4 ms·

The problem with that reasoning is that the customer has a binary choice to make, to leave without food and have to repeat the process of finding an open restau

The problem with that reasoning is that the customer has a binary choice to make, to leave without food and have to repeat the process of finding an open restaurant and going through the process again. Add to that the fact that they already committed to a decision (the food they ordered), that they already waited for the food and it must be coming any minute now, and that it smells like food. Chances are most people would stay[0]. On the restaurant's side the decision is linear, they can judge how long they can make them wait. I don't have data and you don't either, but I'm ready to bet no-one leaves for just waiting. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment

hnal943 7y ago
I have left a restaurant after ordering, but it's because I was waiting nearly an hour after ordering and needed to get back to work.
close04 7y ago
> The problem with that reasoning I never suggested they're perfect or that they'll even bring direct benefits to the customer but they are still at the customer's disposal and can server as leverage. A waiter has little recourse against the cook other than to find a way to make up or quit. > the customer has a binary choice This is all I was highlighting. The customer has a (relatively easy) choice compared to the waiter's choice against a cook. I did leave at least once after waiting for about an hour for a regular dish, especially after seeing that everyone else at the tables around us were getting served. Whether this was an argument between the waiter and cook mattered less to me. Anecdotally, I know plenty of other people who also did it in similar situations. So while I don't know how widespread this is it's not just a viable measure, it's also plausible in practice. And I'm never one to argue or be anything but nice to people that make and serve my food. After waiting for an hour the tip incentive for any of the staff is all but gone (they probably guess they won't get any) so the service level is less likely to suddenly shoot up. All you're doing is escalation of commitment [0]. I personally try to cut my losses when an evening already feels ruined. There's always a backup plan. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
buran77 7y ago
I think you're missing the point. The client has those options. Whether they choose to use them or not is a different matter. But they are all very effective. Especially the 3 where the "pain" is almost exclusively with the restaurant [%] and staff (no tip, not coming back, bad reviews). It's the last resort measures that are the most effective. They're still perfectly valid measures if they can give you leverage over the other party. > Chances are most people would stay. Chances are most people would tip even if their experience wasn't that great (saying this both as client and former waiter in a different life). But tipping is still a perfectly good leverage against bad service. Leverage isn't judged by how many people use it but how effective it is. Unfortunately for the waiter there's little to no leverage in a conflict with the cook. I worked as one in my teens. We were the last in the food chain: arguing with the customers or cooks was terminal because the boss could not afford to lose either one over an ill-tempered waiter, especially when we were seen as "a dime a dozen". [%] The measure of leaving when the food is served is not the most effective because in many run of the mill restaurants it just gets recycled in the kitchen. Not much is lost from the restaurant's perspective while the client may have lost more time. In some cases though where the dish can't be recycled it could come out of everyone's paycheck (cooks and waiters alike).

hnal943 7y ago

I have left a restaurant after ordering, but it's because I was waiting nearly an hour after ordering and needed to get back to work.

close04 7y ago

> The problem with that reasoning I never suggested they're perfect or that they'll even bring direct benefits to the customer but they are still at the customer's disposal and can server as leverage. A waiter has little recourse against the cook other than to find a way to make up or quit. > the customer has a binary choice This is all I was highlighting. The customer has a (relatively easy) choice compared to the waiter's choice against a cook. I did leave at least once after waiting for about an hour for a regular dish, especially after seeing that everyone else at the tables around us were getting served. Whether this was an argument between the waiter and cook mattered less to me. Anecdotally, I know plenty of other people who also did it in similar situations. So while I don't know how widespread this is it's not just a viable measure, it's also plausible in practice. And I'm never one to argue or be anything but nice to people that make and serve my food. After waiting for an hour the tip incentive for any of the staff is all but gone (they probably guess they won't get any) so the service level is less likely to suddenly shoot up. All you're doing is escalation of commitment [0]. I personally try to cut my losses when an evening already feels ruined. There's always a backup plan. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment

buran77 7y ago

I think you're missing the point. The client has those options. Whether they choose to use them or not is a different matter. But they are all very effective. Especially the 3 where the "pain" is almost exclusively with the restaurant [%] and staff (no tip, not coming back, bad reviews). It's the last resort measures that are the most effective. They're still perfectly valid measures if they can give you leverage over the other party. > Chances are most people would stay. Chances are most people would tip even if their experience wasn't that great (saying this both as client and former waiter in a different life). But tipping is still a perfectly good leverage against bad service. Leverage isn't judged by how many people use it but how effective it is. Unfortunately for the waiter there's little to no leverage in a conflict with the cook. I worked as one in my teens. We were the last in the food chain: arguing with the customers or cooks was terminal because the boss could not afford to lose either one over an ill-tempered waiter, especially when we were seen as "a dime a dozen". [%] The measure of leaving when the food is served is not the most effective because in many run of the mill restaurants it just gets recycled in the kitchen. Not much is lost from the restaurant's perspective while the client may have lost more time. In some cases though where the dish can't be recycled it could come out of everyone's paycheck (cooks and waiters alike).