Anonymous wrote:
Why not just raise the menu prices by 5%?
This question is logical, as is our answer. We want to maintain value for our guests while restructuring and evolving our business model in this new day. As menu item prices cross certain thresholds (ie, 19 to 21 or 29 to 30), guest buying behavior is affected, meaning that people may not select their first choice, but instead select an item priced well below – this trade, which can be from $31 down to $24 or $25, results in lower total sales, even though menu prices are higher. These decisions also affect ordering an appetizer, a second beverage, or dessert at the end of the meal. This means that in order to net the same revenue for the business through a price increase, we’d need to raise prices substantially (in the 15% to 20% range) more than 5% – costing diners more – which is why we see the 5% charge as win/win, as opposed to the even larger menu price increase which is lose/lose.
Imagine crafting this answer to this very obvious question and feeling like "yup, that covers it -- makes total sense!"
Literally their argument is that if they raise menu prices to cover these costs, fewer people will want to dine at their restaurant because it costs too much. So instead they give you artificially low menu prices and then surprise you with a service fee on the back end, thus tricking you into paying the amount you would have opted out of if it had been baked into the menu price.
It's a win/win! You get to pay 5% more than you wanted to pay for your meal, and we get to pretend our price point is lower while actually charging you more money! No losers here! AFter all, consumers have infinity money and this is just a game!