I'm not certain why you're so emphatically insisting that an article that is a pure anecdote--a case study of a single failed business--is more relevant than in

I'm not certain why you're so emphatically insisting that an article that is a pure anecdote--a case study of a single failed business--is more relevant than industry-wide data. You're quick to insult me for citing "a single study from an industry marketing organization", but you aren't citing anything. You state: "your analysis assumes that the coffee shop market is divided between 'Starbucks' and 'Independents'." It does not, and I'm not certain how you can read it that way. Also, describing what I referred to as a "back of the envelope calculation" as "analysis" is silly. Furthermore, the comment that I was originally responding to did not distinguish between chain coffee shops and independent ones, so your insistence on excluding Starbucks from consideration is bizarre. Do you have anything to offer other than insults and an anecdote? You appear to be arguing with some passion for the proposition that coffee shops are money losing operations. Provide some evidence, some reason for believing this other than a single Slate article about a single failed business in trendy part of Manhattan.