I know you’ve said this many times, but it’s based on an unverifiable assumption since we can’t run a test for the same restaurant at the same time with and without corkage. There’s also the game theory problem - a restaurant that does offer corkage can offer something a place next to it does not.
There’s really not a lot of hassle to having a simple and well defined corkage policy. Most high end restaurants in NYC are happy to accommodate it, and I don’t think they’re all schmucks who haven’t seen the light.
As for Mark’s original question, I agree that it’s generally a way to protect themselves from having to deal with devoting too much service effort to a few demanding patrons. However, it’s all negotiable; I just organized a wine event for 25 people at a high end restaurant in NYC and it was just fine.
i have addressed this ad nauseum; the reason is because they are in the business of hospitality. it’s not that corkage is “wrong” it’s that it’s irrelevant to the bottom line, no matter how much those here think otherwise. and by pointing at individual examples that may or may not prove this point, it’s irrelevant to the greater business. given the inherent potential heartache associated with corkage, the reasonable default position is to deny it. BUT, it’s a hospitality industry filled with hospitality people making decisions.
Do you mean this as black and white as you wrote it? If you set the corkage at the price of a bottle on the menu (more specifically, the dollar margin of that bottle) economically there is no difference whether I bring wine vs buy wine.
In the case of $100 corkage, I’d expect that at least clears the dollar margin of at least one bottle of wine on the menu. Given that service for a $100, $1k or 10k bottle of wine is essentially the same (no difference in stems, no difference in waiter usage) there is no economic impact to the restaurant if I buy off the list or BYO.
Yes, there is a second order consequence of not utilizing inventory and the ability to upsell, but to first order there isn’t a difference. Also, you don’t know what I am going to order off the list when I make the reservation so assuming revenue higher than the corkage is risky.
Anyway, I see no need for corkage to be a favor - it can be made to work out economically (ie table spend minimums).
raise your hand if you think restaurants are in the business of doing quant-level game theory analysis on how to optimize their corkage policy to attempt (and fail miserably) to assuage the ever-changing desires of 19 random people on a wine board.
or are they, like, you know busy trying to run a business for the 98% of guests that have no idea what corkage is or don’t care about it whatsoever?
Clearly, wine dinners CAN be disruptive and unprofitable for a restaurant. They don’t know ahead of time that you’re going to tip great and not linger too long on a busy night. That said, there are many fine restaurants, even those catering to client dinners, that aren’t full on Mondays/Tuesdays. Why don’t those restaurants consider a different policy for the slow nights? Also, would a restaurant re-consider if a party offered to bring their own stemware (on that slow night)? And would it make a further difference if the party agreed in advance to a 30%+ service charge?
Regards,
Peter
I think policies like this should be based on how many people are in the part, but in general, I imagine some restaurants don’t want a table tied up for 4+ hours while people taste a case of wine.
At most higher end restaurants a server might only have 3-4 tables and their goal is to turn that table as many times as possible in a shift (probably no turnover with a 6 bottle table). 6 bottles plus wine service is a lot of extra attention to one of those tables, and if you’re a 4 top, it’s also 24 wine glasses and maybe more decanters than they have available. Ideally the manager would arrange for an extra staff do do wine service for a table like that, but most servers wouldn’t want that gig unless it were arranged as a private party with a set price and guaranteed gratuity.
No, I’ve read your posts. Setting a simple corkage policy of $50/bottle isn’t hard nor requires a lot of discussion/negotiation. They are not running some kind of silent auction for the corkage fee every time I bring a bottle into the restaurant.
Yes, your point is that if one does not try, one cannot lose. It’s similar to restaurants that refuse any and all accommodations for food preferences (otherwise it’s arbitrary what they will or won’t do, after all). I really do understand the point you are making, but hospitality run by an algorithm makes sense for McDonalds, not the places we’re talking about. But then, this is your business so more power to you. I don’t think there’s any point to further discussion here.
again, that’s a . no one - especially me - is arguing “run by an algorithm” (though pricing is another matter).
hospitality is run by hospitality professionals. your point about food accomodations is apt in this regard. have a corkage policy or don’t. it’s irrelevant. the policy you create will always be inherently arbitrary if you’re trying to have it “make sense” - which is where this thread started.
the consistent problem with these threads is that individuals project their own desires and very skewed views of the industry to pitch the perfect corkage policy without realizing that it’s arbitrary all the way down.
Yaakov’s point is that spending time figuring out the right corkage takes way too much time that could be better spent running the restaurant, but if you set it randomly you’re potentially losing money and wasting time, so it’s easier and more efficient to set it at no corkage allowed. Which, again, is also true of food substitutions or any service at the margins of the “here is the menu” being provided by the restaurant.
Sorry, we’re in the realm of performative contrarianism now with this line of argument. You can’t argue corkage policies are both irrelevant and should really be set at “no corkage”. Either they’re irrelevant or there’s a right place to set them.
. no one - especially me - is arguing “run by an algorithm” (though pricing is another matter).