Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
>
> Is the fee for sharing a meal, or not ordering one?

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

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

> 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?

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.

> Seth

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> Why on earth do you assume this?

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?

> Lots of people
> share main courses. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a
> fee for it.

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?

> Assuming you're referring to rushing diners, there are
> a million and one ways. Serve the food too quickly. Keep
> asking, "Is there anything else?" Bring the check early.
> Hover. Start clearing the table early. Ask patrons to move
> to the bar because the table is reserved at 8:30pm (or
> whenever).

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.

> By *YOU*. But the alternative couple who could
> have been occupying the table might well have ordered
> two main courses.

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.

> Yes, that would be the overhead. And the person
> who doesn't order a main course isn't contributing as
> much to paying the overhead. Thus the split plate fee.

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.

> In some cases that's true, but the plate sharing
> issue is more easily defined and addressed than the others.

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? =)

> Since when is it greed to want to make enough
> money to keep the restaurant afloat?

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).

> Since when is it
> greed *not* to up costs across the board to deal with
> loss of revenue from patrons who order less than usual?

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.

> Now, I don't know this restaurant. Perhaps the owners
> are, in fact, greedy and are just raking it in with
> high prices and nuisance fees. However, in a competitive
> market, that seems vanishingly unlikely to me.

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.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka

ZedBanty wrote:
>
>
> You're making a lot of assumptions.

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!

> In the same situation, I would happily pay a plate-sharing fee. But more
> likely, because I could not be occupying a seat comfortably within myself while
> bringing no revenue, I'd order a salad and/or appetizer. I've done it many a
> time.

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 sucks:
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....

> ZedBanty
>
>
> --

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> Why not? It's lost revenue, just the same.
> Revenue is revenue is revenue.

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.

> So...your date didn't order a main course why?

Silly girl's on a diet, apparently.

> After all, the purpose is to eat.

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

> Why is it morally
> superior to share a main course than to bring in your
> own birthday cake or a special bottle of wine?

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.

> Some do.

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).

> As I've said repeatedly, there are many
> ways to skin this cat, and different restaurants choose
> differently depending on their clientele.

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

> They penalize
> the light eater because the light eater is the one causing
> the revenue problem!

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....

> It's no different from any other
> business having a minimum order.

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! =)

> Some companies choose
> to limit things by having a minimum order. Other companies
> allow small orders, but have to make up the lost money
> in other ways. Which they choose depends on their business
> model, same as the restaurant.

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.

> Fortunately, there are lots
> of restaurants out there. If you don't like the policies of
> this one, don't go back. You'll still end up paying for
> things one way or another at other restaurants, but if
> you find it more palatable, then that's absolutely your
> prerogative.

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.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>>
>> Why on earth do you assume this?
>
> 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?

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.

>> Lots of people
>> share main courses. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a
>> fee for it.
>
> 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?

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

>> Assuming you're referring to rushing diners, there are
>> a million and one ways. Serve the food too quickly. Keep
>> asking, "Is there anything else?" Bring the check early.
>> Hover. Start clearing the table early. Ask patrons to move
>> to the bar because the table is reserved at 8:30pm (or
>> whenever).
>
> 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.

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.

>> By *YOU*. But the alternative couple who could
>> have been occupying the table might well have ordered
>> two main courses.
>
> 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 think in any business, if you don't manage your
revenue as well as your expenses, you will be out of business
very quickly.

> 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.

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.

>> Yes, that would be the overhead. And the person
>> who doesn't order a main course isn't contributing as
>> much to paying the overhead. Thus the split plate fee.
>
> Wow, I thought I was sitting down to dinner with a date, not a working
> dinner to help him figure out his personal finances.

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

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

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?

> 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.

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?

>> Since when is it greed to want to make enough
>> money to keep the restaurant afloat?
>
> 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.

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.

> 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).

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

>> Since when is it
>> greed *not* to up costs across the board to deal with
>> loss of revenue from patrons who order less than usual?
>
> 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.

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.

>> Now, I don't know this restaurant. Perhaps the owners
>> are, in fact, greedy and are just raking it in with
>> high prices and nuisance fees. However, in a competitive
>> market, that seems vanishingly unlikely to me.
>
> One competes, in such a business, on the food.

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

In article .com>, NYC XYZ
says...
>
>
>ZedBanty wrote:
>>
>>
>> You're making a lot of assumptions.
>
>Now just wait one cotton-pickin' minute, buster:

Hee hee "buster".

>the assumption being
>made in the first place is that there's some monetary loss involved in
>plate-sharing!
>
>> In the same situation, I would happily pay a plate-sharing fee. But more
>>likely, because I could not be occupying a seat comfortably within myself while
>> bringing no revenue, I'd order a salad and/or appetizer. I've done it many a
>> time.
>
>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 sucks:
>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....

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

What is your education?

ZedBanty


--

In article >,
congokid > wrote:

> In article . com>, NYC
> XYZ > writes
>
> >I don't see how you can really rush your diners through their meals.
>
> At (one of the) Legal Sea Foods franchises a few years back in Boston we
> were certainly rushed. We were hardly half way through our first course
> when the waiter arrived with all the main courses. Eat fast or eat cold
> food seemed to be how it worked. And it wasn't the only time that has
> happened in a restaurant.

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,
| blazing high above your head.
. . . . . . . . . | But _in_ you is the presence that
. . . . . . . . | will be, when all the stars are dead.
. . . . . . . . . | (Rainer Maria Rilke)

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>>
>> Why not? It's lost revenue, just the same.
>> Revenue is revenue is revenue.
>
> 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.

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

Ericka Kammerer > wrote:

> 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?

Most restaurants do not make boatloads of money, but that is
because they must compete against restaurants that are actively
losing money. Part of the reason for the latter situation is
that people who made a boatload of money somewhere else often want
to open restaurants as a form of status symbol. Sports figures
and entertainers are common examples. Here in the Bay Area, it also
includes dot-com multimillionaires (although one of the more
auspicious restaurant openings in the past year was bankrolled
by rock star Sammy Hagar). For this reason, it's unfair
to shift the blame to diners for restaurants feeling squeezed.
If it were not for this vanity factor, restaurants would
return similar profits as other businesses requiring similar
levels of investment and skill.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
> Ericka Kammerer > wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Most restaurants do not make boatloads of money, but that is
> because they must compete against restaurants that are actively
> losing money. Part of the reason for the latter situation is
> that people who made a boatload of money somewhere else often want
> to open restaurants as a form of status symbol. Sports figures
> and entertainers are common examples. Here in the Bay Area, it also
> includes dot-com multimillionaires (although one of the more
> auspicious restaurant openings in the past year was bankrolled
> by rock star Sammy Hagar). For this reason, it's unfair
> to shift the blame to diners for restaurants feeling squeezed.
> If it were not for this vanity factor, restaurants would
> return similar profits as other businesses requiring similar
> levels of investment and skill.

Could be. I have no idea how significant a factor it
is in this particular case, but when margins are tight (for
whatever reason), one simply has to be very careful about
both revenues and expenses. Failure on any front can spell
disaster quickly. I don't think it's a matter of "blaming"
anyone. I eat out at lots of restaurants (far too many for
my own good, and apparently I live in an area with the highest
proportion of people eating out), and I do often split plates
and do all sorts of other things for which there may or may not
be additional fees. There are some business
practices I like and some I don't. I just don't think sharing
fees or most other issues are somehow moral failures. Personally,
I just want to see restaurants with good food succeed economically,
but maybe that's just my stomach talking ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Most restaurants do not make boatloads of money, but that is
>> because they must compete against restaurants that are actively
>> losing money. Part of the reason for the latter situation is
>> that people who made a boatload of money somewhere else often want
>> to open restaurants as a form of status symbol. Sports figures
>> and entertainers are common examples. Here in the Bay Area, it also
>> includes dot-com multimillionaires (although one of the more
>> auspicious restaurant openings in the past year was bankrolled
>> by rock star Sammy Hagar). For this reason, it's unfair
>> to shift the blame to diners for restaurants feeling squeezed.
>> If it were not for this vanity factor, restaurants would
>> return similar profits as other businesses requiring similar
>> levels of investment and skill.

> Could be. I have no idea how significant a factor it
>is in this particular case,

Nor do I. I believe though what I call the vanity effect is
increasing for non-chain fine-dining restaurants for two reasons:
(1) Chains are an increasing fraction of the market, thus
a given number of non-chain vanity restaurants represents a
higher fraction of non-chain restaurants than it once would have.
(2) Increasing wealth diversity has created a much larger
pool of individuals with money who might want to plunge into
a vanity restaurant operation. I'm guessing in some cases
the backers are also looking for a tax loss. I would love to see
someone's analysis of just how significant this effect has become.

>but when margins are tight (for
>whatever reason), one simply has to be very careful about
>both revenues and expenses. Failure on any front can spell
>disaster quickly. I don't think it's a matter of "blaming"
>anyone. I eat out at lots of restaurants (far too many for
>my own good, and apparently I live in an area with the highest
>proportion of people eating out), and I do often split plates
>and do all sorts of other things for which there may or may not
>be additional fees. There are some business
>practices I like and some I don't. I just don't think sharing
>fees or most other issues are somehow moral failures.

No, they're not, assuming they are upfront about it and
consistent about it.

Steve

ZedBanty wrote:
>
>
> Hee hee "buster".

Didn't think you'd appreciate "darling"....

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

LMAO -- yeah, this is "rocket surgery" here, don't touch the pocket
protectors!

> What is your education?

I know the difference between a bird in hand versus two in the bush.
Do you really need a degree for this?

> ZedBanty
>
>
> --

Word of advice: don't argue with the chef, and never send food back to
the kitchen!



Kevin Michael Vail wrote:
>
>
> 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,
> | 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 wrote:
>
>
> 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.

I fear we stumble over semantics again.

Would one plate-sharer in twenty-five parties be more plausible to you?

I'm saying to raise all prices by, say, a nickel. If your menu items
average to $20 each, say, then that's now $20.05 (happy birthday!). If
you have an average of twenty-five parties a day (very conservative for
NYC, certainly) and sell an average of four dishes per party (a more
moderate guesstimate, this one), then that's an average income of
$80.20 per party, which means an extra $5.00 on an overall daily income
of $2K a day. That extra $5 covers your one instance of food-sharing.

Not that, I repeat, there is any real damage at all to plate-sharing.
I'm only going along with you for now, but really, I don't buy the
notion that anyone's losing money here (another post mentioned
"opportunity cost," but I think the concept doesn't apply here. Was it
really an opportunity cost for you to not have quit your job for the
other one? You simply can't know these things, whatever the
surrounding emotions...likewise, I just don't think that some ghostly
abstract non-plate-sharing diner will suddenly materialize to give your
restaurant business if you got rid of your plate-sharing diner).

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

Obviously, if A is running a $100 tab, s/he's subsidizing B who's only
eating a $25 meal. Should A begrudge B the window seat?

> You could, although some will ask you to move to the
> bar or something similar if they have the table reserved.

Obviously, I wouldn't budge, then. I'll probably throw a roach into
the last bite of the dessert, too, for good measure, heh.

> Most people, however, will just feel rushed and leave and never
> come back.

There are lots of restaurants in NYC. The grubby *******s can give me
free meals for quite some time.

> 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.

Yes, so, goodness, if you share a plate of food, why, that poor
restaurant owner will go out of business -- after all, it could be the
Queen of England dining here, helping put the owner in the black for
the rest of the year! After all, one can only exploit illegal aliens
so much before election time comes for Eliot Spitzer! After all, your
wonderful time is just a number on his accountant's ledger, your
date/friend(s)/family is/are just business opportunities in sneakers,
and everyone loves a winner so you better perform and eat your veggies!

> Why? Pretty much every business sets some limits.
> You just don't happen to like this one, as is your prerogative.

It's about hospitality and friendliness. It's about the whole point of
having company for a meal. It's about what seems indivisibly part and
parcel of dining out.

We do stumble over semantics, indeed -- you imagine the dining
experience differently than I do.

> Others apparently don't bother you, but no doubt they bother
> some other people.

The question is, what is the point of a restaurant?

Ultimately, you think of yourself as engaging in some kind of a barter
with the restaurant, whether you realize or not.

I have a different notion of dining culture.

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

Okay, I'm taking off the gloves -- no more Mr. Nice Restaurant Critic.
I've humored y'all long enough.

There is NO LOSS to the restaurant from plate-sharing. You can only
lose what you actually have. We really do haggle over semantics, as I
do not feel that a possible non-plate-sharing diner counts more than an
actual diner, plate-sharing warts and all.

> On what do you base that?

Life experience. Do you think that as a group they're so stupid as to
be in a money-losing business? The one thing I know about businessmen
is that they can squeeze money out of a stone, even if it's a penny or
two.

I'm just saying that penalizing for plate-sharing is penalizing the
very heart of the dining experience: trying out food with good company.

> Income before taxes for
> full service restaurants averages 4 percent of sales.

What?? Oh, by "income" you mean "profit," as in "profit is 4% of
sales"? Where did you get this figure?? I'm not contesting it, since
that'll be a whole other argument (and I'm not as shocked by that as I
was from hearing on NPR that airlines typically only turn a profit on
the last three seats sold on any given flight [!!!]) -- I'm just
curious, for my own future reference.

> So,
> on your $35 check, the restaurant only made $1.40 in profit.

So by penalizing me $6 for the most normal of human behavior at the
dinner table, he helped himself to $7.40 in profit, eh?

> On average, the costs for the food account for about $11.50.

Just where are you getting these figures? Food is not that expensive
where these folks get it from.

> 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.

Um...what?

You're missing the forest for the trees.

One stick is weak, but a bundle is strong.

One $35 bill doesn't mean anything to a book-keeper, but

> So, what's your evidence that they're making boatloads of money?

They are not "starving." Whether they're getting fat is a different
issue.

> 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?

Um, actually, I haven't seen any arithmetic, much less math, on this
yet.

I'm afraid I don't see what's so incomprehensible about the fact that
there is no loss if the loss is mere speculation.

I gave you the stockbroker example somewhere. I have another one:
taking up two seats on the subway.

Of course, on a crowded train, taking up two seats does actual "harm."
But when there are other seats available?

I bring up this incident because I actually had the occasion of a woman
who insisted on sitting just where I had laid my rolled-up inflatable
kayak (this is NYC, remember). There were certainly lots of other
seats around -- for NYC, one can even say the car was empty, relatively
speaking -- so I told her to just sit somewhere else.

After an argument somewhat like this thread about whether I paid for
two seats and so forth, what does she do? She sits on my hand on the
other side of me, in the seat right next to me!

This is all by way of saying that people have this funny way of
perceiving loss and injury.

I ordered the damned food. What business is it of the proprietor's
whether that food's eaten by me or her? What if I doggy-bagged it and
shared it with her at home?

THE GUY SUFFERED NO HARM.

> 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.

Which is why I keep saying that he ought to look elsewhere in such a
case! Nickeling-and-diming your customers ain't gonna really help if
you have such fundamental problems where you think nickeling-and-diming
your customers could help! In such a case one should review the menu,
the prices, advertising and promotion, even location of real estate and
hours of operation -- decor and lighting, demographics of clientele,
etc.

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

This is NOT an issue of opportunity cost!

And that's one of the most slippery slopes in all economics (the other
being, in some schools, that business is win-lose). It's one of those
very easily misused and abused notions, like "love" or "patriotism" or
something like that....

You cannot lose what you never had.

The ol' one bird in hand is better than two in the bush idea.

Of course, life isn't so simple, so sometimes the notion of opportunity
cost is valid and applies. Other times, however, it's a red herring.

> Huh? Do you mean your deal to increase prices by
> a nickel?

No, I mean you all's "it costs money" thesis, which is a red herring.

> It's unlikely to work if it's just a nickel.

Or a dime, etc., as I'd said - you get the drift.

> Let's run some numbers, shall we?

Goody! Now you're talking - though, again, I am just entertaining
your red herring, you understand. Ultimately, it's not about "costs"
(as belied by the fact I keep bringing up that anything can be a "cost"
- messy-eaters, slow-eaters, etc.).

> Let's assume that 10
> percent of diners share plates.

How easily you slip this one by! One out of ten diners share plates?
I doubt this. And I wonder how plate-sharing is to be defined, really.
50% I'd count as real plate-sharing - anything less I'd say is
more properly labeled "sampling"...though, to be sure, I will follow
what seems to be the colloquial definition of the term for the sake of
yet another argument.

> Let's further assume
> the average industry numbers for cost structure for full
> service restaurants.

I don't know what these "average industry numbers for cost structure"
are or where you got them....

> 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.

Um, how do you split $30 as $5 + $5 + $15??

> Scenario 1: No plate sharing fee
>
> 100 parties of 2
> 90 parties spend $55 each (two main courses)

That's $50 per party at $25 each person (one $5 soup, one $5 salad, one
$15 main course).

> 10 parties spend $30 each (shared main course)

And that's $35 per party (soup and salad per person and the one main
course).

> Total revenue: $5250

That's $4,850, I believe.

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

$50 each.

> 10 parties spend $36 each

$41 each.

> Total revenue: $5310

$4,910 - an extra $60.

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

$50.

> Total revenue: $5500

$5000.

> However, let's look at the difference in food costs:
>
> Scenario 1: $1732.50
> Scenario 2: $1732.50
> Scenario 3: $1815

What?? Is this the "average industry numbers for cost structure for
full service restaurants" previously mentioned???

> 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.

What's the usual logic behind figuring out overhead? This here
figure seems rather slapdash - but for the sake of argument I will
run with it for now.

> That leaves the profits as:
>
> Scenario 1: $163
> Scenario 2: $222
> Scenario 3: $330

I'd like to note that your argument hinges on food costs and overhead,
which are the two weakest parts of said argument, seeing how arbitrary
they seem.

> 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.

I understand the logic of your numbers - if your figures for food
costs and overhead are to be believed, anyway - but, again, I simply
do not buy the "wider" argument based on the assumption that there are
10 non-plate-sharing parties for the 10 plate-sharing parties. I
forget the name in logic for this kind of thinking, but it's the same
as that which accompanies an opportunistic, even greedy, mindset: if I
can squeeze just another $1 out of every leaf on this money tree,
whoopee! It's the same mindset behind the fellow who killed his golden
goose.

I simply don't buy the fact that something which was never guaranteed
can be counted as a loss. It's like kicking yourself for not having
bought the winning lottery ticket...this is why I regret ever having
humored all you all's "cost analysis argument" in the first place:
the whole thing is a set-up; you can run your scenario for any kind of
surcharge - diners who make a mess and whose table requires more
cleaning afterwards, or diners who eat too slow and take up too much
time, or parties whose members take up three conjoined tables but who
order very little food and drink - but you'd still be missing the
point that a restaurant is supposed to be hospitable and friendly, and
that, fact is, you simply don't know you stand having the extra money
which you imagine would come from non-plate-sharing (or faster-eating,
or tidier-eating, etc.) customers.

> 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.

Why assume? I've been constantly saying "raise prices across the
board."

> Scenario 4:
> 90 parties paying $55.25

That should be $50.30 - an extra nickel for each item ordered.

> 10 parties paying $30.20

And this is $35.25 for the same reason.

> 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.

We really do haggle over semantics, as I do not feel that the concept
of opportunity cost applies here, as the opportunity -
non-plate-sharing diners - is very far from guaranteed.

Again, I am so sorry to be the sport that I naturally am, humoring
digression when, really, cost analysis is quite beside the point.

You are right, however, given the way you've framed your argument
(namely, with such figures for fixed and variable costs, though I
suspect the general trend that is your point will bear out whatever the
exact sums). But it's a sad fact of life that what's logical isn't
necessarily true.

A: John is rich.
B: John is a man.
C: Men are rich.

Your argument is, as you've set it up, a sound one. But it is speaking
past my point, for all its careful construction, which has ever been
that the whole assumption that the doctrine of opportunity cost obtains
here is invalid. There is no loss because such a scenario is
predicated on, as it were, a whole slew of would-be customers who are
non-plate-sharers but who are being kept out of the restaurant by a few
plate-sharing benchwarmer upstarts.

> And, of course, the non-plate sharing parties are
> coughing up an extra $23 in costs for which they're receiving
> no benefit.

I don't see how you say they receive no benefit when clearly all
overhead is built into all prices. Every customer pays not only for
the food (and the implicit labor) but also for rent, utilities, etc.
In effect, the cost of overhead goes up to make the experience a more
pleasant one for all.

What? You don't care for the $$$$ involved in sprucing up the place?
What? He doesn't care for the $$$$ invovled in having a plasma TV at
the bar? What? She doesn't think the $$$$ ad in the Village Voice was
really necessary?

Again, it's a red herring, this sense of "injury"...it's like when
people complain about "their tax dollars" going to fund x, y, and
z...makes sense on its own, but it's missing the forest for the
trees....

> Huh? There are *LOTS* of restaurants with great
> food that go out of business.

Indeed -- I'm still looking for the beef noodle soup that Szechuan
Capital or Lai Food in Flushing, Queens used to do!!!!

But I was saying that to focus on customers sharing a plate is truly
forgetting the point of your business. Your profit comes from the
food, how good it is, how you get the word out, how you price it, where
you locate yourself...if the occasional customer sharing food is going
to make or break you, you need to try investment banking instead.

> Nearly a third of
> restaurants go out of business in the first year--
> most from business mistakes.

Szechuan Capital lost its lease. Probably Lai Food, too. I'd been a
loyal weekly customer for over ten years -- grew up on the food,
frankly. When I was away in the Army, I'd even dream about them.

But no, ignoring plate-sharing is not a business mistake. It's not
making a mountain out of a molehill.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka

Again, I will defer the last word to you on this sub-thread, too. We
are really having two different conversations because we have two
different points of departu you imagine the restaurant as an
institution one way, whereas I imagine it in another. I wish diners
would stop tolerating bogus charges. Just how did we as consumers
learn to put up with so much bull? Look at your phone bill, for
example. Girls don't believe me when I tell them I have no phone.
Why the heck would I want to pay all those fees, taxes, and
surcharges??

Luckily, the neighbors have WiFi! =)

In article .com>, NYC XYZ
says...
>
>
>ZedBanty wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hee hee "buster".
>
>Didn't think you'd appreciate "darling"....

Why wouldn't I?

>
>>You really don't get what a business model is, or what an opportunity cost is.
>
>LMAO -- yeah, this is "rocket surgery" here, don't touch the pocket
>protectors!
>
>> What is your education?
>
>I know the difference between a bird in hand versus two in the bush.
>Do you really need a degree for this?

Thanks for your (somewhat non-direct) answer to my question.

You don't need a degree - many people obtain tremendous knowledge by a driving
curiosity, a willingness to learn, and a willingness to investigate. You,
however, may consider looking into a couple of basic economics and business
classes at your local community college.

Cheers,
ZedBanty


--

In article .com>, NYC XYZ
says...
>
>
>I'm afraid I don't see what's so incomprehensible about the fact that
>there is no loss if the loss is mere speculation.

A restaurant opens its doors every day based on the mere speculation that they
will get customers that day. Meaning, the right number of meals served, on
average, each day, to bring in enough money to cover their costs, which include
the rent,heating and cooling, depreciation, and maintenance of each table. The
latter (costs) are more assured than the former (revenue).

This 'mere speculation' is basic to the existance of any enterprise.

ZedBanty


--

ZedBanty wrote:
>
>
> A restaurant opens its doors every day based on the mere speculation that they
> will get customers that day. Meaning, the right number of meals served, on
> average, each day, to bring in enough money to cover their costs, which include
> the rent,heating and cooling, depreciation, and maintenance of each table. The
> latter (costs) are more assured than the former (revenue).
>
> This 'mere speculation' is basic to the existance of any enterprise.
>
> ZedBanty
>
>
> --


True. However, you can certainly over-speculate. It's one thing to
expect business in general, quite another to imagine a certain kind of
customer over another -- it seems that everyone's argument here is that
there's a whole line of non-plate-sharing diners who are being
prevented from patroning the restaurant due to a few plate-sharers.

Again, it's like your stockbroker chiding you for being "poorer" for
not having taken him up on his recommended buy. That's just
word-games: you're really not poorer, except through a greedy
imagination which perverts the theory of opportunity cost.

"One in hand is better than two in the bush"....

In article >,
ZedBanty > wrote:

> >> What is your education?

> >I know the difference between a bird in hand versus two in the bush.
> >Do you really need a degree for this?

> Thanks for your (somewhat non-direct) answer to my question.
>
> You don't need a degree - many people obtain tremendous knowledge by a driving
> curiosity, a willingness to learn, and a willingness to investigate. You,
> however, may consider looking into a couple of basic economics and business
> classes at your local community college.

While it's always good to educate one's self, your tone sort of
presupposes that you are absolutely correct and, if NYC would just take
a few courses, he'd see that.

I do not believe this to be the case.

Of course, what you say about opportunity cost and business models, etc.
is correct, however, extending that to a blanket generalization about
whether or not plate-sharing fees (of any amount) are justified -- and
this seems to be what is happening in this discussion -- would be
painting the world a bit more black and white than it really is.

Plenty of busy restaurants thrive without sharing (or corkage or
slicing) fees because the management knows their audience, and knows
that the goodwill that comes from being a customer-friendly restaurant
far more than outweighs the nickels & dimes lost on the very occasional
person trying to get something for nothing. They further speculate
that, most of the time, it's not even someone trying to get something
for nothing, except in the sense that one person wants to share the
company of another while that 2nd person eats, the 1st not being
particularly hungry. restaurants are, after all, in the "hospitality"
business, and that's all part of the bigger picture.

This is not to say that those fees are always A Bad Thing, either.
Personally, I do not enjoy the type of restaurant that has them, but I
can understand why they might want to, as part of their style and
hospitality suite.

....And that's what makes horse racing!

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

ZedBanty wrote:
>
>
> Why wouldn't I?

All right, "dear Reader" it is, then.

> Thanks for your (somewhat non-direct) answer to my question.

Well, think of it as them Korean tabletop BBQs where you grill your own
food.

> You don't need a degree - many people obtain tremendous knowledge by a driving
> curiosity, a willingness to learn, and a willingness to investigate. You,
> however, may consider looking into a couple of basic economics and business
> classes at your local community college.

Actually, I count Heilbroner and Thurow's undergraduate primer among my
favorite volumes on the subject.

I just don't think the theory of opportunity cost applies here.

Fact of the matter is, economic theories can be wrong, or at least
wrongly applied (trickle-down, etc.).

Sounds like you're the one in need of a review.

> Cheers,
> ZedBanty
>
>
> --

I read much further than I needed to to see you're arguing out of
ignorance.

You don't know anything about business people.

You apparently thing that restaurant food grows on trees. You've
obviously never seen the actual costs.

You oversimplify things. For example, do you really believe that
airlines only make a profit on the last 3 seats? What if they were
standby seats sold at $ 50 each? What if they're very heavy
people and raise fuel costs? Are we taking into account the costs
of just that flight or of the entire operation of the airline?

You're just making stuff up as you go along!

NYC XYZ wrote:

>> On what do you base that?
>
>
> Life experience. Do you think that as a group they're so stupid as to
> be in a money-losing business? The one thing I know about businessmen
> is that they can squeeze money out of a stone, even if it's a penny or
> two.
>

>
>>On average, the costs for the food account for about $11.50.
>
>
> Just where are you getting these figures? Food is not that expensive
> where these folks get it from.
>

Mike Berger wrote:
> I read much further than I needed to to see you're arguing out of
> ignorance.
>
> You don't know anything about business people.

Sure I do. I don't mean real corporate stuff, but small business
operations. I'm not saying it's easy, etc., but it ain't "rocket
surgery." Ever traded baseball cards or comic books as a kid?

> You apparently thing that restaurant food grows on trees. You've
> obviously never seen the actual costs.

The costs are not higher than you and I going to the supermarket. They
don't pay retail. That's what I'd meant. So if you can afford to buy
yourself steak and salmon, you can be sure the restaurant, typically,
can afford it, too.

Overhead like rent and insurance are what are usually the biggest
drains -- then taxes, if you're honest, and health department bribes
(EVERYONE has to pay to play, don't kid yourself). There may even be
mobsters involved, such as is the case for many Chinatown restaurants,
and protection rackets. The raw material, food, is actually not very
expensive. Labor, except for your chef and book-keeper and bartender,
is probably negligible.

It ain't easy, necessarily, but you don't have starving restauranteurs,
either.

> You oversimplify things. For example, do you really believe that
> airlines only make a profit on the last 3 seats? What if they were
> standby seats sold at $ 50 each? What if they're very heavy
> people and raise fuel costs? Are we taking into account the costs
> of just that flight or of the entire operation of the airline?
>
> You're just making stuff up as you go along!

No. I specifically said I heard that airlines thing on
NPR..."Marketplace," I believe it was. Shocked the hell outta me, too,
but there you have it. Thus -- which is why I'd brought it up -- I was
willing to allow without challenge the very high costs Erika had
assumed in her example.

In article >, Miss
Elaine Eos says...
>
>In article >,
> ZedBanty > wrote:
>
>> >> What is your education?
>
>> >I know the difference between a bird in hand versus two in the bush.
>> >Do you really need a degree for this?
>
>> Thanks for your (somewhat non-direct) answer to my question.
>>
>>You don't need a degree - many people obtain tremendous knowledge by a driving
>> curiosity, a willingness to learn, and a willingness to investigate. You,
>> however, may consider looking into a couple of basic economics and business
>> classes at your local community college.
>
>While it's always good to educate one's self, your tone sort of
>presupposes that you are absolutely correct and, if NYC would just take
>a few courses, he'd see that.
>
>I do not believe this to be the case.

Of course class-attending does not necessarily learning make. But it would be a
start, no?

>
>Of course, what you say about opportunity cost and business models, etc.
>is correct, however, extending that to a blanket generalization about
>whether or not plate-sharing fees (of any amount) are justified -- and
>this seems to be what is happening in this discussion -- would be
>painting the world a bit more black and white than it really is.

I don't extend it that far. As I said from the beginning, I don't actually
defend the particular practice. An alternative, for example, would be to size
and price an offering *only* to be shared. I've encountered that in upscale
restaurants with items like rack of lamb. ("'xx for two' - a savory delicate
roasted blah blah blah...")

The problem in this discussion, however, is that it can't even get out of the
gate if the basic economics aren't understood. If one doesn't understand the
issue, one can't evaluate the options.

Hence it gets bogged down.

>
>Plenty of busy restaurants thrive without sharing (or corkage or
>slicing) fees because the management knows their audience, and knows
>that the goodwill that comes from being a customer-friendly restaurant
>far more than outweighs the nickels & dimes lost on the very occasional
>person trying to get something for nothing. They further speculate
>that, most of the time, it's not even someone trying to get something
>for nothing, except in the sense that one person wants to share the
>company of another while that 2nd person eats, the 1st not being
>particularly hungry. restaurants are, after all, in the "hospitality"
>business, and that's all part of the bigger picture.
>
>This is not to say that those fees are always A Bad Thing, either.
>Personally, I do not enjoy the type of restaurant that has them, but I
>can understand why they might want to, as part of their style and
>hospitality suite.

That's your choice. If the restaurant is nonetheless sucessful, one is
outvoted.

I dont' have any problem with "NYC's" decision not to ever patronize a
restaurant with plate-sharing fees, or to be unhappy about the incident. I just
don't think he has (or even can given his understanding of the situation) make a
general argument against it.

>
>...And that's what makes horse racing!
>

Yep.

ZedBanty


--

Miss Elaine Eos wrote:

> This is not to say that those fees are always A Bad Thing, either.
> Personally, I do not enjoy the type of restaurant that has them, but I
> can understand why they might want to, as part of their style and
> hospitality suite.

When I have encountered those fees, I have *typically*
(not always, but typically) found that it's at a restaurant
where there's something about the situation that makes it
sensible. There are certainly restauranteurs who make poor
business choices. That's why a bunch go out of business ;-)
You can't afford not to understand what your clientele will
and will not stand for. Nevertheless, an established and
thriving restaurant with a sharing fee (or a plating fee,
or a corkage fee, or whatever) can probably be given the
benefit of the doubt much of the time in a competitive
environment, as customers will go elsewhere if they don't
like it. At least around here, restaurants don't get
much of a chance to get it right. We've got a new one
nearby that has a lot of potential and good food, but
they can't seem to get their act together service wise.
I've given them a few tries, but they've maybe got one
more chance to get it right or they won't get my business
until and unless I start hearing some rave reviews from
others. My hunch is that they're not going to make it.
I also don't really buy that these fees are
about projecting a certain image or style. I think few
restaurants *want* to charge nuisance fees. I think they
do it when they have a problem and see the fee as the
overall best solution to the problem (i.e., one that has
some downsides, but fewer downsides than the alternatives).
They don't always make the right judgment call, of course,
but I think in most cases it's at least their goal to
try to choose the solution that will solve the problem
with the least negative impact on customers.

Best wishes,
Ericka

NYC XYZ wrote:

> No. I specifically said I heard that airlines thing on
> NPR..."Marketplace," I believe it was. Shocked the hell outta me, too,
> but there you have it. Thus -- which is why I'd brought it up -- I was
> willing to allow without challenge the very high costs Erika had
> assumed in her example.

Actually, I didn't assume the cost structure. I
took that from the National Restaurant Association's most
recent survey.

Best wishes,
Ericka

jdoe wrote:
>
>
> nothing ventured, nothing gained
> no guts no glory
> you gotta be in it to win it
> you can't score a goal if you don't take a shot


Right -- so how does that apply to annoying the customer with
capricious fees?

Oh, I get it: there's a sucker born every minute.

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I didn't assume the cost structure. I
> took that from the National Restaurant Association's most
> recent survey.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka


Okay. But that's like the 2000 Census finding that New Yorkers make an
average of $96K a year. Or your science textbook informing you that
you're made out of stardust. Or the other poster talking about
opportunity cost.

Such facts are only relevant in very specific situations.

Fees and surcharges above and beyond the menu price are bogus. Patrons
put up with them because, ironically, we as consumers are a lot more
hospitable and friendly and understanding than the people whose job it
is to be hospitable and friendly and understanding.

Never trust a businessman when it comes to them justifying their
expenses. Never.

The IRS doesn't.

(Yes, yes, I know, "such facts are only relevant....")

In article . com>,
NYC XYZ > wrote:
>Seth Breidbart wrote:
>>
>> Is the fee for sharing a meal, or not ordering one?
>
>In theory it's for sharing one entree, in practice it's for not
>ordering another 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.
>
>Plain ridiculous.

Have you ever actually spoken with somebody who ran a restaurant?
Seats cost them money.

> Anyone get tossed from a bar for sitting with the
>one glass of scotch?

People _have_ been asked not to linger over after-dinner drinks in a
restaurant.

>> 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?
>
>Pretty silly, isn't it?

Reality can be that way.

>I'd be happier if they'd just raise their prices and stop being stupid
>about things.

That is, you want people who order one meal each to subsidize people
who don't? Go ahead and suggest that, and let the restaurant make a
business decision as to whether or not it thinks that advisable.

> 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.

I'd bet it doesn't cover their plate-sharing fees, which is what
matters. They're under no obligation to arrange their business the
way you want. Why should I (who goes there and orders a meal) pay
more so that you can avoid a plate-sharing fee?

If you think they're being too stupid, you can start your own business
and compete them into the ground.

Seth

Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
>
> Have you ever actually spoken with somebody who ran a restaurant?

Yeah, my dad.

> Seats cost them money.

The table's already spoken for. Doesn't matter whether my companion
eats, or eats a little -- the table's spoken for.

> People _have_ been asked not to linger over after-dinner drinks in a
> restaurant.

Yes, I understand that.

But I was asking about bars in particular. Any get tossed for
lingering at the bar over the same bottle or glass?

> Reality can be that way.

Only if we let it be.

> That is, you want people who order one meal each to subsidize people
> who don't?

As I've noted elsewhere, that's the same kind of fallacious thinking
behind those who are indignant that "their tax dollars" are going to
support x, y, and z. Truth is, in a society everyone "subsidizes"
everyone else.

If you spend $50, the table on the other side spending $100 is
"subsidizing" you, under your logic.

> Go ahead and suggest that, and let the restaurant make a
> business decision as to whether or not it thinks that advisable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "let" the restaurant...am I putting a gun
to someone's head here?

> I'd bet it doesn't cover their plate-sharing fees, which is what
> matters.

There is no loss from so-called plate-sharing in the first place. Same
thing with having slow-eating diners, messy diners, diners with young
children who typically require more attention.

> They're under no obligation to arrange their business the
> way you want.

Non sequitor. Am I holding a gun to their heads?

> Why should I (who goes there and orders a meal) pay
> more so that you can avoid a plate-sharing fee?

Why should big spenders subsidize you?

Goodness, Reaganomics in dining!

> If you think they're being too stupid, you can start your own business
> and compete them into the ground.

Yeah, and you too can run for President.

Hello!

> Seth

In article .com>,
NYC XYZ > wrote:
>Seth Breidbart wrote:
>>
>> Have you ever actually spoken with somebody who ran a restaurant?
>> Seats cost them money.
>
>The table's already spoken for. Doesn't matter whether my companion
>eats, or eats a little -- the table's spoken for.

If the person who doesn't pay for a meal weren't there, they could
seat someone else who would order a meal, and make more money.

>> People _have_ been asked not to linger over after-dinner drinks in a
>> restaurant.
>
>Yes, I understand that.
>But I was asking about bars in particular. Any get tossed for
>lingering at the bar over the same bottle or glass?

Dunno, but I wouldn't be surprised if it sometimes happens.

>> That is, you want people who order one meal each to subsidize people
>> who don't?
>
>As I've noted elsewhere, that's the same kind of fallacious thinking
>behind those who are indignant that "their tax dollars" are going to
>support x, y, and z. Truth is, in a society everyone "subsidizes"
>everyone else.
>
>If you spend $50, the table on the other side spending $100 is
>"subsidizing" you, under your logic.

Nope. If you raise my price in order to lower somebody else's price,
I'm subsidizing him. If we buy different stuff at different prices,
there's no subsidy.

>> Go ahead and suggest that, and let the restaurant make a
>> business decision as to whether or not it thinks that advisable.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "let" the restaurant...am I putting a gun
>to someone's head here?

No, I'm saying you should make your suggestion to the restaurant and
see what they decide.

>> I'd bet it doesn't cover their plate-sharing fees, which is what
>> matters.
>
>There is no loss from so-called plate-sharing in the first place. Same
>thing with having slow-eating diners, messy diners, diners with young
>children who typically require more attention.

They cost the restaurant more, don't they? The restaurant chooses to
charge arbitrarily, based on its belief about what its customers will
put up with.

>> Why should I (who goes there and orders a meal) pay
>> more so that you can avoid a plate-sharing fee?
>
>Why should big spenders subsidize you?

What makes you think they do?

>> If you think they're being too stupid, you can start your own business
>> and compete them into the ground.
>
>Yeah, and you too can run for President.

"If I were Rockefeller I'd be richer than Rockefeller."

Seth

Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
>
> If the person who doesn't pay for a meal weren't there, they could
> seat someone else who would order a meal, and make more money.

The table -- the whole table, and nothing but the table -- is spoken
for. I'm sitting there. Unless we're talking Chinese dim-sum where
strangers are routinely put together at one big banquet roundtable, MY
table is SPOKEN FOR. NO ONE is coming over to share this table, which
could be a two or four-seater, typically.

Really, you folks have got to give up these penny-pinching ex post
facto rationalizations.

It's petty greed, pure and simple.

> Dunno, but I wouldn't be surprised if it sometimes happens.

Pretty much defeats the whole purpose of a bar, doesn't it?

> Nope. If you raise my price in order to lower somebody else's price,
> I'm subsidizing him.

Don't try to change the subject: who contributes more to the
restaurant, your $50 tab or another's $100 meal?

> If we buy different stuff at different prices,
> there's no subsidy.

Don't try to change the subject: you're just a number. At $50, you are
the weakest link next to a $100 diner.

> No, I'm saying you should make your suggestion to the restaurant and
> see what they decide.

As opposed to...what?

> They cost the restaurant more, don't they? The restaurant chooses to
> charge arbitrarily, based on its belief about what its customers will
> put up with.

Thank you for getting to the point.

It's not about cost, etc.

It's about what the grubby elves can get away with.

Who'd ever have thought of paying for water fifty years ago, eh?

> What makes you think they do?

What makes you think they don't?

> "If I were Rockefeller I'd be richer than Rockefeller."

"There's one born every minute."

> Seth

It's like with all the ridiculous charges on a phone bill...it's sad
people don't see greed as a moral issue.

Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
>
>
> I have a friend who won't eat anywhere that doesn't include tax in the
> price and he fusses a lot if the prices aren't all rounded to the
> nearest quarter.

I have one who only eats diner fare, another who won't eat veggies,
another who will have fruit juice but not actual fruits, another who
doesn't like celery, another who brings her own utensils, and another
who claims to never ever eat out at all.

> Quick business lesson: do you know why MOST places charge prices that
> end in .95? Because that gimmick works. Oh sure, you & I and everyone
> else all think we're smart enough to recognize that $12.95 = $13.00 --
> in fact, we even look at $12.95 and *SAY* "thirteen dollars"! -- but the
> fact of the matter is, a lot of people -- MOST people! -- would pay
> $12.95 for something and think it a fair price but would NOT pay $13.00
> for the same item, claiming it was over-priced as their #1 reason.

What I heard about this was that it allows the merchants to claim that
"product x is less than $$" when it's only a nickel or a penny less.

> So you end up with things that cost $12.45 + tax (evil government, not
> our fault!)

I thought this was a democracy?

> + tip (unless you're stingy)

Another problem with restaurants today: the lack of hospitality is
manifested in poor service, where you actually have to remind the kids
that you are waiting on your water, napkin, an extra spoon,
dessert...unbelievable. At that pizzeria restaurant almost across from
Lombardi's in NYC (a historic landmark -- first pizzeria in America!),
the head waiter, a veteran of at least a decade, brought out the wrong
dish but tried to play it off like it wasn't the wrong dish, mainly not
as well-done as I seem to have expected it.

It's really something in the air, when people can't even do the small
stuff right, or be honest about it.

Etc.

> + a shared-plate free for your
> friend (and, really -- have you LOOKED at the energy bills a restaurant
> faces?! YOU go wash dishes for a day!)

I have, many a day. I don't think any of you people grew up "in" a
restaurant.

> + this + that + another thing...

Riiiiiight...Zeno's Paradox in the kitchen...chuckle....

> ...Because it works.

Oh yeah, that's for sure -- "never give a sucker an even break."

> Because raising the menu price to $13.00 would cost them a LOT of money.

As opposed to not being a greedy capitalist pig about it?

The funny thing about capitalism is that one feels morally obligated to
wring every last red cent out of the situation. It's like a frat boy
who can't pass up a boozed-up knocked-out coed on the couch.

> We all *SAY* that we'd rather pay an extra nickel and not face the
> surcharges but, it turns out that the restaurant ACTUALLY DOES THE
> SCIENCE and, as a group, we humans will NOT pay the extra nickel.

Untrue. You should have seen "20/20" last week when smarmy smart-ass
John Stoussel did a whole show on "Freakonomics"...there was a segment
involving businesspeople who operate entirely on the honor system --
they leave their food out and leave and customers take time out to read
the price list and pay accordingly.

Also, it's a marketing truism that people generally won't buy unless
you charge a high price (that is, at the higher end of their means).
What's the difference between a $10 14-oz. steak and a $25 14-oz.
steak?

Fifteen bucks.

> "Oh, and sorry for the inconvenience for the rest of you, who really
> would."

That's the problem with catering to the lowest common denominator.

> That's why they do it.

Indeed: there are no victims, only volunteers.

> --
> Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
> I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
> unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> On what basis do you claim that? The only way
> this holds true is if the lost profit can be made up
> by a nickel from each of the non-plate sharing diners.
> If you were charged six dollars as a plate sharing fee,
> odds are that's about their average profit on a main
> course (since that's likely what they're trying to recoup).
> If that's the case, then it means that there could only
> be 1 plate-sharer for every 120 diners who order their
> own main course. Seems rather unlikely to me that fewer
> than 1 percent of diners share plates.

See the other sub-thread.

> Because in some ways it's quite fair.

Justice is indivisible. There is no "some ways" about it.

> It
> puts the burden of making up the cost

There is NO COST to plate-sharing.

> on the people who
> are generating the lower-than-average revenues

Remember what "average" means. An "average" results from those who
generate more than what turns out to be average as well as from those
who generate less than the average.

You get some, you give some.

It's called life.

> without
> increasing the costs on those who are doing the expected
> thing (i.e., ordering their own main course).

There is no "cost" to plate-sharing. That is total baloney. The food
is paid for. Whether I eat it all there and then or bring some home
for the dog later doesn't make a bit of difference. Whether I share it
with the dog later or share it with my friend there and then makes no
difference. The table is taken, no one else is going to be there with
me but my friend -- and I've paid for the food. Period.

> If you
> do the normal/expected thing and order your own main
> course, you are not penalized.

Eating together, trying out dishes together, is normal and expected.
To charge on top of that is G-R-E-E-D.

> If you order less than
> you "fair share,"

What a ridiculous notion! "And you, you're taking up too much air --
please stiffle yourself!" (Not "you" personally -- I'm making a
point.)

> you are penalized, but not by as much
> as you would be if you were required to purchase your
> own main course.

What nit-picking GREED...would that the restaurant takes such care with
their food and service in the first place!

> That doesn't mean it's the ideal solution, but
> it is in the same spirit of most of these sorts of fees
> that you see (like corkage or plating fees).

It's wrong, plain and simple. There is no justification except GREED.
Businessmen are always pleading poverty.

> When you
> deny the restaurant normally expected revenues/profits

Hey, let's get a sense of proportion here, okay?

If the government is expecting you to pay $$$ in taxes, but as a
freelancer this year you're on

> by bringing in your own food or drink or by not ordering
> a main course,

Not comparable -- apples and oranges.

> you're on the hook to make up some of that
> loss.

There is no loss to sharing a dish. The money is made. There isn't a
line out the door that's just waiting on me and my date to finish so
they can come in and rescue the poor restauranteur from his luck.

> Other restaurants may choose to make up for these
> losses in other ways (I've even encountered a restaurant
> or two that didn't charge corkage fees), but it's not
> an unreasonable thing on the face of it in my opinion.

And the matter remains: what constitutes "reasonableness"?

Like I said, you just have a different notion of a restaurant as an
institution, as an experience, as a place, and as a culture. Obviously
most folks share your views, which is why we pay left and right for all
kinds of petty things that used to come standard.

Just goes to show you what businessmen and marketoids know: you can
sell anything. Anything.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka

You can take a t-square to anything...doesn't mean the numbers are
relevant.

The mentality you have is precisely that which allows government to
think of education and universal health-care as luxuries while war and
politicking in the form of foreign aid, etc., as necessities.

With all due respect, we just have different priorities, different
values. You take the psychology behind Zeno's Paradox literally,
whereas I am merely amused by such tricks of logic.

Forests and trees.

In article .com>,
"NYC XYZ" > wrote:

> There is NO COST to plate-sharing.

You are mistaken.

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

The glass if half-full, the glass is half-empty.

There is NO COST to plate-sharing.

Unless, of course, you're greedy.



Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
>
>
> You are mistaken.
>
> --
> Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
> I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
> unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

The glass is half-full, the glass is half-empty.

There is NO COST to plate-sharing.

Unless, of course, you're greedy.



Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
>
>
> You are mistaken.
>
> --
> Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
> I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
> unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> Why not?

I'd already told you: bringing in outside food defeats the point of
that particular restaurant; plate-sharing is often part and parcel of
communal dining in any restaurant.

>It's lost revenue, just the same.
> Revenue is revenue is revenue.

There is NO COST to plate-sharing.

> So...your date didn't order a main course why?

Like I said, she seemed to have been on a diet.

> After all, the purpose is to eat.

She had soup and salad -- and some of the paella.

> Why is it morally
> superior to share a main course than to bring in your
> own birthday cake or a special bottle of wine?

I never said it was. And unless one's own cake or wine invovles the
restaurant preparing it, refrigerating it, serving it -- etc. -- I
don't see why there should be a charge for it, as long as it's
incidental.

> Some do. As I've said repeatedly, there are many
> ways to skin this cat, and different restaurants choose
> differently depending on their clientele.

And as I've said repeatedly, there are some things which lie at the
very heart of what it means to eat with company that it's asinine to
charge for it as if it was beyond the call of duty for the restaurant.

> They penalize
> the light eater because the light eater is the one causing
> the revenue problem!

There is NO PROBLEM, except wishing to define it as such.

> It's no different from any other
> business having a minimum order.

A minimum order stipulation is FAIR.

A plate-sharing fee is PURE GREED. Obviously a person would rather
just buy a $6 salad than have to pay a $6 fee for nothing. So if your
concern is to sell more food, why not give the man a salad to go? But
no, the poor businessman would rather charge a fee for nothing instead
of stating upfront that there is a minimum order necessary.

GREED. DISHONESTY.

> Some companies choose
> to limit things by having a minimum order.

So just come out and say it instead of pussy-footing around with
fine-print legalese like a car commercial.

> Other companies
> allow small orders, but have to make up the lost money
> in other ways.

There is NO "lost" money.

Did you "lose" money by not having been an investment banker? Did you
"lose" money by not having been President of the United States? Did
you "lose" anything by having spent time and calories opening the door
for someone who didn't acknowledge your courtesy?

> Which they choose depends on their business
> model, same as the restaurant.

NO. Actually, as this conversation makes clear, it all depends on who
they can get to put up with the scheme.

> Fortunately, there are lots
> of restaurants out there. If you don't like the policies of
> this one, don't go back. You'll still end up paying for
> things one way or another at other restaurants, but if
> you find it more palatable, then that's absolutely your
> prerogative.

Of course it is, no one's arguing that.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka

On 18 Apr 2006 16:37:39 -0700, "NYC XYZ" > wrote:

>I don't see how you can really rush your diners through their meals.
>But again, raising prices by a mere nickel all-around isn't going to
>discourage anyone if your cooking's any good, and it saves you from
>being a petty cheapskate about something as simple as sharing dishes.

In order to get the six dollars for plate-sharing out of a price increase,
you'd have to sell 120 items per plate-sharing. [1] If you think that
this only happens once in 120 item-sales, go ahead.

Oh, wait, I forgot. It's not your restaurant.

So, if this is still an etiquette question, the answer lies in the concept,
"don't give unsolicited advice." That means you can tell the restaurant
owner you don't like the plate-sharing charge, because you are a customer.
But you can't tell him it's stupid or that it will ruin his business.

-JoAnne

[1] This assumes that not charging for the plate-sharing won't encourage
more people to do it.

--

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> But its profitability goes down.

What, every diner that walks through the door ought to spend X amount
of money to be welcome?

Profitability does NOT go down. It is GREED that makes people so
petty-minded as to think that if they aren't making money every second,
"profitability" is "down."

My father, the former restauranteur, is a real businessman. He can
turn a nickel into a dollar. It's the Chinese peasant in him (yeah,
you think the hundreds of billions in US-China trade surpluses are due
to unfair competition? Bah!). He's now almost eighty years old. What
does he do in his golden years? Calculating how to turn that dollar
into ten dollars.

Many people find it admirable. I think it's missing the whole point of
life.

Just as y'all here are missing the whole point of providing a service
and enjoying food.

> 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.

Apples and oranges -- more like PHIL 101, ethics. The cost of
plate-sharing is imagined. This culture sees time itself as money, so
I concede this thread, this whole thread (but nothing but this thread),
to the reigning culture of green grubby greasy greed, gross and
grasping.

Smiles aren't free, either.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka

>> Fees and surcharges above and beyond the menu price are bogus.
>
>I have a friend who won't eat anywhere that doesn't include tax in the
>price and he fusses a lot if the prices aren't all rounded to the
>nearest quarter.

Rounded *UP* to the nearest quarter? You know that's what will
happen, don't you?

>Quick business lesson: do you know why MOST places charge prices that
>end in .95? Because that gimmick works. Oh sure, you & I and everyone
>else all think we're smart enough to recognize that $12.95 = $13.00 --
>in fact, we even look at $12.95 and *SAY* "thirteen dollars"! -- but the

No, I look at $12.95 and say "fifteen dollars less some change
including the sales tax". Or, if it's a restaurant meal, more
including sales tax (if applicable) and tip.

>fact of the matter is, a lot of people -- MOST people! -- would pay
>$12.95 for something and think it a fair price but would NOT pay $13.00
>for the same item, claiming it was over-priced as their #1 reason.

Gordon L. Burditt

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Say, what's this crazy fee for sharing that, apparently, some
> restaurants charge??
>
> There is this spanish restaurant that charged me some kind of penalty
> fee for sharing a pot of seafood paella (or whatever the hell it's
> called) with my date who doesn't eat much. The pot of boiled rice and
> seafood bits (big deal!), a salad, and two soups was like $30 already,
> and the manager charged me like another $6 for sharing! WTF is up with
> this??? Is this a very common practice in hoity places?? el senor
> claims it's for having to wash the "extra" dishes and ultensils...?how
> do you say WTF in espagnol? I dine rather widely and have never heard
> of this BS.

I guess you don't get out much, as sharing fees have been on the menu
for decades. Often the wait staff doesn't enforce the sharing fee,
especially if the total order per person is sufficiently high. Other
restaurants implement a minimum order amount per person, which I think
is a fairer way of ensuring that seats are not used by people that
aren't ordering enough to cover the fixed costs.

The Spanish restaurant we go to on occasion, requires two orders to make
a paella, they won't do it for one person.