PENMART01 wrote:

> "Jack Schidt=AE" > writes:
>=20
>>Out of the couple dozen or so restaurants within a 20 minute
>>drive from here, only 1 offers half portions, and even those are pretty=

>>generous. I like feeling sated and not stuffed to where I'm sitting th=
ere
>>pole-axed. I wish more places would offer a reduced portion option.
>>
>>Jack Fed-eral
>=20
> Then they'd have to offer a reduced price option, which would in effect=
,
> considering that actual food is their least costly element of running a=

> restaurant,

Cookie, really, stick to subjects you know something about. I can't=20
imagine what that would be, but I'm sure there's one.

"Cost of goods sold" is either the largest or second largest part of a=20
restaurant's budget. The other large one is labor. Between the two=20
(called "prime cost" in the trade) they often total 60 to 65% of=20
revenue in profitable restaurants. More in the losers and country clubs.

Food is a variable cost and perfectly suited to reduced portion size=20
if it's planned for. Cooking a steak and then cutting it in half is no=20
burden for a restaurant kitchen. Halving a portion of lasagna, likewise.

> put the fine-dining restaurant out of business and into Chapter
> 11... perhaps yoose portion quantity affectionados should revisit the "=
Sm.,
> Med., Lg." fast food dining experience.
>=20
> And then again I've not ever noticed where fine-dining restaurants offe=
r very
> large portions... perhaps yoose is speaking of the Fercoctah Family Cha=
ins.

And perhaps you should try writing in conventional English instead of=20
this too-cutesie Katzian patois.

Another strategy is to order a dinner and split it. I encouraged that=20
in my restaurants. It still worked out for us because when people ate=20
less in their entrees and sides, they had room for dessert. And, even=20
if they didn't have dessert, they appreciated our efforts to please=20
them and returned again and again. Booked parties with us. Brought=20
out-of-towners. Talked us up.

Pastorio