Why do we seemingly have no problem with restaurants where everything is ala carte, but we complain about the added cost of bread service. How many of us dine at steakhouses where every single side we order is an added charge. There are obviously plenty of places where an entree includes a potato and vegetable, and many that do not. Is it OK to pay the added upcharge for a double-baked potato, or some other side?

I think it all comes down to what we perceive as "value" or not. We are so accustomed to receiving bread as a normal part of service that the thought of paying "extra" for it really tweaks some people. I think most diners at establishments who are charging for bread understand it to be something beyond your normal offering, whether it be artisanal breads, spreads or both.

If I go to Gibsons, I expect to pay $45+ for my steak, $8+ for a potato and $8+ for a vegetable, if they decided to charge a few bucks for bread service, I wouldn't complain much. If I go to Longhorn steakhouse, I expect to pay $20 or so total for a steak, potato and vegetable and probably wouldn't pay a few bucks for added bread service (or peanuts for that matter).

thetrob wrote:Why do we seemingly have no problem with restaurants where everything is ala carte, but we complain about the added cost of bread service.

In the words of Tonto, "What do you mean we, kemosabe?"

stevez wrote:

thetrob wrote:Why do we seemingly have no problem with restaurants where everything is ala carte, but we complain about the added cost of bread service.

In the words of Tonto, "What do you mean we, kemosabe?"

I mean "we" in the general sense, as in, there are many people who have no problem eating at restaurants where everything is ala carte.

thetrob wrote:

stevez wrote:

thetrob wrote:Why do we seemingly have no problem with restaurants where everything is ala carte, but we complain about the added cost of bread service.

In the words of Tonto, "What do you mean we, kemosabe?"

I mean "we" in the general sense, as in, there are many people who have no problem eating at restaurants where everything is ala carte.

I was talking about the complaining about the cost of bread service part. The majority of people who have posted in this thread don't seem to have any problem with the concept of paying for bread service.

gastro gnome wrote: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.

1) Chips & salsa
2) Relish tray in supper clubs
3) I've been given a bowl of soup in several restaurants of different cuisines even before I order
4) Cheese spread and chopped liver at Carson's

JoelF wrote:

gastro gnome wrote: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.

1) Chips & salsa
2) Relish tray in supper clubs
3) I've been given a bowl of soup in several restaurants of different cuisines even before I order
4) Cheese spread and chopped liver at Carson's

Good list, Joel.

I'll add chips and salsa to the list of things I'd be happy to pay for if it meant I got products that were actually produced in the kitchen rather than the often pale/stale versions you receive many places.

And I feel safe in stating that the Dining Experience (TM) still remains largely unchanged by this new (and rarely seen) development.

The chips & salsa example highlights that there really are two kinds of people in this world. Because being asked to pay for chips & salsa at a Mexican restaurant would really frost my ass. The basket of chips & salsa provided gratis is such a custom that charging for it would really constitute the violation of a norm, IMO, and be a clear instance of gouging. I understand there are many on this forum who will not object to paying for tap water, when that day comes, but it seems to me there has to be a limit.

Coming from a restaurant background and experiencing first hand how hard all those people work, usually for relatively little money, even the owners, I love free stuff but I'd also be happy to pay for any food item I consume. Especially anything house made that required labor cost to create.

I'm not sure that Mexican restaurants necessarily increase the price of their other menu items to cover the price of the gratis chips/salsa. Or that all restaurants that give away bread do either. Has anyone formally researched this or done menu comparisons to find out?

I do love them but I always kinda feel bad stuffing myself on the free chips and salsa before a meal (although I always do it, can't help myself), because I know that means I'll be mostly full by the time my entree even arrives. This probably happens to a lot of people and results in some lost food sales for the restaurant that could really add up over time.

bnowell724 wrote:I'm not sure that Mexican restaurants necessarily increase the price of their other menu items to cover the price of the gratis chips/salsa. Or that all restaurants that give away bread do either. Has anyone formally researched this or done menu comparisons to find out?

Any business owner (with half of a clue) builds into menu prices the cost of "gratis" items. I'm sure that charging for bread or chips would not correspondingly lower the cost of other menu items - it would simply provide another opportunity for more sales/profit.

riddlemay wrote:The chips & salsa example highlights that there really are two kinds of people in this world. Because being asked to pay for chips & salsa at a Mexican restaurant would really frost my ass. The basket of chips & salsa provided gratis is such a custom that charging for it would really constitute the violation of a norm, IMO, and be a clear instance of gouging. I understand there are many on this forum who will not object to paying for tap water, when that day comes, but it seems to me there has to be a limit.

I believe in your crusade against charging for bread service you've now ventured into unsubstantiated hyperbole. I'll defer to the mods to supply actual number but I'm guessing that LTHforum has hundreds of registered users. If, as you say, there are "many on this forum who will not object to paying for tap water" . . . could you name 10 of them? 5? I mean I'm not really looking for the actual evidence of "many", merely a tiny percentage to back up what seems to me a rather ludicrous claim.

P.S. - I've been to Mexican restaurants that do charge for chips and salsa. Just a data point.

cito wrote:

bnowell724 wrote:I'm not sure that Mexican restaurants necessarily increase the price of their other menu items to cover the price of the gratis chips/salsa. Or that all restaurants that give away bread do either. Has anyone formally researched this or done menu comparisons to find out?

Any business owner (with half of a clue) builds into menu prices the cost of "gratis" items. I'm sure that charging for bread or chips would not correspondingly lower the cost of other menu items - it would simply provide another opportunity for more sales/profit.

Yeah increasing other menu item prices to offset the gratis items makes logical sense, I'm just wondering how often that actually happens in practice. A lot of independent restaurant owners don't even cost out their menus. I've worked for a bunch of them and i rarely saw that. Even if they do, food costs shift so much seasonally and annually, the data wouldn't be relevant for long. Large corporate restaurant chains do it of course, but a lot of those companies have buying power that keeps food costs stable enough over time for it to make sense.

I wouldn't automatically assume all those little hole in the wall Mexican restaurants giving away chips and salsa have somehow offset that cost in other areas of their menu. Same for small independently owned places giving out free bread. That's why I was wondering if anyone has actually checked to see which places really do it.

Kman wrote:I believe in your crusade against charging for bread service you've now ventured into unsubstantiated hyperbole. I'll defer to the mods to supply actual number but I'm guessing that LTHforum has hundreds of registered users. If, as you say, there are "many on this forum who will not object to paying for tap water" . . . could you name 10 of them?

Yes, that was hyperbole. (What was your first clue?)

Hyperbole is a time-honored rhetorical device that can be effective in making a point. I used it.

I might also have added that if we're expected to pay for chips & salsa, why should we not also be expected to pay for salt and pepper on the table? Those are provided gratis, for now--but why?

A difference that occurs to me is that bread and butter or chips and salsa --- unlike salt, pepper, napkins, and arguably tap water --- buy the restaurant time, i.e., they stave off your hunger and impatience while you're waiting for other food.

I agree with the well-put Invisible Hand perspective stated above, but I do think that when you don't want to give patrons bread for free and instead want to charge for it like any other appetizer or plate, you should stop calling it a "service."

Katie wrote:
I agree with the well-put Invisible Hand perspective stated above, but I do think that when you don't want to give patrons bread for free and instead want to charge for it like any other appetizer or plate, you should stop calling it a "service."

There are plenty of " services " that cost money in a lot of different industries...

And now we Dance!

Un, dos, tres, cuatro. Beep beep beep beep beep beep beep.........

The repetitive somewhat addictive enjoyable nature of this song seemed appropriate. Not directed at any individual in particular

bnowell724 wrote:There are plenty of " services " that cost money in a lot of different industries...

Yes, and we tend to resent paying when the services have previously been provided free.

The most salient example is airlines charging for checked bags and some even now beginning to charge for carry-ons. Is it logical that they charge for this? Of course. Baggage-handling costs airlines money, and carry-ons come with their own incidental costs. In order to keep ticket prices artificially low, the airlines hit upon the scheme to get the revenue they need by charging for these services a la carte.

But logic isn't sufficient justification, or we wouldn't resent being "nickeled and dimed" this way. We resent it because when airlines started charging for baggage, a long custom was violated.

I was trying to stop prolonging this thread. I failed.

The airlines charging for bags just doesn't work as a comparison. This discussion grew out of a reaction to a new restaurant that started out charging for bread (and it seems to be well-regarded bread). I think one person cited an example where bread used to be free and now there is a charge (Lula). And I'm not even sure if that's true (I don't remember being charged for it when I've asked for it there). Simply put: formerly free bread is not really a thing.

Airlines updated nothing and started charging for something previously baked into the ticket price. That is a different scenario entirely.

As to "why not charge for water/napkins/salt/etc?" well I get the rhetorical point. You could ala carte everything. But I see a distinction between a food item with ingredient and labor costs to prepare and incidentals/niceties required/expected to eat your meal. Bread is in the former. So are chips and salsa (if they are making them).

Got the deets on the Lula claim last night (though I could swear I'd been charged at some point). There is no charge, but it does appear on the bill for zero dollars. But you have to ask, where it was automatic before (me here clinging...). The airline analogy does make some sense, though it's an outsized example in terms of relative price. I think there is a difference between starting out charging and going to a place where it just becomes a charge anew. I could make an obscure The Sound and the Fury reference here, but will skip so as not to further prolong the thread.

I don't have a problem with restaurants charging for bread if the bread is "above and beyond", but I have a big problem with Mexican restaurants that charge for chips and salsa.

shakes wrote:I don't have a problem with restaurants charging for bread if the bread is "above and beyond", but I have a big problem with Mexican restaurants that charge for chips and salsa.

If the chips and salsa are "above and beyond," what is the difference?

When I was in Denmark last in 1996, they charged us for tap water and the simple dinner rolls. I was shocked, but I was told this was the norm there and eating out was not as common as in the States. Not sure how it is today, but that is the first I ever heard of that.

Personally I think restaurants serving free bread is wonderful (I could eat a meal of just bread), but it fills me up and sometimes prevents me from ordering more food like an app or dessert. I would think a place like Cheesecake Factory which has always provided free bread and enormous portions would want to keep their patrons hungry for their desserts, but I guess people will order dessert even if they have to take it home there. On the other hand, would I specifically pay for bread even if it was outstanding at a restaurant? I don't really know. Hope I don't have to find out.

I think riddlemay made some valid points about custom and building the cost in the menu. Pass the butter.

Ah thanks for reminding me: in Lisbon, most restaurants will drop a platter of bread, cheese, crackers, tinned spreads, etc. You will be charged for what you eat, often a half euro or a euro a piece. Luckily I knew this from the guide book, or I could have doubled the price on my first meal.

Pane e coperto is a standard charge in many Italian cities (bread and cover), but then tipping isn't nearly as expensive, if at all, as it is here. Most of the time you don't want to touch the bread they bring out, 1)because the food is going to be much better and 2) because unless you're in the south, there's no salt in the bread. Always laugh when I see "Tuscan boule" at the grocery store (for varied reasons) and I think how is it that I wish they would bring me some "hearth" bread from Whole Foods instead of what it is they're putting out in the basket.

gnarchief wrote:

shakes wrote:I don't have a problem with restaurants charging for bread if the bread is "above and beyond", but I have a big problem with Mexican restaurants that charge for chips and salsa.

If the chips and salsa are "above and beyond," what is the difference?

Sure, if that exists. As far as I know it doesn't. Giving 3 salsas with the chips does not qualify as going above and beyond in my book. That seems to be the extent of "above and beyond" when it comes to chips and salsa.

shakes wrote:

gnarchief wrote:

shakes wrote:I don't have a problem with restaurants charging for bread if the bread is "above and beyond", but I have a big problem with Mexican restaurants that charge for chips and salsa.

If the chips and salsa are "above and beyond," what is the difference?

Sure, if that exists. As far as I know it doesn't. Giving 3 salsas with the chips does not qualify as going above and beyond in my book. That seems to be the extent of "above and beyond" when it comes to chips and salsa.

So many places don't even make their own chips that I'd have to consider that "above and beyond" at this point.

I can make salsa at home. I'm not going to fry chips.

gastro gnome wrote:So many places don't even make their own chips that I'd have to consider that "above and beyond" at this point.

I can make salsa at home. I'm not going to fry chips.

Slacker. Speaking of house fried chips, Asadero (and sister restaurant Cinco De Mayo) house fry their chips. They even go so far as to order 2 separate types of tortillas, one for the tacos and another that fries up perfectly. I once had a conversation with them about their search for the perfect tortillas for each. The dedication to the tortilla/chip really pays off, the chips are the best I've had in the city. While free, I'd happily pay extra for them.

laikom wrote:Speaking of house fried chips, Asadero (and sister restaurant Cinco De Mayo) house fry their chips. They even go so far as to order 2 separate types of tortillas, one for the tacos and another that fries up perfectly. I once had a conversation with them about their search for the perfect tortillas for each. The dedication to the tortilla/chip really pays off, the chips are the best I've had in the city. While free, I'd happily pay extra for them.

I'm happy to learn about Asadero. And happy to learn that even with as much effort as they put into their chips to make them special, they offer them free. Why do you suppose that is?

riddlemay wrote:

laikom wrote:Speaking of house fried chips, Asadero (and sister restaurant Cinco De Mayo) house fry their chips. They even go so far as to order 2 separate types of tortillas, one for the tacos and another that fries up perfectly. I once had a conversation with them about their search for the perfect tortillas for each. The dedication to the tortilla/chip really pays off, the chips are the best I've had in the city. While free, I'd happily pay extra for them.

I'm happy to learn about Asadero. And happy to learn that even with as much effort as they put into their chips to make them special, they offer them free. Why do you suppose that is?

Because they have been subjugated by of the antiquated customs of people like you.

laikom wrote:Because they have been subjugated by of the antiquated customs of people like you.

That seems unnecessarily aggressive.

I would say it's because they recognize that most of their customers appreciate the gesture. Asadero doesn't have to go the extra mile of house-frying the chips they provide while honoring the custom of providing them as an amenity. Yet they do. That sort of care and consideration creates good will and loyalty, and is also its own reward. Not every friendly gesture in this world comes about through compulsion.

Ultimately it's not a question of getting bread free or having to pay for it, it's a question of how you are charged for it. The lack of a separate charge for bread is indicative of a socialist policy while a specific charge per use is capitalistic.

In a "free bread" society everybody must pay for bread regardless of how much they may or may not use. Since the charge is involuntary it is not even listed, it is buried in other charges. With capitalistic bread you pay for the bread on a per use basis.

As with medicine and education, there is no consensus on which approach serves society in the best way.