why have so many restaraunts stopped allowing plate sharing ? (potluck, onion, buffets)

[jencam]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

You keep doing that thing with your hand and you're going to stick a fork in your eye!

That is true--the high-end places do seem to serve more normal portions.

Not in your case maybe, but I think in the OP's and most of the other dinner-sharing enthusiasts, cost is exactly the main factor. They want to eat out as cheaply as possible, and that's a way they try to do it.

I never thought about it but they do. The one upscale place I ever go to doesn't force me to buy two sides, for instance. The entree comes with one, and people can buy more if they want to. I am perfectly pleased with my one. They do charge for sharing salad, but that is totally sensible. It's all you can eat. I never questioned each person who wants to eat from the salad being charged.

[Mightyqueen801]

Interestingly, I read an article in Crain's today about 20 ways to make more money in restaurants. Some were obvious, like sell booze (3x markup), or sell products that you serve, sell a cookbook of your restarant's recipes, increase prices. "Allow multiple people to split meals" is not one of them.

It also notes that it takes a restaurant 3 to 4 years to recoup the initial investment and begin to make a profit. It's a difficult industry in which to make money. Many fail. The ones who don't allow meal-sharing or charge for it are doing so because they simply can't afford it.

[jencam]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

Interestingly, I read an article in Crain's today about 20 ways to make more money in restaurants. Some were obvious, like sell booze (3x markup), or sell products that you serve, sell a cookbook of your restarant's recipes, increase prices. "Allow multiple people to split meals" is not one of them.

It also notes that it takes a restaurant 3 to 4 years to recoup the initial investment and begin to make a profit. It's a difficult industry in which to make money. Many fail. The ones who don't allow meal-sharing or charge for it are doing so because they simply can't afford it.

And there is good profit in sides, that is why they package meals to come with two. (and maybe also most people want two)

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by jencam

And there is good profit in sides, that is why they package meals to come with two. (and maybe also most people want two)

Maybe. I like places that have a choice of aides, and I am fine if they are listed separately and charged for separately. Because I don't eat meat, I sometimes make up a meal of sides in places that do that. It usually comes to the same as an entree anyway.

Last month I took my dd and her bf to dinner. We got an appetizer that was meant to be shared by 3-4 people, then my daughter and I each ordered three sides and her bottomless pit boyfriend--who had just come from a bbq where he ate 5 burgers--got a jerk chicken dinner. I took half mine home anyway. Bottomless Pit Boy did take a part of his dinner home, too. I guess even he has his limits!

[Dirt Grinder]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

I don't know if I agree completely with that. You are going to a restaurant to purchase whatever it is they have to offer. If what they sell and base their business and profit margin on is a large portion of food per person, that's what you are buying when you go into an establishment that sells food that way.

The choice you have is to patronize a restaurant that offers portions of food that match your preference..

Then the restaurant that sells large portions and doesn't allow plate-sharing should have a sign on the front of their restaurant:

"We encourage obesity and overeating"

That way, we can avoid the restaurant and stop at one more accommodating.

[Sundaydrive00]

Originally Posted by Dirt Grinder

Then the restaurant that sells large portions and doesn't allow plate-sharing should have a sign on the front of their restaurant:

"We encourage obesity and overeating"

That way, we can avoid the restaurant and stop at one more accommodating.

No one is being forced to eat all the food on their plate. If someone doesn't have enough self control to not gorge themselves, that isn't the restaurant's fault.

[fleetiebelle]

Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00

No one is being forced to eat all the food on their plate. If someone doesn't have enough self control to not gorge themselves, that isn't the restaurant's fault.

But at a restaurant, it's not just about self-control. People are paying for the food on their plate, and in situations where they can't take half home people may feel wasteful throwing away good food and good money. There's being cheap and there's being efficient.

[Sundaydrive00]

Originally Posted by fleetiebelle

But at a restaurant, it's not just about self-control. People are paying for the food on their plate, and in situations where they can't take half home people may feel wasteful throwing away good food and good money.

I would feel much worse about over eating then I would about leaving some food on my plate. When I go out to eat, I'm paying for the experience. If it was just about paying for the food, I would just pick something up from the grocery store.

[emm74]

It's not a restaurant's fault if someone doesn't like taking home leftovers or isn't in a position to do so because they are traveling, etc. But they aren't forcing anyone to eat more food than they want - at worst, they are "forcing" people to pay for food they don't eat if they can't finish their portion. But of course, no one is being forced to eat at any particular restaurant and if you don't like what a restaurant has to offer for any reason, whether that's the type of food or the size of the portions or the amount they charge, then don't eat there.

[Mikala43]

Well, if any restaurants around here start doing that they can do without my business.

We will be traveling for 3 weeks in July, so it will be interesting if the issue pops up.