Agreed - a hotel I frequent when on business trips has crab cakes and boneless buffalo wings as appetizers. Quite tasty, but they’re sized for sharing - something like seven wings on the plate or four cakes - I could make a meal of that alone. Desserts are similarly outsized. I don’t want a quarter of a cheesecake - I’d be happy with just a sliver of something for a sweet taste rather than 1500 calories on a 6" plate. But our American sensibilities have dictated that we have to “get our money’s worth” and have a huge slab of whatever.
In my opinion, it’s a bizarre complaint. I understand the notion of conservatism with respect to wasted food, but if that’s a concern, why not give what you don’t eat to someone who is hungry?
I think the psychology behind the complaint is the feeling that one was obliged to pay more than necessary for the meal. Of course, restaurants have many expenses other than the cost of the food – building, equipment, cookstaff, waitstaff, etc. – so serving a half-sized portion doesn’t mean they could afford to price it at 50% less. I would guess that around 10-20% less would be more realistic. So comparing an 8 oz. steak for $20 to a 16 oz. steak for $25, most folks would go for the larger one. But if the 16 oz. is the only choice on the menu, the ones who only want 8 oz. probably think they’re paying $12.50 more than they should. That’s not the reality of meal pricing, but it’s a natural first impression.
Well, this is just one example a “point estimate”, but I have a friend who does PR for a local, high end restaurent called the Oceanaire. He said that they have built their business by serving small portions, of very high quality at expensive prices. Specifically, he was talking with one of the managers who said that they cut their portions by an additional 20% or so, and increased prices, and found that their customers did not complain, and that business didn’t suffer.
My point is that if any of you think that restaurants will cut their prices (or increase them less) due to smaller portion sizes then you may be mistaken. They will charge what the market will bare without reference to food cost. If wholesale Lobster prices fell to $2.00 per pound but retail consumption increased (it’s difficult to imagine how this might occur) restaurants wouldn’t lower their prices (on the whole), but would make more profits. I think it goes back to the fallacy that pricing should correlate to the cost of production when in reality while prices must be at least sufficient to cover production costs (over the long term cetaris paribus with exceptions like loss leaders in supermarkets) they will rise to the highest level that people will pay (in sufficient quantities to maximize profits that is).
Outta curiosity, why would you suggest an “all you can eat” policy rather than a “pay individually for small portions” policy? And anyway, there are already a bunch of restaurants that do the latter–sushi, tapas, “small plates” places…
To agree with what Roland Deschain says, I think that this is just a good way of screwing the consumer under the guise of “helping America’s waistline”.
Sure smaller portions would be good for some people - although I personally prefer the “eat what you like then make 1-2 more meals from the leftovers” way of thinking - but I’d almost guarantee that most restaurants would simply shrink the size of the entrees, yet leave the prices the same (or cut them minimally). They simply cannot afford to serve 50% smaller portions for 50% less (see the last few posts for references).
So those of us that you in favor of smaller portions are just screwing the rest of us that actually eat the leftovers.
I also think that having the option to order smaller verses larger portions is a good idea (and ultimately more equitable since those who eat less are not subsidizing those who eat more). My fear is that what one of you considers to be a “large” portion might simply constitute a nice snack for me. We sometimes go to a butcher in Fishers called Archer’s meat and I order my Ribeyes cut about two and one half inches thick. This works out to about 20-24 ounce steaks and the only think that stops me from eating at least two are stares from my wife. On the other hand we sometimes go to Golden Corral (and all you can eat buffet type of place) where I frequently eat just a salad (albeit large one with no fat dressing) and a cup of soup.
Note that I think making a place “all you care to eat” would also be good marketing, but then again I could be wrong.
Just about any halfway decent restaurant will serve you a “half portion” of an entree if you ask them. My GF is a fussy eater and does this all the time, even if it’s not listed on the menu. Granted, this doesn’t work with foods that aren’t easily divisible (steaks, lobsters), but it works just fine for most things.
If you were able to build a meal out of smallish portions that have individual fees, wouldn’t that be something like dim sum? That model could work, instead of “all you can eat lobster” or whatever.
All-you-can-eat and varying sizes at varying costs are both great ideas, though they don’t address the fundamental problem that is on so many peoples’ minds: Americans as a group are overweight and suffering more and more health problems as a result. A person who counts calories or establishes boundaries (and is not genetically predisposed toward being “heavy”) can exercise control over how much he or she eats; many health researchers and nutritionists seem to be taking the tack that too many Americans, however, do not have this control or relinquish it to the restaurant by cleaning their plate no matter what the portion. Thus, all of the talk about smaller portions.
All-you-can-eat probably wouldn’t do much to abate those who lack control, but varying sizes might.
BTW, this is not a slam against people. I’m simply trying to interpret why there’s so much attention paid to smaller portions. I’m also not entirely convinced that restaurants will profit all that much from smaller portions at higher prices only because most restaurants make little or no money off of the food sales anyway. (Alcohol, drink and dessert sales are the bulk of the profits.) There is significant waste, theft, and overhead in the restaurant business, and I suppose the less time a person spends in a restaurant (consuming or trying to consume a large meal), perhaps the less he or she will spend on drinks.
It’s a model that’s popular in many cultures. Dim sum is an example. Spanish and Portuguese tapas are another. In Japan, there is ippin-ryori. It’s great in that it allows people to eat about exactly how much they feel like eating, without having anyone subsidising anyone’s ogrish appetite. It also lets you sample more stuff and sharing is easy.
As a rough rule of thumb, restuarants run on 30% food costs, 30% staff costs, 30% rent/misc costs and 10% profit. So 50% less food would cost 15% less.
I’d sort of like to be able to order the size of portion I like and be charged a resonably appropriate amount for it, rather than subsidise my peers with gargantuan appetites, or be subsidised by those who are lighter eaters than myself.
In any case, the question why not just make more restaurants all you can eat? is like asking why not turn more restaurants into Taco Bell? - unless everyone is stupidly missing a blindingly obvious commercial opportunity, the market is likely to control the thing for itself.
I rather like the style of menu I encountered recently at one of these restaurants; there is a menu with a variety of dishes in a variety of sizes at a variety of prices; some of them could probably be described as starters, others as main courses; you can order a starter and a main course, or three starters (which would cost about the same as starter/main), two starters and two desserts, whatever you like - the prices are based pretty much on the size of the portion and the expense of the ingredients.
Okay, I see what you mean, and I agree – and I certainly don’t care for the “smaller portion for the same price” idea. And I would not frequent a place that did that.
There is a key aspect to my “smaller portions upfront with unlimted seconds” proposal that might make it more feasible that many suspect. I submit that the vast majority of people will not order seconds (keep in mind seconds under my plan would probably not be much more than current “firsts”) due to largely psychological reasons and some physiological reasons as well (many people don’t want to look like gluttons, and there is the fact that it takes from 15 to thirty minutes for your belly to tell your brain that it is full). Thus, I would bet you a dollar against a Lexus that there would probably be less subsidization (with the lower food costs that come with it) than exists under the current paradigm. To go back to the Olive Garden analogy the last time that I had there “all you can eat” pasta bowel there were six other people with us. All except one ordered the all you could eat pasta. However, I was the only one to order seconds (not being concerned with social nicities). All had expressed the intent of ordering seconds at the start of the meal, but in practice none besides myself actually followed through. In addition, there would probably be a “no take home” policy on all unlimited menu items. This would have the benefit of reducing container and labor (as a former waiter I can attest to the fact that it takes from thirty seconds to several minutes to prepare take home boxes) costs for the restaurant. In addition, it would have the added benefit of reducing paper/styrofoam waist.
Just goes to show the gulf between us. For me Olive Garden represents the best restaurant that I eat at in an average year. Most of our eatting out consists of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Golden Corral. We have a firm rule of not spending more than $25.00 dollars for the both of us including tip.
Price isn’t the point; food quality is. If you find the right place, you can spend one dollar on a bahn mi and end up with a more interesting meal than you can get at Olive Garden.