Multiple Reservations

[Fat Guy]

Or more specifically, how many two-tops, how many four-tops, etc.? This would be the equivalent of knowing whether you are booking a flight on a DC-10 or a 747. There could even be seating diagrams published, just as there are seating diagrams published of plane layouts and of stadium seating for sports events, etc. This just serves to put more info, and therefore more power, into the hands of the consumer. . . .

The nature of the beast is that restaurants are never going to be able to offer specific tables, except perhaps for the first sitting at 5:30pm. Once customers come in and start taking variable amounts of time to finish, flexibility in seating is necessary unless you're actually going to sell tables for two-hour blocks of time or whatever -- something I think won't fly (though it's getting more common in London). Also, in many restaurants tables can be pushed together or have leaves so their capacity can be altered on the spot or based on expected traffic for an evening. Still, a fairly high level of information can be provided over the OpenTable network, which does tie right into the restaurant's reservations system and seating plan.

[Fat Guy]

No, they'll just walk half a block to some place that doesn't ask for front money.

Most people will just give the credit card number. Most of the ones who won't are the ones who would have no-showed or cancelled at the last minute anyway. The few remaining people -- the ones who object to the deposit on principle but would otherwise have been desirable customers (are you actually in that group?) -- may go elsewhere, it's true. But if most of the good, in-demand restaurants make the move to credit-card guarantees people will only be able to ratchet down in quality if they don't want to go through the procedure. And as more restaurants demand guarantees, the ones that don't will be faced with a higher and higer proportion of the deadbeats and will likely switch over. It's just a matter of time before all this happens anyway. It's already happening for large parties, special occasion meals, and some everyday situations. The question is when and how it will become standard operating procedure, not if.

[Jaymes]

Thinking about it for a whole thirty seconds, I would imagine the argument would be that if one was to book a number of places, there is a distinct possibility that one would not call to cancel the ones not chosen given the track record of many restaurants

That is not MY "argument."

My argument is that if you have reserved five different restaurants for a party of four at 8pm on a Saturday night, when you know for a fact that you can only use one of those reservations, you are tying up space at the other four.

And so when I am calling around to find a topnotch place for a gracious evening of dining with MY three friends, I am told that, sorry, we're fully booked.

THEY may think that they're "fully booked" and I may think that they're "fully booked" but YOU know for a fact that four of them are not.

Even if you call each one of your discarded restaurants to cancel 24 hours prior, I, being more responsible and thoughtful, will have already made my ONE reservation at my party's alternate choice, which I, having been raised with proper manners and consideration for others, will keep.

And, I'd like to add, if everyone was like you, you wouldn't be able to get YOUR five reservations either.

People like you need people like me in order for your self-centered "system" to work.

[Fat Guy]

My argument is that if you have reserved five different restaurants for a party of four at 8pm on a Saturday night, when you know for a fact that you can only use one of those reservations, you are tying up space at the other four.

And so when I am calling around to find a topnotch place for a gracious evening of dining with MY three friends, I am told that, sorry, we're fully booked.

Jaymes, doesn't your argument assume that restaurants don't overbook? I think many of them do. And I still maintain that, if restaurants are going to give out these free options, it's hard to blame people for using them. I should add that I personally do not ever hold multiple reservations for more than about five seconds. That is to say, the only circumstance under which I take advantage of the free option is when I secure a table at a "safety" restaurant and then go looking for tables at a preferred spot. If I get the table at the preferred spot, my next call is to cancel the other one. But I don't hold two reservations while deciding. Nonetheless, I can't blame anyone else for doing it -- it's like saying people should say no to free stuff.

[Jaymes]

Jaymes, doesn't your argument assume that restaurants don't overbook?

I DO think restaurants overbook.

I think they do it primarily to deal with rude, self-centered, ill-mannered people that see nothing wrong with holding several reservations until everyone gets into the car or taxi and "decides" what everyone is in the "mood" for.

[Jaymes]

My argument is that if you have reserved five different restaurants for a party of four at 8pm on a Saturday night, when you know for a fact that you can only use one of those reservations, you are tying up space at the other four.

And so when I am calling around to find a topnotch place for a gracious evening of dining with MY three friends, I am told that, sorry, we're fully booked.

Jaymes, doesn't your argument assume that restaurants don't overbook? I think many of them do. And I still maintain that, if restaurants are going to give out these free options, it's hard to blame people for using them. I should add that I personally do not ever hold multiple reservations for more than about five seconds. That is to say, the only circumstance under which I take advantage of the free option is when I secure a table at a "safety" restaurant and then go looking for tables at a preferred spot. If I get the table at the preferred spot, my next call is to cancel the other one. But I don't hold two reservations while deciding. Nonetheless, I can't blame anyone else for doing it -- it's like saying people should say no to free stuff.

Fat Guy - I like and respect you - and really do studiously try to avoid these types of arguments and threads.

BUT, I want you to read back your post.

Those are the same arguments people make who "help themselves" to "free stuff" during blackouts, or when they see a purse left on the subway, or when the fruit stall man turns his back.

There's nothing wrong with holding a reservation to be sure you have something while you continue to call around.

But that's not what these people are talking about. They're saying that they call on Monday and hold four or five prime reservations for Saturday night, while they talk it all over with their dining companions and decide which of the reservations they want. And, they have said here, as long as they call by 4 or 5pm - well, golly, that's just fine.

[Bux]

The nature of the beast is that restaurants are never going to be able to offer specific tables, except perhaps for the first sitting at 5:30pm. Once customers come in and start taking variable amounts of time to finish, flexibility in seating is necessary unless you're actually going to sell tables for two-hour blocks of time or whatever -- something I think won't fly (though it's getting more common in London). Also, in many restaurants tables can be pushed together or have leaves so their capacity can be altered on the spot or based on expected traffic for an evening. Still, a fairly high level of information can be provided over the OpenTable network, which does tie right into the restaurant's reservations system and seating plan.

Yes, we have a table for four on Friday. Would you like a $50 two hour time slot or a $80 three hour slot that will enable you to enjoy a five course menu with amuses and mignardises. The $50 slot will only allow time for an amuse, three course and it's out the door. We can accommodate a four top for two hours at 5:45 and 10:15. Plenty of tables at 6:00 for a three hour slot, but only one table at 8:15 and it has partially obstructed vision behind a column.

[Jaymes]

It isn't smart or clever or sophisticated or imaginative. It's just plain rude. Any five-year-old could come up with the same plan, and probably did, in various guises throughout their upbringing.

Mom says, "you have to choose where you want your birthday party now, Chuck E. Cheese, or McDonald's, or Miniature Golf, otherwise they'll be full."

And kid says, "I can't decide - can't we just tell them ALL we'll be there and THEN I'll decide later which one I really want."

And pretty high school girl says: "Well, yes I told Tom I'd go to the dance with him, and Dick, and Harry, but I'm really hoping that Bob will ask me. And then I'll decide later which one I really want."

Only most of us, somewhere along the line, learn lessons about manners and responsibility and consideration for others.

Which is why most of us don't do that.

Not because we're too stupid to have figured it out.

Just because you're "allowed" to do some things doesn't make it right.

I say non-refundable deposits charged at time of booking.

I'll take "column view" next Saturday night at 8pm. Here's my card. Charge it. We'll be there. You can count on it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gee I never met anyone who booked five restaurants for the same evening and didn't decide which one to go to until the last minute. That's just mythology. And that person isn't holding your table anyway. That's because you could always have called earlier then they did.

[Fat Guy]

Fat Guy - I like and respect you - and really do studiously try to avoid these types of arguments and threads.

BUT, I want you to read back your post.

Those are the same arguments people make who "help themselves" to "free stuff" during blackouts, or when they see a purse left on the subway, or when the fruit stall man turns his back.

Jaymes, I like and respect you too!

The thing is, you're talking about illegal activities -- things that are against the rules, like larceny. I'm talking about playing by the rules. At that point I don't judge people unless they go to the 100-reservations bad-faith extreme. I'm more likely to wonder what the rulemakers were thinking when they made rules that not only allow but encourage the bad behavior in question. You can tell people not to help themselves to free stuff, but you're going to be like the tree that falls in the forest and nobody hears it.

[Fat Guy]

Gee I never met anyone who booked five restaurants for the same evening and didn't decide which one to go to until the last minute. That's just mythology. And that person isn't holding your table anyway. That's because you could always have called earlier then they did.

I definitely know people who routinely do it with two, and I can think of one instance where a friend did it with three. I don't think I've ever personally witnessed four -- those tend to be "friend of a friend" stories so may indeed be mythology. But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody was doing this. I do wonder just how common it is, though.

I definitely agree with your second point.

Also I sometimes secretly thank the bad people who hold multiple reservations and cancel all but one at the last minute. I'd say I get 75% of my reservations at the last minute, thanks to those cancellations. Saves me from planning ahead.

[Jaymes]

Those are the same arguments people make who "help themselves" to "free stuff" during blackouts, or when they see a purse left on the subway, or when the fruit stall man turns his back.

The thing is, you're talking about illegal activities -- things that are against the rules, like larceny. I'm talking about playing by the rules. At that point I don't judge people unless they go to the 100-reservations bad-faith extreme. I'm more likely to wonder what the rulemakers were thinking when they made rules that not only allow but encourage the bad behavior in question. You can tell people not to help themselves to free stuff, but you're going to be like the tree that falls in the forest and nobody hears it.

I understand that. I understand that that's where you and I draw the line. But THAT rationale - "they let me do it" is the exact same rationale those people use. "It's not wrong to peek into someone's hand when playing cards if they show it to you."

And if you leave your billfold in a cab - and someone finds it and keeps it - what do you think they say to justify it? They say "well, that guy left it there - he LET me find it - what does he expect? He GAVE it to me. heheheh."

Right or wrong, that IS the rationale that those people use. Like they have no free will or control over their own actions, no value system or judgment themselves.

That's what you (actually, not you - others here) are saying... Hey - it ain't up to me - THEY LET me do it. I don't have a brain here. I can't possibly make value judgments. You certainly can't expect me to decide what's "right" and "wrong" - what might not be illegal but might be onerous. I mean, as long as it's legal - it's THERE - there isn't a law against it - well then - it must be the RIGHT THING TO DO!

I hold myself to a higher standard of conduct than that. I may not always be successful, but I at least do try to ask myself, 'how should one behave?' - rather than, 'what can I get away with?'

But whatever. Fine.

Just like every other damn thing, people who abuse the system make us all pay in the long run. And when you DO call a restaurant and they immediately charge your card with a hundred buck non-refundable deposit and you want to squeal about it and try to figure out whose fault it is, those of you who think that it's just fine to make three or four or five reservations on Monday for a Saturday night, and then cancel whenever it "suits" you, can go look in the mirror. It's YOUR fault.

And I and the rest of us like me will thank you.

And this is it for me and my brief foray into the "do right" threads.

I'm going to bed. Those of you who want me can find me upon the morrow over in "cooking."

Where I belong.

Edited February 10, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[Deacon]

The thing is, you're talking about illegal activities -- things that are against the rules, like larceny. I'm talking about playing by the rules.

Some of us hold ourselves to a higher standard than that called for in mere law.

Besides, your argument is a little like "everyone does it, and it's not *illegal* so that makes it OK." Having Candy the Cheerleader say that she'll go to the prom with you and then changing her mind when Dimwit Dave the Quarterback asks her later--well, that's not technically illegal later, but it's still unethical, ill-mannered, and inconsiderate of other people's feelings. And every time we (Jaymes and me and other kindred souls) act as if it's OK to operate that way, it just makes it that much easier for the Candy's of the world.

(I still wonder, on occasion, whatever happened to Candy the Cheerleader. Probably married Dimwit Dave.)

[Fat Guy]

Some of us hold ourselves to a higher standard than that called for in mere law.

If the implication is that you think I don't, I think my statements above regarding my personal conduct demonstrate that I do. So clearly I agree with this part of your argument. But that's how we judge ourselves -- very different from how we should be judging others, I'm sure you'll agree.

We are talking about what is primarily a simple business relationship here. We are not talking about cruely hurting a little girl's feelings, or failing to return found property to its rightful owner, or anything that has what I would consider to be a serious ethical dimension. We're talking about calling up a restaurant and doing what the restaurant asks (call if you're canceling). I do think there's a point at which reasonable consumer opportunism trips over into bad faith (making 100 reservations; not canceling until 1 minute before the time of the reservation) but otherwise I consider this behavior no more inherently unethical than taking advantage of any other business offer to consumers that doesn't benefit the business. I might choose to regulate my own behavior out of sympathy for the cluelessness of the business owner or for the benefit of other similarly situated customers (the second factor is what primarily motivates my personal decision on the matter); I might try to persuade others to do the same; but I'm not going to label them scumbags for taking advantage of that offer. Restaurants are fully aware that a certain percentage of their reservations come from people engaged in multiple-reservation-options behavior and yet they choose to do nothing about it. Perhaps they're a bunch of idealists.

[Deacon]

OK, Shaw, but where do you draw the line? If 100 faux reservations are clearly unethical, how about 99? 98? 97? And so on down the line, until you get to five. Or two.

The best places have a way of not fostering an us-vs.-them mentality. Avoiding places that have undesirable policies, of whatever kind, is also part of the process, and just part of being a savvy consumer. Those places will fail or change--culinary Darwinism. It's not "idealism" to want to get the lowest possible price for what you buy, or "cynicism" to get the highest possible price for what you sell. It's not morally reprehensible to take advantage of a $20.03 lunch special at Le Bernardin for instance, just savvy consumerism. If I were in a position to take advantage of such an offer, I would not feel guilty for the poor underprivileged restaurant. They set the prices.

What makes it an uneven playing field, I think, is that the businesses have all the power: the restaurants set their own policies, and they either have rules that they enforce on themselves or they don't. The customers can't set policy directly, they can only express their displeasure by staying away in droves and hoping that the business will get the message. It's a slow, indirect process, but it's the only way that consumers can set policy in an industry, by drawing a line and saying "OK, no farther, or you don't get any more of our money."

Anyway, don't take my comments personally. The sarcasm lamp has not been lit.

Edited February 10, 2003 by Deacon (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Deacon - You are adding a level of morality to this that the restaurants do not impose on diners. When they offer a free and open system, they have to be assuming that people double book or more. In reality, what happens is that within 48 hours of the reservation the deck gets shuffled. And either the demand was there for the restaurant, or it wasn't. If a restaurant wanted a guarantee of a different outcome, they would implement a different system. The real issue here is when a restaurant loses tables due to no-shows from double booking, or when a diner gets shut out because of it. But I am missing the distinction between no-shows for double booking and people who just don't show for any reason at all? In the end of the day, you are probably talking about a very small segment of the market. So small, that the money lost hasn't made restaurants impose a radically different system.

[Fat Guy]

So small, that the money lost hasn't made restaurants impose a radically different system.

My discussions with the few restaurateurs I trust to be honest with me indicate that the monetary losses from no-shows are significant, but that individual establishments feel they will lose more by acting alone to change policy than they lose under the current system.

[Fat Guy]

The customers can't set policy directly, they can only express their displeasure by staying away in droves and hoping that the business will get the message.

Consumers have advocates: they can be their own advocates individually by writing letters, posting on message boards, etc.; they can appeal to media outlets to cover instances of perceived poor conduct; and they have government advocates in the case of illegal activity or activity that is viewed as harmful from a public policy perspective. They can (and often do) do more than just vote silently with their pocketbooks. But here I don't see a valid consumer objection to credit card guarantees anyway. It's good for everyone. There is no us-and-them here.

[Deacon]

When words like "morality" and "bad faith" are used, perhaps the battle for the consumer dollar has already been lost, over one issue or another. It becomes too much of a power struggle to enjoy a nice meal when all the tension over policy is factored into the equation. People enjoy fine meals in restaurants to get away from such militancy.

In a seller's market, such as you find with really popular restaurants like the French Laundry, the restaurant can impose any number of hoops for prospective diners to jump through. And some will jump through them, as a measure of their devotion to the hobby. (Certainly not out of necessity--no one has to eat at the French Laundry.)

But restaurants that are no longer cutting edge can not afford to alienate customers by making it hard to get a table. Pierre au Tunnel (remember that one? it's apparently still in business) cannot afford the reservations restrictions that ADNY can command from the public. For them, it's not a seller's market.

Edited February 10, 2003 by Deacon (log)

[Fat Guy]

A restaurant that isn't going to be full anyway has a greatly reduced need for credit card guarantees. There is still some minor harm from a cover-count miscalculation (perhaps an extra server is called in when that server wasn't really needed, or perhaps ingredients are misordered) but there aren't empty tables that would otherwise have been full -- that's the big area where money is lost.

[bushey]

Restaurants need to be dilligent in confirming tables the day of the reservation. Since most of them do not have a system to penalize diners if they don't show, it behooves them to track you down and to confirm. Not that diners don't have the obligation to cancel if they don't intend to show. Not on moral grounds, just simple common courtesy. But if a restaurant wants to guarantee that the table is sold, they should pick up the phone.

It's been my experience lately that restaurants have gotten more proactive in ensuring that diners will be keeping reservations. Even restaurants that ask for a confirmation call on the day of, or day before, the reservation have called me first to confirm. I've also had this happen with online reservation services.

In every case, the staff have been polite and friendly and I've enjoyed the contact. It increased my anticipation of an enjoyable evening. As for cancelling reservations, I always call to cancel as soon as my plans have changed, even if it's only a few hours ahead of time. I also call to change a reservation if we've added or lost a couple so the restaurant can plan accordingly. The staff is almost always appreciative and polite.

[Jaymes]

But I'm not going to label them scumbags...

"Scumbags" is a little strong. I wouldn't label them as scumbags, either.

But I would and DO label them as being rude and arrogant and inconsiderate of others.

And, Steve, you say that "you are probably talking about a very small segment..."

Well, why do you think that is?

Do you think the segment would remain "very small" if everyone behaved that way and felt perfectly justified in doing so?

And then, when the restaurants DO have to "impose a radically different system," I'll bet those who squeal the loudest will be the exact same ones whose standard operating procedure when planning for a Saturday evening out is to make multiple reservations and then decide later which one they're "in the mood for."

Oh - and regarding "a little girl's hurt feelings," I guess you're saying that however you treat someone is okay as long as they don't find out? - since "hurt feelings" are the issue, and not the way a person with manners and integrity should behave.

[Jaymes]

A restaurant that isn't going to be full anyway has a greatly reduced need for credit card guarantees.

And they would know this because they hire directly from the Psychic Friends Network?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jaymes - You are making all kinds of hypotheticals, and value judgements, based on what you think is moral. And while I happen to agree with you on the morality here, I think we are better off if we looked at the actual harm before we passed judgement on anyone or anything. So as Fat Guy says, if the practices of diners inflicted material harm on the restaurant business, they would change their practice. But since they don't seem to be doing that by implementing a deposit policy for no-shhows, I have to assume that the amount of money they lose from it isn't all that great.

[Jaymes]

Jaymes - You are making all kinds of hypotheticals, and value judgements, based on what you think is moral. And while I happen to agree with you on the morality here, I think we are better off if we looked at the actual harm before we passed judgement on anyone or anything. So as Fat Guy says, if the practices of diners inflicted material harm on the restaurant business, they would change their practice. But since they don't seem to be doing that by implementing a deposit policy for no-shhows, I have to assume that the amount of money they lose from it isn't all that great.

It's all right, Steve. I can live with it.

After all, some of my best friends are rude, inconsiderate and arrogant.