 "Photo: Ayelet Daniel")
While the new Provisions on Demand market on Laird Campus has received praise for its convenience, some students have been critical about the prices, while others have complained about the quality of the food.
Junior Mary McDermott said even though she does not live on Laird Campus, she was excited when the P.O.D. opened. She said she and her roommate wanted to spend a little bit of the $100 in points that she had. However, a lot of the prices were not listed and she was shocked when they rang up her bill.
“It ended up being $40 for a small block of cheese, a can of peas, two cans of soup, salsa and chips,” McDermott said.
Ryan Boyer, marketing director of university dining services, said he has only heard positive feedback about the P.O.D. He said the P.O.D., like other Aramark locations on campus, bases its prices around those of its competitors. Each year in January, the university dining services conducts an analysis of its prices, Boyer said.
“At the Scrounge, we have a cheese steak and a cheese steak price,” Boyer said. “We compare it with the price of a cheese steak in Wilmington.”
He said the prices at the P.O.D. are set to match its true competitors. He said a place like the P.O.D. is a convenience store and needs to be held to the same standards as other convenience stores.
“Superfresh is not considered a competitor of the P.O.D.,” Boyer said. “It’s more comparable to a Wawa.”
He said in the case of produce, the prices were set based on local supermarkets, such as Superfresh. A comparison late last month of produce prices between the P.O.D. and the Superfresh on New London Road found the prices to be at a similar level. Fruit and bread were also similarly priced. However, the super market had produce on sale, which the P.O.D. did not.
Other than prices, a few students have also complained about the quality of food. At times, the P.O.D. has left produce on the shelf that was not fresh. A reporter from The Review purchased expired lettuce on Nov. 23 and expired milk on Nov. 24 at the P.O.D. The milk was left on the shelf two weeks past its expiration date.
Boyer said this was part of the adjustment process to the new products offered. He said the goal is to eliminate this type of problem.
“It’s a brand new location,” he said. “With any brand new location, there is going to be a learning curve. We now understand there is a certain level of awareness we need with perishable items.”
Boyer said there is constant product analysis to stock items that sell and eliminate those that do not. This is particularly true in the case of perishable items, where food has to be removed before it expires. He said the P.O.D. eliminated steaks from its selection because students were not buying them.
Senior Andrew Bruno said he goes into the P.O.D. a few times a week. He said he bought tomatoes that were not yet ripe, but had no problem letting them ripen in his room. He said he likes the P.O.D. for its convenience but not its prices.
“I try to not think about that because I use points,” Bruno said.
He said he has not seen other students buy produce and does not think students without kitchens would be interested in shopping at the P.O.D.
Hailey Cockerham said she likes to go to the P.O.D., but only when she uses points. She feels the prices are high, but said she has no basis for comparison because she does not shop at a grocery store. She said she likes the new market, particularly the expanded food options.
“If I had points left, I’d use it once a week,” Cockerham said.
Junior Khalid Bilal said he likes the selection at the P.O.D., but does not foresee himself shopping there often. He said he prefers the prices at a supermarket because they have sales.
“The P.O.D. has convenience prices,” Bilal said. “I don’t do a lot of convenience shopping.”
Boyer said the location of the P.O.D. makes it more attractive to students.
“Even if it has slightly higher prices, we think the fact that they [students] don’t have to go off campus makes us a value,” he said.
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our feed
Contact us through email
2 comments