Blog Post #2
According to the textbook, Game Theory is “concerned with situations in which decision-makers interact with one another, and in which the happiness of each participant with the outcome depends not just on his or her own decisions but on the decisions made by everyone.”
In this article, students in Richmond, Virginia are protesting a Starbucks for upcharging on milk substitutes like coconut milk or almond milk. These students believe it is unfair for a coffee shop to upcharge for a product that many people in the world cannot digest (dairy).
Based off the article, the “players” are people who do not consume dairy products, and Starbucks, who is upcharging customers for non-dairy products. Each player can receive a certain payoff based on the strategy they chose. In this example, the payoff for Starbucks upcharging vegan milks is that they profit more on people’s dietary restrictions. For the students, the payoff for getting cheaper vegan milk substitutes at Starbucks means better affordability for students and people with dietary restrictions and/or who are vegan.
Payoffs in the long run for the students who are protesting are cheaper drinks, and more accessibility to healthy coffee options that do not have dairy (cow’s milk) in them. The long-term payoffs for Starbucks could mean more profit (if they deny this protest and continue with the way things are), or potentially losing customers for the appalling upcharge, as more and more people become dairy-free. The dairy-free trend is clearly becoming more of a lifestyle-oriented choice, and it’s imperative that societal institutions and corporations (like Starbucks), take note of this and adjust their prices accordingly. Due to the fact that a dominant strategy is a best response due to the strategies of other players, it is best for Starbucks to lower their vegan milk prices to make their restaurant more inclusive and accepting of dietary restrictions and lifestyle choices that help aid the environment (like going dairy-free or vegan).