So, I can totally believe that this particular idea didn't work well. I can totally agree that we should learn from it, perhaps that people want to give $ to feed the poor only when they don't have to sit next to them, or that people on lunch break don't want to have to tackle a moral quandary just then.
But, the article seemed needlessly negative. So, the CEO of Panera tried something, put his business experience to work seeing if this idea would succeed, and when it didn't, after giving it a fair shot, he shut it down. I don't think that's a reason to hate on him for trying it, or that anyone who thought it was worth a try should have known better. Just a reason for solving hunger in a different way (perhaps the simpler one of just giving food-insecure people some lunch money).
But, the article seemed needlessly negative. So, the CEO of Panera tried something, put his business experience to work seeing if this idea would succeed, and when it didn't, after giving it a fair shot, he shut it down. I don't think that's a reason to hate on him for trying it, or that anyone who thought it was worth a try should have known better. Just a reason for solving hunger in a different way (perhaps the simpler one of just giving food-insecure people some lunch money).