Small Plates means Big Profits

[TAPrice]

According to this article in Portfolio, Condé Nast's new business magazine, small plates generate higher profit margins:

At first glance, the concept seems customer-friendly: With these appetizer-esque portions, you can mix and match and taste and graze, and each serving costs less than a main course. But there’s a little secret: Serving less can mean selling more, thereby boosting a restaurant’s bottom line.

The advantages to bottom line include: upselling the number of items, efficient use of product, and higher alcohol tabs.

For you restaurateurs, do you find that small plates bring in more bucks?

The article focuses almost exclusively on the profits, which isn't a surprise from a business magazine. Are restaurants making the decision to serve small plates based on these factors? Does this explain the trend, or it just an added benefit of the small plate craze?

[Peter Green]

It's a good article, more so for the comments that come with it. A telling point is that there's a longer stationarity on the tables with small plates. People nibbling spend longer on a meal. That can be offset by the increase in liquor receipts, as they'll tend to drink more, so the trick is in finding the balancing point where you've got a full house that continues to generate revenue, so you don't need to chase the tables out.

As an eater (glutton) I like it. I've done many meals where I've ordered a series of appetizers rather than the mains, as I generally found the chefs having a lot more fun with them (this is back in the 80's mind you). You also have the benefit of getting what you want, rather than the one item you want, with a surrounding of filler that you're not interested in. Countering that, though, is the fact that I've chanced upon some of my favourite dishes as "filler" on a main.

Beyond that, though, you have to consider the costs that go into making a really good small dish.

As Sergi Arola told me "it takes a lot of food to make a small serving".

[suzilightning]

funny but here in new jersey the places we used to go for small plates have been disappearing - switching over to large plates. so i no longer patronize them. i like small plates that give me a taste(that i can share with johnnybird and he with me usually)but aren't too much food - unfortunately what you get in most restarants. i also agree with peter green. i am not a glutton but that way i can have a small salad course and two small plates and i am happy. pair that with1-3 glasses of wine and i am a happy camper.

[docsconz]

If small plates are more profitable then it is a win-win for those diners who like the concept and frequent the restaurants as they will be more likely to continue the concept and keep those diners happy.

That being said, i too am curious regarding the experiences of specific restaurants and the original question. Is it in fact the case that it is more profitable to serve more small plates than fewer large ones or even the same number if attracting lighter eaters?