Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

Agree with this! If your business model includes paying your workers $2/hour, then it’s a broken model.

I think a lot of those workers would disagree with you.

Really? You think restaurant staff want to be paid $2/hour instead of a living wage? That makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am happy to pay the fee in lieu of tipping, whether it’s 20%, 22% whatever.
I haven’t been to a place that charges a high service fee like 20% *and* says that it’s *not* a tip.

The only place where this agitates me is a counter service place like Breadfurst which charges a 20% service fee (again, fine) but then you are expected to tip on the iPads. Honestly, after my last trip, adding 40% to buying 2 baguettes, I decided I wouldn’t go back. I mean 2 baguettes- $14. Plus 20% service fee, 10% sales tax, then then another tip at the counter? It’s like $20 for 2 loaves of bread.

Primrose in Brookland does this. We stopped going because not only is it on a whole piece of paper explaining that it’s a NOT a tip in a tone, but they’ve also jacked up their prices. It’s sad bc it’s a lovely neighborhood joint but I can’t afford their prices on a casual Tuesday no special occasion meal.

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Yes, I read that with my jaw literally hanging open. “We know that if we tell you the real prices up front, you’ll realize you can’t afford it or it’s just not worth it to you and stop coming. So we’ve decided to trick you instead. It should work, since most of you are pretty dumb and don’t know basic math. We have absolutely no ethics so we still feel great about ourselves!”

Anonymous wrote:The fees are a problem because they often make it hard to know up front what the cost of your meal is actually going to be, and the way that restaurants present them is dishonest, like hotels that charge a bogus "resort fee."

Stop doing that. Just adjust the prices of your menu items and be done with it. That is the only correct answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

Agree with this! If your business model includes paying your workers $2/hour, then it’s a broken model.

I think a lot of those workers would disagree with you.

Really? You think restaurant staff want to be paid $2/hour instead of a living wage? That makes sense.

The dirty little secret is that bartenders (especially) and wait staff at good restaurants make way more than a living wage on tips and they don't have to pay taxes on their full earnings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

Agree with this! If your business model includes paying your workers $2/hour, then it’s a broken model.

I think a lot of those workers would disagree with you.

Really? You think restaurant staff want to be paid $2/hour instead of a living wage? That makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

Agree with this! If your business model includes paying your workers $2/hour, then it’s a broken model.

I think a lot of those workers would disagree with you.

Really? You think restaurant staff want to be paid $2/hour instead of a living wage? That makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

Agree with this! If your business model includes paying your workers $2/hour, then it’s a broken model.

I think a lot of those workers would disagree with you.

Anonymous wrote:Some restaurants make it hard to know what they’re charging. They present a grand total and force you to ask them for the breakdown.

This whole thing is ridiculous. It shouldn’t be this difficult.

We need a ballot initiative to repeal this ballot initiative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Yes, I read that with my jaw literally hanging open. “We know that if we tell you the real prices up front, you’ll realize you can’t afford it or it’s just not worth it to you and stop coming. So we’ve decided to trick you instead. It should work, since most of you are pretty dumb and don’t know basic math. We have absolutely no ethics so we still feel great about ourselves!”

And if they’re blaming the government for needing to charge fees, then they deserve to be out of business. Most restaurants don’t make it, so why should they?

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Yes, I read that with my jaw literally hanging open. “We know that if we tell you the real prices up front, you’ll realize you can’t afford it or it’s just not worth it to you and stop coming. So we’ve decided to trick you instead. It should work, since most of you are pretty dumb and don’t know basic math. We have absolutely no ethics so we still feel great about ourselves!”

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!