blake murphy wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:13:01 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>
> > Nancy2 wrote:
> >
> >>> It was a nice view, but I chose not to spend an extra $10 on my lunch
for
> >>> it. We went into town and had a good meal at a seafood place.
> >>
> >> Actually, I don't see any difference between that and a cover charge.
> >> Isn't that what a cover charge is? I would have probably paid it, the
> >> lunch prices themselves sounding very reasonable - especially for a
> >> spectacular view.
> >>
> >> N.
> >
> > I agree. It is meant to discourage those who would take residence at a
> > table and perhaps not allow for the normal trade of restaurant "turn
> > over" to happen. Cover charges are pretty common in respectable clubs
> > when they have a band or other special feature. Restaurants do it in
> > various ways, such as plate charges when someone might order one entree
> > and split it between two diners. It is fair, IMO.
>
> yabbut, usually the band gets at least part of the cover charge. i doubt
> the tree are cut in on the deal.


Actually the trees don't "mind", blake...it's a pretty good gig being a
tree.

I composed this *just* for you, so don't say I'm not a real swell guy... :


_I Am A Tree_

"I am a large PLANT that can make all yer dreams come true.....I can be the
Grand Piano in yer living room......I am the House that you live in........I
am the handle on yer Broom and the Guitar you love to play.......I am the
Paper you read or write on and I can provide your Kids a College Education
or buy you a new Car......I can be made into Gasoline or be simple Firewood
for a pleasant Family Evening.....I can be farmed like Wheat or
Corn.......If you cut me down and use me, another Tree will grow in a short
time to take my place.....I am one of the Resources that Man has available
for him to use and I will be around FOREVER because Man has a LOT of uses
for me......"


:-)


--
Best
Gregory Morrow

blake murphy wrote:


> charging a buck or two more for entrées would seem to be better
> marketing. but then he might lose people like me, who might pay nine
> bucks for a sandwich but not thirteen.

Not if the goal is to keep out leaf peepers who aren't going to buy a
sandwich.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>
>
>> charging a buck or two more for entrées would seem to be better
>> marketing. but then he might lose people like me, who might pay nine
>> bucks for a sandwich but not thirteen.
>
> Not if the goal is to keep out leaf peepers who aren't going to buy a
> sandwich.

If they weren't there to see the leaves they probably would not have
been there for an already overpriced sandwich anyway.

Dave Smith wrote:

> Default User wrote:
> > blake murphy wrote:
> >
> >
> > > charging a buck or two more for entrées would seem to be better
> > > marketing. but then he might lose people like me, who might pay
> > > nine bucks for a sandwich but not thirteen.
> >
> > Not if the goal is to keep out leaf peepers who aren't going to buy
> > a sandwich.
>
> If they weren't there to see the leaves they probably would not have
> been there for an already overpriced sandwich anyway.

But they are taking up tables. If it's popular, then that reduces the
number of paying customers you can get served in a day.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:36:02 -0400, kilikini wrote:
>
> > blake murphy wrote:

> >> i wonder if i could skate in my wheelchair since i'm providing my own
> >> seat.

> > ROFL, I'm sorry, Blake, but that was just too dang funny.
> >
> > kili <---- still smiling, no, still laughing!
>
> no need to be sorry, kili.

Sometimes one needs to be a little sensive, but if the other makes the
joke, it should be OK.

I'll probably get crucified for this one, but it's a favorite joke of
mine. A straight guy is telling a joke to a *******:

Q: How many *******s does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:13:01 -0400, Goomba wrote:

> > over" to happen. Cover charges are pretty common in respectable clubs
> > when they have a band or other special feature.
>
> yabbut, usually the band gets at least part of the cover charge. i doubt
> the tree are cut in on the deal.

Upon thinking about it, that sounds reasonable. However, I had always
assumed that a union band got at least union minimum guaranteed, and the
restaurant made their money to pay the band by the cover charge and
increased business.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Default User wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> charging a buck or two more for entrées would seem to be better
>>>> marketing. but then he might lose people like me, who might pay
>>>> nine bucks for a sandwich but not thirteen.
>>> Not if the goal is to keep out leaf peepers who aren't going to buy
>>> a sandwich.
>> If they weren't there to see the leaves they probably would not have
>> been there for an already overpriced sandwich anyway.
>
> But they are taking up tables. If it's popular, then that reduces the
> number of paying customers you can get served in a day.

Perhaps, but what drew the people there in the first place was the
leaves, not the sandwiches.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>
> charging a buck or two more for entrées would seem to be better marketing.
> but then he might lose people like me, who might pay nine bucks for a
> sandwich but not thirteen.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I don't know if they have any "take out" trade for either the locals or
picnickers. If that is the case, the seating charge is more fair to them.

Dave Smith wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > But they are taking up tables. If it's popular, then that reduces
> > the number of paying customers you can get served in a day.
>
> Perhaps, but what drew the people there in the first place was the
> leaves, not the sandwiches.

Which does the restaurant no good if they don't buy anything.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User wrote:

>>> But they are taking up tables. If it's popular, then that reduces
>>> the number of paying customers you can get served in a day.
>> Perhaps, but what drew the people there in the first place was the
>> leaves, not the sandwiches.
>
> Which does the restaurant no good if they don't buy anything.

If the the problem was that people were coming and sitting to watch the
leaves and not buying anything the owners could have dealt with that
easily enough by either posting a sign or telling the squatters that the
restaurant seating is for customers only, which is very reasonable. They
could also have posted a minimum charge per person. That is more
reasonable the $5 per person seating charge about which Ed complained.

He left, as many would. According to his OP, they were going to have
lunch there but left and ate elsewhere. The restaurant owner had a good
idea when he built his restaurant on a location that had a wonderful,
scenic view. The scenery attracted customers, but his attempt at gouging
customers to pay extra for the view chased them away.

Dave Smith > wrote in message
m...
> Default User wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> charging a buck or two more for entrées would seem to be
>>> better marketing. but then he might lose people like me,
>>> who might pay nine bucks for a sandwich but not thirteen.
>>>
>> Not if the goal is to keep out leaf peepers who aren't going
>> to buy a sandwich.
>>
> If they weren't there to see the leaves they probably would
> not have been there for an already overpriced sandwich
> anyway.
>
We have a clutch of wineries along a windy mountain pass that
also caters to a large population of avid bicyclers. The grade
up the pass is pretty harsh but that's the draw; the roadway is
a 2-laner, tree-lined with oaks and pines, the peak has two
spectacular open views -- truly stunning on clear days. The
wineries noticed that most of the bikers were stopping off and
drinking lots of free samples. They also tended not to buy
anything (food or wine). One of the vineyards posted a "$1.00
charge for tastes" and noticed bike traffic reduced immediately
but her sales didn't drop. She put the information out to the
other six wineries. Pretty soon the bicycle traffic dropped
dramatically. In talking to the original vintner that posted
her door charge, I asked if it increased sales. She laughed and
said that in decreased her costs because she wasn't having to
give away product, provide facilities to non-paying customers,
and still had a level amount of sales from people that came in
(usually in automobiles). Then she got really serious and said,
"The real bonus was accidents dropped dramatically."

I'm all for the restaurant charging a minimum for people to sit
and take up space. If the food matches the view, even better;
not that that happens very often.

The Ranger

The Ranger wrote:

> We have a clutch of wineries along a windy mountain pass that
> also caters to a large population of avid bicyclers. The grade
> up the pass is pretty harsh but that's the draw; the roadway is
> a 2-laner, tree-lined with oaks and pines, the peak has two
> spectacular open views -- truly stunning on clear days. The
> wineries noticed that most of the bikers were stopping off and
> drinking lots of free samples. They also tended not to buy
> anything (food or wine). One of the vineyards posted a "$1.00
> charge for tastes" and noticed bike traffic reduced immediately
> but her sales didn't drop. She put the information out to the
> other six wineries. Pretty soon the bicycle traffic dropped
> dramatically. In talking to the original vintner that posted
> her door charge, I asked if it increased sales. She laughed and
> said that in decreased her costs because she wasn't having to
> give away product, provide facilities to non-paying customers,
> and still had a level amount of sales from people that came in
> (usually in automobiles). Then she got really serious and said,
> "The real bonus was accidents dropped dramatically."

We used to get free samples at the wineries around here too. The idea
was that you sampled wine and bought what you liked. People took
advantage of it. Bus companies started taking people on tours. so
wineries ended up having bus loads of people being dropped off for free
samples. Most places now charge, though I well enough acquainted with
several of them that they don't charge me. I usually buy at least a case.
>
> I'm all for the restaurant charging a minimum for people to sit
> and take up space. If the food matches the view, even better;
> not that that happens very often.

No one in their right mind expects a restaurant to provide free seats to
non paying customers. The complaint was a $5 per person seating charge.
If the food matched the view he probably would not have needed the extra
charge.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:43:17 -0700, "The Ranger"
> wrote:

<snip>

>One of the vineyards posted a "$1.00
>charge for tastes" and noticed bike traffic reduced immediately
>but her sales didn't drop. She put the information out to the
>other six wineries. Pretty soon the bicycle traffic dropped
>dramatically. In talking to the original vintner that posted
>her door charge, I asked if it increased sales. She laughed and
>said that in decreased her costs because she wasn't having to
>give away product, provide facilities to non-paying customers,
>and still had a level amount of sales from people that came in
>(usually in automobiles).
>
It has also been my experience when wine tasting at a place that
charges, that they drop the charge if you buy a bottle of wine (maybe
they call it "apply to purchase").

>Then she got really serious and said,
>"The real bonus was accidents dropped dramatically."
>
I hate being in a car on a two lane road lined with bikers. Haven't
hit one yet....

>I'm all for the restaurant charging a minimum for people to sit
>and take up space. If the food matches the view, even better;
>not that that happens very often.

Most places make it very easy to meet the minimum too.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:

> It has also been my experience when wine tasting at a place that
> charges, that they drop the charge if you buy a bottle of wine (maybe
> they call it "apply to purchase").

That's usually the way they work around here. I tell the what I am
looking for and they give me a few samples and then buy a few bottles or
a case. The only sample I expect to pay for is ice wine, but I usually
buy enough that they don't even charge for that.


>> Then she got really serious and said,
>> "The real bonus was accidents dropped dramatically."
>>
> I hate being in a car on a two lane road lined with bikers. Haven't
> hit one yet....

I don't know about wine tasting and cycling. I do a lot of cycling and
exercise does not mix with alcohol in my system. A few months ago my
wife had her monthly pedicure in Niagara on the Lake and we did the
usual routine of her dropping me off on the other side of Niagara Falls
and I rode my bike down to NotL to meet her. I stopped at a winery along
the parkway to see about getting another case of a nice unoaked
Chardonnay like one I had bought there before. I told the woman that I
was on my bicycle but would come back for it in the car in a few hours.
She kept trying to push more samples on me and I had to keep turning
her down. No charge for the samples I had, and I did come back for a
case of the Chardonnay and another half dozen bottles of red and rose.

There are number of bicycle wine trip businesses in the area. Worse yet,
we have bicycle races around here twice a year, so a lot of the cyclists
practise a lot on the local roads. They are a major PITA. The ride in
groups of 6 or more, ride 2-3 abreast, will not pull over to the right
to let cars pass, and they blow through r stop at stop signs as if they
do not apply to bicycles.

Then there are the races... an even bigger PITA. There is little advance
warning of road closures and no proper signs for detours. They are
always on Sunday mornings and happen along the route between my house
and the stable where I take riding lessons. I have been on the town's
case about allowing them. They are a major disruption to local traffic
and they do nothing for the local businesses. The cyclists are all from
out of town and they spend no money here. The local businesses lose
money because of the road closures. The participant park their cars on
people's lawns and leave garbage all over.



>
>> I'm all for the restaurant charging a minimum for people to sit
>> and take up space. If the food matches the view, even better;
>> not that that happens very often.
>
> Most places make it very easy to meet the minimum too.
>
>

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:32:15 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:13:01 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>
>>> over" to happen. Cover charges are pretty common in respectable clubs
>>> when they have a band or other special feature.
>>
>> yabbut, usually the band gets at least part of the cover charge. i doubt
>> the tree are cut in on the deal.
>
> Upon thinking about it, that sounds reasonable. However, I had always
> assumed that a union band got at least union minimum guaranteed, and the
> restaurant made their money to pay the band by the cover charge and
> increased business.

i guess it depends on the joint. the saloon i most often go to usually has
no cover, but a tip jar for the band. whether they get something on top of
that, i don't know. (in virginia, for what it's worth. a right-to-work
state.)

your pal,
blake

Dave Smith wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > Which does the restaurant no good if they don't buy anything.
>
> If the the problem was that people were coming and sitting to watch
> the leaves and not buying anything the owners could have dealt with
> that easily enough by either posting a sign or telling the squatters
> that the restaurant seating is for customers only, which is very
> reasonable. They could also have posted a minimum charge per person.
> That is more reasonable the $5 per person seating charge about which
> Ed complained.

It's certainly debatable as to whether it's the best solution, and
without trying a few I don't think it's certain one way or the other.
But it is a way, and not one that I find to be obviously unsuccessful.

If I were the OP, I would have taken the extra step of enquiring as to
whether that charge would still be in effect if a full meal were
purchased before leaving. But he didn't, so a potential sale was lost.
Whether that was meaningful in the grand scheme is hard to say.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User wrote:
>
>>> Which does the restaurant no good if they don't buy anything.
>> If the the problem was that people were coming and sitting to watch
>> the leaves and not buying anything the owners could have dealt with
>> that easily enough by either posting a sign or telling the squatters
>> that the restaurant seating is for customers only, which is very
>> reasonable. They could also have posted a minimum charge per person.
>> That is more reasonable the $5 per person seating charge about which
>> Ed complained.
>
> It's certainly debatable as to whether it's the best solution, and
> without trying a few I don't think it's certain one way or the other.
> But it is a way, and not one that I find to be obviously unsuccessful.

Indeed it is debatable. I got the impression from the OP that all they
had was simple food like soup and sandwiches, the sort of thing on which
there is a substantial markup and considerable percentage profit margin,
though that percentage is on a smaller amount, so not a big money maker.

> If I were the OP, I would have taken the extra step of enquiring as to
> whether that charge would still be in effect if a full meal were
> purchased before leaving.


Considering the types of food that seem to have been offered, a minimum
charge might be reasonable to ensure that people taking up seats to see
the scenery are paying enough and not just taking up space where a
paying customer could be sitting. However..... if you are paying $7-10
for a light meal and then being hit with an extra $5 to sit at a table
to eat that light meal........ that seems a little steep. A minimum
charge of $5 is much more reasonable.

> But he didn't, so a potential sale was lost.
> Whether that was meaningful in the grand scheme is hard to say.

The OP was in there looking at the menu and left when he saw the $5 seat
charge. That is a sale lost, not a potential sale lost. I would think
that the grand scheme for the restaurant was to make a profit. If the
restaurant was full, then, no, it isn't going to make a difference. If
it was empty, that is another matter. If it was half full they run the
risk of jeopardizing their profitability.

"Default User" > wrote in message
>
> If I were the OP, I would have taken the extra step of enquiring as to
> whether that charge would still be in effect if a full meal were
> purchased before leaving. But he didn't, so a potential sale was lost.
> Whether that was meaningful in the grand scheme is hard to say.
>

If the restaurant was a bit easier to access I may have inquired.

As for sales lost, four patrons were lost. My wife and I left and when I
pointed out the charge to my wife, another couple saw it and left for the
same reason. There was at least one table empty so we would not have been
turned away.

One of the good things about a capitalist society is that we get to make a
lot of business decisions, good or bad, as we see fit. With four of us
leaving, they lost about $50 in billing. If that was made up by the $5
charge on others, they still came out ahead. We had the choice of paying or
not paying for a good seat. We make similar decisions all the time.
Should I go to the movies tonight or wait until next year and watch the same
movie for free on TV?

Often we'll pack a picnic lunch and enjoy it along with the scenery for
free. I've lunched on FDR's lawn on the Hudson, overlooking the Atlantic
Ocean, Pacific Ocean, had a view of Narragannset Bay, the Apennine
Mountains, Lake Como, and more, all free for the looking. Some cheeses,
bread, bottle of wine and good company makes for a delightful time.