal time from our families, friends or ourselves when we come up short at the end of a workday and need to stay an extra hour.

Probably most important, we are blind to lost time opportunities. When we choose where to invest our time, as opposed to where to invest money, we are more likely to neglect what else we could have done with it.

And, once meetings are over, we don’t effectively assign responsibility for a bad meeting or take personal responsibility as we should. Sure, someone called the meeting, but we all leave it unhappy and blaming everyone, including ourselves. Psychologists call this “diffusion of responsibility” and one consequence is that no one thinks it’s his or her job to fix it the next time.

I USED to be the disengaged participant — one who had good ideas about how to solve a problem or conduct a meeting, but didn’t contribute. I now take a more active role, aiming to make meetings more effective. Here are simple principles I use.

• Whoever calls a meeting should be explicit about its objectives. This means specifying tangible goals and assigning responsibility for creating, summarizing and reporting on them. Ask yourself this question: Specifically, what do we want accomplished when we walk out of the room?

• Everyone should think carefully about the opportunity costs of a meeting: How many participants are really needed? (Almost all business teams and committees are too big.) How long should the meeting last? Set a definite ending time. Anyone who doubts that the meeting is necessary, or thinks it’s too long, should speak up.

• After productive or unproductive meetings, assign credit or blame to the person in charge. Then, if people have track records of leading ineffective meetings, don’t let them lead future sessions. When their expertise is essential, make them subordinate to an effective meeting leader.

Yes, I know that some benefits of meetings aren’t obvious if we look only at tangible progress toward organizational objectives. The person who called the meeting described above was probably interested in more than just finding definite solutions to problems she posed for discussion. She was interested in what solutions the group could generate at first, and maybe wanted to float some of her own half-baked solutions for initial evaluation before thinking harder.

Even if problem-solving is the objective, meetings can also serve other functions: sometimes, they can communicate a pre-ordained solution, make sure that there are no fatal flaws in it and give those who are unhappy with it a chance to voice their dissatisfaction.

And many meetings serve a cultural function, allowing participants to renew social connections, establish relationships, verify the social order and deepen a sense of belonging. So, it’s possible to justify a few of those too-long and apparently unproductive meetings by finding hidden payoffs.

But, please, don’t just call a meeting and hope the magic happens. Take charge and take personal responsibility for meeting its objectives, whatever they are.

Reid Hastie is Robert S. Hamada Professor of Behavioral Science at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. E-mail:
preoccupations@nytimes.com.



會議攸關寶貴時間

By REID HASTIE

會議蔓延過第二小時,我們正在討論激發員工動力的方案。我們話最多的委員在形容另一家公司相似的做法,還刻意用花俏的句子和畫面去點綴她的描述。

另一個委員又附和的提出建議:我們需要某種誘導系統來獎勵員工,以獲得我們想要的表現。他在每個會議裡對每個問題都提出同樣的方法。

然後,我們自命為議長的人又插入一則長篇的前例以指出,我們的團隊並不適合推行我們所提出的改變。

我呢,則完全不做出任何實質的貢獻。

最後,召開會議的女士終止了會議,告訴我們下週再繼續討論。我們飄回辦公室,一邊想哪裡出了錯,一邊想怎麼彌補浪費掉的時間。


這個會議是好幾年前發生的,但是類似的會議還是每天在各處的公司發生。

這種會議一部份的問題是,領導者沒有立下清楚的目標或是議程,也沒有分派議前的準備任務。反而,他們似乎指望會有奇蹟發生,然後問題會神奇解套。當然囉,這並不會發生。大體來講,每個人在會議上發揮的表現總是低於他們的才能和技術。

這並不是說我們應該永遠避開面對面的會議,但是每個組織的會確實都開太多了,而且規劃得不好的會議更是遠不勝數。

會議不能更有建設性的主要原因是,我們不珍惜自己的時間。召開會議的人及參加會議的人都不把時間視為他們最有價值的資源。

商業上,我們總把時間轉換為金錢,反之亦然。實際上,時間和金錢是有差別的。我們可以賺更多錢,存起來,在帳戶之間隨時移轉使用。但是這樣的程序卻沒辦法輕易施行於時間。


時間是世界上最容易朽逝的東西,而且是不能彌補的。在忙日子的時候你不能多賺一個鐘頭來花。話雖然這樣講,我們卻總是隱隱覺得還有不少時間(在未來不知道哪裡),所以現在先浪費掉,然後在需要加班的時候,隨意從家庭、朋友或自己身上偷一點來用。

不過最重要的可能是:我們對失去的機緣很盲目。 相對於如何投資金錢,當我們選擇如何投資時間的時候,我們比較容易忽略還有哪些方法可以利用它。

而當會議結束之後,我們不指明會議失敗的責任落在哪裡、也不挺身將自己該負的責任攬下來。當然囉,會是某個人召開的,但結束後我們心裡都不滿意,而且把罪怪在每一個人(包括自己)身上。心裡學家稱此為“責任散播”,而後果之一是沒有人認為下次應該由自己去解決它。

我曾經是冷眼旁觀的參與者,對於應該怎麼解決問題或如何舉行會議有好的想法、但是從來不提供意見的那種人。我現在則扮演更積極的角色,致力於讓會議更有效率。


• 召開會議的人應該給明確的目標。這表示提出具體的、能夠達成的目標,並且將設計、總結和報告的責任一一分派。請自問:具體來講,會議結束時,我們期望達到什麼?


• 每個人都應該仔細計算會議的機會成本:實際需要幾名參與者?(幾乎所有商業團隊和委員會都太大了!)會議時間應該多長?設下一個明確的時間。若有人懷疑會議的必要性或認為規模過大,應該把意見提出來。

• 在開完富有成效或是未得成效的會議之後,功、咎都歸給該負責的人。然後,若有人持續保有組織不良會議的記錄,將來的會議不要由他領導。若他的專門技術不可或缺,則讓他從屬可以有效主持會議的領導者。

我知道,如果光從機構目標的有形進展來看,會議有些好處並不明顯。前面所提到的會議召集人,她的動機多半不只是為她提出的問題找到解答。她想先看看大家可以產生出什麼樣的解決方案,然後丟些自己想到一半的方法讓其他人做個草評,卻不先對自己的想法做出更周密的考量。

就算解決問題是目標,會議也有其他用途:有時候人們可以藉這個機會對已經制定好的辦法進行溝通,確認之中沒有致命缺陷,並讓對此不滿意的人有機會表達他們的意見。

很多會議也有文化功能,讓參與者加強或建立社會關係、確認社會秩序、或加深歸屬感。所以從潛藏的收益來看,也可以為某些過於冗長又沒有建設性的會議做點辯護。

但是,拜託,不要召開會議然後指望會有奇蹟發生。無論會議的目標是什麼,要掌控大局,並為之付出個人的責任。

追蹤者