Even if you already had a factory that could easily be converted to this product, you’d have to factor in the switching cost, opportunity cost, shipping, marketing and regulatory stuff. This likely offsets the consumer’s willingness to pay extra during the shortage, and as soon as the original factory is back, they’re going to price you back out. They’re already operational, as per the article.
The situation here is that there is a temporary supply shortage. If you raise the prices to drop sales and guarantee you have stock it means you priced out most of the people. You narrowed your market only to the few who can afford it and those few are slowly going through that stock.
How does that help the situation? At the end of the day some people will have the bread (because they were in the store early, or because they have money) and other won't.
Raising prices in this situation only helps make more profit, extract more from the existing market. It does nothing to solve the problem of people having bread.
The current primary supplier had a temporary setback caused by a fire in mid-March and operated at reduced capacity, before going back to full capacity in July. Whatever flexibility competitors had to increase capacity with little to no investment was probably captured. A few months of marginally improved prices won't incentivize any competitor to invest. Hard bread isn't the kind of product that can command a big price before customers lose interest.
This is not the goal. The only mitigation that could make sense is to impose limits per person or household to avoid someone hugging all the supply.
> This allows there to always be supply available for purchase
By the very few who can afford it, by definition of raising the prices until the products barely sell. If you have 100 items and 1000 people you guarantee that at least 90% of people won't get an item. It doesn't matter if it's because there is none left, or because it's too expensive. If you're hungry because the shelf is empty, or the shelf is full but you can't afford it, what's the practical difference for your stomach?
It is what the stores are having a hard time accomplishing.
>the shelf is full but you can't afford it
From the store's perspective it is still in stock and supply is available. How much people eat of it is separate from what the article is discussing.
It's a proxy for what the stores have a hard time accomplishing. The goal is to fulfill demand. Do you genuinely need the explanation why a store's goal is to sell not "have on shelf"?
> From the store's perspective it is still in stock and supply is available
I guess I do need to explain. Now I'm starting to think this is intentional hard headedness :). If the goal was just "have X on the shelf" they'd put one item and price it like gold. Or put it really high on the shelf. Goal achieved. When the authors of these articles say "have on shelf" they assume the reader is reasonable and intuitively makes the connection to "fulfilling demand, people able to buy".
> How much people eat of it is separate from what the article is discussing.
You're right. What the article is discussing is how much people can buy. If there is no supply then people aren't buying. But make no mistake, the buying is important, not the being on the shelf. Maybe some stores put the breads in a basket ;).