sundevilpeg wrote:
Was this combative, snobbish comment really necessary?

ronnie_suburban wrote:Oy, whatever. I understand that you're happy to have others pay for your bread and that quality, creativity and innovation are secondary concerns for you. It's a short-view perspective that most of us on these forums do not share (at least based on this thread).

Respectfully, it's not about any of those things for me. It's about my conviction that charging for bread (that never was charged for before) is a new form of a la carte price-gouging, of the sort the airlines have proved themselves masters of.

Maybe Ronnie is baking loaves in anticipation of a new bread empire? All that kitchen heat, the dehydration, Lordy, it'd be enough to make anyone cranky!

Pursuit wrote:Maybe Ronnie is baking loaves in anticipation of a new bread empire? All that kitchen heat, the dehydration, Lordy, it'd be enough to make anyone cranky!

F*ck, busted!

=R=

riddlemay wrote:charging for bread (that never was charged for before) is a new form of a la carte price-gouging

Your conviction is flawed. You pay for your bread whether you see it on the bill or not. Do you really believe you're not being charged for it? Or the oil your fries are fried in? Or the seasonings that flavor your food? It's all added on to the plate cost, something that's been mentioned a few times and you continue to ignore. And since we like good food around here, what's the big deal about paying a few bucks for something that may be unique, or more labor intensive and of a higher caliber?

Jazzfood wrote:Your conviction is flawed. You pay for your bread whether you see it on the bill or not. Do you really believe you're not being charged for it? Or the oil your fries are fried in? Or the seasonings that flavor your food? It's all added on to the plate cost, something that's been mentioned a few times and you continue to ignore.

Far from ignoring it, I'm absolutely sure I've indicated any number of times on this thread that I understand that completely. And that's the way I like it. Just like I enjoy not having to pay for salt on the table, even though I know that the cost of salt is spread across all the items on the menu. Just like I enjoy not having to pay for eating utensils on the table, even though the cost of utensils is spread across all the items on the menu. Etc.

I'm against the "a-la-carte-ization" of things that used to be considered part of a restaurant's hospitality, no matter that--of course!--a restaurant has to recover its operating costs by spreading them across the menu.

riddlemay wrote:

Jazzfood wrote:Your conviction is flawed. You pay for your bread whether you see it on the bill or not. Do you really believe you're not being charged for it? Or the oil your fries are fried in? Or the seasonings that flavor your food? It's all added on to the plate cost, something that's been mentioned a few times and you continue to ignore.

Far from ignoring it, I'm absolutely sure I've indicated any number of times on this thread that I understand that completely. And that's the way I like it. Just like I enjoy not having to pay for salt on the table, even though I know that the cost of salt is spread across all the items on the menu. Just like I enjoy not having to pay for eating utensils on the table, even though the cost of utensils is spread across all the items on the menu. Etc.

I'm against the "a-la-carte-ization" of things that used to be considered part of a restaurant's hospitality, no matter that--of course!--a restaurant has to recover its operating costs by spreading them across the menu.

I'm not a coffee drinker, but I remember a time (and maybe it still exists) when at more casual restaurants you got a bottomless cup of coffee. One certainly would not expect this at spots serving carefully prepared coffee using premium beans expertly roasted and ground. Should not the same differentiation apply to similarly premium breads?

riddlemay wrote:

Jazzfood wrote:Your conviction is flawed. You pay for your bread whether you see it on the bill or not. Do you really believe you're not being charged for it? Or the oil your fries are fried in? Or the seasonings that flavor your food? It's all added on to the plate cost, something that's been mentioned a few times and you continue to ignore.

Far from ignoring it, I'm absolutely sure I've indicated any number of times on this thread that I understand that completely. And that's the way I like it. Just like I enjoy not having to pay for salt on the table, even though I know that the cost of salt is spread across all the items on the menu. Just like I enjoy not having to pay for eating utensils on the table, even though the cost of utensils is spread across all the items on the menu. Etc.

I'm against the "a-la-carte-ization" of things that used to be considered part of a restaurant's hospitality, no matter that--of course!--a restaurant has to recover its operating costs by spreading them across the menu.

Except that your desire for "free" but typically boring-or-worse bread denies those of us who enjoy something more interesting the opportunity to order and, yes, pay for an app like the delicious bread and sea salt/black pepper butter at Vera.

Anteprima is my favorite neighborhood restaurant. I love the free homemade grissini. I never touch the rest of the basket because, frankly, it's not very good. I always feel bad that it gets thrown out but if I was in the mood for bread, I'd rather pay a few bucks and get something special.

To me, bread as an appetizer isn't something I always want--but when I do, I'd always rather indulge in something special v. stuffing my face with a crappy freebie. To each their own.

riddlemay wrote:

Jazzfood wrote:Your conviction is flawed. You pay for your bread whether you see it on the bill or not. Do you really believe you're not being charged for it? Or the oil your fries are fried in? Or the seasonings that flavor your food? It's all added on to the plate cost, something that's been mentioned a few times and you continue to ignore.

Far from ignoring it, I'm absolutely sure I've indicated any number of times on this thread that I understand that completely. And that's the way I like it. Just like I enjoy not having to pay for salt on the table, even though I know that the cost of salt is spread across all the items on the menu. Just like I enjoy not having to pay for eating utensils on the table, even though the cost of utensils is spread across all the items on the menu. Etc.

I'm against the "a-la-carte-ization" of things that used to be considered part of a restaurant's hospitality, no matter that--of course!--a restaurant has to recover its operating costs by spreading them across the menu.

I understand your point when it comes to itemization and nickel-and-diming. But I think there's a huge difference here. Napkins, utensils, salt and the like are things that everyone needs to dine and they don't go bad or go to waste. Bread on the other hand is something many people don't want. And even if people want bread, bread in plates/baskets often goes uneaten . . . millions of pounds of it. Is a restaurant going to give that away to a soup kitchen with the caveat that the bread may have been touched or nibbled by a customer? Is a restaurant going to inspect each piece to make sure it wasn't eaten? And then there's the short life span of sliced bread. So the answer is that most of this uneaten bread is just wasted . . . thrown out.

Once upon a time these issues might have received less attention for obvious reasons: the quality of bread was never as good as it is now, and we have far more people abstaining from bread these days.

Now that leads me to my final point - even if bread has to be requested and even if quantities are limited, should it be a separate line item. My feeling is that if you're just serving one or two types of bread that require minimal effort and serving ordinary butter/oil, there probably shouldn't be a separate charge. But many breads require far more attention, effort, space and ingredients . . . and then there are the condiments. The costs for such breads/condiments are much higher. So is it fair to the non-bread eater to pass on this cost and expect everyone to pay? My answer is no and I suspect most non-bread eaters and those far more concerned with conservation would agree.

As far as I can tell, no one is persuading anyone else here.

I think the discussion has been interesting, but I'd like to suggest again that we shift this conversation to places that charge for bread and whether it is any good.

[I will say that I had not considered food waste when this topic was first raised, so I'm not saying there isn't more to say. I just think that all vocal participants have articulated their sides fairly well and many of us are now repeating ourselves.]

BR wrote:So is it fair to the non-bread eater to pass on this cost and expect everyone to pay? My answer is no...

sundevilpeg, thanks for the support, and scottsol, boudreaulicious, and BR, I just wanted to say that I found your posts reasonable and your arguments valid. But I do want to respond to this last bit.

While it’s a given that restaurants spread the cost of all items across the menu (whether or not they charge for them transparently), it’s unlikely that non-bread eaters are substantially subsidizing free-bread eaters, only because restaurant owners will not lower menu prices overall when they start charging for bread. That entrée that costs $18 or $55 or whatever, in the restaurant that serves bread as an amenity, is still going to cost $18 or $55 the day that restaurant starts charging for bread. Eventually the difference may show up in a very mild reduction in the rate of increase in prices across the menu, but not so that anybody would notice.

stevez wrote:

The Dawson's Creek reference was worth the price of admission--kudos!

(Deleted by author due to excessive silliness.--rm)

Things one learns from LTHforum -

Bread at places that charge separately for bread: perfection, because caring.

Bread at places that don't charge separately for bread: stale moldy wonderbread with rat bites out of it, because nazis.

Got it!

Notwithstanding the spirited discussion on the previous pages, my unsolicited $.02: I expected the charge for "cheddar peppercorn popovers" at RPM Steak last night. But I also expected them to be outstanding. And they certainly weren't fresh out of the oven, steamy and killer as I think $8 bread should be. Neiman Marcus popovers shouldn't put them to shame. IMO

Had a great lunch at Francesca's on Taylor today with free bread

Warm and crusty, served with terrific olive oil infused with fresh basil. They had a big warmer drawer full of bread. I don't know if they make it in house or get it from somewhere else. It's similar to Pompeii's bread, but a bit less dense and a little thinner loaves. I deliberately didn't order a pasta dish so I could indulge in more of it.

Good job by the commentators I was compelled to register on LTH just to join the discussion. My 2 cents-

The human brain is always on the hunt for patterns. In recent years, we have had to pay for checked bags, as well as bread baskets, whereas the custom had previously been to offer these services included. May's brain sees a pattern: we are increasingly being nickeled and dimed.

I think it's worth a deeper dive into the context of these changing customs to better understand how the world we are living in has changed, and will continue to change. The reason the airlines moved towards a la carte pricing was bankruptcy. The old business model was no longer viable, and new sources of revenue were needed.

We have already seen comments describing the context for a la carte bread pricing: reducing waste, accommodating low carb and gluten free diners, consumers' increasing preference for quality over quantity, and the artisanal food movement that has swept America.

While changes to customs in the airline industry have made flying more annoying and costly, i believe changes to customs at restaurants have improved the American food scene. Restaurants did not start a la carte pricing for chips and salsa and bread baskets to scrape their way back from bankruptcy.

Restaurants did so because we (definitely not all, but the market indicates a large number) consumers are now happy to pay for just-fried chips from El Milagro tortillas pressed in Chicago accompanied by table salsas that were made in house that morning with tomatillos grown at Nichols Farm in Marengo. That's a good thing for the tortilleras, farmers, restaurant staff, and consumer: it's a win-win net positive for society.

I guess it's also a net positive that we still have an airline industry. I'm just sayin', in a world where you can get the same exact goods and services anytime you go out anywhere in America (and yes homogenization keeps costs down and makes it way easier to spread cost of a gratis item across rest of menu) we have seen restaurants become the last bastion of the artisanal experience. And that, more than customs, is why we love restaurants today.

1stasteward wrote:Good job by the commentators I was compelled to register on LTH just to join the discussion. My 2 cents-

The human brain is always on the hunt for patterns. In recent years, we have had to pay for checked bags, as well as bread baskets, whereas the custom had previously been to offer these services included. May's brain sees a pattern: we are increasingly being nickeled and dimed.

I think it's worth a deeper dive into the context of these changing customs to better understand how the world we are living in has changed, and will continue to change. The reason the airlines moved towards a la carte pricing was bankruptcy. The old business model was no longer viable, and new sources of revenue were needed.

We have already seen comments describing the context for a la carte bread pricing: reducing waste, accommodating low carb and gluten free diners, consumers' increasing preference for quality over quantity, and the artisanal food movement that has swept America.

While changes to customs in the airline industry have made flying more annoying and costly, i believe changes to customs at restaurants have improved the American food scene. Restaurants did not start a la carte pricing for chips and salsa and bread baskets to scrape their way back from bankruptcy.

Restaurants did so because we (definitely not all, but the market indicates a large number) consumers are now happy to pay for just-fried chips from El Milagro tortillas pressed in Chicago accompanied by table salsas that were made in house that morning with tomatillos grown at Nichols Farm in Marengo. That's a good thing for the tortilleras, farmers, restaurant staff, and consumer: it's a win-win net positive for society.

I guess it's also a net positive that we still have an airline industry. I'm just sayin', in a world where you can get the same exact goods and services anytime you go out anywhere in America (and yes homogenization keeps costs down and makes it way easier to spread cost of a gratis item across rest of menu) we have seen restaurants become the last bastion of the artisanal experience. And that, more than customs, is why we love restaurants today.

Welcome to the table 1stasteward! And thanks for the first of, hopefully, many posts!

1stasteward wrote:Good job by the commentators I was compelled to register on LTH just to join the discussion. My 2 cents-

Welcome, and just so you'll feel like one of the gang:

You suck! Your ill-considered elitist rhetoric indicates unjustified feelings of self importance that are contrary to the egalitarian ethos of this forum. Oh, and in case you forgot- You suck.

Wait, am I going to be charged for the popcorn I ate while reading this thread?

Thanks for your well-reasoned post, 1stasteward, and for taking to trouble to understand my POV and engage with it.

I comprehend the distinction you're drawing between the back-on-their-heels airline industry and the striving-for-differentiation-through-quality restaurant business--the difference between monetizing something for survival and monetizing it in order to provide a better product. But in the case of restaurants, I don't think it's always as simple as that. I foresee restaurants jumping on the trend of charging for bread because they see a new "profit center" as much as for any other reason. And, as ample testimony on this thread will affirm, good restaurants have been providing good or exceptional bread gratis to their customers for years, because of the intangible benefits that accrue to restaurants from the practice. (Creating good will, establishing the restaurant's bona fides as a place of quality, etc.)

1stasteward wrote:Good job by the commentators I was compelled to register on LTH just to join the discussion.

Welcome!

1stasteward wrote: The human brain is always on the hunt for patterns ... we are increasingly being nickeled and dimed... While changes to customs in the airline industry have made flying more annoying and costly...

I think you've hit the core of the issue here, perhaps unintentionally. Flying is actually not more costly. We only perceive it so.

In 1974, it was illegal for an airline to charge less than $1,442 in inflation-adjusted dollars for a flight between New York City and Los Angeles.

How Airline Ticket Prices Fell 50% in 30 Years (and Why Nobody Noticed)

Being nickle-and-dimed does not mean that we pay more (or less - it depends on the actual situation). It means that people will feel like they're paying more.
------------------------------
Why do people feel this way? Why am I more annoyed at paying for a $130 flight ticket + taxes + seat selection fee + carry-on + water bottle + terminal check-in rather than $180 for an all-inclusive ticket, even if the unbundled price would turn out to be cheaper?

1) We perceive prices as losses.
2) Losses hurt more when separate than combined.
--> Paying for bread and entree separately is more repulsive than paying for an entree with bread cost built-in.
------------------------------
But then, why are there people who prefer to pay for bread separately?
- For people who would not order a la carte bread, knowing that an entree does not contain amortized bread costs feels like a "discount"
- For people who would order a la carte bread, the disaggregation of bread costs implies an outsized paid attention to bread and improved quality
- For others, paying at restaurant feels less like a loss than a necessary part in keeping the industry alive
------------------------------
The opposing point-of-views exhibited on this thread are driven by deeply rooted personal differences in attitudes towards bread, attitudes towards the restaurant industry, mental accounting models, and ability to pay, which is why no one has convinced anyone else yet. But it has been interesting reading about the different point-of-views that everyone's coming from.

I comprehend the distinction you're drawing between the back-on-their-heels airline industry and the striving-for-differentiation-through-quality restaurant business--the difference between monetizing something for survival and monetizing it in order to provide a better product. But in the case of restaurants, I don't think it's always as simple as that. I foresee restaurants jumping on the trend of charging for bread because they see a new "profit center" as much as for any other reason.

A far better comparison: hair salons. A cut & style used to factor in a blow-dry. A blow-dry is now priced separately, and can cost $30-$40. It's the bread service of the beauty industry: take a formerly gratis service, and monetize the crap out of it.