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.

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.

Yes, it is not uncommon. It is extra work for the
restaurant and the server.

Best wishes,
Ericka

A waitstaff angling for a better tip will leave out the
plate sharing fee even if there is one mentioned on the
menu. Especially if you are not under-ordering in general,
it's reasonable not to charge it. It's really there
for people who are taking up too much table space in
exchange for not ordering enough -- such fees go to the
house, not the server.

Steve

On 17 Apr 2006 15:34:13 -0700, "NYC XYZ" >
wrote:

>and the manager charged me like another $6 for sharing!

YOU need to get out more in the real world. A "sharing charge" is
common....just like there are no take outs at a Ryan's Steakhouse hog
trough.

Steve Pope wrote:
> A waitstaff angling for a better tip will leave out the
> plate sharing fee even if there is one mentioned on the
> menu. Especially if you are not under-ordering in general,
> it's reasonable not to charge it. It's really there
> for people who are taking up too much table space in
> exchange for not ordering enough -- such fees go to the
> house, not the server.
>
> Steve



Thanks Steve and Ericka...I guess the place was much more "hoity" than
my usual ethnic haunts! I've never had such a fee in any Asian
restaurant (Chinese, Thai, Indian, Pakistani, etc.), even those with
waitstaff and real china, so maybe it's a European cuisine kind of
thing. Though...I've dined at other Spanish restaurants before, and
Italian ones, too, and this plate-sharing fee is news to me. That's
just plain ridiculous...I wish I had the presence of mind at the time
to ask for a $6 salad instead of paying a $6 fee....

Wish these hoity places would post their menus in the window like some
Parisian joints do so I can avoid them and their stupid fees. It's not
like I'm taking up a table during weekend dinner for $10 of salad and
mineral water!



Ward Abbott wrote:
>
>
> YOU need to get out more in the real world. A "sharing charge" is
> common....just like there are no take outs at a Ryan's Steakhouse hog
> trough.

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

> Steve Pope wrote:
> > A waitstaff angling for a better tip will leave out the
> > plate sharing fee even if there is one mentioned on the
> > menu. Especially if you are not under-ordering in general,
> > it's reasonable not to charge it. It's really there
> > for people who are taking up too much table space in
> > exchange for not ordering enough -- such fees go to the
> > house, not the server.

> Thanks Steve and Ericka...I guess the place was much more "hoity" than
> my usual ethnic haunts! I've never had such a fee in any Asian
> restaurant (Chinese, Thai, Indian, Pakistani, etc.), even those with
> waitstaff and real china, so maybe it's a European cuisine kind of
> thing. Though...I've dined at other Spanish restaurants before, and
> Italian ones, too, and this plate-sharing fee is news to me. That's
> just plain ridiculous...I wish I had the presence of mind at the time
> to ask for a $6 salad instead of paying a $6 fee....

Wait until you bring your own favorite bottle of wine or birthday cake,
and they charge you to uncork/slice it (whether it is you or they who do
the uncorking/slicing)! <G>

While I admit to agreeing that this is unsettling, it is also quite
common enough to be considered customary. The places which do not do
this are "a cut above."

--
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.

I'm not a big eater, so I get grumpy at that plate sharing charge. Most
of the time, my husband orders an entree and I get a bowl of soup
and/or small salad. We usually don't get charged extra.

In article .com>, NYC XYZ
says...
>
>
>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 know about that practice enough to comment on it as far as propriety (I
don't defend it or condemn it at this point), but you should know that
restaurants operate on a fairly small margin. And that margin is met by having
a certain throughput of diners per seat through the day. If their meals are
often shared (paella as a speciality may be especially subject to that), they
effectively have fewer diners than they've hosted. That's both an opportunity
cost and a real cost.

ZedBanty


--

In article .com>, NYC XYZ
says...
>
>
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> A waitstaff angling for a better tip will leave out the
>> plate sharing fee even if there is one mentioned on the
>> menu. Especially if you are not under-ordering in general,
>> it's reasonable not to charge it. It's really there
>> for people who are taking up too much table space in
>> exchange for not ordering enough -- such fees go to the
>> house, not the server.
>>
>> Steve
>
>
>
>Thanks Steve and Ericka...I guess the place was much more "hoity" than
>my usual ethnic haunts! I've never had such a fee in any Asian
>restaurant (Chinese, Thai, Indian, Pakistani, etc.), even those with
>waitstaff and real china, so maybe it's a European cuisine kind of
>thing. Though...I've dined at other Spanish restaurants before, and
>Italian ones, too, and this plate-sharing fee is news to me. That's
>just plain ridiculous...I wish I had the presence of mind at the time
>to ask for a $6 salad instead of paying a $6 fee....
>

Possibly - this kind of restaurant gets impacted quite a lot by plate-sharing.

I know of one women's wear store that has a rather strict non-return policy on a
certain category of their stock. Before that policy, the returns were nearly
70%. That store and category of stock was a maternity wear store, and the
category was their dress and evening wear. The owner had grown tired of being a
free-for-rent outlet for maternity evening wear.

ZedBatny


--

ZedBanty > wrote:

>I don't know about that practice enough to comment on it as far as propriety (I
>don't defend it or condemn it at this point), but you should know that
>restaurants operate on a fairly small margin. And that margin is met by having
>a certain throughput of diners per seat through the day. If their meals are
>often shared (paella as a speciality may be especially subject to that), they
>effectively have fewer diners than they've hosted. That's both an opportunity
>cost and a real cost.

To my way of thinking, if the genre of food is normally shared
(and that would include Spanish food), it is more nonsensical
to charge for sharing.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
>
> To my way of thinking, if the genre of food is normally shared
> (and that would include Spanish food), it is more nonsensical
> to charge for sharing.
>
> Steve


With all due respect to those on the other side of this issue, I think
the whole cost factor is a load of bull. How much does it "cost" the
owner or waiter/waitress to bring/wash another fork or plate? If
they're so damned worried about costs, just raise everything on the
menu by a nickel, for Christ's sake! Customers won't really notice,
and then for those relatively few occasions of so-called plate-sharing
(indeed, I too thought food was a communal experience) the
restauranteur can act the gracious host and display the magnanimous
hospitality one would expect of these hoity-poity places!

trippinkpj wrote:
> I'm not a big eater, so I get grumpy at that plate sharing charge. Most
> of the time, my husband orders an entree and I get a bowl of soup
> and/or small salad. We usually don't get charged extra.

Well I am a big eater, and wound up eating that pot of paella mostly by
myself! The girl just didn't want much beyond the soup and a bit of my
salad and paella -- what can I say? But to charge me an extra $6 on a
$35 tab seems ridiculously petty of them. Again, I only wish I had the
presence of mind then and there to demand another $6 salad instead.

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>> To my way of thinking, if the genre of food is normally shared
>> (and that would include Spanish food), it is more nonsensical
>> to charge for sharing.
>
> With all due respect to those on the other side of this issue, I think
> the whole cost factor is a load of bull. How much does it "cost" the
> owner or waiter/waitress to bring/wash another fork or plate? If
> they're so damned worried about costs, just raise everything on the
> menu by a nickel, for Christ's sake! Customers won't really notice,
> and then for those relatively few occasions of so-called plate-sharing
> (indeed, I too thought food was a communal experience) the
> restauranteur can act the gracious host and display the magnanimous
> hospitality one would expect of these hoity-poity places!

Restaurants succeed or fail based on how full they
can keep the restaurant, how quickly they can turn the tables,
and how high they can keep the average expenditure per table.
Each of these things can't be maxed out without degrading
the diner's experience. Restaurants that are too full
lead to long waits. Restaurants that turn tables too quickly
rush diners. Restaurants that drive prices too high eventually
see a drop in demand. So, they have to balance these things.
A restaurant that takes (and honors) reservations, doesn't
rush diners, and doesn't charge outrageous prices may be
much more in need of that split meal fee than a restaurant
that maximizes throughput (and consequently makes diners
wait for an opening and then rushes them through their
meal).

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> Restaurants succeed or fail based on how full they
> can keep the restaurant, how quickly they can turn the tables,
> and how high they can keep the average expenditure per table.
> Each of these things can't be maxed out without degrading
> the diner's experience.

Okay, some background, then: pop used to own Hunan Kitchen over on
B'way between W75th & 76th (it's now a bank or something). We even had
lines out the door, especially after some show at the nearby Beacon
Theatre. I've peeled shrimp and washed dishes and bussed tables and
delivered take-out, etc., so I know a bit about the restaurant business
-- monthly rent back in the late '80s was ~$35K!!!!

But I still maintain that it doesn't add to any tangible cost to
provide an extra plate or fork. And raising prices across the board by
a mere nickel or dime, if cost is the real reason for being a
cheapskate to one's dining patrons, would boost average income without
alienating customers.

> Restaurants that are too full
> lead to long waits. Restaurants that turn tables too quickly
> rush diners. Restaurants that drive prices too high eventually
> see a drop in demand. So, they have to balance these things.
> A restaurant that takes (and honors) reservations, doesn't
> rush diners, and doesn't charge outrageous prices may be
> much more in need of that split meal fee than a restaurant
> that maximizes throughput (and consequently makes diners
> wait for an opening and then rushes them through their
> meal).

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.
I mean, families do it all the time. I understand not every
establishment is a "family restaurant," but come on...how's it any
different if I took the food home and shared it? That extra fork or
plate gonna kill your business -- even if a good 10% of your patrons do
it?

I know about slim margins and all -- but then you might as well not
bother providing napkins, or start charging for more than three napkins
per person, etc. Frankly, there are lots of ways to fleece your
patrons if you really want to -- no more free tap water, no more
condiments beyond the initial serving...why not just institute a
minimum "in-dining" tab of $25, the way even greasy spoons have a
delivery minimum of $10?

I'm simply unconvinced that plate-sharing eats into anyone's business.
Frankly, if business is that bad, the owner should convert the joint to
a pizza parlor or McDonald's franchise.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka

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.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> Steve



I agree. How did the practice ever start in the first place?? Seems
unfriendly, really. Again, with all due respect to folks on the other
side of this issue, I don't understand why these restauranteurs don't
just raise all their prices a nickel -- or a penny, for that matter.
It all adds up: surely that'll cover for any occasional plate-sharer.
Some dates just don't eat very much for some reason! And it's fun to
try out new dishes...should folks order two or three of the same dish??

Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
>
>
>
> Wait until you bring your own favorite bottle of wine or birthday cake,
> and they charge you to uncork/slice it (whether it is you or they who do
> the uncorking/slicing)! <G>

Geez, they should update those old Grey Poupon commmercials from the
'80s!

> While I admit to agreeing that this is unsettling, it is also quite
> common enough to be considered customary. The places which do not do
> this are "a cut above."

I do wonder. The Spanish restaurant I encountered my first-ever
plate-sharing penalty was done up all nice and ritzy...you know, with
heraldry on the walls, a giant plasma TV at the bar, the kind of place
that sees a lot of retirees for dinner and weekend lunch.

> --
> 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:
>
>
> Possibly - this kind of restaurant gets impacted quite a lot by plate-sharing.
>
> I know of one women's wear store that has a rather strict non-return policy on a
> certain category of their stock. Before that policy, the returns were nearly
> 70%. That store and category of stock was a maternity wear store, and the
> category was their dress and evening wear. The owner had grown tired of being a
> free-for-rent outlet for maternity evening wear.
>
> ZedBatny
>
>
> --


I don't know if the two situations are analogous...in the women's wear
example, the merchant is clearly at a loss, probably even if s/he
charges restocking fees...but in the case of the restaurant, the diner
is clearly spending money as it is! It simply doesn't make sense to
penalize someone for sharing food...I feel very insulted, actually, and
am definitely not going there again -- have been there before on
occasion, but this particular date only pecks at her food, what can I
say...why penalize me for that...sure it's only $6, but the principle
is downright ridiculous. Like I was saying, the guy oughta try a
fast-food franchise, then, if his bottom line is hurting so bad. I
mean, it's a $20 pot of seafood paella -- I think that dish is meant to
be shared, like getting a whole pie of pizza.

Just how did such a practice ever originate? And why in heck does
anyone tolerate it?? Is this even legal???

"NYC XYZ" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> But I still maintain that it doesn't add to any tangible cost to
> provide an extra plate or fork.

Probably not, no. And I agree that the reason given for the fee, to "wash
the extra dishes," sounds facetious. I suspect a more accurate reason is
that the restaurant would normally make almost twice as much money on a
two-person table as they were making on your table, and the fee is designed
to offset that "loss." (Call it an opportunity loss.) Along the lines of a
two-drink minimum at a club, if a person is taking up room in an
establishment, the establishment wants to make a certain amount of money off
of them.

> And raising prices across the board by
> a mere nickel or dime, if cost is the real reason for being a
> cheapskate to one's dining patrons, would boost average income without
> alienating customers.

I'd imagine they've thought of this, and minimums and whatever else, but
have gone with their current pricing scheme regardless. And they *must*
know that it cheeses some people off. One thing you learn from working in
the service industry, when the general public is torked off about something,
they rarely keep quiet about it. But for whatever reason, they've decided
the sharing fee is still worth it. ::shrug:: (Further speculation... only
a small minority of people every share entrees, so the ire caused by the fee
is limited to a select few, who happen to be customers the restaurant
wouldn't much mind losing to be replaced by customers who will order one
entree apiece.)

A sharing fee is not something I'm accustomed to, either, and it probably
would have raised my eyebrow, as well. But on thinking about it, I can see
where the restaurant might be coming from, at least.

Brad

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.

In London a few restaurants include a cover charge, which should be
mentioned on the menu. It's usually UKP 1.50-2.00 and one assumes it
includes table occupancy, as well as the right to order as much or as
little as one wants. It might also include bread, though this is often
priced separately.

--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

In article . com>, NYC XYZ
says...
>
>
>Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Restaurants succeed or fail based on how full they
>> can keep the restaurant, how quickly they can turn the tables,
>> and how high they can keep the average expenditure per table.
>> Each of these things can't be maxed out without degrading
>> the diner's experience.
>
>Okay, some background, then: pop used to own Hunan Kitchen over on
>B'way between W75th & 76th (it's now a bank or something). We even had
>lines out the door, especially after some show at the nearby Beacon
>Theatre. I've peeled shrimp and washed dishes and bussed tables and
>delivered take-out, etc., so I know a bit about the restaurant business
>-- monthly rent back in the late '80s was ~$35K!!!!
>
>But I still maintain that it doesn't add to any tangible cost to
>provide an extra plate or fork. And raising prices across the board by
>a mere nickel or dime, if cost is the real reason for being a
>cheapskate to one's dining patrons, would boost average income without
>alienating customers.
>

If you're looking at this in terms of "provide an extra plate or fork", you're
not looking at the basic economics of restauranteering. Either pop didn't share
the details, or that his kind of restaurant is naturally high-throughput (I went
to Columbia in the '80s; I may have even dined there!) only exposed you to one
operating point in the economic equation.

ZedBanty


--

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>>
>> Restaurants succeed or fail based on how full they
>> can keep the restaurant, how quickly they can turn the tables,
>> and how high they can keep the average expenditure per table.
>> Each of these things can't be maxed out without degrading
>> the diner's experience.
>
> Okay, some background, then: pop used to own Hunan Kitchen over on
> B'way between W75th & 76th (it's now a bank or something). We even had
> lines out the door, especially after some show at the nearby Beacon
> Theatre. I've peeled shrimp and washed dishes and bussed tables and
> delivered take-out, etc., so I know a bit about the restaurant business
> -- monthly rent back in the late '80s was ~$35K!!!!
>
> But I still maintain that it doesn't add to any tangible cost to
> provide an extra plate or fork. And raising prices across the board by
> a mere nickel or dime, if cost is the real reason for being a
> cheapskate to one's dining patrons, would boost average income without
> alienating customers.

There is a cost to serving a table. If you are
occupying a table for 45 minutes, it didn't take any less
of your waiter's time to serve you. They couldn't turn
your table quicker just because you spent less money.
You used the same amount of "overhead" but provided less
revenue. That's a cost--and it's likely much more than a
nickel.

> I don't see how you can really rush your diners through their meals.

Really? Lots of restaurants do it.

> 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.
> I mean, families do it all the time. I understand not every
> establishment is a "family restaurant," but come on...how's it any
> different if I took the food home and shared it?

Ummm...if you each ordered a main course and took half
home, you'd have been spending significantly more money.

> That extra fork or
> plate gonna kill your business -- even if a good 10% of your patrons do
> it?

It's much more than the fork and plate.

> I know about slim margins and all -- but then you might as well not
> bother providing napkins, or start charging for more than three napkins
> per person, etc. Frankly, there are lots of ways to fleece your
> patrons if you really want to -- no more free tap water, no more
> condiments beyond the initial serving...why not just institute a
> minimum "in-dining" tab of $25, the way even greasy spoons have a
> delivery minimum of $10?

Obviously, they could do that. They simply choose not
to. Instead of hitting everyone up, they decide to target what
they perceive as one of the problems--people who split meals.

> I'm simply unconvinced that plate-sharing eats into anyone's business.
> Frankly, if business is that bad, the owner should convert the joint to
> a pizza parlor or McDonald's franchise.

Business might be quite good. If it is, then that
makes the opportunity cost of a below average revenue table
even higher.

Best wishes,
Ericka

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.

It may or may not be effective. That's likely
something that varies from location to location, and even
by the type of restaurant, depending on the clientele.
I suspect it is very successful in some cases and not very
successful in others. Nevertheless, it is certainly a
business cost to have a table occupied for the space of
a dinner and bring in below average revenues. There
are limited things that restaurants can do if they perceive
this as an issue in their business, and a sharing fee
is one thing they can do (might work, might not, but
if they've been doing it a while and remain successful
it's probably working for them). They also lose money
if you just drink water, but it is not perceived as an
option (outside of a bar with a cover charge) to require
you to order drinks.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Brad Bethke wrote:

> I'd imagine they've thought of this, and minimums and whatever else, but
> have gone with their current pricing scheme regardless. And they *must*
> know that it cheeses some people off. One thing you learn from working in
> the service industry, when the general public is torked off about something,
> they rarely keep quiet about it. But for whatever reason, they've decided
> the sharing fee is still worth it. ::shrug:: (Further speculation... only
> a small minority of people every share entrees, so the ire caused by the fee
> is limited to a select few, who happen to be customers the restaurant
> wouldn't much mind losing to be replaced by customers who will order one
> entree apiece.)

Exactly. Furthermore, the sharing fee is typically
substantially less than the cost of the second main course,
so even then the diner is getting off cheaper than they
would have if they got a separate main course. Similarly
with a corkage fee--even with a pretty exorbitant corkage
fee (and some are quite high), you still come out ahead
in many restaurants bringing your own wine and the restaurant
offsets the significant loss in revenue from you not buying
off their wine list.

Best wishes,
Ericka

ZedBanty wrote:
>
>
> You missed the point.

With all due respect, I did not miss the point -- I only objected to
the analogy, which wasn't really analogous. In an apples-and-oranges
case, some want to emphasize that the fact that they are both fruits,
whereas others want to point out that one is a citrus fruit and the
other is not.

Again, the women's ware merchant would have been at a certain (as in
"sure") loss. The restaurant is at no comparable loss. If their logic
is to define simple sharing of dishes (and correct me if I'm wrong, but
a pot of paella is a dish that's meant to be shared, like a pizza pie)
as an economic loss to them, then why not be logically consistent and
charge messy eaters a messy eater's fee for crumbs all over the floor
(like I said, I've bussed tables before and it's amazing where you find
bits of food afterwards)...etc.

> 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

If that's truly the case, that this one establishment keeps getting
plate-sharing customers who really plate-share in the worst sense of
the term (as opposed to what to me seems the innocuous sampling of 10%
of a dish's portions, say), then raise prices across the board by
another three pennies.

> (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).

Again, it's simply not analogous because your whole point is about
"loss" but whereas the maternity dress situation involves actual
quantifiable loss, the plate-sharing case does not. I think you may be
confusing actual loss with imagined loss, the way stockbrokers might
try to say something like, oooh, if only you had bought amazon stock,
wow, your portfolio would be another two million dollars fatter, but,
tsk tsk, you didn't follow my advice, so now you're two million poorer
-- as in, I say, "poorer"....

Truth of the matter is, there is no "loss" with plate-sharing.

> 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 indeed it's such a problem for them, yes, that would be a good
solution. Anyone know whether paella is traditionally shared? I don't
think this is the kind of thing where it can be scandalous not to have
the whole pot (a small eight-incher, to be sure) to yourself.

> It's a business decision.

I understand that. I'm saying it's got nothing to do with real-world
business. Truth to tell, the problem is very easily solved by raising
prices as little as an extra two or three cents. But they don't do
this because it's not a business decision. It's mean and vindictive,
born of a certain mindset which sees the customer as owing certain
behavior patterns to the establishment (!), not one which sees the
customer having a good time and enjoying the food so much it's being
shared.

> Restaurant margins are rather small. And you are only one of many customers.
> To need to run things tightly does not mean it's time to go to a franchise.

It's very simple: if it's about money, then you need a different line
of work -- or cuisine, etc. If it's about sharing your love of
cooking, etc., then drop the plate-sharing fee. It's ridiculous
because despite all the talk about slim profit margins, no one can
demonstrate how any money is lost from plate-sharing.

I'm not talking about going into a buffet, mind you, and plate-sharing.
No, we're talking here about sampling one another's food beyond a bite
or two on a $35 tab. No big deal for a party of two, but by no means
economic hardship for the restaurant, either.

> You
> seem to be looking at this from a rather narrow POV.

I think what's narrow is to penalize normal dining behavior. Any
Italians or Chinese here? Many blue-bloods take fork and knife to
bananas, even, but many of the rest of us use fingers, rest elbows on
tables, and sample each other's food.

> As to your date, she has the option to order an appetizer for you to share, or a
> salad and/or soup.

I guess she was on a diet. Point is, she was curious how they made the
paella, being hispanic herself. Turned out not bad, so she had more.
I'd say she had 25% of the pot, eventually.

Now tell me how that cost the restaurant any money. The food's paid
for. She wasn't going to have anything else anyway. What's the big
deal?

It's amazing you get better treatment at McDonald's.

> Why would it be illegal? Is it discriminatory?

I'd love to hear some comment on case law involving restaurants, but
sure it's discriminatory -- what if a restaurant wanted to charge an
additional "children under 8" fee because those kids typically make a
mess? Yet they would charge the occasional plate-sharer a penalty for
normal dining behavior!

> If it's intolerable, patrons
> won't go back. You're, in effect, voting with your feet. If this restaurant is
> busy, you've been outvoted.

No, I'm sure if Zagat did a Zogby poll (heh) most diners would actually
find the whole practice rather rude. But just as you don't quit your
job over an intolerable boss, most folks will put up with things like
bad service because they're there for the food. But this isn't to say
that most folks wouldn't think it petty to penalize for the odd
instance of plate-sharing. Can you imagine being charged for paper
napkins? For a spill on the floor? For any of the hundred and one
things of such a nature which also cost the restaurant time and money?

I say PROVE IT. Some one, please -- prove, a la Freakonomics or
something, that there is an actual quantifiable cost to the restaurant
for periodic plate-sharing, and that this cost actually undermines
overall profitability.

> Cheers,
> ZedBanty
>
>
> --

ZedBanty wrote:
>
>
> You missed the point.

With all due respect, I did not miss the point -- I only objected to
the analogy, which wasn't really analogous. In an apples-and-oranges
case, some want to emphasize that the fact that they are both fruits,
whereas others want to point out that one is a citrus fruit and the
other is not.

Again, the women's ware merchant would have been at a certain (as in
"sure") loss. The restaurant is at no comparable loss. If their logic
is to define simple sharing of dishes (and correct me if I'm wrong, but
a pot of paella is a dish that's meant to be shared, like a pizza pie)
as an economic loss to them, then why not be logically consistent and
charge messy eaters a messy eater's fee for crumbs all over the floor
(like I said, I've bussed tables before and it's amazing where you find
bits of food afterwards)...etc.

> 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

If that's truly the case, that this one establishment keeps getting
plate-sharing customers who really plate-share in the worst sense of
the term (as opposed to what to me seems the innocuous sampling of 10%
of a dish's portions, say), then raise prices across the board by
another three pennies.

> (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).

Again, it's simply not analogous because your whole point is about
"loss" but whereas the maternity dress situation involves actual
quantifiable loss, the plate-sharing case does not. I think you may be
confusing actual loss with imagined loss, the way stockbrokers might
try to say something like, oooh, if only you had bought amazon stock,
wow, your portfolio would be another two million dollars fatter, but,
tsk tsk, you didn't follow my advice, so now you're two million poorer
-- as in, I say, "poorer"....

Truth of the matter is, there is no "loss" with plate-sharing.

> 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 indeed it's such a problem for them, yes, that would be a good
solution. Anyone know whether paella is traditionally shared? I don't
think this is the kind of thing where it can be scandalous not to have
the whole pot (a small eight-incher, to be sure) to yourself.

> It's a business decision.

I understand that. I'm saying it's got nothing to do with real-world
business. Truth to tell, the problem is very easily solved by raising
prices as little as an extra two or three cents. But they don't do
this because it's not a business decision. It's mean and vindictive,
born of a certain mindset which sees the customer as owing certain
behavior patterns to the establishment (!), not one which sees the
customer having a good time and enjoying the food so much it's being
shared.

> Restaurant margins are rather small. And you are only one of many customers.
> To need to run things tightly does not mean it's time to go to a franchise.

It's very simple: if it's about money, then you need a different line
of work -- or cuisine, etc. If it's about sharing your love of
cooking, etc., then drop the plate-sharing fee. It's ridiculous
because despite all the talk about slim profit margins, no one can
demonstrate how any money is lost from plate-sharing.

I'm not talking about going into a buffet, mind you, and plate-sharing.
No, we're talking here about sampling one another's food beyond a bite
or two on a $35 tab. No big deal for a party of two, but by no means
economic hardship for the restaurant, either.

> You
> seem to be looking at this from a rather narrow POV.

I think what's narrow is to penalize normal dining behavior. Any
Italians or Chinese here? Many blue-bloods take fork and knife to
bananas, even, but many of the rest of us use fingers, rest elbows on
tables, and sample each other's food.

> As to your date, she has the option to order an appetizer for you to share, or a
> salad and/or soup.

I guess she was on a diet. Point is, she was curious how they made the
paella, being hispanic herself. Turned out not bad, so she had more.
I'd say she had 25% of the pot, eventually.

Now tell me how that cost the restaurant any money. The food's paid
for. She wasn't going to have anything else anyway. What's the big
deal?

It's amazing you get better treatment at McDonald's.

> Why would it be illegal? Is it discriminatory?

I'd love to hear some comment on case law involving restaurants, but
sure it's discriminatory -- what if a restaurant wanted to charge an
additional "children under 8" fee because those kids typically make a
mess? Yet they would charge the occasional plate-sharer a penalty for
normal dining behavior!

> If it's intolerable, patrons
> won't go back. You're, in effect, voting with your feet. If this restaurant is
> busy, you've been outvoted.

No, I'm sure if Zagat did a Zogby poll (heh) most diners would actually
find the whole practice rather rude. But just as you don't quit your
job over an intolerable boss, most folks will put up with things like
bad service because they're there for the food. But this isn't to say
that most folks wouldn't think it petty to penalize for the odd
instance of plate-sharing. Can you imagine being charged for paper
napkins? For a spill on the floor? For any of the hundred and one
things of such a nature which also cost the restaurant time and money?

I say PROVE IT. Some one, please -- prove, a la Freakonomics or
something, that there is an actual quantifiable cost to the restaurant
for periodic plate-sharing, and that this cost actually undermines
overall profitability.

> Cheers,
> ZedBanty
>
>
> --

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> It may or may not be effective. That's likely
> something that varies from location to location, and even
> by the type of restaurant, depending on the clientele.
> I suspect it is very successful in some cases and not very
> successful in others. Nevertheless, it is certainly a
> business cost to have a table occupied for the space of
> a dinner and bring in below average revenues. There
> are limited things that restaurants can do if they perceive
> this as an issue in their business, and a sharing fee
> is one thing they can do (might work, might not, but
> if they've been doing it a while and remain successful
> it's probably working for them).

What you say is plausible in the abstract, but almost certainly not the
case in actual practice, because a very simple and almost unnoticeable
way of dealing with lost revenue would be to raise all prices by
another nickel. The reason this is not done is due to a petty
mean-spiritedness which somehow believes that patrons are obliged to
refrain from normal human behavior around the dinner table. Somehow
the attitude is that "you the customer are coming into my home and I am
the king of my castle," etc. -- instead of "you're coming to my home
and I'm treating you like family."

Basically, it's a hospitality issue. How ever did our culture come to
accommodate such nasty narrow-mindedness?

> They also lose money
> if you just drink water, but it is not perceived as an
> option (outside of a bar with a cover charge) to require
> you to order drinks.

Indeed -- so, I ask again, how did diners come to accept this practice
of plate-sharing? Seems like such an odd thing, given the cultural
associations we have of hospitality and all that.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka

congokid wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the 411. Just as an FYI, though: most
("authentic") Chinese restaurants serve food all at once, if possible,
because that's how it is traditionally. Basically, it's as if you were
home and everything's out at once.

> In London a few restaurants include a cover charge, which should be
> mentioned on the menu. It's usually UKP 1.50-2.00 and one assumes it
> includes table occupancy, as well as the right to order as much or as
> little as one wants. It might also include bread, though this is often
> priced separately.

I think it much more logical to simply raise your prices than divvy up
expenses this way. I mean, golly, why not put up a "My Kid's Future
College Tuition Fund" charge of $0.098 to every dish, or an "Ilegal
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.

> --
> congokid
> Eating out in London? Read my tips...
> http://congokid.com

NYC XYZ wrote:

> Again, the women's ware merchant would have been at a certain (as in
> "sure") loss. The restaurant is at no comparable loss. If their logic
> is to define simple sharing of dishes (and correct me if I'm wrong, but
> a pot of paella is a dish that's meant to be shared, like a pizza pie)

? I don't think there's any universal rule here.
Most of the restaurants I've been to serve paella as a
main course for one, unless they're a tapas restaurant.
Obviously, a tapas restaurant wouldn't have a sharing
fee since most dishes are shared in that situation.
I'm sure there may be restaurants where paella is
considered a multi-person dish, but I certainly wouldn't
say that's a regular assumption.

> If that's truly the case, that this one establishment keeps getting
> plate-sharing customers who really plate-share in the worst sense of
> the term (as opposed to what to me seems the innocuous sampling of 10%
> of a dish's portions, say), then raise prices across the board by
> another three pennies.

They're not charging you because she sampled
your dish. They're charging you because she did not
order a main course of her own. Also, where do you
get this 1/3/5 cents thing? If she does not order
her own main course, then they're losing whatever the
profit is on the main course she didn't order, not
just pennies. That profit goes to support all the
overhead of the restaurant, not just the dishwashers.

> Truth of the matter is, there is no "loss" with plate-sharing.

Huh? I think you're demonstrating a very limited
understanding of the economics of the situation. There is
a very real loss. Not all restaurants choose to deal with
that loss by having a plate sharing fee, but the loss is
very real. Any business owner who doesn't get that isn't
likely to survive long in a low margin environment.

> I understand that. I'm saying it's got nothing to do with real-world
> business.

I think you're wrong. It's a very real issue.
Opportunity cost is a major factor in economics.

> Truth to tell, the problem is very easily solved by raising
> prices as little as an extra two or three cents.

I think you're naive if you think that this is
something that can be cured with a few cents difference
in prices.


> It's very simple: if it's about money, then you need a different line
> of work -- or cuisine, etc. If it's about sharing your love of
> cooking, etc., then drop the plate-sharing fee. It's ridiculous
> because despite all the talk about slim profit margins, no one can
> demonstrate how any money is lost from plate-sharing.

What don't you get? Your date didn't order a main
course. Your table produced significantly less revenue than
the average two-diner table. How is that not a loss?
>
> I'm not talking about going into a buffet, mind you, and plate-sharing.
> No, we're talking here about sampling one another's food beyond a bite
> or two on a $35 tab. No big deal for a party of two, but by no means
> economic hardship for the restaurant, either.

How do you know that? And it wasn't "sampling one
another's food" since your date didn't order a main course
for you to sample. If every table in the restaurant did
the same thing, it would be a major economic hardship for
the restaurant.

> I say PROVE IT. Some one, please -- prove, a la Freakonomics or
> something, that there is an actual quantifiable cost to the restaurant
> for periodic plate-sharing, and that this cost actually undermines
> overall profitability.

Honestly, this is not rocket science economics here.
If every diner orders a main course, the restaurant makes
one profit. As the proportion of diners who do not order
main courses increases, revenue declines. In most cases,
profitability also declines. (Profitability would not
decline if, for example, the main courses were not profitable,
but that's not likely to describe most restaurants--and
if it were to describe a particular restaurant, you can
bet they wouldn't have any disincentives to diners
not ordering main courses.) Betcha whatever the plate
sharing fee you encountered was, it was roughly equivalent
to their average profit on their main courses.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
>
> There is a cost to serving a table. If you are
> occupying a table for 45 minutes, it didn't take any less
> of your waiter's time to serve you. They couldn't turn
> your table quicker just because you spent less money.
> You used the same amount of "overhead" but provided less
> revenue. That's a cost--and it's likely much more than a
> nickel.

Of course it's more than a nickel -- but if you raise prices throughout
the menu by a nickel, you not only cover for the occasional "loiterer"
(God, has it really come to this?? We used to have our regulars who
come in for the same little meal every day or every week, with a book
for company, too...just seemed like a nice touch to the decor, really),
but you have money left over!

And if a nickel raise ain't gonna do it for you, your problems go
beyond mere cashflow issues.

> Really? Lots of restaurants do it.

How, then?

> Ummm...if you each ordered a main course and took half
> home, you'd have been spending significantly more money.

No, only one paella was ever going to be ordered, period.

Doesn't anyone remember that silly dog with the bone encountering his
reflection in the pool? Any would-be gain is illusory.

> It's much more than the fork and plate.

Thank you for demolishing this excuse, then, that was offered up
somewhere in this thread.

> Obviously, they could do that. They simply choose not
> to. Instead of hitting everyone up, they decide to target what
> they perceive as one of the problems--people who split meals.

You can be sure that everyone is hit up all right: rent, etc. -- all
these things are divvied up in the cost of the food. The occasional
plate-sharing party doesn't contribute any less to "the collective
upkeep" than the occasional messy-eating family or the con-artist
patron who plants a roach in an almost-finished dish.

> Business might be quite good. If it is, then that
> makes the opportunity cost of a below average revenue table
> even higher.

Indeed, the problem is with the restauranteur: penny-pinching greed,
pure and simple.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>
> Exactly. Furthermore, the sharing fee is typically
> substantially less than the cost of the second main course,
> so even then the diner is getting off cheaper than they
> would have if they got a separate main course.

Oh please, that's the most blatantly self-serving excuse this side of
WMDs. Why not just force another soup or appetizer on the diner, then.
Bag it to go, if you're so concerned about the well-being of your
guests.

But of course, it's not about taking care of the customer, is it? No,
instead of making money from happy customers, it's being happy from
customer money. Same difference, in a way, but the emphasis is
certainly different.

> Similarly
> with a corkage fee--even with a pretty exorbitant corkage
> fee (and some are quite high), you still come out ahead
> in many restaurants bringing your own wine and the restaurant
> offsets the significant loss in revenue from you not buying
> off their wine list.

Bringing in food or drinks from the outside isn't comparable. To not
eat at the establishment defeats the whole purpose of the establishment
being established! But to share food, if not at a buffet, is really
innocuous. Why penalize "light" eater? By the pro-plate-sharing-fee
logic, the restauranteur should make available reduced portions of a
dish at reduced prices for those dieting, etc.

> Best wishes,
> Ericka

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>>
>> It may or may not be effective. That's likely
>> something that varies from location to location, and even
>> by the type of restaurant, depending on the clientele.
>> I suspect it is very successful in some cases and not very
>> successful in others. Nevertheless, it is certainly a
>> business cost to have a table occupied for the space of
>> a dinner and bring in below average revenues. There
>> are limited things that restaurants can do if they perceive
>> this as an issue in their business, and a sharing fee
>> is one thing they can do (might work, might not, but
>> if they've been doing it a while and remain successful
>> it's probably working for them).
>
> What you say is plausible in the abstract, but almost certainly not the
> case in actual practice, because a very simple and almost unnoticeable
> way of dealing with lost revenue would be to raise all prices by
> another nickel.

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.

>> They also lose money
>> if you just drink water, but it is not perceived as an
>> option (outside of a bar with a cover charge) to require
>> you to order drinks.
>
> Indeed -- so, I ask again, how did diners come to accept this practice
> of plate-sharing? Seems like such an odd thing, given the cultural
> associations we have of hospitality and all that.

Because in some ways it's quite fair. It
puts the burden of making up the cost on the people who
are generating the lower-than-average revenues without
increasing the costs on those who are doing the expected
thing (i.e., ordering their own main course). If you
do the normal/expected thing and order your own main
course, you are not penalized. If you order less than
you "fair share," you are penalized, but not by as much
as you would be if you were required to purchase your
own main course.
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). When you
deny the restaurant normally expected revenues/profits
by bringing in your own food or drink or by not ordering
a main course, you're on the hook to make up some of that
loss. 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.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article .com>, NYC XYZ
says...
>
>
>Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Exactly. Furthermore, the sharing fee is typically
>> substantially less than the cost of the second main course,
>> so even then the diner is getting off cheaper than they
>> would have if they got a separate main course.
>
>Oh please, that's the most blatantly self-serving excuse this side of
>WMDs. Why not just force another soup or appetizer on the diner, then.
> Bag it to go, if you're so concerned about the well-being of your
>guests.
>
>But of course, it's not about taking care of the customer, is it? No,
>instead of making money from happy customers, it's being happy from
>customer money. Same difference, in a way, but the emphasis is
>certainly different.

You're making a lot of assumptions.

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.

ZedBanty


--

ZedBanty wrote:
>
>
> If you're looking at this in terms of "provide an extra plate or fork", you're
> not looking at the basic economics of restauranteering.

Um, that's what someone else had brought up. It does, however, reflect
the penny-pinching mentality of a greedy businessman who imagines that
shared food actually costs him business.

> Either pop didn't share
> the details, or that his kind of restaurant is naturally high-throughput (I went
> to Columbia in the '80s; I may have even dined there!)

It's what Chinese call a "white people (Chinese) restaurant" -- nothing
actually spicy, nothing truly exotic, no chopsticks except upon
request, you are asked how you are enjoying your day, your kids are
entertained with fortune cookies, and I'm trotted out to practice my
French so that you know your money is going to a good cause
(ahem)...that kind of joint.

> only exposed you to one
> operating point in the economic equation.

Despite the typical wish of a businessman to pass on the business, of
course no one was interested -- so no, I was not privvy to details, but
I can assure you that it would not have occurred to us to charge for
sharing food.

Maybe the Chinese just put up with more for some reason. I know for a
fact that folks who would never imagine complaining about prices at
McDonald's want to know how a plate of vegetables can cost over $5.00.

> ZedBanty
>
>
> --

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Ericka Kammerer wrote:

>> Similarly
>> with a corkage fee--even with a pretty exorbitant corkage
>> fee (and some are quite high), you still come out ahead
>> in many restaurants bringing your own wine and the restaurant
>> offsets the significant loss in revenue from you not buying
>> off their wine list.
>
> Bringing in food or drinks from the outside isn't comparable.

Why not? It's lost revenue, just the same.
Revenue is revenue is revenue.

> To not
> eat at the establishment defeats the whole purpose of the establishment
> being established!

So...your date didn't order a main course why?
After all, the purpose is to eat. Why is it morally
superior to share a main course than to bring in your
own birthday cake or a special bottle of wine?

> But to share food, if not at a buffet, is really
> innocuous. Why penalize "light" eater? By the pro-plate-sharing-fee
> logic, the restauranteur should make available reduced portions of a
> dish at reduced prices for those dieting, etc.

Some do. As I've said repeatedly, there are many
ways to skin this cat, and different restaurants choose
differently depending on their clientele. They penalize
the light eater because the light eater is the one causing
the revenue problem! It's no different from any other
business having a minimum order. 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. 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.

Best wishes,
Ericka

ZedBanty wrote:
>
>
> If you're looking at this in terms of "provide an extra plate or fork", you're
> not looking at the basic economics of restauranteering.

Um, that's what someone else had brought up. It does, however, reflect
the penny-pinching mentality of a greedy businessman who imagines that
shared food actually costs him business.

> Either pop didn't share
> the details, or that his kind of restaurant is naturally high-throughput (I went
> to Columbia in the '80s; I may have even dined there!)

It's what Chinese call a "white people (Chinese) restaurant" -- nothing
actually spicy, nothing truly exotic, no chopsticks except upon
request, you are asked how you are enjoying your day, your kids are
entertained with fortune cookies, and I'm trotted out to practice my
French so that you know your money is going to a good cause
(ahem)...that kind of joint.

> only exposed you to one
> operating point in the economic equation.

Despite the typical wish of a businessman to pass on the business, of
course no one was interested -- so no, I was not privvy to details, but
I can assure you that it would not have occurred to us to charge for
sharing food.

Maybe the Chinese just put up with more for some reason. I know for a
fact that folks who would never imagine complaining about prices at
McDonald's want to know how a plate of vegetables can cost over $5.00.

> ZedBanty
>
>
> --

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>>
>>
>> There is a cost to serving a table. If you are
>> occupying a table for 45 minutes, it didn't take any less
>> of your waiter's time to serve you. They couldn't turn
>> your table quicker just because you spent less money.
>> You used the same amount of "overhead" but provided less
>> revenue. That's a cost--and it's likely much more than a
>> nickel.
>
> Of course it's more than a nickel -- but if you raise prices throughout
> the menu by a nickel, you not only cover for the occasional "loiterer"
> (God, has it really come to this?? We used to have our regulars who
> come in for the same little meal every day or every week, with a book
> for company, too...just seemed like a nice touch to the decor, really),
> but you have money left over!
>
> And if a nickel raise ain't gonna do it for you, your problems go
> beyond mere cashflow issues.

Why on earth do you assume this? Lots of people
share main courses. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a
fee for it.

>> Really? Lots of restaurants do it.
>
> How, then?

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).

>> Ummm...if you each ordered a main course and took half
>> home, you'd have been spending significantly more money.
>
> No, only one paella was ever going to be ordered, period.

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

>> Obviously, they could do that. They simply choose not
>> to. Instead of hitting everyone up, they decide to target what
>> they perceive as one of the problems--people who split meals.
>
> You can be sure that everyone is hit up all right: rent, etc. -- all
> these things are divvied up in the cost of the food.

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.

> The occasional
> plate-sharing party doesn't contribute any less to "the collective
> upkeep" than the occasional messy-eating family or the con-artist
> patron who plants a roach in an almost-finished dish.

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

>> Business might be quite good. If it is, then that
>> makes the opportunity cost of a below average revenue table
>> even higher.
>
> Indeed, the problem is with the restauranteur: penny-pinching greed,
> pure and simple.

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

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> I'm 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.

> It may or may not be effective. That's likely
>something that varies from location to location, and even
>by the type of restaurant, depending on the clientele.
>I suspect it is very successful in some cases and not very
>successful in others. Nevertheless, it is certainly a
>business cost to have a table occupied for the space of
>a dinner and bring in below average revenues. There
>are limited things that restaurants can do if they perceive
>this as an issue in their business, and a sharing fee
>is one thing they can do (might work, might not, but
>if they've been doing it a while and remain successful
>it's probably working for them). They also lose money
>if you just drink water, but it is not perceived as an
>option (outside of a bar with a cover charge) to require
>you to order drinks.

Yes, I agree - for some situations it's probably advantageous
for the restaurant to add such a charge; for others it is
a sign they don't know what side their bread is buttered on.

It creates goodwill to not charge a split plate charge.
There's an Italian restaurant here in Berkeley, where two
of us frequently eat, ordering a salad, a pasta, and a
secondi all split and served in sequence. They do not charge us
for the three split plates, we order drinks/wine along with
this (and it sometimes even seems they've made the total amount of
food larger because we're splitting them, in any case it's
enough food), we are not rushed, and we leave a good-sized tip.
This restaurant takes reservations but it does not fill the
entire house with reserved tables, to reduce the chance of
a lingering party delaying a reserved party. This is a well-run
restaurant that has been in business almost 25 years.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
> Ericka Kammerer > wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> I'm 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.
>
>> It may or may not be effective. That's likely
>> something that varies from location to location, and even
>> by the type of restaurant, depending on the clientele.
>> I suspect it is very successful in some cases and not very
>> successful in others. Nevertheless, it is certainly a
>> business cost to have a table occupied for the space of
>> a dinner and bring in below average revenues. There
>> are limited things that restaurants can do if they perceive
>> this as an issue in their business, and a sharing fee
>> is one thing they can do (might work, might not, but
>> if they've been doing it a while and remain successful
>> it's probably working for them). They also lose money
>> if you just drink water, but it is not perceived as an
>> option (outside of a bar with a cover charge) to require
>> you to order drinks.
>
> Yes, I agree - for some situations it's probably advantageous
> for the restaurant to add such a charge; for others it is
> a sign they don't know what side their bread is buttered on.
>
> It creates goodwill to not charge a split plate charge.
> There's an Italian restaurant here in Berkeley, where two
> of us frequently eat, ordering a salad, a pasta, and a
> secondi all split and served in sequence. They do not charge us
> for the three split plates, we order drinks/wine along with
> this (and it sometimes even seems they've made the total amount of
> food larger because we're splitting them, in any case it's
> enough food), we are not rushed, and we leave a good-sized tip.
> This restaurant takes reservations but it does not fill the
> entire house with reserved tables, to reduce the chance of
> a lingering party delaying a reserved party. This is a well-run
> restaurant that has been in business almost 25 years.

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

Best wishes,
Ericka