How much cost does it add to the meal? I'm wondering how economies of scale play in here.

Since when is bread unhealthy? If people eat less bread and have an appetite for dessert as a result their health would be worse, not better.

Anyway, the decision to eat the bread is the customer's, but the decision to offer it is the restaurant's. So if you want to attack the custom you have to go at it from that end to be effective.

Food is only a small part of the cost of restaurants, but it's what the diners think they are paying for. So offering them a bit more food for a bit more money (with the same amount of tables and cooks and waiters and real estate in prime retail locations) is a *great* deal for the restauranteur.

In short, people consume a lot more of something when they think it's free.

I believe the same forces are at work in healthcare costs both in the system we have now and certainly any government system that may happen in the future.

However, by charging for bread, your restaurant becomes known as "That place that charges for bread!" The fact that the entrees at the free-bread place are $20 vs. $19 dollars at the other place won't factor in as much. A nice restaurant doesn't want to acquire a reputation as being the sort of place that nickle-and-dimes customers.

Not to be nitpicking, but I see you use the term "Behavioral Economics" as if it's a subset. ALL economics is behavioral. It's a social science.

Tyro, I'd enjoy seeing some economists start a restaurant where they do idiosyncratic things like nickel-and-dime everybody and do other stuff that proceeds from an overblown assumption of economic rationality.

I might go there once in a while when I was up for a weird dining experience.

There has been some interesting studies with energy use for renters and have seen that those that pay for utilities use less energy than those with utilities included in rent. Same idea.

What Chris said. Do people overconsume the "free" cloth napkins, "free" clean plates, "free" table and chairs or "free" tap water for which their appetizers, entrees and (most of all) booze markup pay?

And really, what do you have against bread? I love bread. I sometimes remember the bread at a restaurant more than the food. Reducing consumption of restaurant bread does not strike me as having many positive externalities.

Also, are you more likely to ask for more bread at an expensive restaurant or an inexpensive one? Do customers subconsciously perceive that the bread is implicitly added to the food prices and figure at an expensive restaurant that they "might as well get their money's worth" by asking for more bread? Or would they, instead, at an inexpensive restaurant figure that the free bread takes up a larger percentage of the total cost of the bill (since food is cheap but bread may be relatively the same across all restaurants) and figure that having more bread at the inexpensive restaurant represents the better deal?

This reminds me of a column Michael Medved wrote where he figured that other people, like him, kept every single free shampoo bottle and bar of soap offerred in a hotel room and wondered how this wasn't running hotels out of business when they were giving so much stuff away for free.

Eek. I have never seen anything as wrongheaded as comparing usage of utilities to consumption of restaurant bread. It's not the same thing at all.

For an object lesson, compare asian-food restaurants. Some charge for rice, some do not. Substantially all the diners I have seen at the former nevertheless order rice.

Get back to us when you can tell the difference between a $350 heating bill in Minneapolis and a $0.25 slice of artisanal bread.

It's also a collective action problem, if everyone stops eating the bread offered at restaurants entree prices drop because they don't need to cover the marginal costs of bread. If only you stop eating the bread offered at restaurants it's a drop in the bucket, every else still gets to enjoy the "free" bread while you continue to subsidize them without having any bread yourself.

You can't post something telling people they shouldn't fill up on bread right before dinner-time when we're all hungry and irritable. You sound like our mothers.

1. Bread is cheap. The effect of free bread on prices is de minimis.

2. They generally bring the bread while I'm sitting there perusing the menu or shortly after I order. It gives me something to eat while I wait for the food I ordered. If I had to order the bread, it would take longer to arrive and would lower the quality of the experience.

3. If you don't like bread, don't eat it. See also item 1, above.

Wow that is bad experiment design. Of course they'll take a free $10 over paying for a free $13 because they are rational and don't believe people will give away money and so why put money in and have to spend time dealing with looking over the fine print when you can just take the money and run

As a side benefit, we might get better bread if we had to buy it.

On another note, I used to work in an italian restaurant that made little peperoni twists as their free bread. First timers loved it, but the appeal got old after a while. We also had some really primo sliced bread, but the customers (old timers mostly) had to ask for it or be regulars.

So, slightly different question: Anybody experience a two-tiered free bread system at any other restaurants?

Actually, bread of the quality that a restaurant above diner-quality costs quite a bit (more than the lettuce in the once-free-but-no-longer salad used to cost.) Even quality store (and bakery) bread is $3-4 a loaf, plus butter. Someday it will be an appetizer offering as it is in some places now. I'd rather have the bread charged and lower the glass of wine to something more reasonable - but that's me.

Free is never free, even if our faulty-logic brains think it is.

All economic/political assumptions should be challenged periodically. Check out this outstanding interview with Obama published in the NY Times Mag today (probably ahead of the weekend because of the 100 days orgy).

O'man: mean, the truth is that what I’ve been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy.
...

O'man: But part of my job I think is to bridge that gap between the status quo and what we know we have to do for our future.

What I see in these examples is less the overriding imperative of free than the difficulty people have making comparisons of risk and ROI once the risk is non-zero. If you don't think you're going to spend any money, risking seven bucks for another thirteen seems like a bad decision over the no-risk ten.

I'd also expect food to have an economics prioritizing eating food that's already in front of you. It would be interesting to see, for example, whether more people would pay for bread if it was already on their table, with a note reading "We'll charge you for eating this." Or how free bread on request is consumed versus free bread that's summarily brought to the table.

Then again, I'm from Texas, where the official state pastime is eating too many chips with salsa while you wait on your fajitas.

This sort of idiocy is much less harmful in the private sector - any restaurant owner who took this advice would quickly run out of business, but restaurants are a commodity, so who cares? The real problems occur when economists and politicians form their unholy union. Then there are 20 minute traffic jams where 4 lanes of rush-hour traffic try to figure out which toll lanes are open, which ones have e-readers and where the driver left their change.

Shorter Ezra Klein - all of life should be like driving though Delaware.

The point of providing good bread and water to the table as they sit is to welcome them to the restaurant. It's a matter of simple hospitality, one of the few really pleasant customs that have persisted in the modern fancypants food-as-theater dining era.

But let's look at the economics: As someone who has run a restaurant where we baked flatbread to order, I can assure you that bread made in house is trivially cheap. Perhaps 40c for a two top.

In a busy kitchen where the bread is made to order, it might take 5 minutes round-trip if you have to order the bread, and then you're sitting at my table for an extra 5 minutes. So is the table after you, and the one after them. That might keep my staff in the restaurant for an extra 15 minutes, or more.

Even at minimum wage, this is on a par with or more expensive than just giving the bread away for free to begin with.

Since fewer people would order the bread if I charged for it, in order to cover the additional cost, I'm looking at charging maybe $3 for a 40c basket of bread to justify having it at all.

And that's ignoring the effect of being "the place that charges for bread" as Tyro wisely noted.

I agree with Tyro's comment on the avoidance of being the "place that charges for bread." I think this extends to free water too. It's like 1-2 bucks for tea or soda but water is still free for the most part. If they start charging for water...

I would be interested to know whether bread is automatically brought to the table in other countries, or if this practice is more common in the U.S. In the U.S. (in less-than-gourmet restaurants, anyway), the preference seems to be for mediocre food, and lots of it. Since bread contains lots of mass and calories, I think it's used to produce a sense of satiety for Americans used to eating enormous quantities of food. If so, Ezra's strategy for reducing pre-entree bread consumption would result in restaurants serving larger entrees, either at a higher price or using lower-cost raw ingredients.

"That would make ... dining out a bit healthier as people wouldn't overconsume bread."

This may really be the single stupidest thing Ezra has ever written.

-----

Bruni's position that you shouldn't expect free bread at a pizzeria seems quite on target, however.

I haven't read the details of Ariely's gift certificate experience, but the conclusion is suspect for the following reason.

I think it's reasonably uncontroversial to assume that people don't value gift certificates at a $1 to $1 ratio, and for good reason, since you can purchase only the issuing store's stuff with the card, and you might not want their stuff (also, you might lose the card, etc). If people discount the value of the gift card by 33%, then the value of the free $10 certificate drops to $6.66, and the value of the $20 certificate drops to $13.32. Now why would anyone pay $7 to get $13.32 back when they could take the $6.66 for free? But, if you start charging $1 for the $10 certificate, then it makes sense to pay $7 for the $20. I don't think this experience demonstrates bounded rationality at all.

an anecdote to support tyro's point about being "the restaurant that charges for bread" - i have a friend who flat our refuses to patronize one of the mexican restaurants in our town, because they charge for chips and salsa.

it has nothing to do with whether or not the total final bill is justified by the overall quality or satisfaction with the meal. it's all about the chips and salsa - which should be FREE, d&mmit.

to me, it's a weird position to take, but it's out there. that people feel a certain entitlement to their free bread, their free chips & salsa, whatever. even if they're not free.

(like the "free" popcorn in bars that is loaded with salt so you'll be thirsty for more beer...)

True as this may be, it reads as a self-parody.

I think in most cases there was more to the bread thing than "free/not free." In the "free bread" regime, not only was bread free, it was brought to the table automatically (like water used to be in most places -- now you have to ask for your free tap water). So the free bread was not only free, it was free and conveniently available. Thus, there's a double contrast to the "bread not free" regime.

So do a bread 401k nudge thing -- keep bread free, but make people request it. Wonder what happens?

Who wants to turn this into an argument against metered broadband internet?

One question I'm surprised that no one has brought up is how many restaurants would lower the prices of the meals, and how many would simply pocket the difference. Sure, maybe down the road they'd feel flush and invest in a coat of paint the might otherwise not have, but would it be worth reconfiguring their prices down? I'd imagine that would only happen if the local restaurant market has a strong downward pressure on prices.

Cross commenting from the IFA:

I will offer the perspective of someone living in Houston who has eaten at plenty of different Tex-Mex places. Simply put, the way it works there is that restaurants are very much judged by the quality of the free salsa and chips they serve (with refills even!), and they often do take the place of ordering an appetizer. There have been restaurants that do (or did) charge for chips and salsa. Typically, they end up reversing the policy or they simply endure the fact that the first thing people will say about them is that they charge for chips and salsa.

One key takeaway is to note that quality is an issue so a restaurant with free chips and salsa will have an advantage and will get people buying entrees and margaritas.

I can answer Mac's question pretty easily: the number of restaurants that would reduce entree prices after eliminating free bread is so close to zero as to be incalculable. The free bread costs the restaurant about the same amount as washing a load of dishes, or providing your table with two to-go containers with lids and bags.

Also, have you noticed that very few restaurants have prices between X.05 and X.95? Restaurant prices just aren't that sensitive to costs. Many small restauranteurs don't even fully cost their meals when pricing them. (Consider that something on the order of 80% of restaurants survive less than 2 years)

Any restaurant in Texas that doesn't give unlimited free refills of icetea is out of business. A token charge for use of the tankard is OK, but beyond that it better be free.

I just don't think Ezra 'gets' food.

They're his weakest posts.

As far as bread is concerned, I don't think he really understands its role, culturally speaking, in how we eat our meals.

I'm sorry to say this but, it sounds like he's been raised on a diet of Wonder Bread all his life.

I thought the bread was there to distract me from how goddamn long it was taking to get any of the food I actually ordered.

I guess I expect expensive restaurants to provide free and *good* bread, at least if it fits the cuisine. Bread fills time if you're peckish, comes in handy to sop up juices, and complements small, intensely-flavored entrees. Middling and cheap restaurants tend to have bigger portions and more starch so you the need bread less, which in any case is less likely to be good.

In any case, they're making it back on the wine.

You've got this backward, Ezra. Free bread adds cost to everything else on the menu. Thus, those who eat a lot of appetizers and entrees subsidize the bread more than those who eat a little. So currently there is an incentive to order less at a meal, which is a good thing.

I'm not sure I would pay $7 for a $20 gift certificate. What if I don't really need anything that the gift certificate can buy? What if I forget to use it? There's a pressure to spend the $20 since I already shelled out $7. I won't lose anything I didn't already have if I don't use the $10 card.

Our neighborhood restaurateur told me he puts out the free bread so he can reduce the portion sizes of the main dishes.
He would actually raise prices (and increase the portions, I hope, but maybe not) if the "free" bread was removed.

But I love bread:(

France converted from the Franc to the Euro in 1999. Has Amazon really been offering Super Saver shipping for a decade already? I suspect an apocryphal anecdote, Ezra.

I'm late on this...but the purpose of the "free" bread is to fill you up. They want you to eat as much free bread as you can stuff in your mouth. Then the measly portions they serve you later won't seem so bad.

This is even more the point when your establishment is serving bottomless pasta bowls or all you can eat crab legs.

I know you guys are pretty sophisticated foodies and you probably don't eat at Olive Garden much.

That would make everything else on the menu cheaper

I am astonished that Ezra actually believes this. Of course no restaurant is going to lower prices after starting to charge for bread.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that in Europe, it's fairly common to charge for bread. In a lot of touristy places in Italy, they actually bring bread to your table, and charge you money if you eat it, which is pretty ridiculous and wasteful. Anyway, one of the shittier things about Europe, in my opinion.

Here's something I was thinking about... let's put aside, for the moment, the effect of bad word of mouth that would get around over a restaurant that charged for bread.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the restauraunt with free bread with the entree charges as much as the other restaurant for the bread and entree combined. Thus, X = Y + Z, with X being free bread entree, Y being entree without bread, and Z being bread.

Presuming, just for the sake of argument, that they sell the same number of entrees during a given month, and also presuming that the bread is sold at a profit, then you'd have to always sell just as much bread as you sold entrees to make as much money as the place that gives it away free. And I think it's reasonable to assume that the place that charges for bread will not (if nothing else, some people will just not be in the mood for it).

When you combine that with the point multiple people have made about bad word of mouth about restaraunts that charge for the bread, you'll see that market pressures encourage restaurants to provide bread free. As an issue of public health, I can see the logic behind what you're advocating. But I think restaurants will look at the economics first every time.

There are a couple of restaurants I go to regularly that do not offer free bread. Their entrees are not noticeably cheaper than anyone else.

Free bread is more than just bread. It is a way of saying "Thanks for choosing us."

If only you stop eating the bread offered at restaurants it's a drop in the bucket, every else still gets to enjoy the "free" bread while you continue to subsidize them without having any bread yourself.

I don't think it works that way at all. If a restaurant puts a basket of bread on the table, wouldn't most health codes in the US require that they discard what's left when I'm done, whether I've taken none of it or half? And the same with a crock of butter (although not those horrible little foil-wrapped pats)? The restaurant would be spending as much on bread service for non-bread-eating customers as for the ones eating the bread. (I've never worked in the restaurant business, so I could be way off here.)

France converted from the Franc to the Euro in 1999.

The euro became a circulating currency only on January 1, 2002.

I don't totally agree with the premise here, but I have ruined many beautiful dinners.
When served excellent bread (with butter, olive oil and balsamic), I usually gorged on it so that when the main course finally arrived, I wasn't hungry at all!

Since when is bread unhealthy?

Since always. You're welcome.

http://www.watchrolexshop.com

風俗
デリヘル
風俗
デリヘル 風俗
エロゲー
ソープランド
吉原 ソープランド
出会い
出会い
デリヘル
すすきの ソープランド
新宿 ソープランド
千葉 ソープランド
埼玉 ソープランド
神奈川 ソープランド
吉原 ソープランド
sod
バイブ
風俗求人 高収入
都内 キャバクラ 全額日払い
無料動画
大阪 風俗
大阪 風俗
神戸 風俗
裏DVD
裏DVD
風俗 求人
風俗 求人
デリヘル 新宿
デリヘル 東京
千代田区 デリヘル
台東区 デリヘル
墨田区 デリヘル
中央区 デリヘル

And for all you out there who claim that bread is a marginal cost, talk to someone who actually runs/owns a restaurant and you will see that all the "free" bread can actually run up a pretty hefty bill. Our restaurant alone last year spent 30k on rolls!

hehe

hehe