Steve Pope wrote:
> NYC XYZ > wrote:
>
>> I'm simply unconvinced that plate-sharing eats into anyone's business.
>
> It might, but I've very unconvinced plate-sharing charges
> actually solve any economic or operational problems for the typical
> restaurant that imposes them. I think it's more of an irrational
> reaction to a restauranteur's belief that diners are under-ordering.
> And I don't see how it affects over-lingering at all. I would
> think the customer who pays an extra fee would feel entitled
> to stay at his table longer.

The minimum order per person may be a better solution than the sharing
charge, in areas where under-ordering is a problem.

ZedBanty wrote:

> You missed the point. The *point* worth considering is that this restaurant may
> be more subject to frequent expectations to serve one meal to two diners because
> of what they serve (analogously to how the maternity store is much more subject
> to the abuse that a nice maternity dress is 'free-rented' for one evening's wear
> by purchase then return than the regular women's boutique down the street).
> Another option may be to only offer paella as a "for two" meal. I've seen that
> for, for example, rack of lamb. But that destoys the option for a single meal.
> Or they can cut portions, but that compromises the expectations of a lot of
> diners, also. (I personally would vote for that, since portions in the U.S. are
> overly huge to begin with, but then, I'm not the one with a business looking to
> serve a customer set.)

If they serve small portions, then some people will complain, correctly
stating the ingredient cost is such a small fraction of expenses, that
it's chintzy to serve small portions. If they serve large portions, then
people will share meals, which is economically unfeasible if it occurs a
lot.

SMS wrote:
>
>
> I guess you don't get out much,

I guess you missed the part where I noted that I dine rather widely.

> as sharing fees have been on the menu
> for decades.

Oh, man, it's worse than I thought!

> 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.

What the hell, just have a damn cover charge or something, then! I
mean, honestly, if it's about minimum orders and all, let's come out
with it. It's damned ridiculous to have to note the fine print when
you're in a restaurant trying to relax with good food and company.

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

There you go, a paella is a communal dish! What the hell are they
expecting, anyway? If it weren't for not wanting to make a scene in
front of the date (who was a bit incredulous herself), I would have
insisted he bagged us a salad to go for the stupid $6 fee! Why, had I
known this restauranteur was on the verge of starvation because of
plate-sharing diners, I would have had ready in hand for him a referral
card for the local soup kitchen!

Don't you just love these penny-pinching businessmen who claim costs
and poverty while exploiting illegals in the kitchen....

SMS wrote:
>
>
> The minimum order per person may be a better solution than the sharing
> charge, in areas where under-ordering is a problem.


Per person may be carrying things too far...surely you don't really
mean that? Sales are calculated by the table, aren't they -- you don't
seat strangers at the same table, after all. So if sales are by the
table, then the tab per table is what counts, regardless of which
individuals at the table consumes what amount.

NYC XYZ wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>>
>> I guess you don't get out much,
>
> I guess you missed the part where I noted that I dine rather widely.
>
>> as sharing fees have been on the menu
>> for decades.
>
> Oh, man, it's worse than I thought!
>
>> 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.
>
> What the hell, just have a damn cover charge or something, then!

The minimum order is an alternative to a cover charge. Just like some
night clubs are "no cover, two drink minimum."

NYC XYZ wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>>
>> The minimum order per person may be a better solution than the sharing
>> charge, in areas where under-ordering is a problem.
>
>
> Per person may be carrying things too far...surely you don't really
> mean that?

Many restaurants have per person minimums, though as long as the total
bill divided by the number of people is more than the minimum, that's
all that matters.

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

> SMS wrote:
> > The minimum order per person may be a better solution than the sharing
> > charge, in areas where under-ordering is a problem.

> Per person may be carrying things too far...surely you don't really
> mean that? Sales are calculated by the table, aren't they -- you don't
> seat strangers at the same table, after all. So if sales are by the
> table, then the tab per table is what counts, regardless of which
> individuals at the table consumes what amount.

Regardless of the logic or intention of it, yes, many restaurants have a
per-person minimum order. However, it's typically quite low &
reasonable, as to almost be a non-factor (i.e., it's typically less than
half the price of a reasonable meal, so you could order a burger, your
friend nothing, and still meet the minimum order.)

And, like sharing fee, it's often not really enforced.

I think that the min-per-order thing might be in areas with a large
"starving student" population -- or perhaps high homelessness -- and the
gist of it seems to be "we don't want half a dozen of you kids sitting
around all afternoon while one of your orders a soda with free refills
and you all drink off of it" kind of thing.

Darn those kids!

--
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.

"NYC XYZ" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> 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 don't understand why you're so upset about this. I don't eat out all that
often but I know that sharing charges aren't that uncommon. I've seen them
listed on menus many times.

From now on, check the menu carefully. If there is a charge for sharing, it
should be listed, typically at the bottom of the menu in the same place
where a restaurant might point out that a gratuity will be added to the bill
for parties of more than a certain number of people. If a sharing charge is
listed and it offends you that much, then leave without ordering. (After
paying for drinks or whatever that you've already received, of course.)

If the menu doesn't list a sharing charge then let the waiter know when you
order that you intend to share. If the waiter tells you then there's a
charge, politely state that under that circumstance you'll be leaving, and
go. (Again of course after paying for anything you ordered and received.)

If you're not informed either in writing or by the waiter that there's a
charge for sharing, then I think you have a legitimate complaint that you
should bring up with the restaurant's manager. Otherwise I don't see that
you have cause for complaint.

Anny

I guess people will put up with anything...how else to explain the
profusion of fees, charges, and surcharges for every goddamned little
thing?

Next up: your 401 (k)!

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...la-home-right1


Oh, wait a minute..."I don't know why you're upset...I've seen them
before...."



Alan Moorman wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:55:06 GMT, "Anny Middon"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I don't understand why you're so upset about this. I don't eat out all that
> >often but I know that sharing charges aren't that uncommon. I've seen them
> >listed on menus many times.
> >
> Don't know where you live, but I've never heard of it before!
>
>
>
> Alan
> __________________________________
>
> Our President Speaks:
> "I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I
> rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the
> news themselves."-Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

On 27 Apr 2006 13:44:05 -0700, "NYC XYZ" > wrote:

>I guess people will put up with anything...how else to explain the
>profusion of fees, charges, and surcharges for every goddamned little
>thing?
>
>Next up: your 401 (k)!

Is this still relevant to alt.fan.miss-manners?

-JoAnne

--