Charging for bread service

Moderator Note: This topic was started with a post split off from another thread . . .

G Wiv wrote: $6 for bread service and worth every penny,

Well ... in what sense? Most diners tend to expect that bread will be (1) of a quality commensurate with the rest of the meal, and (2) free. Charging for bread as a separate item would strike many as nickle-and-diming the customer. If a restaurant is really bent on maximizing profit (and $6-8 for a few (artisan, granted) rolls & "special butter" should be a very effective ROI item), it at least looks better to offer it "free" and spread that cost among apps/entrees/desserts.

What's next? Charging for napkins?

Oh my goodness--this has even spread to...INDY!!! http://bluebeardindy.com/menu/dinner/

riddlemay wrote:What's next? Charging for napkins?

A weak analogy in my book. For those of us who don't use our sleeves, napkins are pretty much a necessary component. Bread . . . not so much.

And it's worth noting (again, because it got a bit lost when we split the discussion) that the 2 places that have been mentioned as bread chargers (Steadfast and Vera) are hardly serving up the perfunctory baskets of rolls and crackers for which diners have not been charged directly over the years.

=R=

Roger Ramjet wrote:Moderator Note: This topic was started with a post split off from another thread . . .

G Wiv wrote: $6 for bread service and worth every penny,

Well ... in what sense? Most diners tend to expect that bread will be (1) of a quality commensurate with the rest of the meal, and (2) free. Charging for bread as a separate item would strike many as nickle-and-diming the customer. If a restaurant is really bent on maximizing profit (and $6-8 for a few (artisan, granted) rolls & "special butter" should be a very effective ROI item), it at least looks better to offer it "free" and spread that cost among apps/entrees/desserts.

I have to disagree. As others have already noted, the bread apps at Vera and Steadfast and others is not on the same level as "complimentary" bread and butter or olive oil served most places. And, of course, there is much more to these than just the bread--multiple butters, oils and other toppings are, most certainly, labor intensive to make and with a short lifespan if not served. When it's treated as an app, those who want it can order it. Those who don't, aren't paying for it. Isn't that a much fairer way to do it after all? I love the bread app at Vera and would definitely order what Brad pictured in the Steadfast thread. But there would likely be many who wouldn't because it's bread and gluten-ful and all that stuff. If this strikes you as bizarre and a waste of money, there are certainly plenty of places where you can eat as much free bread as you like

It is an interesting subject, though. Lula, for years, used to serve up a nice few slices of bread and their housemade butter (which was unpasteurized and great) and now it's a separate ask and a separate charge. I think with places like Cellar Door and other bread specialists moving in, bread has definitely become not a given. I'm not a huge one sitting appetite guy, but I certainly see the modulation to no free bread and how it's spread across at least the places I go and how it's annoying. The one exception is Italian places, where please keep the bread away from me so I can actually have room for the meal (no different in Italy either, but worse bread).

Another place that charges for bread and butter -- where it's well worth it, IMO -- is The Publican. Some of the best bread in town.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:

riddlemay wrote:What's next? Charging for napkins?

A weak analogy in my book. For those of us who don't use our sleeves, napkins are pretty much a necessary component. Bread . . . not so much.

It's really a matter of custom more than logic. Napkins add to a restaurant's cost just as bread does. So do forks and knives. So you can construct an argument that those who don't need napkins, forks and knives shouldn't have to pay for them, and that a restaurant is entitled to recoup its laundry and dishwashing costs by charging those who do want these amenities.

But how much nicer if restaurants observed custom, and wowed their patrons with exceptional bread service that was amortized by slightly increased menu prices across the board!

It is really the same as cheese plates or charcuterie "plates." It is an assortment of breads, and their accompanying spreads much the same as those mentioned. The main difference is that most times bread was an accompaniment, now it can be that or a "plate." It is an extension of the cheese or charcuterie "plate" idea.

Puckjam wrote:It is really the same as cheese plates or charcuterie "plates." It is an assortment of breads, and their accompanying spreads much the same as those mentioned. The main difference is that most times bread was an accompaniment, now it can be that or a "plate." It is an extension of the cheese or charcuterie "plate" idea.

I think this reinforces my idea that custom should prevail, because logic won't provide an answer. You can absolutely compare bread service to a cheese plate--no question. The logic is unassailable. Just as you can compare bread service to the provision of napkins, forks and knives--the logic is equally unassailable. Therefore, rather than trying to solve the problem with logic, we should defer to custom. And custom declares that bread is provided as a "lagniappe."

I'm all in favor of treating bread as a separate dish for a couple of reasons:
1. I think it allows restaurants to treat bread with more care and creativity.
2. Given the overly large (IMHO) amounts of food served in most American restaurants, bread should be thought of as an additional appetizer or course. When bread is served, I frequently can't resist having some. If it's poor quality, I've wasted calories, and if it's good, I'll often regret it when I don't have adequate room for the remainder of the meal.

I'd also note that at Oriole, bread is treated as a separate course about 1/3 of the way into the meal.

I have no problem with a surcharge for bread. Have seen it in several places now; in addition to those mentioned so far in this thread, Girl & the Goat and Owen & Engine come to mind. Generally when I have paid for bread it has been excellent and definitely at least as enjoyable as a significant portion of appetizers. Places that do this tend to have thoughtful bread programs that require significant work and expense - so I have no problem having people interested in partaking paying a nominal charge. I don't get the comparison to charging for napkins or silverware; not even remotely equivalent.

The beautiful thing about parting ways with custom/tradition is that doing so opens the door to a world of possibilities. Would Steadfast even consider offering what they do if they couldn't charge directly for it? Would Vera be willing to serve their amazing olive oils if they couldn't charge for them? Would Publican serve such wonderful bread if it were a money-loser for them?

I'm fine with paying for a better version of something I've received for free in the past as long as it's interesting, distinctive and exceptional. That's just one way in which dining progresses. And it's an important way places can distinguish themselves, too. It's easy spread the cost of industrial level foodstuffs across every ticket. But when the goal is more ambitious, it's not as practical to spread those expenses out evenly. If I walk into the corner diner and see that I'll be charged for a tired basket of factory-made rolls and cellophane-wrapped crackers with my bowl of soup, I'll be skipping it. But if a place is willing to put thought, care, effort and resources, into doing something cool, them I'm happily plunking down for it.

You pays your money, you takes your chances!

=R=

Jonah wrote:I'm all in favor of treating bread as a separate dish for a couple of reasons:
1. I think it allows restaurants to treat bread with more care and creativity.
2. Given the overly large (IMHO) amounts of food served in most American restaurants, bread should be thought of as an additional appetizer or course. When bread is served, I frequently can't resist having some. If it's poor quality, I've wasted calories, and if it's good, I'll often regret it when I don't have adequate room for the remainder of the meal.

I'd also note that at Oriole, bread is treated as a separate course about 1/3 of the way into the meal.

Yes, in addition to some venues charging for bread, I have also noticed a gradual trend towards treating bread as a thoughtful aspect of the meal in some upscale venues. The Midwestern Omakase at Arbor is another venue that has it's own bread course. Then places such as TRU and Grace actually have bread "pairings" where a handful of courses are complimented by a specific type of bread. My all time favorite bread course is from Blue Hill at Stone Barns; the bread is paired with butter made from a single cow on the farm - the butter is even named after the cow and it is amazing how different the butters taste depending on which cow they come from.

riddlemay wrote:Just as you can compare bread service to the provision of napkins, forks and knives--the logic is equally unassailable.

I'm not sure I buy that this particular logic is unassailable. In fact, that argument is completely ILLOGICAL. Forks, knives and, for that matter, tables, chairs and light bulbs are fixed cost furnishings required to operate the restaurant, whereas bread is a food item and part of the product that the restaurant provides. If it's a premium product that is prepared in house, the restaurant has every right to charge for the ingredients and the (considerable) time it takes to prepare. OTOH, if I walked into a south side rib joint and they wanted to charge me for my two slices of Wonder bread, well, I'd probably be not too pleased, either. But again, the places charging for bread are not serving spongy "all-you-can-stomach" breadsticks like an Olive Garden.

I had breakfast at Cafe Marie Jean last week, and they charged for "Toast, butter & jam". It was well worth the few $$ it cost for the exquisite house baked bread and homemade jam they served. It didn't even occur to me that this should have been free.

ronnie_suburban wrote:Another place that charges for bread and butter -- where it's well worth it, IMO -- is The Publican. Some of the best bread in town.

=R=

Yep. Had it last spring and really enjoyed it.

A few years ago when I fell down a bread-baking hole a long-time and dear friend thought I hated bread because she never saw me eat it. I told her I adored bread but I was picky about it. Most bread service is unremarkable at best.

That stuff at Publican is outstanding!

WTF????? Bennison's, Cellar Door . . . they're all charging for bread now. Ridiculous! They should be giving it away for free

I wish people who think bread should be free spent some time developing sourdough at home, playing with different flours, hydration levels, etc. and educated themselves on the art of bread baking (not to mention the space needed to ferment and bake, and the costs involved in baking bread). Perhaps then they'd understand why bread is no longer free.

As for the suggestion that restaurants just roll up the cost of bread (and factor) into the prices of other menu items, that's just forcing bread (and the cost of bread) upon those who may not want it (quite a few people these days avoid carbs), and possibly resulting in waste . . . oh, and I can't wait to hear how such a policy results in a lack of transparency. . . probably from the same people who think bread should be free.

Cellar door actually does give it away for free if you catch them on the right day, near 3pm. But shhhhush. don't tell anyone.

BR wrote:oh, and I can't wait to hear how such a policy results in a lack of transparency. . . probably from the same people who think bread should be free.

I think bread in restaurants should be free...and I have no problem with restaurants rolling the cost of it into menu items across the board, as they've been doing for years, and as most customers have been quite happy to accept.

And of course bakeries should charge for bread.

You're setting up straw man arguments in order to knock them down.

riddlemay wrote:

BR wrote:oh, and I can't wait to hear how such a policy results in a lack of transparency. . . probably from the same people who think bread should be free.

I think bread in restaurants should be free...and I have no problem with restaurants rolling the cost of it into menu items across the board, as they've been doing for years, and as most customers have been quite happy to accept.

And of course bakeries should charge for bread.

You're setting up straw man arguments in order to knock them down.

As I said in what turns out to be the OP of this thread.

Also said "commensurate with the rest of the meal". Which means all the silliness about stale rolls and cellophane-wrapped saltines is indeed pure silliness. You go to a BBQ joint, you expect Wonderbread to sop up the BBQ with, not ancient grains brioche with truffle butter. You go to Everest, you expect superior quality bread and butter at no additional charge, just as would be expected and appropriate in a restaurant at that price point. Bread which - in response to one of the many red herrings fished up above - you are not obligated to eat.

Love the snide "probably the same people who think bread should be given away for free". Yeah! Those lousy commie parasites! LOFL.

boudreaulicious wrote: If this strikes you as bizarre and a waste of money,

Oh please.

riddlemay wrote:

BR wrote:oh, and I can't wait to hear how such a policy results in a lack of transparency. . . probably from the same people who think bread should be free.

I think bread in restaurants should be free...and I have no problem with restaurants rolling the cost of it into menu items across the board, as they've been doing for years, and as most customers have been quite happy to accept.

And of course bakeries should charge for bread.

You're setting up straw man arguments in order to knock them down.

I'm not sure most customers have been quite happy to accept the cost-sharing of bread. I'd guess that most people didn't give it a thought or expected it without stopping to consider that they are paying for it elsewhere on the menu.

I'm fine with paying explicitly for what I eat. It's simpler.

This discussion reminds me of my of my college semester abroad, decades ago, in Croatia. At my first meal after arriving, I was surprised when, figuring up the bill, the waitstaff would count the number off rolls in the bread basket, and charge for the number consumed. I got used to the practice quickly.

Seems like if a restaurant charges for everything else we consume (with the occasional exception of l'eau du lac Michigan), why not bread?

The price a business charges for a specific item — free, a few bucks, or a shocking $6 — is a function of the audience's relationship with that item. I propose here 1) why there is a bread charge and 2) why there should be a bread charge.

1)
To understand the uptick in bread charges, we have to understand the evolving relationship between American gourmands and bread. It is obvious to me that there was a bread revolution in the past 2 decades, key events including:
- publication of The Bread Baker's Apprentice (2001)
- opening of Tartine Bakery (2002)
- the first US win at the Coupe du Monde (2002)
- the Bittman/Lahey no knead recipe (2006)

The above is accompanied by a general decline of bread as staple food (popularity of the gluten-free and low-carb diets) and the rise of artisanal food movement (bacon, IPA, fermented foods, and bread/pastries). Bread in 2016 is not bread in 1996. It is only logical that some restaurants begin charging for bread service.

Note that this revolution appears to be confined to upper/middle-class Americans. Go to a soul food restaurant, not only will you get free bread, you'll also a generous serving of mac-n-cheese and collard greens.

2)
You may suggest that because your personal relationship with bread hasn't changed, you are uncomfortable with the idea of paying for bread.

Enter the wonders of capitalism. Not only can you choose to consume only what you find worthy, you can also choose to patronize restaurants whose practices you support! Since there are no ethical issues involved with bread (unlike slave labor in shrimp harvest, animal rights, etc.), I think the all-loving Invisible Hand should take care of this one. If Steadfast and its audience agree that their bread is worth $6, let them have at it.

Most restaurants make very little profit on the food they sell, especially fine dining restaurants where many more paid bodies are required to prepare food for a relatively small number of people. When they're putting forth the effort to create an entire in-house artisan bread program, they're committing to a lot more labor and food cost expenses. It's a whole different story than bringing in bread daily from a distributor, or even having one house-made focaccia or cracker on the menu that any number of already employed cooks can make in addition to their regular prep. I've had the bread service at Anteprima more than once. It's good but i wouldn't classify it as 'artisan' in terms of how much attention to detail goes into it. But, it was free and great for what it was.

A restaurant like Steadfast might have hired an extra person just to do bread, and any restaurant owner will tell you that labor costs are their biggest expense. However they needed to work it out financially, I would bet money that no one's getting rich off of that $8 bread service. To me, this makes it even more impressive and cool that they have it on their menu!

Synergistically, charging for bread service as a separate menu item let's customers know that 'This is really something special that we put a lot of effort into', and signals to them that it has a value and quality that is above what a typical complimentary bread plate offers.

Source- am a former pastry cook...

I fully support restaurants charging for the level of bread service that Steadfast seems to offer. From the pictures and description that BR posted of theirs, it looks really beautiful.

bernard wrote:Enter the wonders of capitalism. Not only can you choose to consume only what you find worthy, you can also choose to patronize restaurants whose practices you support! Since there are no ethical issues involved with bread (unlike slave labor in shrimp harvest, animal rights, etc.), I think the all-loving Invisible Hand should take care of this one. If Steadfast and its audience agree that their bread is worth $6, let them have at it.

Very reasonable argument. Extrapolating from myself, I think the reason the argument is ultimately unsatisfying to us in the other camp is that we're concerned this charging-for-bread trend will spread like an infection unless quickly stamped out. At that point, we won't even be able to go to the corner diner and get a basket of saltines without an upcharge. The choice to patronize restaurants whose practices we support will have been taken away from us.

riddlemay wrote: At that point, we won't even be able to go to the corner diner and get a basket of saltines without an upcharge.

I find it interesting that the largest sit-down chain, Applebee's, does not offer a bread basket. I think there is something to the claim that Americans are less interested in bread due to the anti-carb movement. I expect that an increasing number of high-end restaurants will be able to charge for bread if they deliver a superior product, especially if they have a proportionately high number of Generation Y diners.

riddlemay wrote:At that point, we won't even be able to go to the corner diner and get a basket of saltines without an upcharge. The choice to patronize restaurants whose practices we support will have been taken away from us.

Let's say I go to my little corner diner and order 2 eggs over easy with hash browns. They offer a choice of toast or pancakes. This is a combination that is offered at a flat rate. You might say that the bread is free, but what if I decide to opt for pancakes? That's well and good, but I still need some toast to sop up those delicious runny egg yolks. You can bet your bottom dollar that they are going to charge me extra for that toast. Bread is not free, even in a greasy spoon, even where the most commodified quality of bread is served.

For interesting bread or accompaniments, I'll pay. If it's just "bread" I'll get steamed (steamed bread, that's another show). I've been to several restaurants recently where a cheese or charcuterie plate comes with three tiny crostini, and that's all you get, or a delicious sauce over a pork brochette, and bread is an extra $3. I would expect that if the courses are saucy, there should be something to sop, whether mashed potatoes or bread. Otherwise, hey, I'm going to lick the plate.

riddlemay wrote:

bernard wrote:Enter the wonders of capitalism. Not only can you choose to consume only what you find worthy, you can also choose to patronize restaurants whose practices you support! Since there are no ethical issues involved with bread (unlike slave labor in shrimp harvest, animal rights, etc.), I think the all-loving Invisible Hand should take care of this one. If Steadfast and its audience agree that their bread is worth $6, let them have at it.

Very reasonable argument. Extrapolating from myself, I think the reason the argument is ultimately unsatisfying to us in the other camp is that we're concerned this charging-for-bread trend will spread like an infection unless quickly stamped out. At that point, we won't even be able to go to the corner diner and get a basket of saltines without an upcharge. The choice to patronize restaurants whose practices we support will have been taken away from us.

I can think of few food items that are given away in restaurants aside from bread. In your infection analogy, there is simply not much beyond patient zero. I think the rest of your dining experience is safe.