Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've said two different things here. > A loss leader doesn't need to be sold below cost, only below its minimum profit margin. I think that's an important point, in that you're saying that it's incorrect to consider only the cost of ingredients, rather than the entire cost of delivery (including cooking, labor, etc.). On the other hand, as the parent pointed out, they're not a restaurant, so their "minimum…
It's not "effectively" losing money. It's losing imaginary money. If you want to see an actual loss leader, go to a grocery story in mid-November. They'll sell you a frozen turkey for (depending on competition) 20 to 50 cents a pound. Wholesale cost will be 80 cents to $1.20 a pound. They take an actual loss on the turkey in order to get you in the store where you will buy three times your usual weekly grocery budget…
Well, to be fair, the money is real (or at least potentially real). It's the loss that's imaginary.
> then every sale to attract customers is a "loss leader" and the term has no useful meaning.
Agreed. We already have the word "sale" (or "discount" or "promotion") without using the inaccurate word "loss".