Plate sharing fee- why?

[lawgirl3278]

This was brought up on my local board. Why would a restaurant charge $5 or more for people to share something? I'm sure there's a reason, but I just don't get it. How do you feel about this?

[pikawicca]

My husband and I frequently split entrees, and have no problem with a charge for doing so. In our experience, the protein is halved, but the sides are not, so it's fair.

[westsidegal]

such fees seem entirely reasonable to me.
the restaurant incurs overhead on every seat.
the fee is a way to discourage people from taking up space and not ordering enough to justify the space they are taking up.
this is ESPECIALLY fair, in my opinion, when people are splitting dishes during high-volume times of the day or evening. if you are taking up a table at lunch hour or on a saturday night and are not ordering enough to justify the overhead, the restaurant can't reasonably expect to recoup the loss later on in the day or evening.
their rent/overhead costs must be recouped during very limited time periods.

it is not a perfect system, but it is reasonable in my eyes.

if you want to split plates, and the splitting charge bothers you, you can take the food to-go and split it among your entire circle of friends if you like.

as a matter of fact, there is a restaurant in santa monica that offers diners a terrific bargain price if they will take their food to-go at lunchtime. the restaurant is located across the street from a large office complex and the table space is at a premium during lunch hour. it is the way that the restaurant will give the customers 'a break' for not taking up table space during that very precious time slot.

[junescook]

In my system, where I find service to be especially accomodating, it makes me feel warm and happy. I leave a 25% rather than 20% tip, and I say very nice things about it to my friends, on boards like this, zagat, etc.

[westsidegal]

i do the same.
at the restaurants on my regular rotation, my 'normal' tip is 25%.
because i eat out so often, it directly benefits ME to make sure that the restaurants that offer great price/quality/quantity ratios along with good service stay in business.

[meatn3]

I've waitroned in places where that fee was passed on to the server. Most patrons don't realize the server is doing just as much work (if not more with a nod to smarties observation) but generally only being tipped based on one main dish. If the server gets it I'm 100% for it. If the restaurant is increasing the side portions, fine, but I have seldom seen that happen from the back of the house without prompting from a server.

[markabauman]

We've occasionally had the experience of discussing what we will order- possibly share a salad or an appetizer-not with the server there, but within earshot and they've just brought out two split plates without any additional charge. Think that's a nice touch. I might not expect that for an entree, however.

[sweetnspicy]

In my experience the main part of the entree is split but the side items given are the same size as if the entree was ordered on its own.

[geg5150]

We are often plate splitters. We're not big leftover eaters. Often, too, we're often out of town when splitting. We like to have a few apps or salad and dessert and in order to not have leftovers we spilt.

I understand the concept of the plate sharing fee and often try to avoid it, buy ordering an app for my meal.

That being said, we also enjoy our cocktails and wine, so this isn't an issue of being "frugal". In fact, I've seen the split plate charge on the menu, but then it's not charged after the server sees that it's not about money, it's about tasting more and no waste.

[smartie]

I no longer have a restaurant but we used the plate sharing charge with discretion. Regulars were not charged, nor were those ordering wine etc and a dessert at the end, time of day etc. During quiet times we wouldn't charge either.

[westsidegal]

if the diners actually order enough to justify the overhead of the table, normally restaurants are willing to overlook the fee.
restaurants pay rent that must be recouped.
in your case, you were willing to order enough to justify your table's overhead and the restaurant was fine with that.

[smartie]

I think the OP means when 2 people only order one entree as opposed to a couple ordering an entree each then asking for an extra plate so that there can share some of each other's meal.

It is not just about giving one meal to a diner and a spare plate to the other person. There is the laundry, the silverware, the plate, the glass of water, ice, lemon slices, sweet n lows etc. Plus the server does extra running around for the diner who is only sharing! trust me they are usually the most demanding of tables.

[westsidegal]

plus the RENT and overhead of the seat that is being paid for 24/7 and is being occupied during the prime dining hours.

[slacker]

In restaurants that serve large portions, I'd like to split a plate sometimes. I simply don't want to eat all that food. It's not being cheap, just healthy. It's annoying for a restaurant that wants to serve the fatting-of-America portions, and then charge you for wanting to stay healthy.

[westsidegal]

if that is really your beef, you could solve it by simply telling the server to halve your portion:
not so hard, really.
i do it all the time.
every single restaurant is willing to accommodate this request.

[leahinsc]

I can see a nominal charge - $3.00-$6.00 if they are truly splitting, replating and giving more sides. My husband and I share and occasionally will just pass the plate back and forth. Many times we only order one entree and a couple of apps - portions are just too large and otherwise it would be too expensive to eat out as much as we'd like.

[westsidegal]

maybe the restaurant owner feels that his rent is just too high to accommodate people splitting dishes.

again, whether it is too expensive for you to eat out as much as you like should NOT be the restaurant's problem.
the restaurant has to make sure that the space for which they are paying rent 24/7 is productive (i.e. generates revenue) during the peak business hours.
just ask them to halve the portion size and your "problem" of the portions being too large would be solved.
another 'idea' is for you to get a to-go box and bring some food home.

everyone loves a bargain, but truly, it is not owed to you.
when you buy a meal out, you are paying for the food, the service, AND THE RENT.
it astonishes me that you seem to believe that restaurant rent is free or that your lifestyle should be subsidized by others. . .

[ipsedixit]

Would you feel differently if two diners ordered two entrees but wished to split each of the entrees between the two of them?

Plate sharing fee appropriate?

[westsidegal]

no, no fee in that case because they are ordering enough for the restaurant to recoup their overhead.
the fee, should not really be for THE PLATE.
the fee is for the overhead.

[ipsedixit]

What about the extra time and effort to split the plates?

[westsidegal]

the time and effort to split the plates, in an expensive town like ours, pales in comparison to rent costs and equipment costs.

folks don't seem to realize that in our town, at least, restaurants normally rent their space on a triple net basis. this means that if the air conditioner or any other item in the restaurant, such as the plumbing, breaks down, the RESTAURANT needs to repair or replace it, not the landlord.
if real estate taxes go up, normally the restaurant owner needs to divvy up, not the landlord.
also, the restaurant owner is on the hook for buying and maintaining all the expensive capital equipment in the restaurant; ice maker, grill, etc.
when people split plates, none of these expenses go down, only the revenue goes down.

[foodsnob14]

Why wouldn't you just pass plates back and forth. It seem incredib;y high maintenece to need them split.

[queencru]

The issue is that not all meals are able to be made into smaller portions. I've been to restaurants that have smaller portions of some dishes but not others, presumably because it's either impossible or results in too much waste to change the size of the meal. If the meal is a set size because it includes a quarter chicken or another piece of meat that isn't easily downsized, the restaurant is going to have to throw the excess away. Furthermore, there are a lot of dishes you really do have to eat right away because they're not good in takeout portions.

When you go to a restaurant there is no contract to order a certain amount. Every business has the same building expenses you mention. Should I not buy items in a retail store on sale because it doesn't subsidize the rent?

[westsidegal]

many retalil stores will ship out items that need to be substantially reduced rather than 'spend' their high overhead trying to sell them.

for instance, you are not going to find extreme discounts at nordstroms. they will ship the stuff that hasn't sold to nordstrom's rack where the overhead is lower or to a third party discounter. if you want the nordstroms shopping experience, you must pay enough to justify the nordstroms overhead.

if yo want a chicken dinner at Grill on the Alley in beverly hills, you should be paying the Beverly Hills overhead costs. if you don't want to pay their overhead, you can go to Dino's, which is located far from beverly hills and get a half chicken dinner for about $5 or so; but don't think it's your due to be served terrific food in a lovely restaurant by talented waitstaff in beverly hills if you are only willing to pay Dino's prices.
the fact that the system can be gamed doesn't make it right, it just says something about you.

also, the extra food wouldn't need to be thrown away. in most restaurant kitchens there are low-paid people who do the dishwashing, etc. who are glad to be given such food.
when was the last time you worked in a restaurant kitchen?
food that has been delivered to the tables always gets thrown away--the food that has never left the kitchen doesn't get thrown away.

[jfood]

"again, whether it is too expensive for you to eat out as much as you like should NOT be the restaurant's problem."

Totally agree, but in the same vein, if any patron only wants a salad for dinner that should not be the customer's problem, unless there are specific minimums that are spelled out.

Now there is the level of consideration that should be included. Is it correct for a patron to only order a salad at dinner, maybe, maybe not.

If you take this argument to it's extreme. Please place on the menu the profit per dish plus the required profit per patron. Then jfood can mix and match to achieve the required ROI for his stay. If jfood just wants a salad maybe he needs to take a piece of cheesecake to-go, or maybe he can barter a glass of wine with Table 2 who is already over their contributed value and he notices an empty glass. "Hey look guys, I gotta buy a glass of wine to meet the minimum and it's $10. You're already over the minimum and you look like you can use another glass. so how about we split the cost and you get it. win-win"

Can't wait to see this business model. May be a great idea but placing into reality will lead to tremendous gaming of the system.

www.ctbites.co

[westsidegal]

what you are talking about is how the current system's openness to being gamed can't be fixed.
it doesn't mean that gaming the system is the ethical thing to do.
for most independent restaurants someone has put their personal assets at risk when they sign the lease. it doesn't take much to realize that gaming this system hurts well-meaning people who trust that their client base won't try to use them.

[jfood]

likewise telling a customer he HAS TO buy something can alienate many as well. Always two sides to the discussion.

www.ctbites.com

[westsidegal]

where did i say anything about telling a customer anything?
still, if you have a bunch of customers gaming you, it behooves you to try to fix the problem.

one way to do this that is already being done in many restaurants is to substantially raise the prices of the apps and salads. that way, the customer can order whatever s/he wants and will still be supporting the overhead.
another tack that is being used by many restaurants, often in conjunction with raising the prices of the apps and salads is to offer prix fix menus with the total cost of the three courses being adequate to support the restaurant's overhead.
also, some restaurants are offering 'bar menus' that provide lower costs for some items for those customers who are willing to forego being seated in the main dining room.
at several sushi bars in my town the ONLY way you are allowed to order is OMAKASE (chef's choice), at others, if you want to sit at the sushi bar you must order omakase--they will only let you order a la carte if you sit at a table. these sushi restaurants, correctly, will not let you take up the prime seats during the prime hours and order natto or kampyo (sp?) for the whole evening.

[queencru]

If you have a bunch of customers "gaming" you, it's probably the restaurant that has the problem, not the customers. If everyone coming in is ordering apps or splitting dishes, then perhaps there is a problem with the size of the dishes or the price range is not in line with what the neighborhood will support. If it's only one or two people who want smaller portions in a given (busy) day, then it probably isn't going to hurt the restaurant that much if those people order just a salad and an app.

[westsidegal]

the problem is that the folks who like to game the system may decide that YOUR restaurant is their favorite place, and will show up and take up space on a regular basis crowding out the good customers.

to some people, this is a 'game to be won' and they play it repetitively.
the chains are the most likely to mount a good defense to this group.
the indies, out of sheer politeness and good-heartedness, often fall prey to this group.

i am not talking about someone who does this on occasion, i am talking about couples that do this every day almost as sport.
when such a couple decides to take up residence at your best table during the best hours, you are in trouble. you have got to figure out a way to dislodge such folks from your establishment; pricing changes and split fees are some of the tools at your disposal, but if you want to stay in business you MUST try to get them to move on.

you are right about one thing: the presence of this group of users certainly is the 'restaurant's problem.' the restaurants that are likely to suffer the most from this problem are the ones that offer the BEST price/quantity/quality ratios and the ones who are owned by the nicest, fairest, most agreeable, people. how sad is that?

[jfood]

never said you did...sorry for the confusion.

but having a requirement to meet the fixed + variable charges of the resaurant is a nice to have at each and every table is the point.

and all the examples you use are great alternatives to offer value to the customer and profits to the restaurant. jfood applauds the ingenuity of the restaurant owners who think out of the box

www.ctbites.com

[westsidegal]

it's sad that this group of predators has such an effect.
it's sad that the restaurant owners need to 'think out of the box' to defend themselves from this group.
i don't think that changing the price of a salad from $8 to $12 is 'offering value' to the customer, it is just a defense against the gamers.

changing your sunday brunch menu so that the ONLY way anyone can order is to have a three course prix fix including a beverage doesn't "add value" to the customer, it just protects the restaurant from folks who want to take up that beautiful table in their high-end restaurant that has a view overlooking the boats in the marina and who only want to order coffee and pastry.

since i eat out so often, i'm a regular at several restaurants. all of the places on my rotation would never charge me a split fee, or a corkage fee, or any other extra fees, because they know that i don't game them. i don't take their best tables at the busiest times of day and open my computer up to work nor do i game their price structure even though i certainly could.

my obvious respect for their business causes me to get treated better than many of the other customers that arrive. i understand and support the simple truth that this is their BUSINESS and that they have put themselves at substantial personal financial risk to open this business. i don't need to be MANAGED in order to behave with integrity, and, as a result, the normal rules that they had to institute to defend against the predators don't apply to me.

[jfood]

Well. one thing jfood would strongly disagree with you on is this continued characterization of customers as "predators" and "gaming the system."

jfood has much more faith in the integrity of mankind in dealing with all businesses, including restaurants. The latter is not a special or a protected species in the business spectrum.

www.ctbites.com

[queencru]

I'm with you there. Yes there are probably a very few people who attempt to game the system, but I would imagine they are few and far between. I can't imagine many restaurants have huge groups of these people taking up space on a regular basis. I also don't understand why anyone would choose to operate a business with the idea that every customer is out to get him/her.

[westsidegal]

who said that EVERY customer is 'out to get' the restaurant?

whether it is a few people or many people who attempt to game the restaurant, they have an effect on the bottom line.

the repetitive nature of even a small group of these folks can mean 'death by a thousand cuts' to a restaurant. the worst part is that they displace good customers and that they gravitate to the restaurants that offer the best deals and who therefore are least able to sustain the losses.

[westsidegal]

you must do something to either get these free -loaders out of your establishment or to get them to pay their way.
instituting prix fix meals is one way to tell a customer that s/he 'HAS TO' buy something and this approach typically works quite well.

[reubensandperrier]

When I was in the restaurant industry, split plates were often charged because the dish being split usually had a slight increase in the amount of food served, but that was for some restaurants. Others are simply there to make more money since they're losing it when 2 people order 1 entree. Pretty simple economics.

[jturtle]

I don't like "sharing fees" as the cost of bringing out an extra plate doesn't seem to necessitate a $5 fee and any restaurant that is being that cheap is not a place I want to frequent.

Now a "splitting fee" where the kitchen actually splits the dish and does extra sauce/garnish etc... that I am okay with.

[swsidejim]

I really do not hink it has much to do with covering the cost of an extra plate as much as it is used to discourage cheap diners who try to split an entree instead of ordering their own.

[MMRuth]

I've experienced this a lot with my father and stepmother - now that they are in their 70s, they simply eat less than they used to. In a lot of restaurants (in the Midwest) the splitting fee seems to include giving them the same amount of "sides" while splitting the protein component in half.

[ccbweb]

To me that's an entirely illogical idea, though, since the restaurant would not charge such a fee were each diner to order only an appetizer and forgo an entree altogether. (I'm not arguing that you're incorrect in your take on the reason for the policy, just about the logic underpinning the policy itself).

As jturtle notes, a "Split Plate Charge" is entirely reasonable to me because that requires work on the part of the kitchen and staff.

[slacker]

Sometimes it's not being cheap, it's wanting to be healthy.

[swsidejim]

Perhaps, but in my experience with entree splitters, they were typically the more frugal individuals I know.

[boltnut55]

I need to lose 45 lbs., but we like to eat out from time to time. Getting a meal that is 3,000 calories for myself and getting one that is 1700 calories for my 10 year old is not good at all. That's why I tend to order my meal and share it with her. I don't do split plate because we don't know what she wants to eat and how much of it.

We all get tempted when the plate is in front of us, and if I can avoid the extra calories by just sharing, I truly enjoy and relax much more. Otherwise, I'm stressing over where to draw the line and stop eating and what to do when I get to that line and my eating partner is not yet 1/2 way done. Yes, sometimes I do ask for that box with my meal if my child's not with me, but not all the time. I want to dine like a "normal" person sometimes!

[westsidegal]

i've successfully lost 30 lbs and kept it off while eating out at least one meal a day.
what you do is GET A TO-GO box to put the extra food in.
put the excess amount of food in the box at the BEGINNING of the meal.
it sounds like the restaurant to which you are referring is serving good food and more than reasonable quantity at a good price, you should be willing to pay the overhead that they are incurring 24 hrs a day 7 days a week.
other diners and the restaurant ownership should not be expected to subsidize you.

how would you feel if they just halved their portion sizes? if that wouldn't bother you, i'm sure they would be willing to accommodate you. PROBLEM SOLVED

[lawgirl3278]

Ok the splitting fee I understand. Maybe b/c I don't see it that often around here. My husband & I always share each other's entrees, and I always had this silly thought of the waiter catching us doing so and say "I'm sorry, that'll be $5 more" lol

[PeterL]

If you each order an entree then you wouldn't be splitting (one single entree).

[swsidejim]

Pretty common practice, I have no problem with it.

[MMRuth]

My guess is (a) to cover marginal extra cost of plating and washing extra plate and (b) making up for lost revenue for two people ordering only one dish. It's not something I see often in Manhattan, but it is also something I don't think I often see people doing here. In the Midwest, I've observed that it seems to be more commonplace.