Economic downturn proves breakfast not so important after all

It has always been said that breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

After (hopefully) eight hours of sleep, our bodies have gone a long time without food, and we need some energy to get going.

According to a recent article by Yahoo Finance reporter Justin Rohrlich, however, physiological energy needs are not recession-proof.

From 2006 to 2008, many restaurants expanded breakfast menus and promoted breakfast more heavily than they had in the past. These included fast food establishments like perennial West Virginia University favorite Burger King and "sit-down" restaurants like Denny's.

One particularly curious breakfast push came from Starbucks, which promoted breakfast foods with "premium and upscale ingredients."

The breakfast market catered all options for quality and value.

In our current economy, people have kicked breakfast to the curb when making budget cuts in their everyday lives.

Industry analysts say breakfast sales are directly related to unemployment rates.

"Typically, if you're unemployed, you're not getting up at 6 and not going through the drive-thru," said Jeffrey Bernstein, a Barclays Capital analyst.

This trend has to be expected. The busiest times for places selling breakfast foods are the hours when people are on their way to work, so if fewer people are on their way to work, fewer people will buy breakfast.

I never wake up that early if I don't have to, and I'm not alone.

The decline in restaurant breakfasts reflects a larger trend in time of economic downturn.

When people do not have as much money, they cannot always afford convenience.

Let's say, for example, that I live near a 7-Eleven and a Kroger, and both would require equal driving time.

If I only need to buy a loaf of bread, I am going to buy it quickly at 7-Eleven instead of braving the chaos of Kroger.

The bread costs more at 7-Eleven, but the time I save by going there instead of Kroger is worth it.

In a recession, I am more likely to put costs first.

If I really want a sausage biscuit, I would be better off buying a box of frozen ones than getting my biscuit fix at a fast food place.

The restaurant is more convenient, but I am now looking at convenience as a luxury, and luxuries are not something I can afford.

The declining emphasis on luxury explains Starbuck's unsuccessful attempts to capture some breakfast market share.

People won't spring for "upscale" breakfasts when saving money is an issue, especially not when there are cheaper "gourmet" coffees from McDonald's and other larger chains.

Food is not the only industry where luxury is on the back burner.

For a brief period last year, the Charleston Town Center Mall had a store that sold boats. I will probably never be able to discern the thought process of why this was a good idea.

Other than the extreme unlikelihood of people shopping for boats across from a pretzel stand, I cannot imagine the boat store got much consumer action.

Just like no one really needs gourmet coffee, no one who lives in an area where fishing is not a viable industry really needs a boat.

Luxury items are not cost effective.

If they were, they would not be considered luxuries.

Last year, Walmart debuted several commercials that told why buying fruit and cereal from its stores was more cost-effective than buying fast food breakfast meals.

The main point of the ads was that people would save a certain amount of money a year by shopping at Walmart instead of eating out.

These ads sum up the idea that the commodity value of cost effectiveness increases when money becomes harder to come by.

Businesses losing money on their luxury breakfast ventures are not left with many options.

Businesses in most trades have had to drop prices to stay competitive.

Rohrlich noted that even Starbucks lowered its breakfast prices to compete with less expensive chains like Dunkin' Donuts.

Companies can take this further and try to reposition their products as affordable rather than elite.

For some businesses, though, a change of brand image may not be the best long-term option.

If Starbucks were to shift its image to be more similar to (and therefore more competitive with) Dunkin' Donuts, it may have trouble going back to being an "upscale" brand in the future.

Most companies have had to make changes to ensure they will have a future.

If the general flow of the market rejects high-end coffee, then businesses know what market they should get out of.

I'd be surprised to learn of any more mall boat stores these days.