An investigation into the pricing protocols of the cafeteria found that, prior to the end of March, the Brookline Food Services had failed to accurately and transparently present the prices of the various products they sell. Following an interview with Teresa Vidette, the Acting Assistant Director of the Brookline Food Services on March 24, in which these violations were outlined, more prices began to appear.
Prior to March 24, there were only two visible price signs. One described the various types of meals available for $3.25. These include a bagel, a pizza, a salad, a large fresh fruit cup, a yogurt parfait, the hot meal selection and food from the grill or deli.
The other price sign informed that three side dishes come with each of the meals listed above. These include fresh fruit, 4-ounce juices, 8-ounce milks, small cups of fruit, carrot sticks, side salads and cheese sticks.
There were no price lists or price labels for any of the other products which the cafeteria sells. Although these absences were not in violation of any policy, since the cafeteria is not a “food store” or a “food department” according to the definitions of these terms, students were frustrated by the lack of clarity in the pricing system.
“It was a problem for me because over a course of a couple months, I spent close to $100, and I had no idea,” sophomore Logan Roach said. “I don’t think it’s fair because you could be charged much more than you’re anticipating.”
Sophomore Noah Lindeman said that he thinks there should be price tags on all food items.
“It’s too easy to spend a lot of money when you think you’re spending much less,” he said.
Vidette said she had been unaware of any pricing absences. Initially, she said price signs were all over the cafeteria. Upon discovering they were not, she suggested that other signs had been stolen by students.
Vidette said putting up more price signs or more individualized labels would be impractical.
“I do the best that I can because if I do have the price lists on the counter, people put their trays on them or they rip them, or they drop food on them. I can’t put them on each item,” she said.
She said that she suggests students be more proactive instead.
“Don’t you think they should be a little more cautious when asking for prices before they go out and just spend their parents’ money?” she asked.
Junior Neil Mayfield-Sheehan said that he would rather not have to ask the cashier for the price of each product.
‘I would rather have price tags so I know before I get an item,” he said. “I don’t want to go through the trouble of putting the snack back [after asking].”
On March 24, Vidette said she would display price lists of the other products as an experiment. However, she noted that day that the current master price list had some inaccuracies. In addition, it did not price specific items.
Chips, for example, were listed as being between $1.25 and $2. A set price was not displayed for each of the types sold. The same was true for “assorted snacks and bars” which were labeled as being between $1 and $2. Meanwhile, some snacks, like the danish, were labelled as costing $2.50.
The Sagamore distributed a survey to 69 students during lunch periods on March 24 and 25. The survey asked students to write what they bought and to estimate how much they believed their purchases cost.
Using the price signs available, plus another Vidette had printed, the Sagamore then priced out the purchases. Students’ anticipatory prices were, on average, 12% or 61 cents less than what they were charged.
Vidette said she would be very receptive to suggestions on how to improve the cafeteria in regards to pricing protocols and other aspects.
“I want to make this a great experience for everyone,” she said. “I want everyone to want to come here. You guys are our customers; we have to make sure you guys are happy.”
A review of the cafeteria on April 15 found 8 pricing signs were displayed. In addition, several products, including muffins and scones, had individual price signs.
Jeremy Margolis can be contacted at [email protected].
Note: The version of this article that first appeared in print stated that the cafeteria violated Massachusetts Law I.XV.94.184C, which states, “The correct price of an item offered for sale by a food store or a food department shall be disclosed to consumers in a clear and conspicuous manner.” This assertion is false. In fact, the the Brookline Food Services is not a “food store” or a “food department,” according to the definitions of these terms, so its lack of pricing prior to April was not in violation of any law.The Sagamore deeply regrets this error. We are addressing the internal communications error that caused it.
