HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >
What are you cooking today? Share your food adventure
TELL US

The weakest drinks, smallest sizes, cheapest ingredients … bye-bye bread and butter, hello reformulated cheese

rworange May 18, 2008 10:58 AM

This week Good Morning America and some local news shows ran a segment about what restaurants are doing to cut costs rather than raise prices. A lot of it relies on trickery and some is out and out fraud.

Can’t find the story online but some of what I remember

- serving catfish when the menu says grouper
- serving an 8oz steak though the menu says 10 oz
- charging for bread and butter
- using lightweight forks so the food seems heavier
- reformulating cheese mixes to use less expensive cheese
- using smaller plates so portions look bigger
- revising menus so the pricier items pop out

While searching for that show, I came across this article

Sneaky restaurant tricks: Ten to watch out for
http://www.walletpop.com/2008/05/15/sneaky-restaurant-tricks-ten-to-watch-out-for

It mentions some of the above like cutting portion size, but adds
- subbing margarine for butter in recipes
- cutting back on freshness (fewer deliveries per week)
- recycling (look for more bread pudding, home-made croutons, etc)
- pouring weaker drinks (and look for fewer complementary pours)

Yet some restaurants seem to be going a more honorable route like growing their own veggies, baking their own bread, rewarding employees for being less wasteful and buying smarter. I think this article may be by a regular Chowhound poster.

Swallowing higher costs
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/c...

Anyway, be aware that changes are happening and there are reasons the dish you once loved may no longer taste the same.

  1. d
    dolores May 18, 2008 11:44 AM

    >>- charging for bread and butter

    Or the chips and salsa.

    I've already experienced the first and read about the second, and won't go to places that do either.

    If it comes to be standard practice, I will save a LOT of money from not eating out.

    They are idiots if they do all of the above in lieu of raising prices. I don't like being played.

    2 Replies
    1. re: dolores
      rworange May 18, 2008 12:10 PM

      That is exactly the reason that restaurants are going for sneaky stuff that the customers won't notice. Raise prices ... people notice. Charge for freebies ... people notice. Substitute margarine for butter or lighten a drink ... eh, maybe you might notice something is amiss, but probably not.

      I should read Chow more often ... and if the site wasn't so slooow and buggy I might. Anyway, this topic was covered recently. Didn't notice till just now.

      Less Booze for Your Buck
      http://www.chow.com/grinder/5539

      Menu Madness
      http://www.chow.com/grinder/5338

      The last has a good link to a Boston Globe article about people eating out less and making wiser choices ... making their restaurant buck count.

      One would hope that the economic problem would be a time when the good guys win and not the slicksters trying to fool customers.

      Maybe its a time to explore the small mom and pops dishing up interesting yet less pricy eats.

      1. re: dolores
        a
        akq May 21, 2008 02:32 PM

        I recently went to an Italian restaurant that had a note on the menu that the first basket of bread is free, additional baskets are $2 each. Seemed strange at first, but it didn't bother me because they didn't skimp on the first basket. I don't see the problem with charging for bread/butter, especially since a lot goes uneaten.

      2. Axalady May 18, 2008 12:26 PM

        Our local Glory Days, and a privately owned Italian restaurant that we visit are both using smaller serving plates for some menu items, hence smaller portions. This is especially noticeable with soup appetizer that we share at GD and at our last visit to the Italian restaurant my serving of pasta was 1/3 less - the serving dish used was much more shallow than the dishes they used a month ago. I can't be the only one to notice these changes, but it doesn't seem to have hurt their businesses. Glory Days is also now offering 1/2 pours of wine. I guess a $5 glass of wine is easier to sell than a $8 glass.

        1. tatamagouche May 18, 2008 01:21 PM

          Really interesting, thanks.
          Some of these "sneaky tricks" don't bother me, though. Like "using everything." They should be trying to do that as much as possible anyway, IMO.

          1. m
            ML8000 May 18, 2008 02:06 PM

            Given the obesity problem in the U.S., maybe less food/smaller plates and charging for extras like bread is a good thing. The change in ingredients is a bigger issue. If they're above board, what can you say. However calling catfish grouper isn't right. Re-use of ingredients for a second time like bread pudding or bread soup, etc., why not. The U.S. wastes so much food it should be encouraged.

            30 Replies
            1. re: ML8000
              d
              dolores May 19, 2008 04:14 AM

              >>Given the obesity problem in the U.S., maybe less food/smaller plates and charging for extras like bread is a good thing.

              You actually believe that will help? Not.

              >>One would hope that the economic problem would be a time when the good guys win and not the slicksters trying to fool customers.

              That WOULD be nice wouldn't it? Not likely, but nice.

              1. re: dolores
                tatamagouche May 19, 2008 05:46 AM

                "You actually believe that will help? Not."

                Why wouldn't restaurants serving smaller portions actually help to put a dent in the problem, however small? At the very least, people might begin to get used to the idea of what portions are supposed to look like.

                1. re: tatamagouche
                  d
                  dolores May 19, 2008 06:00 AM

                  Because control, like discipline and personal responsibility, begins at home. I don't want a restaurant deciding food portions for me. If a person can't figure out how to eat half their dish and then bring half home, they shouldn't venture outside their house.

                  Aside from the Big Brother-ness of it all, it will give a lot of restaurants carte blanche to charge me a lot of money for a little bit of food.

                  As the yogurt and ice cream makers decided with their hosing. I'm sure they will happily use the 'we're helping people lose weight by giving less product' baloney in their adverts.

                  >>At the very least, people might begin to get used to the idea of what portions are supposed to look like.

                  That's what a library is for.

                  1. re: dolores
                    tatamagouche May 19, 2008 09:48 AM

                    A, when *doesn't* a restaurant decide your portion sizes? Does the server come out with the pot and ask you how much you want? Unless it's served family style, they plate it.

                    B, a library is for determining portion sizes? Huh? That's how little we understand portion sizes, that we have to go look it up in a book?

                    I totally agree with you about food wisdom beginning at home. However, I wouldn't assume that "discipline and personal responsibility" are the only factors involved in a family's eating habits.

                    1. re: tatamagouche
                      d
                      dolores May 19, 2008 10:16 AM

                      A. I don't go to restaurants that serve tiny bits of food for lots and lots of money. Sure they determine the size, but I avoid those that hose their customers. My favorite restaurants give a big enough portion to warrant their prices. If it's too much for me to eat in one sitting, I don't sit there and eat it all, I -- duh -- bring what I can't eat home.

                      B. If an adult doesn't know the portion of food they 'should' be eating, they can go to the library for a book with pictures.

                      1. re: dolores
                        Ruth Lafler May 19, 2008 12:01 PM

                        You still haven't really addressed the issue: restaurant costs are going up. They can either raise their prices or serve less food. Given that most restaurant portions are bigger than necessary anyway, I think it's better to keep the price the same and reduce the quantity (although not the quality, and they shouldn't lie about the size of the portion). I'd rather pay a smaller amount and not try to take half of it home than pay more money for more food than I can (or should) eat.

                        1. re: Ruth Lafler
                          d
                          dolores May 19, 2008 01:33 PM

                          >>You still haven't really addressed the issue: restaurant costs are going up. They can either raise their prices or serve less food.

                          Yes. I did. In my first post.

                          --They are idiots if they do all of the above in lieu of raising prices. I don't like being played.--

                          >>I'd rather pay a smaller amount and not try to take half of it home than pay more money for more food than I can (or should) eat.

                          And I wouldn't. See my first post.

                          What would you do if they raised their prices with another lame excuse, perhaps the 'green' excuse? Would you demand that they return the portion size to what it was?

                          I don't need a restaurant hosing me in the exact same manner that ice cream manufacturers are trying to hose me.

                          When it comes to restaurants, though, the answer is simple. I won't go to restaurants that engage in 'portion control'. Thankfully, there are lots of restaurants out there. There are NOT anymore ice cream manufacturers who haven't jumped on the 'hosing' bandwagon.

                          1. re: Ruth Lafler
                            rworange May 19, 2008 02:15 PM

                            Yeah, I don't mind paying for bread or even chips and salas if that keeps the prices down on the entrees.

                            Kind of interesting most people not only don't seem to mind reduced portions, but even welcome them. I was actually excited to see that some restaurants are introducing shot glass-sized desserts. For me a taste is enough. I'd also love to see the half-portion option just as I like half-glass options on wine.

                            As far as offering cheaper options, I was amused by the report on the SF board where a diner raved about a chicken liver dish and beneights ... $9 beneights at that ... but still ... that is ok because even though they are using cheaper ingrediants, they are upforward about it.

                            The only thing that would bother me is the places that disguise what is going on ... using margarine, cheaper cheese ... things not so noticable ... and the places using out and out fraud like catfish for grouper deserve to go out of business.

                            What ... no one is outraged about the cheaper reformulated cheese that Chuckie Cheese is using? I mean CC had horrid pizza to start with and now the cheese is CHEAPER ??? Yikes ... it is supposed to spread out thinner requiring less ... well there you go ... less cheese and healthier ... so many benefits to the economy tanking, eh?

                            1. re: rworange
                              d
                              dolores May 19, 2008 03:02 PM

                              >>Yeah, I don't mind paying for bread or even chips and salas if that keeps the prices down on the entrees.

                              But it won't keep the prices down on the entrees. The prices will creep up and the restaurant will still charge for the bread and the chips.

                              GOOD for restaurants who do this if there are people willing to pay for it.

                              1. re: rworange
                                k
                                KTinNYC May 19, 2008 03:25 PM

                                "Yeah, I don't mind paying for bread or even chips and salas if that keeps the prices down on the entrees."

                                I totally agree. I'm not a big bread eater and I'm not sure why I should have to subsidize those who chose to eat basket after basket of bread.

                                1. re: rworange
                                  jfood May 19, 2008 04:59 PM

                                  jfood thinks the term that everyone would agree (maybe not everyone) is a reasonable portion for a fair price. If restos have to pick up the tab for all the freebies people expect then the numbers of restaurants will decrease and that is anti-Chow.

                                  And since jfood is not a big take-home person, he would much, rather prefer (no sentence structure comments pleas, double emphasis intended) a portion that meets the normal requirements versus the portion size for the people who want to eat out one night and enjoy the leftovers the next. And bravo to the restaurant, mentioned somewhere here, that has two prices, one for the normal and one for the hearty appetite. This is such a great, fantastic idea, that jfood hopes it becomes an accepted practice. And to those that want their cake and eat it too, they can pay the extra freight for the bigger portion, pay for the cartons to take it home for the next night's meal and everyone gets what they want. Jfood does not want to supplement other peoples' habits and does not ask others to support his.

                                  Wrt bread, jfood would relish the charge for the bread. Like everything else on the menu there is a cost to the restaurant and if the restaurant charged a couple of bucks for the bread, jfood would probably pass and not having the extra carbs is a good thing. As others have mentioned, this is pretty SOP in other countries.People who want the bread, pay up, it isn;t free to the restaurant why should it be free to the customer.

                                  Bottom line is you want it, you order it, you pay for it. The couple at Table 23 are not responsible for all of your freebies.

                                  1. re: jfood
                                    pikawicca May 19, 2008 05:28 PM

                                    Bless you Master jfood and your foodie karma. Why other Hounds don't get the basic value-for-food concept, I don't know.

                                    1. re: pikawicca
                                      LindaWhit May 20, 2008 08:08 AM

                                      Agree with the blessing of Master jfood and his logical post. I agree - sometimes I want bread; sometimes I don't. Just because it's *been* free doesn't mean it should always be so. It costs the restaurant money. If a small surcharge is added for bread and spreads, so be it. I'll pay for it if I really really want the bread. Otherwise, more room for a normal-sized meal. (Also love the idea of a restaurant doing half portions!)

                                    2. re: jfood
                                      vvvindaloo May 19, 2008 06:44 PM

                                      jfood, i agree with you most of the way. i wouldn't be too upset about a charge for bread (or tortillas or whatever), especially since there is always a built-in charge for these items, anyway (the restaurant pays for it, and passes on the cost somehow, right?). i am one of those people who sits on their hands when the bread comes because i know i don't need it (unless it's super-special bread at a fancy restaurant, and then all bets are off). however, this does not change the fact that many many people will feel slighted, creating a sneaking suspicion that they are getting less for their money. if the restaurant charges $2 for a basket of bread, and keeps the rest of their menu the same, then the diner is now paying an extra $2 per meal for the same thing they were getting yesterday. again, i am not a person who brings food home from a restaurant very often (maybe once per year, under certain circumstances), so i don't need a huge portion to make me happy. but i wouldn't be too thrilled if my go-to places started adding charges where there weren't any before. i would be kind of miffed, initially. then i would get over it, i guess, because that's the way it goes...
                                      i do, however, believe that we will start seeing his happen more and more, if wheat prices remain at these inflated levels. what i personally hope to see more of are half-portions at restaurnts. i think they are a great way to offer cost-saving opportunities to both the restaurant and the diner (and reducing waste in the process) without jeopardizing quality or overall experience.
                                      Just my 0.02!

                                      1. re: vvvindaloo
                                        jfood May 20, 2008 04:59 AM

                                        V

                                        here is the reality of the situation in 2008. Wheat prices are up 40% at least and other commodities for a restaurant are up as well. People see the prices at the grocers and fret when they pick up milk, eggs, bread, etc. So they are already paying the additional amount for the things they see at their own dining tables.

                                        So if these same people think that a restaurant is some magician's top hat that can absorb the same prices as a cost and not pass it on to the customer in some form then, quite frankly they need to take the heads out of the sand.

                                        If they have suspicions, or think the restaurant is pulling a fast one or any other lame excuse, well then these same people should just stay home and absorb 100% of the cost of the increased prices by buying and eating by themselves. At least the restaurant is trying it's best to eat some of the cost and pass on some of the cost.

                                        And if the costs to the restaurant increase $400 and they serve 400 customers, then their choice is to raise the price to everyone $1 or change the business model to charge for what people eat, interesting concept. Jfood would rather the latter.

                                        1. re: jfood
                                          vvvindaloo May 20, 2008 07:12 AM

                                          jfood, I think you and I are totally on the same page now, as we wrote just about the same thing!
                                          The half-portion concept (which I certainly didn't come up with myself) is also a selfish on on my part- I get to have some pasta, some entree and still maybe room for dessert :)

                                      2. re: jfood
                                        s
                                        soupkitten May 20, 2008 10:43 AM

                                        love your post, Jfood. re the portion size issue: it's tough as a chef or server to throw perfectly good food away, because a customer did not finish her/his largish restaurant portion. many times the doggie bag goes home, of course, but so many meals are eaten in restaurants when the diners are on their way to an event where they can't carry the leftovers, business meals, have a hotel room and no way to reheat, etc, so the expensive leftover portion is trashed. it's so wasteful, and as you point out, of course we all pay for it somehow.

                                        a chef in my town whom i admire very much looked at obesity, restaurant portion sizes, human psychology, etc. and came up with the following solution: in his fine dining restaurant, the portions are planned according to the size that satisfies 80% of people, with minimal waste. for the 20% of diners who have heartier appetites, his staff is instructed to provide more food until the diner is satisfied, at no additional charge. he does not advertise this, because he's not running an all you can eat buffet-- but the result is minimal waste and satisfied customers who have not tried to cram an unhealthy portion of food. i think he's brilliant, others i'm sure would think he's somehow trying to cheat people, but he has a very loyal following of grateful customers.

                                        1. re: soupkitten
                                          Miss Needle May 20, 2008 10:56 AM

                                          Soupkitten, this is interesting. How does that chef determine who has healthier appetites? Is it by the size of a person? How quickly one eats? Or is it from customer feedback?

                                          And I heartily endorse the idea of two sizes. If you look at averages, women have a smaller nutritional requirements than men. Yet restaurant servings are generally geared so that most men are satisfied. So what are women (or smaller eaters) to do? As you have mentioned, there are many reasons why one may not be able to get the food to go and there is either waste or you've got a situation where people unnecessarily stuff themselves in order to prevent the waste.

                                          1. re: Miss Needle
                                            s
                                            soupkitten May 20, 2008 11:17 AM

                                            i believe that he's just trained his servers to be very attentive to each customers' needs and respond to any hint or inkling of hunger at the end of the meal. on one occasion i had dinner there with dh we were absolutely satisfied, but as the server cleared the plates i mentioned that a vegetable had been fabulous, & she immediately offered to bring more-- i wanted room for dessert so i declined, but i think all of the servers are on point with this. it's "gotten around," unofficially among the dining crowd that this is the chef's policy, and customers seem grateful to know that they can get more food if they're really hungry. i don't think the policy is being abused-- but it's not something that your average person on the street would know about.

                            2. re: dolores
                              jspear May 25, 2008 08:32 AM

                              Let's help the masses, not those that research and practice self-discipline. We are a consuming nation, let's consume less, let's have less plated for us, let's think global in everything we do. If my greens are not same day but my favorite resto has decided to do weely instead of daily deliveries, let's support that and encourage them in doing what's right with our business. If we charge for incidentals, bread and butter, maybe people will learn to ask for it if they want it and not pick at it, waste it or ignore it on the table. Maybe the person who does not practice self control will learn that bread is not necessary and doesn't have to be eaten just because it is there. I know when I am full and I bag what I don't eat and have it for lunch tomorrow but I also have seen plates of pasta tossed, salads tossed untouched. Time we were less gluttonous (sp) and more focussed, hitting in the wallet might help move that along.

                          2. re: dolores
                            m
                            ML8000 May 19, 2008 09:36 AM

                            Will it solve obesity in the U.S.? No.

                            Can it help? Yes.

                            If people get use to seeing (and eating) smaller servings, it can only help because eating has both psychological and perception factors involved.

                            Conversely Americans are use to and expect a pile of food. Most places easily serve 2x the norn/required...and many Americans eat that and want more.

                            How does a library get people, or kids for that matter, to understand portion size at restaurants? I agree that it's a personal matter and education can help but eating is so instinctual, experiential and hardwired to humans I think long term conditioning is a real factor.
                            .

                            1. re: ML8000
                              d
                              dolores May 19, 2008 10:17 AM

                              >>Conversely Americans are use to and expect a pile of food. Most places easily serve 2x the norn/required...and many Americans eat that and want more.

                              That's the fault of the diner. Bring home what you can't eat.

                              >>How does a library get people, or kids for that matter, to understand portion size at restaurants?

                              Answered above.

                              1. re: dolores
                                tatamagouche May 19, 2008 10:36 AM

                                Again, placing blame squarely on the diner is perhaps a little premature. Yes, I agree with you, we as Americans are on the whole rather greedy.

                                But, as ML8000 points out, there are nurture and nature factors involved. A single parent works 2 jobs and gives her kids money to go to McDonald's every night. Their meals are supersized and they grow up thinking that's normal.

                                Then there's the fact that we are still somewhat hardwired to get what we can, when and where we can. The fact that you personally have learned self restraint is great for you, but it's a little tough to judge others so harshly without knowing their circumstances.

                                Restaurants could at least not make the lessons you've learned so well so much harder for others to learn by serving normal-sized portions.

                                1. re: tatamagouche
                                  tatamagouche May 19, 2008 10:38 AM

                                  ...Or, for that matter, gives them money to buy a can of beans and a can of tomatoes and make for themselves a nutritious dinner. Doesn't mean they'll do it...they're kids.

                              2. re: ML8000
                                j
                                Jeanne May 20, 2008 11:55 AM

                                "Conversely Americans are use to and expect a pile of food. Most places easily serve 2x the norn/required...and many Americans eat that and want more."

                                I don't know where you've been eating - but I very rarely eat at chains - some are known for this (Cheesecake Factory anyone?). The local independent restaurants that I frequent do not do this.

                                1. re: Jeanne
                                  m
                                  ML8000 May 20, 2008 01:21 PM

                                  In SF, the mid-price, $40 per/person, new American places serve a pile of food, easily 2x. The mid-price ethnic/fusion places serve less. On the whole however when you pop for $40 p/p on a weeknight in a neighborhood place, the expectation is of some value.

                                  As for chains, I haven't been to most: Chilis, TFIGs, PF Changs, CCF, Applebees, Olive Garden, etc.

                                  1. re: ML8000
                                    vvvindaloo May 20, 2008 03:25 PM

                                    Really? Here in NY, I would say that the upscale-casual new American restaurant will have smaller portions (but fancier ingredients/methods) than an ethnic restaurant of the same caliber in the same price range.

                                    1. re: vvvindaloo
                                      m
                                      ML8000 May 20, 2008 04:14 PM

                                      Okay, it depends on the place and what's being served. Places that served refined appetizers (expensive ingredients) serve small. Places serving something braised short ribs w/ mashed potatoes serve a pile. You could get a small app and a huge plate in the same place. It all depends.

                                      Any way, I can eat a lot but over the past few years I've learned to stop when I get full. At the big plate places I usually slow down at 2/3 done. My guess is at half done I'd be full if I waited 10 minutes...so I figure they're serving 2x.

                              3. re: dolores
                                s
                                sasha1 May 23, 2008 11:29 AM

                                I admire and envy your willpower and sense of self-control. I really do. But you seem to me so adamant about holding everyone to the same standards as yourself. There's a great deal of literature about the rise of obesity being closely correlated with the advent of fast food, the transformation of physical labor and play into computer games and desk jobs, and yes, portion sizes being so out of whack that people don't know anymore what's good for them. Many people don't even know they don't know. Others know, and still fall of the wagon more often than they care to. If restaurants can sell smaller portions, and those left hungry can buy an extra ____, then why not? What has anyone got to lose from that proposition? Except a few extra lbs they don't need anyhow?

                                1. re: sasha1
                                  e
                                  EdwardAdams May 25, 2008 07:25 AM

                                  I actually avoid places that put too much on the plate. I will read the advertisements for a place like Black Angus in the Sunday paper in which they promise a pris fixe meal of a greasy appetizer, salad, big steak and potato, finishing with a heavy chocolate dessert and play the mind game of figuring out how I would eat that mess. The appetizer, salad and dessert, I could eat because the leftovers would be (more) disgusting and take the steak and potato home? I dunno how they sell these things but since they pay for the ad, it must appeal to many.

                                  The solution sometimes is for my wife and I to split our order but that limits our choices to a common one and defeats the idea of going out to eat somewhat.

                            2. ChefJune May 19, 2008 04:26 AM

                              <- serving an 8oz steak though the menu says 10 oz< even an 8-ounce serving is to large to be healthful!

                              2 Replies
                              1. re: ChefJune
                                Miss Needle May 19, 2008 06:02 AM

                                I was at this restaurant a few times where they serve steak by the oz. My thought was, "Great, I don't have to order a huge steak." Turns out that you needed to order an 8 oz minimum!

                                Problem I have with that statement is that the menu states 10 oz. Why can't they just change the menu to reflect 8 oz? I think that's really deceptive. I also have an issue with the catfish/grouper thing.

                                1. re: Miss Needle
                                  Marcharlan May 19, 2008 09:32 AM

                                  Not only is it not moral - its also illegal.

                                  That said, I know there is an issue with restaurants not knowing the white fish they sell as one thing is really another as they dont have accurate info from the suppliers.

                              2. pikawicca May 19, 2008 09:56 AM

                                Just got back from lunch at a local sandwich shop that bakes its own bread. Their prices have doubled since I was there a month ago. The price they pay for wheat has more than quintupled in the past year; seems like all the farmers want to grow corn for ethanol, so wheat is getting scarce. This is also beginning to cause famines in Africa. Unintended consequences get you every time.

                                I don't understand how any rational diner can expect a restaurant to simply take such a price hike in stride and not pass along the cost to the customer. If my local restaurants feel that they must charge for bread and butter, I'll pony up.

                                7 Replies
                                1. re: pikawicca
                                  Miss Needle May 19, 2008 09:58 AM

                                  Yeah, I totally understand that places have to either raise prices or make portions smaller, etc. and have seen evidences for both. I'm still amazed that NYC still has those 99 cent pizza joints with the slices still being the same size.

                                  1. re: pikawicca
                                    d
                                    dolores May 19, 2008 10:19 AM

                                    They don't have to charge for bread and butter, they can raise the price of the food to cover it. 'Semantics' every time, they should be able to figure it out.

                                    If they charge for bread and butter and raise the price of the food, that's goodbye for me.

                                    1. re: dolores
                                      c
                                      cleveland park May 19, 2008 11:47 AM

                                      Not a critique just a side note for reference. The US is one of the few countries not to charge for bread and butter.

                                      1. re: cleveland park
                                        d
                                        dolores May 19, 2008 01:34 PM

                                        >>The US is one of the few countries not to charge for bread and butter.

                                        Wow.

                                        As I noted, cleveland park, if they make it a blanket change in every restaurant in the US, I'll save quite a bit of money by no longer eating out.

                                        1. re: dolores
                                          pikawicca May 19, 2008 04:08 PM

                                          Well, at least if you eat at home, you'll be paying for your own bread and butter instead of expecting the restaurant owner and/or your fellow diners to support your appetite.

                                      2. re: dolores
                                        Ruth Lafler May 19, 2008 03:08 PM

                                        You're very contradictory: you complain about restaurants that "hose" you, and at the same time, you think it's better for people to be charged for "free" bread they don't want and won't eat by paying higher entree prices. I'd rather pay for what I get: if I want bread, I pay for it; if I don't, I don't.

                                        1. re: Ruth Lafler
                                          d
                                          dolores May 19, 2008 03:14 PM

                                          It's my opinion.

                                          GOOD for restaurants that charge people who are happy to pay for bread and chips and for higher priced entrees.

                                          GOOD, GOOD, GOOD for them.

                                    2. Veggo May 19, 2008 10:57 AM

                                      A very popular restaurant in Playa del Carmen (Mexico) named Babes has a menu that has a second column of prices for half orders for every entree. Usually a half order with one of their delicious appetizers is plenty. Half orders seem to be the norm rather than the exception, and the owner, Per, indicates that it contributes to his success.
                                      The give-'em-a-ton-of-food business model of the Cheesecake factory is by no means the only route to restaurant success.
                                      How often do you work you way through too much food when you are no longer hungry, simply because you paid for it? Works in Mexico; ought to work here.

                                      1 Reply
                                      1. re: Veggo
                                        v
                                        vanillagrrl May 19, 2008 01:19 PM

                                        Funny, Veggo -- I just vacationed there and ate at Babe's Noodle House a few days ago. Had a half order and it was plenty for my dinner that night and breakfast the next morning. My daughter and my husband shared a full order, which was just right for the two of them but not too much food, either. I would love it if more places here (in the US) would serve half-portions.

                                      2. nofunlatte May 19, 2008 02:38 PM

                                        I would MUCH rather restaurants charge for bread and butter outright, rather than embed it into the cost of the meal. That way I'm not paying for the bread and butter that I don't eat. And count me in with the group that would rather see smaller portions with prices remaining the same (if possible). Surely anyone who wants more can always order more.

                                        6 Replies
                                        1. re: nofunlatte
                                          m
                                          ML8000 May 19, 2008 05:27 PM

                                          I'd rather have restaurants charge for bread/butter. Charging doesn't seems as hospitable or gracious but it does make you pause and think if you want or "need" it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It also could reduce waste. I imagine not everyone wants or eats bread or finishes "free" bread and a lot gets wasted.

                                          1. re: nofunlatte
                                            vvvindaloo May 19, 2008 07:05 PM

                                            nofunlatte,
                                            i agree with you on both the desire to say "no bread" and save the waste that the auto bread basket causes. i am also with you on being willing to accept a reasonable portion of food for a reasonable amt. of money, and if that means a little bit smaller, then ok. however, i just want to point out that your scenario (the way that you wrote it) indicates a willingness to pay the same amount you are paying now (which includes the cost of bread whether it is listed or not) and receive smaller portions of food. this is the scenario that some would object to, and i can't say that i blame them. the fact that you are not ordering bread and butter does not mean that you are not paying for it. i don't think any of us expect that entree prices will be going down by $1 to reflect the restaurant's deflating bread costs. the best we could hope for in this scenario is that the ever-inflating cost of food could be mitigated by such a development. in the short run, however, many diners (especially those on tight budgets, i imagine) will see this as a very tangible loss, rather than a long-run gain.

                                            1. re: vvvindaloo
                                              nofunlatte May 20, 2008 05:19 AM

                                              vvvindaloo, I was discussing two separate issues, though I did a poor job of clearly stating that. What I meant was this: the cost of an entree will now be rising (given the rising costs of commodities) and I would rather the restaurant management give me a smaller amount of an entree at the original price, than serve me the originally sized portion but charge me a higher price. There's a local pancake house that is famous for their five-egg omelettes. Suppose they cost $6.99. So, I'd rather them serve me a four-egg omelette for $6.99 than a five-egg omelette for $7.99 (just an illustration--I've never actually eaten one of those five-egg monstrosities!) Anyway, that is issue #1.

                                              Issue #2--if the cost of my entree has been $18 at a place that typically served free bread and butter, then I would rather they deal with the price increases of their raw materials by skipping the free bread, but keeping the entree price the same, $18.

                                              Part of my arguments behind this is "less food waste". I have no problem with restaurants making bread pudding from leftover bread, for instance (more power to them). Food waste is a big issue that we may be hearing about more and more (the NYTimes wrote about this on Sunday and Well, the Nytimes health blog also discusses it). Additionally, for some people, a couple of bucks might be the difference between going out to eat and staying home. I live in an economically depressed part of the country and restaurants here are closing right and left.

                                              That said, running a restaurant is a business and the owners have to make money somehow.

                                              Link to the food waste article mentioned earlier:
                                              http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/wee...

                                              1. re: nofunlatte
                                                vvvindaloo May 20, 2008 07:25 AM

                                                you and i are totally simpatiche on this, latte (see my post to jfood, above). i thank you for your explanation, though. i was using your language (and maybe playing devil's advocate a bit) to show the perspective of those who just don't want to see another "official" charge on their bill because they are afraid that this will open the floodgates to all sorts of new expenses when they eat out (i am not one of these people, in case that does not shine through clearly in all of my posts on this topic). personally, i think that the reality of today's insane food cost situation may not have set in yet entirely with some of those people- otherwise, they'd realize that costs are going way up anyhow, and choosing not to order the $2 bread in the restaurant just may end up being the most cost-effective practice they could get into, for everyone involved.

                                                1. re: vvvindaloo
                                                  nofunlatte May 21, 2008 05:20 AM

                                                  Okay, I got it now! Nothing wrong with a little Advocatus Diaboli. You are correct when you state that the reality of food price increases may not have hit some people (outside of perhaps noticing their eggs cost more at the grocery store). Or they may not have extrapolated that to eggs costing more for restaurant owners.

                                                  One other point I'd like to make is that the increase in the price of an entree also means an increase in the 20% tip. That may be enough to keep people from going out to eat. Therefore, keeping entree prices down (even if it means charging for bread or reducing the physical size of the entree) may mean that people still go out to eat, whereas the $2 + 20% could well be the tipping point that keeps folks home (which isn't good for business!) Restaurants must make money somehow!

                                                  1. re: nofunlatte
                                                    vvvindaloo May 21, 2008 05:28 PM

                                                    Your analysis makes good sense to me. In the meantime, think of all the poor servers who will be taking the brunt of the customer's wrath when they sit down and find out that no bread is coming!

                                          2. tatamagouche May 20, 2008 06:09 AM

                                            Hats off, rworange...you've certainly raised a ruckus with this one.

                                            21 Replies
                                            1. re: tatamagouche
                                              rworange May 20, 2008 09:04 AM

                                              Yeah, I'm sure the moderators are in love with me right now. I would have thought this got a half dozen responses at most.

                                              Dolores, I hate the practice in grocery stores decreasing sizes ... the smaller coffee cans, yogurt containers, etc, etc. So I'm sympatico there.

                                              Long before this I rarely went to restaurants like steak houses that charge extra for vegetables because it always ticks me off. So it is not that I don't understand that in terms of charging for formerly free stuff like bread or chips.

                                              I am totally ticked that products use HFCS instead of sugar to cut costs. I rarely buy those.

                                              The distinction is applying the correct terms. The smaller sizes. I feel i'm being tricked. Paying for veggies when every other place includes that in the price, I feel I'm being hosed. Using HFCS, well that is greed AND trickery.

                                              The reality is I think twice these days before driving to a restaurant out of my area ... the day I spent $60 to fill a tank that once filled for $25 gave me pause. If at the end of the ride the price of my restaurant check is a lot higher ... I'm not going to do it as often.

                                              I also need the restaurant to work with me to keep my tab as reasonable as possible. I don't consider them greedy. They have to deal with the reality of skyrocketing prices while not losing business. As a lot of people have said, they can't afford the higher prices ... we are all paying more for everything these days and don't have as much discretionary income.

                                              Anyway, dolores, I'm a little curious. Your preference is to raise prices and you will not patronize those places that choose other options ... some better than others. And part of this seems to be based on your disapproval of ice cream companies decreasing the size of the 'half gallon'. It still looks that size, but is smaller and tricks the consumer.

                                              Once a few did it ... the others finanly caved and did it. The reality is that people bought the less expensive smaller size rather the more expensive half-gallon size.

                                              Do you still buy ice cream?

                                              1. re: rworange
                                                d
                                                dolores May 20, 2008 09:15 AM

                                                Since I only made it once at home and found it too good, yes I do rworange. I even gave in to the yogurt crooks and bought their reduced size higher priced product, since Columbo bailed on me.

                                                But while there are still restaurants that don't charge for bread or chips, I will patronize those who don't over those who are greedy. As I noted, it will not stop at charging for bread or chips, those same places that are greedy enough to charge for a potato or for chips or for a portion of bread will in time raise the price on their entree or their appetizer. What's a diner to do then, point out that they started charging for bread or chips and can't also raise the price on an entree or an appetizer? Yeah, right.

                                                That said, when all the restaurants in this already overpriced area start charging for bread and chips and noodles, then I will most likely eat at home. If I cave, then I'll cave with an attitude.

                                                1. re: dolores
                                                  Ruth Lafler May 20, 2008 10:12 AM

                                                  I just don't see how trying to recoup soaring costs is "greedy." Isn't wanting something for nothing "greedy"?

                                                  1. re: Ruth Lafler
                                                    LindaWhit May 20, 2008 10:25 AM

                                                    Ruth, I think ultimately it comes down to a situation of "I've gotten it for free; why should they charge me for it now?" Despite what dolores thinks, the "free" bread was *never* free. It was built into the price of the entree, whether she agrees with that premise or not.

                                                    Costs go up on a regular basis. This is just another way of doing so. I don't pay the same price for eggs, milk, meat or restaurant meals that my parents used to. It's called a "cost of living" increase. Just as people get raises to adjust for the cost of living, so do restaurants have to increase their prices to be able to stay in business.

                                                    1. re: LindaWhit
                                                      Ruth Lafler May 20, 2008 10:59 AM

                                                      I wonder what would happen if someone went into a restaurant, sat down and ate the "free" bread, and then said "I changed my mind, I don't want to order anything" and walked out. Since that rarely happens, most restaurants would just shrug and eat the cost. But if it started to happen on a regular basis, you can bet someone would be meeting the customer at the door with a bill for the bread.

                                                      I think my attitude is shaped by all the times I've looked at a plate and thought "I wish they'd served a smaller portion and charged less." Or looked at the bread basket sitting untouched on the table and thought what a waste. I'd prefer to have to option to control my costs and their waste by only receiving and paying for what I want.

                                                      1. re: Ruth Lafler
                                                        LindaWhit May 20, 2008 11:13 AM

                                                        Exactly. It frustrates me that bread is served, and if only 1 piece is eaten out of a basket that has 6 slices remaining, those 6 are supposed to be thrown out. What a waste. I would much prefer when a staff member comes up and puts one piece of focaccia on my plate, or offers a small roll, and you can then decline or accept. But it's *not* wasted.

                                                        1. re: LindaWhit
                                                          Miss Needle May 20, 2008 11:24 AM

                                                          Depending on the place, those unfinished slices of bread may not be thrown out but used again for another party.

                                                          I also agree with you that I'd rather have somebody come over to me and give me one roll or slice of bread and I can determine if I want more or say no in the first place.

                                                          1. re: Miss Needle
                                                            LindaWhit May 20, 2008 11:43 AM

                                                            I thought it was illegal to serve food that had been given to someone to another person. I'm assuming your caveat of "depending on the place" is based on the ethics of the restaurant.

                                                            1. re: LindaWhit
                                                              Miss Needle May 20, 2008 11:50 AM

                                                              It probably is illegal, but I have seen it done before.

                                                          2. re: LindaWhit
                                                            rworange May 20, 2008 11:44 AM

                                                            That's another way to go rather than charging for bread ... a 'by piece' bread basket. It seemed restaurants did that more in the past ... came around and offered a roll and if you accepted and ate that, offered more.

                                                            I eat out alot and I'm always annoyed when I get the same quarter of a loaf that a table of two or more gets. I don't need the calories. Sometimes service is slow and I eat more bread than I should out of boredom. Often I ask to take it home ... but I really don't need bread calories period so it is still a pain. Sometimes I ask some of the street people if they are interested in the rest of my meal, but not if the only thing I have left is bread since that seems not much to offer someone.

                                                            Asking customers if they want bread (and butter) and replenishing as needed might be one way for restaurants to cut a little waste and cost.

                                                            1. re: rworange
                                                              Ruth Lafler May 20, 2008 11:56 AM

                                                              I think what happened was that service costs rose faster than food costs. It was cheaper to give you more bread than you needed than to use staff resources to go around and ask if you want more bread. That might change, though.

                                                              I'm with you on the "don't need the calories but eat the bread from boredom" issue. I've can usually leave the bread alone, but I'm a sucker for chips and salsa. They plunk that basket down, I eat the whole thing while I'm waiting, and then often I'm too full to eat more than a few bites of the rest of my meal.

                                                              I bet the street person would think that bread is better than nothing.

                                                              1. re: Ruth Lafler
                                                                LindaWhit May 20, 2008 01:04 PM

                                                                However, the staff still comes around to see if you want drinks. Why can't they just ask when they replenish your drinks (or bring your initial drink order) if you want more bread with your meal (or before your meal)?

                                                            2. re: LindaWhit
                                                              m
                                                              morwen May 21, 2008 08:41 PM

                                                              Two of the restaurants we eat at regularly routinely place a basket of bread on the table. One bakes their own bread and focaccia in stone ovens you can see from the dining room. The other bakes their own crusty white and awesome corn muffins. At both places they replenish upon request though we rarely make it through the first basket. Neither place seems to mind that I ask them to bag the remaining bread to go home with us. I know the cost is worked into our order, I've paid for it one way or the other, I hate to have them waste it because legally they have to toss is if it's been served, and it's too good to go to waste.

                                                              1. re: morwen
                                                                LindaWhit May 22, 2008 07:12 AM

                                                                If it's been served to you and you ask them to bag it to go, I have no problem with.

                                                            3. re: Ruth Lafler
                                                              j
                                                              jlafler May 21, 2008 11:32 AM

                                                              I forget who it was (maybe my mother?) who told the story about going into a Chinese restaurant one afternoon when she just wanted a cup of tea. After she'd been sitting there a while it occurred to her that she wasn't going to be billed for the tea, so she really ought to order something else.

                                                              1. re: jlafler
                                                                rworange May 21, 2008 12:25 PM

                                                                I was six when my dad and I went to a Manhattan restaurant for fried clams (yeah, I know).

                                                                We chowed down on the bread and sipped the water ... no fried clams ... despite being a seafood joint ... and there was not another thing on the menu we wanted.

                                                                The waiters were nice about it. My dad left a tip to cover the bread and inconveniece ... yet ... in all the decades since then I haven't touched a thing on the table until I'm absolutely certain that I'm going to order ... and yeah, I know they will probably toss the untouched bread anyway.

                                                                1. re: jlafler
                                                                  Ruth Lafler May 21, 2008 01:17 PM

                                                                  Well, our parents had a story about wandering into a Chinese restaurant one evening after a movie and asking for tea and a plate of cookies. They receive a bill for the cookies (something like fifty cents), and when they asked about paying for the tea, the waiter just shrugged and said tea was free.

                                                                  1. re: Ruth Lafler
                                                                    Miss Needle May 21, 2008 02:28 PM

                                                                    Strangely enough, tea is usually free at Chinese restaurants with the exception of dim sum where many (not all) charge you.

                                                                    1. re: Ruth Lafler
                                                                      j
                                                                      jlafler May 21, 2008 03:34 PM

                                                                      That must have been it. You have a better memory than I do. :-)

                                                              2. re: Ruth Lafler
                                                                e
                                                                EdwardAdams May 21, 2008 05:31 AM

                                                                This could involve a sticky matter, considering how much bread I eat when ordering something like steamed clams or mussels. A guy's gotta have something to soak up the best part of the order.

                                                                Perhaps I will have to start looking down the menu to find the cost of bread now before ordering such.

                                                                1. re: EdwardAdams
                                                                  Ruth Lafler May 21, 2008 09:22 AM

                                                                  Or maybe some items could include bread. When I was out to eat with my Mom the other day, they plunked down a huge basket of bread -- eight pieces, IIRC. I thought that was ridiculous, but we had ordered a charcuterie item and a cheese item, so I thought maybe they each came with bread.

                                                        2. sfumato May 23, 2008 09:38 AM

                                                          "- recycling (look for more bread pudding, home-made croutons, etc) "

                                                          I like this idea, actually. I was reading about how much still-edible food Americans waste, and if the stats are correct, it's absolutely shocking.

                                                          Besides, I think one mark of a good chef (or home cook) is their ability to use leftovers like stale bread to their advantage!

                                                          3 Replies
                                                          1. re: sfumato
                                                            toodie jane Jun 8, 2008 09:24 AM

                                                            I know a baker who makes the most delicious "bread pudding" out of day-old bear claws, and the restaraunt makes french toast from DO cinnamon rolls.

                                                            (It's only centsable)

                                                            1. re: toodie jane
                                                              LindaWhit Jun 8, 2008 03:54 PM

                                                              Now THAT would be great french toast!

                                                              1. re: toodie jane
                                                                sfumato Jun 11, 2008 05:25 PM

                                                                Oh yum!!!

                                                            2. p
                                                              Pete Oldtown May 25, 2008 10:27 PM

                                                              Most restaurants are being pretty upfront about it, in my experience. The day of the doggy bag is over. The sneaky ones are going to turn out an inferior product and customers will desert. Food prices are not going to come down and may increase even more sharply in coming years. But there are ways to deliver value without dumbing down the food; one thing I have noticed recently is how many restaurants have a fancy, and usually pretty tasty, egg roll type product on the appetizer menu instead of a shrimp or lobster cocktail. Much cheaper, pleasing, and just requires a bit more work. Another indicator is the recent mega-popularity of pork belly. It's cheap, but delicious, and it requires too much work for most home cooks.

                                                              The fact of the matter is we now have to feed 6 billion mouths, and the competition for the natural supply of food is just enormous.

                                                              Watch what is happening in the supermarket. The big food manufacturers are going nuts in deceptive packaging. That 100-calorie strategy was meant as much to reduce the portion without reducing the price as to reduce the amount of calories. But Kraft and their colleagues don't have to worry as much about losing customers. Restaurants, particularly independent ones, do.

                                                              At the risk of getting REALLY long-winded, I've noticed that independent grocers are coming back strong. In part, they have a high-low strategy that allows them to put popular items out at very low prices once in a while. Wal-Mart et al have an EDLP philosophy, meaning they can't really do door-buster specials very often.

                                                              I was talking to a restaurant supplier recently who provides top quality in everything. He said some of his customers are literally going to Sam's Club for some products, and he is worried that he will have to raise his prices even more than he already has to make up for the losses in sales of staples like rice and so on.

                                                              If these guys get run out of business, look out below.

                                                              Show Hidden Posts