To return to "cover charges."

I don't know about dull old Rome, but in Venice many restaurants have
signs -- quite noticeable -- in the windows that say "No Cover Charge" (
always in English-- which says something, I suppose). If such a sign is not
prominent, you can assume a cover.
The plaints about such charges are unfounded A restaurant wants to make a
profit -- to do so means that they have to cover costs first. If they don't
charge a cover, they will charge more for food. One way or another, the
customer pays about the same. (True in any country).
rjf

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:07:31 GMT, Bob Fusillo wrote:

I don't know about dull old Rome, but in Venice many restaurants have
signs -- quite noticeable -- in the windows that say "No Cover Charge" (
always in English-- which says something, I suppose). If such a sign is not
prominent, you can assume a cover.
The plaints about such charges are unfounded A restaurant wants to make a
profit -- to do so means that they have to cover costs first. If they don't
charge a cover, they will charge more for food. One way or another, the
customer pays about the same. (True in any country).
rjf

True, and I agree with you there. My only beef is when they *don't* display
it prominently - especially on the menu list outside. Very often the sign
is in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a
sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".

--
Tim C.

"Bob Fusillo" wrote in message news:TmC3d.16918$wV.5725@attbi_s54...
I don't know about dull old Rome, but in Venice many restaurants have
signs -- quite noticeable -- in the windows that say "No Cover Charge" (
always in English-- which says something, I suppose). If such a sign is not
prominent, you can assume a cover.
The plaints about such charges are unfounded A restaurant wants to make a
profit -- to do so means that they have to cover costs first. If they don't
charge a cover, they will charge more for food. One way or another, the
customer pays about the same. (True in any country).
rjf

You could run a restaurant where you are charged for everything.
A table charge, a chair charge, untensiles, lighting, service,
food, drink, etc. But it does make comparisons before the fact
more difficult. This guy charges more for chairs but the other
guy charges more for water. The flip side is that they could just
charge you a flat rate and you could order anything you want.
Some cover charges are there to prevent "abuse". 6 folks order four
meals and eat a tremendous amount of bread. Some are there to mask
the total cost of a meal. My general impression is that cover
charges, especially ones not clearly expressed, are there to mask
the total cost of the meals and make comparison difficult. There
are exceptions of course and when done fairly, it can to some extent
work in the customers favor, especially when they plan on ordering
a fairly large number of dishes.

"Bob Fusillo" wrote in message news:TmC3d.16918$wV.5725@attbi_s54...
I don't know about dull old Rome, but in Venice many restaurants have
signs -- quite noticeable -- in the windows that say "No Cover Charge" (
always in English-- which says something, I suppose). If such a sign is not
prominent, you can assume a cover.
The plaints about such charges are unfounded A restaurant wants to make a
profit -- to do so means that they have to cover costs first. If they don't
charge a cover, they will charge more for food. One way or another, the
customer pays about the same. (True in any country).
rjf

You could run a restaurant where you are charged for everything.
A table charge, a chair charge, untensiles, lighting, service,
food, drink, etc. But it does make comparisons before the fact
more difficult. This guy charges more for chairs but the other
guy charges more for water. The flip side is that they could just
charge you a flat rate and you could order anything you want.
Some cover charges are there to prevent "abuse". 6 folks order four
meals and eat a tremendous amount of bread. Some are there to mask
the total cost of a meal. My general impression is that cover
charges, especially ones not clearly expressed, are there to mask
the total cost of the meals and make comparison difficult. There
are exceptions of course and when done fairly, it can to some extent
work in the customers favor, especially when they plan on ordering
a fairly large number of dishes.

"me" wrote in message
You could run a restaurant where you are charged for everything.
A table charge, a chair charge, untensiles, lighting, service,
food, drink, etc.

In a real sense, that's what a cover does. It stems from a period in which
"three course ( or whatever) dinners" were not the norm. People came in and
ordered a la carte. The cover went toward the costs of sitting the
customer -- tablecloth, napkins, silverware, and all those other expenses.
Then if the customer ordered just coffee or a bowl of soup, the restaurant
was covered.
It's the same now. If you order the "tourist" menu, most places include the
cover. If you order a la carte, they add it. I often go to the rather nice
restaurant downstairs and have nothing but a bowl of pasta: they don't make
much on that, but I get a clean napkin, silverware, tablecloth, and a table
and chair ( therefore excluding other customers). The cover covers it.
rjf

"me" wrote in message
You could run a restaurant where you are charged for everything.
A table charge, a chair charge, untensiles, lighting, service,
food, drink, etc.

In a real sense, that's what a cover does. It stems from a period in which
"three course ( or whatever) dinners" were not the norm. People came in and
ordered a la carte. The cover went toward the costs of sitting the
customer -- tablecloth, napkins, silverware, and all those other expenses.
Then if the customer ordered just coffee or a bowl of soup, the restaurant
was covered.
It's the same now. If you order the "tourist" menu, most places include the
cover. If you order a la carte, they add it. I often go to the rather nice
restaurant downstairs and have nothing but a bowl of pasta: they don't make
much on that, but I get a clean napkin, silverware, tablecloth, and a table
and chair ( therefore excluding other customers). The cover covers it.
rjf

"Bob Fusillo" wrote in message news:HgW3d.20969$wV.13891@attbi_s54...
"me" wrote in message
You could run a restaurant where you are charged for everything.
A table charge, a chair charge, untensiles, lighting, service,
food, drink, etc.

In a real sense, that's what a cover does. It stems from a period in which
"three course ( or whatever) dinners" were not the norm. People came in and
ordered a la carte. The cover went toward the costs of sitting the
customer -- tablecloth, napkins, silverware, and all those other expenses.
Then if the customer ordered just coffee or a bowl of soup, the restaurant
was covered.

I can be that, and to some extent it was inspired by that. But I've
seen it's implimentation such that the primary purpose appeared to be
to avoid revealing the real cost of dining.

I've seen "minimum order" kinda approach too, which is probably more
to the point. A seat, a table, is expected to bring in at least a
minimum amount of cash flow. A guy just ordering pasta or a cup of
coffee isn't getting there.

I stumbled over a variation recently. Area of intense competition
between closely spaced restaurants. I noticed that they all had
tourist menues (fixed price, whatever) in the 25 euro range.
Menus were fairly similar as well. Then I started asking for
wine lists. One place had the "house wine" starting at 30 euro,
another at 12. The dinners they advertise, the wine ya gotta ask about.

"Bob Fusillo" wrote in message news:HgW3d.20969$wV.13891@attbi_s54...
"me" wrote in message
You could run a restaurant where you are charged for everything.
A table charge, a chair charge, untensiles, lighting, service,
food, drink, etc.

In a real sense, that's what a cover does. It stems from a period in which
"three course ( or whatever) dinners" were not the norm. People came in and
ordered a la carte. The cover went toward the costs of sitting the
customer -- tablecloth, napkins, silverware, and all those other expenses.
Then if the customer ordered just coffee or a bowl of soup, the restaurant
was covered.

I can be that, and to some extent it was inspired by that. But I've
seen it's implimentation such that the primary purpose appeared to be
to avoid revealing the real cost of dining.

I've seen "minimum order" kinda approach too, which is probably more
to the point. A seat, a table, is expected to bring in at least a
minimum amount of cash flow. A guy just ordering pasta or a cup of
coffee isn't getting there.

I stumbled over a variation recently. Area of intense competition
between closely spaced restaurants. I noticed that they all had
tourist menues (fixed price, whatever) in the 25 euro range.
Menus were fairly similar as well. Then I started asking for
wine lists. One place had the "house wine" starting at 30 euro,
another at 12. The dinners they advertise, the wine ya gotta ask about.

On 21 Sep 2004 04:46:19 -0700, me wrote:

The flip side is that they could just
charge you a flat rate and you could order anything you want.

And of course some place do just that.
--
Tim C.

me wrote:
I've seen "minimum order" kinda approach too, which is probably more
to the point. A seat, a table, is expected to bring in at least a
minimum amount of cash flow.

When local restaurateurs refused to engage in reasonable negotiations
with their employees, we engaged in Saul Alinsky-inspired action:

The union made reservations for us in a variety of names. We showed
up at the scheduled times, appropriately dressed for the venue, and
ordered just enough to meet the minimum.

After two hours of pleasant conversation with strangers, we stood and
sang "Solidarity Forever". We paid our bills and gave enormous tips
to the employees. The employers were quick to get the point.
__________________________________________________ __________
Un San Francisqueño en San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net