Drought

[Fat Guy]

I note that Tavern on the Green is lowering its prices on bottled water due to the drought emergency. A nice idea.

[yvonne johnson]

Steven, was that tongue in cheek?

I think it's a very cheeky move aimed at making the customer feel morally bankrupt if they order tap. The quantities of water drunk must be miniscule compared to industrial use, watering gardens, washing cars, even ourselves.

[Mao]

I just ate at the tavern at GT tonight and they are doing the same thing.  At least for certain bottles of water.  We were offered Evian up front at reduced cost and accepted.  I wonder if further inquiries into other brands would have yielded similar results.  But they were up front about how they were doing this because of the water shortage.

As an unrelated question, how often do the desserts at the tavern change?  I ate there about about 6 weeks ago and they seemed almost identical.  Two desserts, in particular, involving rubharb and another with apple seemed terribly autumny to me.  Then again GT always gives me this fall season vibe no matter what time of year it is.

[Fat Guy]

If I'm not mistaken, there's a major menu change quarterly and minor changes whenever availability of ingredients dictates.

[tommy]

i have to wonder how the restaurant industry will survive if they're practically giving evian away at only a 8 bucks a bottle.  

rut-roh.

:p

yvonne, it seems to me that it's more of a gesture rather than a conservation issue. and of course, there's nothing wrong with gesturing.

[Fat Guy]

Yvonne, no, I thought it was a nice thing to do. A symbolic gesture, to be sure, but probably not a cynical one.

[Andy Lynes]

To paraphrase David Letterman, whats the big deal with the drought, it's not as if your growing wheat there is it?

[tommy]

i have to wonder why places like say, houston, never run out of water but NJ is??  and why can't we just borrow some from maryland or somewhere.  jeesh.

[yvonne johnson]

I remain cynical. If it's a meaningless gesture, in the sense that no water of any significant quantity will be conserved by our drinking bottled water rather than tap, then why are restaurants suggesting otherwise? Because this symbolic gesture is of course a marketing ploy to lull customers into believing they are doing something environmentally benefical and getting a bargain too. The person who came up with this should win a prize. It's just another way of pressuring people into buying bottled water--something many of us here do not like. And as I suggested earlier if the waiter says: "Due to the drought and water emergency, we have lowered the price of our bottled water" you don't think that in some (ill-informed, I admit) circles, declining the bottled and going for tap would be seen as having no respect for planet earth?

I apologise for getting hot under the collar on this one, but I really cannot abide misinformation. Have we heard public service announcements telling us to restrict our drinking of tap water and rely on bottled? Funny that the restaurants are the first to do so.

I've nothing against places having huge mark-ups on their water and the likes. But out of curiousity I'd like to know if the numbers of bottles of water sold are now on the increase & whether restaurants are making more money on water (inspite of the lower price) than they did before this drought.

[Ruby]

I remain cynical. If it's a meaningless gesture, in the sense that no water of any significant quantity will be conserved by our drinking bottled water rather than tap, then why are restaurants suggesting otherwise? Because this symbolic gesture is of course a marketing ploy to lull customers into believing they are doing something environmentally benefical and getting a bargain too. The person who came up with this should win a prize. It's just another way of pressuring people into buying bottled water--something many of us here do not like. And as I suggested earlier if the waiter says: "Due to the drought and water emergency, we have lowered the price of our bottled water" you don't think that in some (ill-informed, I admit) circles, declining the bottled and going for tap would be seen as having no respect for planet earth?

Yvonne, right on! If the restaurants were that concerned, they'd offer bottled water at 5% above their cost 'as a gesture of concern' about the NYC water shortage. It's just another way of pushing designer water at $5-7 bucks a bottle.

This reminds me of a coupon I got in the mail from a clothes shop in SoHo. It said something like: "Because of the downturn in the economy due to the tragic events of September 11, we would like to offer you 20% off your next purchase. Please bring in this coupon..." Yeah, right.

[tommy]

yvonne, anyone who is "lulled" into buying a bottle of water from a server deserves to pay 12 dollars for their first, and 13 dollars for their second.

the meek shall inherit the water tab.  let it be...to quote neil  and paul in one thought.

as far as conspiracies are concerned, i know a lot of cool websites that i'd be glad to share with you.  www.they'reallafterme.com is my favorite.  :D

ruby, i believe that tavern on the green is, in fact, lowering their prices, which was the seed to this thread.

edit:  oh wait, i just set myself up for "a 5% discount is still making the restaurant lots of money".  well, ok, but, it's, like, a gesture, and we're all, mostly, adults, and, we can, like, order it, or not.

[Fat Guy]

But Yvonne -- and I'm no environmentalist -- don't you think that saying "even if everybody had bottled water instead of tap water it wouldn't make a dent" is the same as saying "there's nothing I can do in terms of my individual water usage that would make a statistical difference so I'm going to use as much as I want?" I mean, isn't the whole point of conservation that everybody should do what he or she can, or at least do something? And that if we all do that, it will help? Hypothetically, if I could show you evidence that the restaurants were losing money on this whole bottled water discount thing, would you change your view?

I want to know what Whiting thinks. Whiting, do you align with me on this one?

[Beachfan]

If it's a good restaurant, I think all promotions are fine.  It has to be a pretty far stretch for me to take umbrage.  Are you really unhappy that GT mentions drought in their promotion?  After all, it does raise conciousness.  If they merely said they were only serving water on request, and kept their prices the same would it make you feel better?

If we had real truth in marketing, all promotions would have the comment "we're primarilly saying this/ doing this to get you to give us revenue.  A benefit may accrue to you or to charity, but that's incidental".  

While it may sound cynical, I don't feel that way.  I feel it's merely capatilistic, and healthy at that.

[Sandra Levine]

We experienced the bottled water shakedown taken to a new level last week at Sapori d'Ischia, one of Queens' best Italian restaurants. When offered either still or sparkling, we instead requested regular tap water and were out and out refused, on the grounds of "It's the restaurant's policy."  So we stuck to our wine and are re-considering further patronage.  (Our waiter somehow managed to find us a half-bottle of water, for which we were not charged, but he had to sneak it to us, or pretended to.)

[Fat Guy]

Wow. That's only ever happened to me once, and never in the USA. This surely deserves its own thread, as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the drought.

[yvonne johnson]

Here goes, take 3.

We hear “Tavern on the Green is lowering its prices on bottled water due to the drought emergency” and later we learn that Gramercy Tavern is doing likewise. What waiters are telling customers suggests that the emergency will be alleviated, in some way or other, if we drink bottled water rather than tap. I can see no other way of reading this.

The EPA appears to counter this claim.

http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/wot/howmuch.html

At no point does the EPA recommend that we cut back on drinking tap water, because, it seems, the amounts used for drinking are insignificant when compared to other domestic and industrial uses.

And let’s not forget that if we wanted to conserve the earth’s resources we’d not be drinking bottled water in the first place.

I have some sympathy for the following argument:

“Don't be tempted to think that bottled water is a green alternative to tap water. Far from it... Some people think that bottled water is better for you, but this is a myth. And the packaging and transportation costs of bottled water mean that, litre for litre, it is a far bigger 'drain' on the planet's resources than tap water.”

http://www.rspb.org.uk/youth/green_house/k.../water_page.htm

And the above doesn’t mention recycling of all that glass, plastic, and paying money for Coke’s Dasani which is bottled “tap water”!

Fat Guy, I never said “there's nothing I can do in terms of my individual water usage that would make a statistical difference so I'm going to use as much as I want”.  I'm saying it would make more sense to cut back on water use where there'd be a real impact. If GT wishes to raise people’s consciousness they should be telling the customers to have shorter showers! If you could show me that the restaurants were losing money on this whole bottled water discount thing, would I change my mind? I don’t think this move will last long if they do lose money. But my main point is that the sales pitch has no empirical evidence and added to that it is yet another pressure tactic.

Tommy, I don’t think this is a conspiracy. I think it’s marketing parading as environmentalism.

[jordyn]

And let’s not forget that if we wanted to conserve the earth’s resources we’d not be drinking bottled water in the first place.

I have some sympathy for the following argument:

“Don't be tempted to think that bottled water is a green alternative to tap water. Far from it... Some people think that bottled water is better for you, but this is a myth. And the packaging and transportation costs of bottled water mean that, litre for litre, it is a far bigger 'drain' on the planet's resources than tap water.”

While this is true, and probably also explains why the EPA doesn't suggest it as a way to reduce the amount of drinking water that you use, let's draw a distinction between saving the Earth's water resources and saving New York's water resources.

Right now we have a drought in New York.  There are also places that are not suffering from droughts.  If you drink water that has been imported from Maine or France or Fiji, you don't deplete the amount of water available in New York.  This could certainly have as much of an effect as "don't run the water while you brush your teeth", which is one of the pieces of advice that I have heard the government giving to people.

[Fat Guy]

Yvonne, let's say a restaurant cuts its water price by 40%, all of which is pure profit. How many more bottles of water does that restaurant have to sell at the new price in order to make an equivalent amount of profit? I'd have to guess something like twice as many, or maybe even more than that. Do you think a promotion like this has the potential, in a million years, to double a restaurant's bottled water sales? I have my doubts. Do you completely and utterly reject the possibility of altruism here? I've got to say, the behavior of the New York restaurant community has always been exemplary when it comes to helping others. Very few people go into the restaurant business purely as a profit thing -- at least at the high end of dining that's true. You've got to love it, and reap a non-monetary reward, to make the hours and the abuse worthwhile. I think there are plenty of restaurateurs who could be going home with a few extra dollars at the end of every day were it not for their public participation and charitable work. I happen to agree that a lot of that work is misguided, but in this case I see no harm. And in general, I find the notion that corporations only give to charity as a PR tool to be staggeringly incorrect. Perhaps it is true of some corporations, which have miserly owners that only give to charity because someone says they have to in order to look good, but many give far more than the PR value could possibly justify.

[Beachfan]

Why is marketing in and of itself a negative?  I agree that it's unlikely charitable or kind acts are only done for marketing purposes, but why shouldn't they be bundled with marketing.

Marketing is only a problem if it's in bad taste.  Without marketing, businesses go bankrupt.

[Christopher]

Here's the latest ...

The city now forbids us to offer or bring tap water. We must serve it 'only on request' I may not automatically pour tap water. (Apparently we can get fined) nor may I offer it to you.  This is from the city and, as I understand it, you the guest, must initiate the request.

FWIW: So many people interpreted the offer of $3. for a 750ml of Evian as manipulative that we've restored the price to $7. And, magically, no more complaints. Go figure.

[ajay]

I've always realized that I'm a bit difficult to please, and fine diners are by definition a diffiuclt and choosey lot. But Christopher, I think your anecdote suggests that being in the restaurant business is more hassel than it's worth; you all seem to get pounced on even when you do something nice and decent.  

Frankly, despite my love of food, I still don't quite 'get' what motivates obviously gifted and talented people like Christopher or Mr. Meyer to enter this business--profit margines aren't great, especially at the upper level (I understand Lespinasse for example would go bankrupt but for the St. regis hotel)... surely there are less stressful and difficult ways to make more money than one can make in this field.

I hate to put you on the spot here, Christopher (and any others who would care to share), but I'd be really interested to hear what aspects of your job you like best, what motivates you to deal with all of the rude and cynical customers, as well as those simply out to see and be seen.

[macrosan]

OK, so here goes another classic eGullet Thread Digression. But to justify my post, let me say that I agree with Yvonne that relating the 'cheap water' offer to the drought is tacky marketing  ;)

On Ajay's question, I think it's wrong to believe that the restaurant industry is unique in having to deal with difficult customers. All service industries have the same "problem". In fact, it's not a "problem" at all, it is the fundamental raison d'etre of a service industry, it is the factor above all others that enables one company to distinguish itself from its competitors, in other words it is not a problem, it is an opportunity.

My reading of this board is that GT has made a Unique Selling Proposition of its service before its food. The same is true of companies like Virgin and Four Seasons for example. If customers in the service sectors were not unusually demanding, the opportunity for one organization to shine would be seriously limited.

I won't purport to answer for Christopher, but my guess is that he, and others like him, positively thrive on "the difficult customer" and that is what keeps them in the industry.

[Fat Guy]

Ajay, I think the logical conclusion based on what you're saying is that people are not always motivated exclusively by money. This seems the most obvious thing in the world to me, yet I find that many otherwise sensible people assume that once you own a business you become so money hungry that all your actions can only be explained by the profit motive. Now, I have nothing against the profit motive, but this is simply not the case. Why else would some of the smartest and most talented people in the world be poor or of modest means? In most cases, it is by choice. In some cases, that has even been proven to be by choice. To use myself as an example, I have demonstrated amply the ability to earn plenty of money as a lawyer; not just a relatively high law-firm salary but also something like triple that amount in private practice. I now earn a small percentage of that amount as a writer -- and I work just as many hours a day. But I love what I do now. Certainly, I make no money from my participation in eGullet -- and in fact it takes time that could be spent writing for profit -- yet I do it because I enjoy it. (Nor have I ever made a penny from Fat-Guy.com, although I suppose the cynic would say that it acts as an advertisement for me and has overall helped me build a writing career -- and a highly lucrative one at that! ) And I'm not even a real artist. Chefs even more so than hack writers like me are mostly doing what they do because they love to do it. Most could make more money as garbage men. Most of you could too, I'm sure. I know and have worked with hundreds of successful businesspeople and I have yet to meet the person who is motivated by money above all else.

Macrosan, I wouldn't be so quick to assign masochistic motives. I think it's more a question of wanting to be excellent. To be the best at something, well, that's a feeling few of us get to experience in our lifetimes.

In any event, I'm just amazed to hear Christopher's tale of needing to jack up the price of water as a response to public paranoia and suspiciousness. How sad. I'd also be interested to know if any of this information from Christopher has done anything to change anybody's position on this issue.

[macrosan]

Macrosan, I wouldn't be so quick to assign masochistic motives. I think it's more a question of wanting to be excellent. To be the best at something, well, that's a feeling few of us get to experience in our lifetimes

Steven, I didn't do that  :(  What I said was that people stay in the restaurant business because they get a kick out of providing service to difficult customers. That's just another way of saying what you said --- they want to prove that they can do something very difficult very well !!!!

I have run my own (B2B service) business for over 20 years, and many people ask me why I'm not a very wealthy man  ;) The reason is that I have aspirations for myself, and therefore for my business, whose achievement is not measured in monetary terms. My company has the best reputation in its market for quality of service and honesty of dealing. Unlike some of our competitors, we do not offer bribes to consultants to bring us business. Unlike all of our competitors, we contractually guarantee service levels, and publish compensation rates which we pay our customers if we fail to deliver. I'm proud of those things, and I will (and regularly do) trade any amount of profit to maintain them. I work for many demanding and 'difficult' customers, and they are the ones who prove to me that my company is good at what it does. The easy customers get just as good service, but in all honesty my competitors could keep them happy  ;)  but please don't tell them that.

I guess that the good people in the restaurant business feel like that, which includes the owners, the chefs, the staff. I empathize with those people, because we are kindred spirits. But I have zero tolerance for people in service industries who have no interest in delivering service.

[tommy]

Here's the latest ...

The city now forbids us to offer or bring tap water. We must serve it 'only on request' I may not automatically pour tap water. (Apparently we can get fined) nor may I offer it to you.  This is from the city and, as I understand it, you the guest, must initiate the request.

whoever thought of this absurd policy should be shot.  the automatic pour/can't offer thing is just ridiculous.  i have *much* less of a problem with marketing (gasp) than i do these tools coming up with ineffective and foolish rules that do more harm to businesses than they do good for the environment.