Reservations and Regulars at Momos and

[Fat Guy]

Every restaurant plays favorites while denying it. 

←

A lot of restaurants play favorites while trying to avoid the overt appearance of doing so. A blanket claim like Chang's, however, is a different story.

I don't expect Chang to deny preferential Ko reservations to someone who could do his business serious harm if alienated. I don't even consider giving such reservations to be a violation of "policy" if the policy is otherwise generally adhered to.

This strikes me as hedging against a possible crow-eating outcome. In any event, no exceptions means no exceptions. Or, at least, we'll see what it means.

[flinflon28]

This strikes me as hedging against a possible crow-eating outcome.

That produced audible laughter in my office!

[jimk]

I guess I just don't understand the other side of this one.

I've been vocal on the topic, but I've never felt that Chang is a deity and I've always thought that there was a chance that this system doesn't last forever. Seems to me that this is an experiment - some of us think it is a worthy and laudable one, and some of us even thing it makes some business sense. Others think it's doomed to failure and seem eager for it to fail. I think this threat started with a remark about how "amusing" it would be to watch for the cracks in the system. To me, that seems like an awfully fatalistic and cynical view to take at this stage in the game. I think that cracks might appear and they might not - I think it's awfylly early to consider them inevitable. I think if the system doesn't work and Chang and co. have to change it or even abandon it, that doesn't make them hypocrites. It means they tried something and it didn't work.

So I'm not sure how I'm going to end up eating crow when all I believe is that it is a noble experiement, that I hope it works, and that I'm going to watch with an open mind.

Having said that, if I have to eat crow, I prefer thighs and wings ... I imagine Peter Serpico could probably cook it up real nice.

[Sneakeater]

As oakapple and Simon have noted, the "other side" has sort of vacillated between saying it CAN'T work and saying it SHOULDN'T work.

I guess they reconcile it by saying that the reason it can't work is that Momofuku regulars shouldn't (and won't) accept being denied preferential Ko reservations.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

Actually I think we're just saying it's a bad idea, for a number of reasons.

[jimk]

As oakapple and Simon have noted, the "other side" has sort of vacillated between saying it CAN'T work and saying it SHOULDN'T work.

I guess they reconcile it by saying that the reason it can't work is that Momofuku regulars shouldn't (and won't) accept being denied preferential Ko reservations.

←

Nicely expressed.

[Sneakeater]

This strikes me as hedging against a possible crow-eating outcome. In any event, no exceptions means no exceptions. Or, at least, we'll see what it means.

←

No, it means that I am sufficiently acquainted with the real world to acknowledge that there are people who are both more selfish than I am and better connected than I am, and that they may be able to strongarm Chang into acting against his stated principles. And that I don't blame Chang for that.

What I don't understand is the elevation here of selfish strongarming to a consumer right.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

Actually I think we're just saying it's a bad idea, for a number of reasons.

←

It occurs to me that this might be unmanageable. Let's suppose Chang has 24 seats a night (allowing for multiple seatings), and that he holds 8 of them open for regulars and VIPs.

The trouble is, he could easily have 50 people a day with a reasonable claim on those 8 seats. However he prioritizes them, he's going to be saying no to the majority in any case. I realize that all restauranteurs need to set priorities, but has there ever been a 12-seat restaurant with this kind of early demand?

[Sneakeater]

But that's exactly what "my side" has been saying ALL ALONG.

We're not saying it's wrong for regulars to expect (or at least to want) special treatment. We're only saying it's wrong for them to expect special treatment when its unreasonable, or at least unworkable. And that in this case we think it is.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Sneakeater (log)

[slkinsey]

Bouley Upstairs has something like 30 seats. What do/did they do?

[Nathan]

I'm not a regular at Bouley Upstairs...but I've never had to wait more than a couple minutes...the demand isn't the same.

[jimk]

I'm not a regular at Bouley Upstairs...but I've never had to wait more than a couple minutes...the demand isn't the same.

←

But if you were a regular, how long would the wait be? It would really bother me if I were a Bouley Upstairs regular who always got a table within a couple of minutes and I saw a nonregular also getting a table within a couple of minutes.

[Sneakeater]

But even Bouley Upstairs isn't analogous.

Two and a half times the number of seats as Ko. And I'm sure Bouley Upstairs does more than two turns a night.

That's also why all this airline stuff is completely off-point. You read David Ross's posts and you can see how much capacity airlines have to work with. But Ko is a 12-seat restaurant doing two turns a night. (A better analogy in that context might be if some airline developed a super-exclusive boutique line where there'd be one transatlantic flight a day of a plane with room for only eight couples, each getting a suite the size of a NYC apartment. How easy do you think it would be for garden-variety frequent fliers to get bumped up to that?)

Edited March 18, 2008 by Sneakeater (log)

[jimk]

You read David Ross's posts and you can see how much capacity airlines have to work with. 

←

It's also generally the case that the upgrades into premium cabins on airlines are into seats that are going empty - seats that the airline has tried but failed to sell to a revenue customer. Rather than letting them go empty, they move elite passengers forward into a more luxe cabin.

It is interesting though to note that free upgrades for elite flyers tends to be something that US carriers do far more than foreign carriers. Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific are airlines that tend to only upgrade when you cash in a boatload of points (and it tends to be the same number of points regardless of your status) because they feel that giving the upgrades away for free - even to elite status flyers - devalues the product. It's not unusual for the upper deck of a Lufthansa 747 (the First class cabin on a three cabin plane) to have only one of its eight seats occupied.

When free upgrades do happen on these airlines they tend to be op-ups, or operational upgrades - i.e. when business class is overbooked and first class has space, they operationally have to move someone into the nicer cabin. Sometimes that will be the super-loyal flyer who flies 150k miles a year with them, sometimes it will be the guy who paid the highest non-discounted fare for his business class ticket, sometimes the couple on a honeymoon - hard to predict.

[prasantrin]

It is interesting though to note that free upgrades for elite flyers tends to be something that US carriers do far more than foreign carriers. Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific are airlines that tend to only upgrade when you cash in a boatload of points (and it tends to be the same number of points regardless of your status) because they feel that giving the upgrades away for free - even to elite status flyers - devalues the product. It's not unusual for the upper deck of a Lufthansa 747 (the First class cabin on a three cabin plane) to have only one of its eight seats occupied.

←

Although this topic is in the NY Forum, it would be much more interesting to take it internationally. I would be willing to bet that most of the people who expect special treatment (even if only occasionally) for their loyalty would be American.

[Sneakeater]

Also, to make explicit something that's been implicit in many of "my side"'s posts, to listen to FG you'd think that people pay extra to become regulars. He goes on about the "thousands of dollars" regulars have paid to the restaurant -- as if they'd gotten nothing in return. But in fact, they've paid the stated rate for food and service, and have received the food and service they paid for.

If I went to Ssam Bar on nights when I didn't really want to, because I thought they needed the business, I might feel more like they owed me something. But I have to admit I've never done that.

[Fat Guy]

We're not saying it's wrong for regulars to expect (or at least to want) special treatment.  We're only saying it's wrong for them to expect special treatment when its unreasonable, or at least unworkable.  And that in this case we think it is.

←

So if it's workable, you're wrong. Correct?

[Fat Guy]

they've paid the stated rate for food and service, and have received the food and service they paid for.

←

I think it's unfortunate that so many people are willing to settle for zero extra in return for frequent patronage.

[Fat Guy]

What I don't understand is the elevation here of selfish strongarming to a consumer right.

←

All these purportedly dirty words -- selfish, entitled, demanding, expectation -- have been trotted out over and over again on this topic, yet those are all the hallmarks of an educated consumer. Consumers are supposed to be selfish. Consumers are entitled to recognition for their business, and especially for their repeat business. They should demand and expect such treatment. And if they don't get it they can, should and (except for, if we take their claims at face value, most people posting here) generally do gravitate to competing businesses that treat their customers better. In the case of a business that has something unique to offer, well, that business may indeed be able to get away with not cultivating its regulars. Like Time-Warner Cable. But that doesn't mean consumers should be happy about it, or be ecstatically grateful to receive whatever crumbs they're offered.

[Fat Guy]

I would be willing to bet that most of the people who expect special treatment (even if only occasionally) for their loyalty would be American.

←

I'll take that bet. You think the Parisian businesspeople who eat lunch several times a month at Pierre Gagnaire don't expect to have tables made available to them? You think Ducasse's regulars everywhere in the world don't expect special treatment from every outpost of that restaurant group? They do and they should. Regardless, as I've explained before, this question of "expectation" is a red herring. Whether they "expect" it or not, consumers reward businesses that reward consumer loyalty. As they should.

[oakapple]

I think Fat Guy is entirely correct about customer expectations. And I think all of us to a certain extent, whether we are consciously aware of it or not, expect some something extra in exchange for our regular patronage—especially in situations where we have other options available.

Until David Chang comes forward with another of his Delphic pronouncements, we can only guess what he's thinking. "Fuck the regulars" is probably not it. Equally unlikely is, "My restaurant is so fucking special that it doesn't matter how difficult I make it for people to dine there." (Forgive the four-letter words, but that's how Chang talks.)

So I'm assuming that it's sheer practicality. With only 12 seats, he simply couldn't cater to Momofuku regulars and VIPs without saying "no" a very high percentage of the time. So he has a lot less hassle, and substantially the identical outcome, by saying "no" all the time.

But he will cater to them in other ways (comped courses, comped drinks, invitations to 'special events', and so forth), while still being able to claim with a straight face that, at least as far as reservations go, the system is completely egalitarian.

[Fat Guy]

Actually I think we're just saying it's a bad idea, for a number of reasons.

←

It occurs to me that this might be unmanageable. Let's suppose Chang has 24 seats a night (allowing for multiple seatings), and that he holds 8 of them open for regulars and VIPs.

The trouble is, he could easily have 50 people a day with a reasonable claim on those 8 seats. However he prioritizes them, he's going to be saying no to the majority in any case. I realize that all restauranteurs need to set priorities, but has there ever been a 12-seat restaurant with this kind of early demand?

←

How many serious regulars do you think the Momofuku enterprise has? Pick any reasonable number, then let's do some math. I think you'll find that it's pretty simple in the course of, say, a couple of months, to accommodate each of your regulars once or twice even with just eight seats a day (2 months of 8 seats a day 6 days a week would be about 400 seats, if I'm not mistaken). Add to that the ability to hand out cancellations to regulars by using a wait-list system and you've got a lot of flexibility, all of which can be automated. Of course if Momofuku's regulars don't want priority in reservations, so be it. Easier for me to get them instead.

There are of course precedents for very small restaurants dealing with high demand. Kitchen Counter at Beacon comes to mind as a recent example. I assure you, if one of Beacon's major regulars wants dinner at the Kitchen Counter, it will be made to happen. That person will get priority in various ways: perhaps the opportunity to reserve ahead of the crowd, perhaps priority in getting seats that open due to cancellations. And if that doesn't work, you can be sure that the restaurant will do another sitting or find some way to accommodate its regulars. Ditto for Minibar in Washington, DC. Sure, it's a perennially tough table. But somehow Jose Andres's regulars manage to get seats there when they need to. I'm not a regular but, as someone who has a relationship with Jose, the last time I was in DC and wanted to go to Minibar he said he'd get us in if there was a cancellation -- and there was a cancellation so we got to eat there; more famously, for a super-VIP customer, Jose once opened Minibar in the morning -- he and his cooks came in at 4am to prep and did the whole Minibar service in time for this person to catch a plane out of town. You don't hear these guys saying "No favorites. No exceptions." You see them bending over backwards to figure out ways to be accommodating.

[Sneakeater]

Come the revolution, your heads will all be displayed on pikes on 1st Ave.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Sneakeater (log)

[jimk]

What I don't understand is the elevation here of selfish strongarming to a consumer right.

←

All these purportedly dirty words -- selfish, entitled, demanding, expectation -- have been trotted out over and over again on this topic, yet those are all the hallmarks of an educated consumer. Consumers are supposed to be selfish. Consumers are entitled to recognition for their business, and especially for their repeat business. They should demand and expect such treatment. And if they don't get it they can, should and (except for, if we take their claims at face value, most people posting here) generally do gravitate to competing businesses that treat their customers better. In the case of a business that has something unique to offer, well, that business may indeed be able to get away with not cultivating its regulars. Like Time-Warner Cable. But that doesn't mean consumers should be happy about it, or be ecstatically grateful to receive whatever crumbs they're offered.

←

I still think this is a depressing view of the dining experience. I never want to go into a restaurant I love with that kind of chip on my shoulder. I still want to think of that comped glass of champagne as a nice gesture rather than something I earned. I also think both sides have made their points about three dozen times each and it comes down to a fundamental philosophical difference. If you think there's a correlation to be drawn between your relationship with your favorite restaurant and your relationship with Time Warner Cable then we see eating out in different ways.

[oakapple]

I still think this is a depressing view of the dining experience. I never want to go into a restaurant I love with that kind of chip on my shoulder. I still want to think of that comped glass of champagne as a nice gesture rather than something I earned. I also think both sides have made their points about three dozen times each and it comes down to a fundamental philosophical difference. If you think there's a correlation to be drawn between your relationship with your favorite restaurant and your relationship with Time Warner Cable then we see eating out in different ways.

←

I really think you're reading Steven's posts the wrong way. No one has more of a joie de vivre about dining than he does. He doesn't go in anywhere with a chip on his shoulder. He is just talking about how the industry works, from the perspective of someone who's studied it professionally.

You referred to that glass of champagne as a "nice gesture". It confirms what he is saying. Businesses do recognize their regulars, and treat them differently. How this plays out will vary with circumstances. If a place you patronized regularly treated you like an absolute stranger, how could it not influence your eagerness to bring them future business?