PrimeTime Tables

[tommy]

Would anybody have an objection to the service if it did things in a different sequence:

- You call the service and say "Please get me a reservation at Daniel at X time on Y date."

- The service speed dials, waits on hold, etc., negotiates the reservation and gets back to you with the information.

- You pay $50 to the service.

That would of course be no different than having a secretary make the reservation. Nothing wrong with that at all.

It seems the difference is that the service makes the reservations first, then sells them to clients. But is it really all that different?

←

one difference is that the service presumably is essentially blocking out tables that someone might possibly get without paying the fee. let's take it to the extreme and now this service books every table in the restaurant 30 days out. no chance for any diner to get a table without the fee. that's not the case (i guess) but it illustrates the difference.

i think it's easy to see and hard to debate the value-added for the person who uses the service. however, it's the people who don't use it who are now getting the short(er) end.

Edited January 23, 2007 by tommy (log)

[docsconz]

Would anybody have an objection to the service if it did things in a different sequence:

- You call the service and say "Please get me a reservation at Daniel at X time on Y date."

- The service speed dials, waits on hold, etc., negotiates the reservation and gets back to you with the information.

- You pay $50 to the service.

That would of course be no different than having a secretary make the reservation. Nothing wrong with that at all.

It seems the difference is that the service makes the reservations first, then sells them to clients. But is it really all that different?

←

I think that it is considerably different. The way you proposed is indeed a service and not different than American Express Platinum Concierge except that the AE service is built into the cost of the card. The service as it stands is based on speculation and can prevent others seeking reservations in their own names from getting them. If someone preferred using an assumed name for the reservation they could do so the way you outlined but would not be obligated to. Everything would be above-board.

[oakapple]

Would anybody have an objection to the service if it did things in a different sequence:

- You call the service and say "Please get me a reservation at Daniel at X time on Y date."

- The service speed dials, waits on hold, etc., negotiates the reservation and gets back to you with the information.

- You pay $50 to the service.

That would of course be no different than having a secretary make the reservation. Nothing wrong with that at all.

It seems the difference is that the service makes the reservations first, then sells them to clients. But is it really all that different?

←

The main difference is that my secretary doesn't call for the reservation until I know (or have a pretty good idea) that I need it. This service gobbles up many of the prime-time reservations, holding them in waiting for unknown (and possibly non-existent) diners. Maybe that's okay, but it's clearly different than what the secretary does.

And again, there's the dishonesty of it. If it were such a great thing, then it would be above-board — none of this garbage with pseudonyms, and not mentioning the name of the service to the restaurant staff.

Edited January 23, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[docsconz]

At least we were consistent!

[Fat Guy]

I understand there's a distinction, and that it feels important, but is it as we say in the law "a distinction without a difference"?

Let's assume that the number of tables consumed by the service is minor -- at most one or two tables at any given restaurant. Let's further assume that all the reservations always get used. In such a scenario, what's the issue?

[Nathan]

"Let's assume that the number of tables consumed by the service is minor -- at most one or two tables at any given restaurant. Let's further assume that all the reservations always get used. In such a scenario, what's the issue?"

I find it highly likely that this is the case...especially the first part. As for unused reservations -- the service ends at noon the day of the reservation. The reason is obvious -- restaurant callback confirmations. If they haven't sold the table they release it at that time. If anything, this service will increase the number of last-minute tables. As I noted above, its no secret that the best method of garnering a good table at an in-demand restaurant is to call the afternoon of the day you want to dine. This service may well increase the number of such tables available.

If they don't increase the number of such table available then that means they are selling all their reservations -- which would be proof a. that the unused tables complaint is baseless (which it is anyway for the reason I noted above), and b. that restauranteurs have simply been guilty of a lack of imagination.

[docsconz]

I understand there's a distinction, and that it feels important, but is it as we say in the law "a distinction without a difference"?

Let's assume that the number of tables consumed by the service is minor -- at most one or two tables at any given restaurant. Let's further assume that all the reservations always get used. In such a scenario, what's the issue?

←

These are rather large assumptions, but let us say that for now your assumptions are indeed the case. Given that the operators are trying to make money and have been successful selling the few reservations that they have set aside and have found a formula for getting those reservations in the first place (probably by snatching them up at the earliest time they become available), why is reasonable to assume that they wouldn't expand the practice and gobble up all the reservations? This would leave people no choice but to pay a fee for this "service" (one that I never asked for nor wanted) and if they then failed to sell the reservations, a much higher no-show list for the restaurants. The only winner is once again the middle-man, who had nothing to lose by providing this "service." Their risk is essentially nil.

[Nathan]

" why is reasonable to assume that they wouldn't expand the practice and gobble up all the reservations?"

It is not reasonable. That's a lot of calls, a lot of waiting on hold, a lot of different call back numbers and names given. Not practical. And it would take a massive staff to pull off...not economically feasible.

" This would leave people no choice but to pay a fee for this "service" (one that I never asked for nor wanted) and if they then failed to sell the reservations, a much higher no-show list for the restaurants."

As I noted, this would be a good thing for the dining public. Is there a fine dining restaurant in NY that doesn't enforce reservation confirmations the day of (or sometimes the day before?)? I'm not aware of any.

[Sneakeater]

Would anybody have an objection to the service if it did things in a different sequence:

- You call the service and say "Please get me a reservation at Daniel at X time on Y date."

- The service speed dials, waits on hold, etc., negotiates the reservation and gets back to you with the information.

- You pay $50 to the service.

That would of course be no different than having a secretary make the reservation. Nothing wrong with that at all.

It seems the difference is that the service makes the reservations first, then sells them to clients. But is it really all that different?

←

one difference is that the service presumably is essentially blocking out tables that someone might possibly get without paying the fee. let's take it to the extreme and now this service books every table in the restaurant 30 days out. no chance for any diner to get a table without the fee. that's not the case (i guess) but it illustrates the difference.

i think it's easy to see and hard to debate the value-added for the person who uses the service. however, it's the people who don't use it who are now getting the short(er) end.

←

This is exactly the difference I see.

(EDITED TO ADD: And I see I'm far from the only one.)

Edited January 23, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[sebkarlsson]

Yes, but the upshot is that in the long run it will become virtually impossible to get a table at a "prime" time in a "prime" restaurant without paying for the privelege. I wouldn't be happy about that.

Si

←

Right. No doubt it's worth going for the ease of logging onto a website and purchasing a prime time table at a top restaurant, but good things like this tend to fizzle out or spread. The more people that take advantage, the more the majority lose out due to engendering further poor ethics. If it did take off, restaurants would have to eventually take names and ID for any table and make bookings non-transferable.

[Nathan]

obviously the people who use the service are put in a better position than those who do not.

the only relevant question is, does it put the people who don't use the service in a worse position than they would have been if the service didn't exist?

its clear to me that the answer is "no" so long as the business model stays the way it is (which is the only practical one I think).

in other words, the only harms that I've seen suggested are hypothetical ones....and unlikely ones at that.

I'd recommend that everyone following this thread read the latest on eater. (in a nutshell, the service is aimed at expense-account dining in relatively large groups -- four or more; they also only take new customers by referral)

Edited January 23, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

" why is reasonable to assume that they wouldn't expand the practice and gobble up all the reservations?"

It is not reasonable.  That's a lot of calls, a lot of waiting on hold, a lot of different call back numbers and names given.  Not practical.  And it would take a massive staff to pull off...not economically feasible.

" This would leave people no choice but to pay a fee for this "service" (one that I never asked for nor wanted) and if they then failed to sell the reservations, a much higher no-show list for the restaurants."

As I noted, this would be a good thing for the dining public.  Is there a fine dining restaurant in NY that doesn't enforce reservation confirmations the day of (or sometimes the day before?)?  I'm not aware of any.

←

Nathan, you're assuming everyone is like you: you hate to make any reservations at all and prefer all dining decisions to be last minute.

I, of course, assume everyone is like me: I hate making dining plans months in advance -- but like to be able to make them a few days or a week in advance, so I know I don't have to concern myself (and my dining companions) about it after that. (Frankly, most people I go out with -- either on dates or socially -- don't like to have to wait till the last minute to be told where to meet me. And I don't want to be in the position of having to say to someone, "I'm taking you out to dinner Saturday. Wait till Saturday afternoon and I'll let you know where.")

This "service" makes things better for people like you. But for people like me, it makes an already bad situation worse.

[Nathan]

like I said, most of the hypothetical harms given here have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the business:

http://eater.com/archives/2007/01/primetimetables_4.php#more

[oakapple]

like I said, most of the hypothetical harms given here have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the business:

http://eater.com/archives/2007/01/primetimetables_4.php#more

←

This assumes the people running the business can be trusted to describe it truthfully. We already know that they cannot — they claim to be doing the restaurant a favor, but also tell you not to mention PrimeTime Tables when claiming your reservation. That's some favor.

[Nathan]

I don't see why that's dispositive. Restaurants might just be short-sighted. (I would predict that some will eventually embrace this while others will not.)

But regardless, I 100% believe their description of the nature of their business. Why? I fail to see how it would otherwise be feasible.

[docsconz]

like I said, most of the hypothetical harms given here have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the business:

http://eater.com/archives/2007/01/primetimetables_4.php#more

←

I don't think that we have misunderstood anything. At this point they are limiting the reservations available for any given restaurant, however, should this catch on with their "well-heeled" clientele they will need even more product to sell. I still think it is shady and will result in no good for most restaurant goers and restaurants.

[Nathan]

one: the logistics for garnering lots of tables in this way would be quite expensive and require a lot of manpower. not happening.

second: the market for this service is quite limited.

edit: the first point is the key one. as for the second -- if there is a large market for this service...restaurants will morph to take advantage of it themselves...either by directly or indirectly (through dinnerbroker and opentable) moving to arrange for premium prices at prime hours (of course, they already do that).

I agree that if it "caught on" that would be a bad thing -- but I don't see how it is possible.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[docsconz]

one: the logistics for garnering lots of tables in this way would be quite expensive and require a lot of manpower.  not happening. 

second:  the market for this service is quite limited.

edit: the first point is the key one.  as for the second -- if there is a large market for this service...restaurants will morph to take advantage of it themselves...either by directly or indirectly (through dinnerbroker and opentable) moving to arrange for premium prices at prime hours (of course, they already do that).

I agree that if it "caught on" that would be a bad thing -- but I don't see how it is possible.

←

It may not be likely, but stranger things have happened. Even if they expand a little bit it could have a significant impact in the availability of prime tables. As for restaurants expanding their pricing according to demand, that would be a function of true market forces. At least I would still have a greater possibility of scoring a table in advance for myself without having to pay the additional fee of the "broker" or I would have the choice of saving a few bucks on less desirable times.

[Fat Guy]

"True" market forces? This service seems a textbook example of market forces at work.

[BryanZ]

I'm now an active member at PrimeTime Tables. Since memberships are scarce, I'll sell you the service of my going onto the site and booking a table through PTT for you. I'll charge, say, $50 for this service. I've set up my PayPal account accordingly, so PM away. Hell, I'll take requests right here.

Joking. Or am I?

[Simon_S]

Nathan, your defence of this service has been so robust I'm wondering if you're getting a piece of the action...?

Si

[Meredith380]

I'm now an active member at PrimeTime Tables.  Since memberships are scarce, I'll sell you the service of my going onto the site and booking a table through PTT for you.  I'll charge, say, $50 for this service.  I've set up my PayPal account accordingly, so PM away.  Hell, I'll take requests right here.

Joking.  Or am I?

←

I'm a member as well, and as a reservations manager for three restaurants, this is very interesting.

It makes sense, say, if you're a personal assistant and need to secure a reservation. Of if you want to show off for Valentine's Day, in particular.

Otherwise, it rubs me wrong. What if those tables don't sell? You don't get that walk in business in most places. It just seems dirty. To each their own, but I don't buy scalped tickets and I still managed to go to 3 Mets playoff games. If you want something enough, you plan for it.

In Manhattan, there are tons of options avaliable and to bother to pay for a reservation to me just screams busch league. Not that the demand isn't there, it is, but to me, it's tacky. Who wants to go in as Mr. Joe Smith as your alias and not build a respectable relationship with the establishment? Only a rookie diner would accept that.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Meredith380 (log)

[sebkarlsson]

To the more scrupulous the question has to be: Why support something unethical and shady anyway?

[weinoo]

I'm now an active member at PrimeTime Tables.  Since memberships are scarce, I'll sell you the service of my going onto the site and booking a table through PTT for you.  I'll charge, say, $50 for this service.  I've set up my PayPal account accordingly, so PM away.  Hell, I'll take requests right here.

Joking.  Or am I?

←

Well put, Brian!

And I always thought it was about restaurants cultivating relationships with their regular/repeat customers (I think it was FG who said that most restaurants wouldn't survive without a high percentage of regulars)...so how does this help the restaurant just because as the interviewee at Eater put it, "Let's say Mr. Yamaguchi is in town for a $19 billion deal..."

Interesting thing about scalping too...many times I've paid less than face value for a show ticket by simply waiting till a few minutes before the show starts (at the Beacon, for example)...though I doubt this is analoagous to the reservation thing...the only way this could happen would be if restaurants actually charged to make a reservation and then people had to dump reservations that they couldn't keep!

[oakapple]

Eater, who seems nearly obsessed with this story, already has something like half-a-dozen posts on it. In the latest one, which has comments from various industry insiders, I found perhaps the best defense of the idea:

In theory, it's just democratizing something that already exists. People with connections, or famous names, are always able to get last-minute tables. Why shouldn't a regular Joe with fifty bucks be able to do it, too?

While the service is undeniably on the shady side, I am starting to agree with Fat Guy that PTT is merely capitalizing on market inefficiency. In so doing, if they are successful, they will force restaurants to adjust to reality. Daniel Boulud may say, "If a last-minute 8:00 p.m. reservation is worth an extra fifty bucks, why should someone else be earning that?" Edited January 24, 2007 by oakapple (log)