sethb@panixcom seth

Is the fee for sharing a meal, or not ordering one? That is, if two
people order meals and share both of them, is the fee charged? If
not, then the fee is for taking up space in the restaurant that could
be used by someone buying food.

Would you be happier if the restaurant charged "seat rent" of $5, and
reduced the prices of all its meals by the same $5? How does that
differ from a sharing fee?

Seth

ericka kammerer

Oh, absolutely it's a sort of "nuisance fee" that
won't thrill people. On the other hand, sometimes nuisance
fees work. If all the plate sharers go elsewhere and the
restaurant is still able to fill the tables, they just
come out ahead even if they've annoyed the plate sharers.
Some restaurants, on the other hand, find that plate
sharing works fine for them and doesn't result in much
(if any) revenue loss, depending on the type of food
they serve and their pricing structure. Lots of times
we will choose to have more courses and split some of
them rather than each having a single course of our own.
There are lots of nuisance fees out there. Besides
corkage and plating fees, there are places that charge for
refills on sodas (as if the markup on soda isn't already
high), imposes gratuities, or any number of other things.
Every restaurant has to find its way to what works economically
for the restaurant and for its clientele. My pet peeve is
restaurants that don't take reservations. Yeah, I know
they can put more people through without reservations,
but I have kids and can't wait an hour and a half for
a table most of the time. On the other hand, the fact
that they've got an hour and a half wait for a table
means that there are plenty of other people who are
fine with it! It just means I don't go there with the
family during peak dining hours (or at all, depending).
I often split plates among the kids (kids' menus are
often horrible, with nary a vegetable in sight). Sometimes
I pay a fee and sometimes I don't. Typically, it doesn't
bother me.

Best wishes,
Ericka

nyc xyz

In theory it's for sharing one entree, in practice it's for not ordering another one.

Plain ridiculous. Anyone get tossed from a bar for sitting with the
one glass of scotch?


Pretty silly, isn't it?

I'd be happier if they'd just raise their prices and stop being stupid
about things. Come on, let's see how much they really think they're
losing out on account of all these plate-sharing parties. I bet you an
honest assessment would find that even a one-cent rise in all prices to
be a significant boon which more than covers the alleged economic harm from shared entrees.

nyc xyz

Assume what -- that if raising every item by a nickel doesn't help
cover for alleged lost revenue from shared entrees, then the problem lies elsewhere?


If lots of people share plates, then clearly it's the common practice
I've claimed it to be and it is restauranteurs who charge such
penalties that are the ones out-of-touch. Why do we tolerate this?

Ah, semantics...I'd meant how could a restaurant successfully rush a
diner...if I feel I'm being rushed, I might just start chewing much
more slowly, and ordering dessert, etc.


Good grief! Is this what you folks really think??? "Oh, boy, it could
be the Queen of England sitting here, dear me -- better order another
bottle and keep up with the Windsors!"

I'm sorry, but that argument you've put forth is extremely bad: if the
restauranteur really means business, let him raise his prices -- he
will certainly price out the hoi poloi who's share food beyond a simple
bite or two. But if you're allowing someone in, then you accept whatever happens.


Wow, I thought I was sitting down to dinner with a date, not a working
dinner to help him figure out his personal finances.

Trust me, you can be sure these restauranteurs are not starving.

Fact of the matter is, no one is losing money from shared entrees. No
one. It's like the ol' Cold War hysteria about Commies under your bed
-- totally imaginary. I'd like to see someone actually demonstrate how revenue is lost.

Judging by most folks' responses here, I'd have to agree that it
certainly is the easier issue to address.

No chance for a tax revolt with you lot, eh? =)

Like I keep saying: if the restaurant is hanging by so thin a thread as
whether people exhibit normal dining behavior, then the problem really
lies elsewhere.

But as I also keep saying: that's just an excuse. The fact is, there
is no economic damage to a restaurant from sharing entrees. We're not
talking a buffet here; we're talking about a meal that's already on the
table, bought and paid for (well, once the cheque arrives, anyway).


Hey, the cost factor is an issue you people bring up -- I don't buy it
at all; I only mentioned the best solution to it, which y'all resist
adopting as sound because, just as I suspect, the matter really isn't
about economics, after all. It's just a petty grubby ethos that
somehow is countenanced in our dining culture.

One competes, in such a business, on the food. This "economic
argument" of yours justifying the plate-sharing penalty really puts the
cart in front of the horse: a restaurant is about good food first and
foremost, and then an atmosphere conducive to its enjoyment. It's so
simple even immigrants who don't speak English can catapult into the
middle-class on it in less than a decade.

No one loses money from shared entrees. No one.

nyc xyz

Now just wait one cotton-pickin' minute, buster: the assumption being
made in the first place is that there's some monetary loss involved in plate-sharing!

What??

I don't recall what their minimum is, but obviously a modest $35 tab
wasn't enough to meet it. But the whole principle ****s:
plate-sharing, unless at a buffet, does no economic harm. Again, I
refer you to the fable involving the silly dog with a bone in his mouth
mistaking his reflection for another dog with another bone....

nyc xyz

But there is no revenue lost with plate-sharing!

If someone brings in food from the outside, then that defeats the point
of the restaurant, which is to serve food. But plate-sharing doesn't
defeat this purpose -- the restaurant still makes money.

It's only a greedy imagination that thinks it could have made more
money if only there wasn't any plate-sharing. Again, as I've said in
another post on this thread, this is the same fallacious logic behind a
stockbroker chiding you for not having taken his advice: you're
"poorer" by some amount of money because you didn't go with his call on
some stock that's now in the stratosphere.

But money you never had but only imagine you could have had is not
"lost revenue!"

Or try that tack with the IRS if you don't believe me.


Silly girl's on a diet, apparently.


Well, she thought a soup and salad was enough. When that paella was
pretty good, she had like eight bites of it.


Bringing in outside food to consume defeats the point of the restaurant
serving its own food. Of course, not having some particular cake,
etc., that's necessary to the diner means an exception must be made.
However, a surcharge on such "special orders" is SOP and not illogical or petty.


Then those would be all right in my book. I've never seen such a thing
advertised on the menu, however, unlike, recently, this plate-sharing
surcharge (which, sure enough, turned out to be there on page one all along, LOL).


I know, I hear you. I'm only objecting that this is not a desirable
practice, very petty and downright unfriendly.


Wow, what a way to look at your restaurant...with that kind of mindset,
the owner really ought to go into McDonald's or real estate, where they
penny-pinch every inch and every second. I sure hope he ain't also the
chef, with such greasy grubby hands....

So just have your minimum order stipulation -- but once we both agree
to it, let's clear the table of these silly dollars-and-cents concerns:
I'm here to eat, and short of having a food fight, I'll share my food
and lean my elbows on the table, damn ye! =)


A restaurant should be about food and hospitality. It's a sad day in
our culture when such a concept needs not only reinforcement, but explanation and defense.

I hope to affect our dining culture. This is usenet, Opion Central,
right? Of course I ain't been back since. But I urge everyone to
rethink how things are done. As I was saying to "congokid":

"[It's] much more logical to simply raise your prices than divvy up
expenses this way [i.e., the hair-splitting "itemizing mindset"]. I
mean, golly, why not put up a "My Kid's Future College Tuition Fund"
charge of $0.098 to every dish, or an "Illegal Mexican Dishwasher's Old
Grandmother's Healthcare Fund" of $0.0003, or a "Fat Absentee
Landlord's Vacation Fund" of $0.066, or a "Growth of Caged Chicken Leg
Charge" -- as opposed to the "Growth of Caged Chicken Breast Charge" --
of $0.009? How about a "Clean Windows Fee" of $0.004, or a "Working
Toilet Fee" of $0.003? Or an "Excess Napkin Surcharge" of $0.0055, or
"Health Department Bribe Surcharge" of
$0.69??

"Basically, if the cost is not an option, build it into the price of
the
dish for Christ's sake. It's amazing we don't mind being insulted this
way."

And with that, I think I will leave the last word to you in this
conversation between us. God bless you, lady, patron saint of starving
restaurant-owners.

ericka kammerer

Yes. As I said in another post, if a nickel a plate
fixes the problem, then that means there's only one plate
sharer per 120 diners. That seems rather unlikely to me.


Why should people who each purchase their own main
courses subsidize those who don't wish to do so?

You could, although some will ask you to move to the
bar or something similar if they have the table reserved.
Most people, however, will just feel rushed and leave and never come back.


I think in any business, if you don't manage your
revenue as well as your expenses, you will be out of business very quickly.


Why? Pretty much every business sets some limits.
You just don't happen to like this one, as is your prerogative.
Others apparently don't bother you, but no doubt they bother some other people.

If it's not a going concern, there will be no business.


On what do you base that? Income before taxes for
full service restaurants averages 4 percent of sales. So,
on your $35 check, the restaurant only made $1.40 in profit.
On average, the costs for the food account for about $11.50.
Most of your check is going to pay for fixed costs that don't
go down because you ordered less food than average. In a
really competitive market, margins are likely even more slim.
So, what's your evidence that they're making boatloads of money?

I can't possibly figure out how to explain it more
clearly. The math isn't that difficult to do! What is it
that you can't seem to understand?

Yes, you keep saying it, but on what do you base
this conclusion? With that thin a profit margin, it doesn't
*take* much to upset a restaurant's profitability.

What do you not get about opportunity cost? That's Econ 101.

Huh? Do you mean your deal to increase prices by
a nickel? It's unlikely to work if it's just a nickel.
Let's run some numbers, shall we? Let's assume that 10
percent of diners share plates. Let's further assume
the average industry numbers for cost structure for full
service restaurants. To make things easy, I'll assume that
your $30 food charge was split up as $5 each for soups and
salad and $15 for the paella and that they serve 100 parties
for dinner.

Scenario 1: No plate sharing fee

100 parties of 2
90 parties spend $55 each (two main courses)
10 parties spend $30 each (shared main course)

Total revenue: $5250

Scenario 2: $6 plate sharing fee
90 parties spend $55 each
10 parties spend $36 each

Total revenue: $5310

Scenario 3: No plate sharing
100 parties spend $55 each

Total revenue: $5500

However, let's look at the difference in food costs:

Scenario 1: $1732.50
Scenario 2: $1732.50
Scenario 3: $1815

Now, the overhead doesn't change from scenario to
scenario because it's still the same number of parties.
So, let's call that half way in between the no plate
sharing and plate sharing scenarios and make it $3355.
That leaves the profits as:

Scenario 1: $163
Scenario 2: $222
Scenario 3: $330

That's a 100 percent increase in profits from the
plate sharing scenario to the no plate sharing
scenario. Adding in the $6 plate sharing fee results
in a 36 percent increase in profits, so at a $6 fee,
they're only recouping a third of what they lose in
profits when people don't order their own main course.

Note also that at this rate, the plate sharing with
no sharing charge is only $1.60/table away from being
in the red. Small perturbations in the scenario
can have big consequences.

Now, let's look at your nickel increase, eh? I'll be
generous and assume you mean a nickel increase on each
item ordered, not just the main courses.

Scenario 4:
90 parties paying $55.25
10 parties paying $30.20

Total revenue: $5274.50
Variable costs: $1732.50
Fixed costs: $3355
Profit: $187

That only recoups less than 15 percent of the no plate
sharing scenario. Of course, if you meant just upping
the cost of the main course, the difference is substantially
less. And, of course, the non-plate sharing parties are
coughing up an extra $23 in costs for which they're receiving no benefit.

Huh? There are *LOTS* of restaurants with great
food that go out of business. Nearly a third of
restaurants go out of business in the first year--
most from business mistakes.

Best wishes,
Ericka

zedbanty

In article <1145482529.088283.184070@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups .com>, NYC XYZ
says...


Hee hee "buster".

You really don't get what a business model is, or what an opportunity cost is.

What is your education?

ZedBanty


--

kevin michael vail

My mother and I were eating at a Red Lobster in Orlando once, and the
server brought out our main courses when we had just started our salads.
I told her (politely!) that we were not ready for those yet, please take
them back and bring them out at the appropriate time. It was obvious no
one had ever done that before, by the look on the server's face, but she
took the food back into the kitchen. When we were done with our salads,
she cleared those plates and asked if we were ready for the main course,
which we were by then. (The plates she brought out were not the same
ones she'd brought out earlier, either, they'd made fresh.)

[]
--
Kevin Michael Vail | a billion stars go spinning through the night,
kevin@vaildc.net | blazing high above your head.
. . . . . . . . . | But _in_ you is the presence that
. . . . . . . . | will be, when all the stars are dead.
. . . . . . . . . | (Rainer Maria Rilke)

ericka kammerer

But its profitability goes down. While the variable
costs go down, the fixed costs stay the same regardless. You
have to cover *both* the variable and the fixed costs. Again,
Econ 101. Too much plate sharing and you can't cover the fixed
costs.

Best wishes,
Ericka