Charging differently based on time or access only works if the underlying economics are solid. Dynamic pricing can smooth demand, but it doesn’t fix a weak cost structure.
If peak pricing subsidises slow periods without improving contribution per cover or labour efficiency, you’re just shifting pressure around.
The real question isn’t “will guests accept it?”
It’s “does it stabilise revenue per seat hour and protect margin consistently?”
Innovation is powerful, but only when the maths holds underneath it.
> Once you’re charging for time, the restaurant does have some incentive to slow-walk dinner.
Use a chess clock! Server hits it when they drop off menus, table hits it when they’re ready to order, server hits it again when they drop off food, etc
I love this idea and wish restaurants would use this model more often. I get a lot of anxiety around knowing the end of the meal means looking around at waiters and the prospective guests lining up at call. Two questions:
1. How would restaurants deal with "squatters"? As in, folks who were happy to pay the seat fee but didn't order much.
2. I don't always know how long I want to be at a restaurant, especially if it's one I haven't been to before. Or if I was on a date, I wouldn't want to book the seats for 4 hours and then want to leave after 2, or vice versa. And if you're a regular at a place, you probably don't feel as much pressure to vacate. So how much of this system actually works as well for consumers as it does for businesses?
1. In part, restaurants have to deal with squatters anyway; there's no real mechanism to stop someone from stretching out their visit today. At least with a seat fee, you have a floor on what they order. That said, maybe you could have ramping fees that start ticking up after the second hour or when there's a long wait?
2. It really depends on the vibe you're going for. Customers really benefit when their goal is to order a lot; it's essentially a discount on bulk ordering compared to a standard restaurant. If your goal is to have a glass of wine and go, this is mostly surplus for the restaurants. If you're trying to really indulge yourself, this is probably a better balance in who's getting value
I like the concept, how will it interact with the takeout market? I assume some amount of restaurant revenue comes from takeout, and that by drastically lowering the price of food, it would take a dent out of that revenue source. I suppose it would be possible to simply not offer takeout if the economics of the table rental make that work (and incentivize dining at the restaurant).
Like seemingly all good economic ideas, David Friedman was early on it: https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/restaurant-puzzle
There are no dumb ideas, but sometimes there are also no new ideas 😅
Also lol you just reinvented Korean restaurants.
I think it would work for a restaurant like Casa Bonita where the environment is a large part of the value.
Interesting concept.
Charging differently based on time or access only works if the underlying economics are solid. Dynamic pricing can smooth demand, but it doesn’t fix a weak cost structure.
If peak pricing subsidises slow periods without improving contribution per cover or labour efficiency, you’re just shifting pressure around.
The real question isn’t “will guests accept it?”
It’s “does it stabilise revenue per seat hour and protect margin consistently?”
Innovation is powerful, but only when the maths holds underneath it.
> Once you’re charging for time, the restaurant does have some incentive to slow-walk dinner.
Use a chess clock! Server hits it when they drop off menus, table hits it when they’re ready to order, server hits it again when they drop off food, etc
Love the slightly competitive feeling this brings to the restaurant too - it'd be super satisfying to hit the clock the second you finish your food
I love reading this Substack, always new innovative ideas.
I love this idea and wish restaurants would use this model more often. I get a lot of anxiety around knowing the end of the meal means looking around at waiters and the prospective guests lining up at call. Two questions:
1. How would restaurants deal with "squatters"? As in, folks who were happy to pay the seat fee but didn't order much.
2. I don't always know how long I want to be at a restaurant, especially if it's one I haven't been to before. Or if I was on a date, I wouldn't want to book the seats for 4 hours and then want to leave after 2, or vice versa. And if you're a regular at a place, you probably don't feel as much pressure to vacate. So how much of this system actually works as well for consumers as it does for businesses?
Love these questions:
1. In part, restaurants have to deal with squatters anyway; there's no real mechanism to stop someone from stretching out their visit today. At least with a seat fee, you have a floor on what they order. That said, maybe you could have ramping fees that start ticking up after the second hour or when there's a long wait?
2. It really depends on the vibe you're going for. Customers really benefit when their goal is to order a lot; it's essentially a discount on bulk ordering compared to a standard restaurant. If your goal is to have a glass of wine and go, this is mostly surplus for the restaurants. If you're trying to really indulge yourself, this is probably a better balance in who's getting value
I like the concept, how will it interact with the takeout market? I assume some amount of restaurant revenue comes from takeout, and that by drastically lowering the price of food, it would take a dent out of that revenue source. I suppose it would be possible to simply not offer takeout if the economics of the table rental make that work (and incentivize dining at the restaurant).
Isn’t this just distributing costs from drinkers back onto everyone else?