I’m curious about the Lutefisk, or the dry aged fish they have.
I’d say don’t go there if it bothers you so. Or report the illegal behavior, as it is clearly discriminatory.
Hmmm I guess that clarifies it somewhat. I’m not very sympathetic to any parties here. I would have left, letting the venue ‘lose’ a table turn, while penning a cruel yet funny Yelp review for good measure. If the venue needed more, the clean ways, as mentioned above are cover charges or prixe fixe offerings, which could easily be turned into something that forces people to buy their wine. Not sure its a long run victory strategy for any venue, though. Thai food in my area is mostly just cheap takeout, so not something I could even envision at a high pricepoint.
How can they require 2 bottles to be purchased if, let’s say, one or two people arrive? It’s one of those restaurants that has a ‘wine shop’ inside or something?
Perhaps something like a well-disclosed “Covid surcharge” equal to 2x the cheapest bottle on their list, that gets you your two hour table and also gets you a beverage credit (alcoholic or non-) equal to the amount of the Covid surcharge.
To make it legal instead of religious, what if the table is four 19-year-olds? They’re not going to force them to purchase wine…
“Due to Covid restrictions we are only able to seat four tables at a time. Given the economics of our business, we cannot operate on such a low volume of in-person dining without guaranteeing a certain minimum revenue from each table. As such, we must impose a 2 hour maximum dining time on all reservations and an $85 per table Covid surcharge. In-person diners will also receive $85 per table in beverage credit that can be applied to any of the delightful wines on our carefully-chosen list, or to any of our other beverage options, including soft drinks. We look forward to being able to re-open at full capacity soon, and eliminating this surcharge. As a reminder, we also offer carry-out dining without the Covid surcharge for those who prefer.”
As an example…
2 Likes
A local brewery has been requiring a minimum purchase. They let you reserve a time in the beer garden up to a certain duration (eg, 2 hours), you can invite up to 6 people, but then you must purchase a certain dollar amount of beer. It can be a whole bunch of cheap beers, or a few expensive beers, or apply it to carry-out/package goods. But yes, to help keep them afloat with reduced capacity, they’re squeezing a minimum out of people.
Forgot Mormons
1 Like
The Berserker revenge policy, all that complaining about subsidizing non drinkers finally paid off.
2 Likes
So a group of 4 on Prom eat there. As mentioned multiple times people who don’t drink and also liability for DWI’s. I would just get up and leave. Can’t believe I have ever heard of this before in my life.
1 Like
That puts a (very) slightly different twist on it and maybe skates around liquor control legislation/ regulation.
Still, it’s a very odd marketing strategy. If the food is that good* why not just (a) increase food prices and (b) have a minimum charge (that you can fulfill however you like).
- I’ve never had dry aged fish, has anyone else!
$85 of coke??
Why not just have a minimum charge, full stop?
Rechabites?
You don’t HAVE to spend it, it’s just available to spend. In case you can only drink so much ginger ale…
A minimum check per table might work, but I assume they want to steer it toward beverage because their margin there is higher and their existing inventory is sunk cost.
A lower table fee that is just a fee would also work, but I suspect an $85 fee that can be applied to wine is more appealing to the diners than a $50 fee that can’t be applied to anything.
But a mandatory wine purchase, especially based on quantity and not price, just seems like a terrible idea. In addition to all the reasons already mentioned, imagine defending them in a dram shop claim if a buzzed diner caused an accident on the way home…
as predicted, OP clearly just wanted to complain without actually giving details. you literally cannot make a reservation without seeing this.
“Or to take home” certainly helps with the dram-shop issue. Not so much with the religious/medical issue, the underage patron issue, or the issue of plain old illegality if in fact requiring an alcohol purchase is in fact illegal in that jurisdiction.
Can’t miss the two bottle requirement when you make a reservation. You can’t do walk ins so you’d have to see the requirement if you booked it. If it’s legal I have no clue.
I do think it should be a beverage fee instead of wine purchase. Would your opinion change if that was the case?
Caveat - they are friends. Also they use our caviar.
I love the place. It’s one of the most innovative restaurants in LA right now. They only seat 8 parties a night - three nights a week. They do a Thai omakase for one table a night that’s mind blowing.
I partnered with them and raised $10,000 in one night for the stop Asian hate initiative. (More than a few berserkers came to support)
On Tuesdays they do a casual taco Tuesday menu with guest chefs with no wine requirement.
Welcome to the internet! You’re gonna like it here!
Here’s an article from August that mentions the two bottle minimum: 20 brand new restaurant patios to try in Los Angeles
There’s no conspiracy here or need for attention, but of course, you have it all figured out. Our friends made the reservation and sincerely missed the message. The policy is illegal and we were shocked when confronted with it. They clearly didn’t think this through. I feel bad for family run businesses that have suffered horribly through this pandemic. But they are doing something illegal and possibly putting themselves at risk for lawsuits. Is it really that difficult for a business to update their site accurately? The two wine lists on the site are worlds apart.
I would have walked out. Often, like now, I’m on call and can’t drink. Or have surgery the next day and won’t. No way I’d go somewhere that requires such a purchase.
3 Likes