Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 272 posts

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#111

Post by hansvm »

asdkhadsj wrote: post #97
jasoneckert wrote: post #68

I stopped going to all-you-can-eat buffets years ago for the simple reason that you don't stop eating when you're full - you stop eating when you hate yourself. If the number of all-you-can-eat buffets drops, it's likely because society is starting to advocate healthier lifestyles in my opinion.

Hell, I struggle with even normal restaurants. I like going out, my wife and I can afford it, but I feel like I'm going out for the freshly, crispy yummy food.. and yet, I always end up taking half of it home because they hand me a massive plate. I'm thinking next time we go out we'll try and get the same thing and split a plate. .. and then tip as if we ordered 2 plates because I feel guilty to the server. Hah.

Haha, that's the strategy my wife and I use. If we know we want separate plates we'll just not eat earlier and/or bring a box home. Some of the portion sizes are literally more than a day's worth of food.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#112

Post by danans »

learc83 wrote: post #80
mxcrossb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the average margin might be misleading. After all, most restaurants fail pretty quickly. That number could be skewed by the unsuccessful businesses. But I think it’s an interesting point. Why fight all day long for a 5% margin when you could put your money in index funds?

Because a 5% margin doesn't translate to a 5% annual return on investment. Also at many small restaurants the owner and the owner's family is also working full time, and that 5% margin doesn't include their salaries.

> that 5% margin doesn't include their salaries.

This is something that often seems lost in this discussion.

The profit margin is usually after the owners themselves have taken a salary. If they are paying for themselves appropriately, and the margin is 0%, this is often described as "making no money".

What's making no money here is the business as an entity, not the owner, despite the frequent rhetorical conflation of the two.

Payout of positive margins, if they exist, are often classified as "profit sharing" in the simplest of businesses, like sole proprietorships. In more complex large businesses, they become dividends or employee bonuses.

Most people can't afford to pay themselves nothing while running a business.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#113

Post by noisem4ker »

wtmt wrote: post #20
learnstats2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unclear to me why buffets would be more wasteful than other restaurants, particularly in climate change terms. There's some contradiction in what you've said about minimising waste and demanding fresh foods. If we stick to only the freshest foods, then we waste a lot more. Surely being able to serve in quantity creates positive economies of scale.

In my observation, buffet customers tend to attempt to eat a lot more by filling their plates with a lot more than they can handle. This is because they’ve already paid for it and believe that eating more is the way to get more value for money. Once they’re in the middle of the meal, they realize that they cannot finish it and that gets wasted. With a la carte, you’d at least have the option of taking the leftovers h…

Some places have a nominal "no leftovers" policy. I'm not sure if and how they enforce it, but the idea is that if there's something significant left on your plate, you should take it with you as you leave paying as if it were something you ordered from the menu.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#114

Post by derefr »

One nice thing about buffets—all-you-can-eat or not—is that, if you want, you can eat small portions of a wide variety of things, rather than large portions of a small number of dishes.

The economics of a buffet are the only reason this is really possible; it’s not like you could place an order for e.g. “five breaded shrimp, three grams of braised pork, two wontons’ worth of wonton soup, ...” from a Chinese restaurant. You could only order each of these in larger amounts, because there are fixed costs to making a dish.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#115

Post by Broken_Hippo »

bluedino wrote: post #103
astura wrote: post #57

>The big buffet chains that once dotted the Midwest have been hit the hardest: Old Country Buffet is down to 17 of its 350 original locations; HomeTown Buffet has closed 217 of its 250 eateries; Ryan’s Buffet has downsized from 400 to 16. I am not surprised. I went to an Old Country Buffet about two decades ago during the time I was working in a hospital kitchen. I recognized a lot of their dishes from work, they wer…

Golden Corral has moved up to the midwest.

They've been there for some years (at least 10-15 in Indiana) - I lived there, though I think it has been at least 10 years since I've been there. I remember being somewhat disappointed the last few times and it was generally difficult to get beverage refills often enough. I'm not sure they are "quality".

The best I've had was an Indian buffet in Indiana and a hotel's breakfast buffet in Amsterdam. I woke up to eat breakfast there.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#117

Post by rsync »

Jommi wrote: post #56

I'm still at awe of the Sushi Buffet thing that you can see all around in Helsinki, Finland. So far I have not seen anything like it, anywhere else in the world. Usually the price you pay is 10€ for an unrestricted and no time limit access to eating sushi. And the sushi is incredibly okay! It's nothing compared to stuff you find Tokyo ofcourse, but the price for quality is literally unbeatable. And all this is happen…

"What am I missing?"

I have been to a few all-you-can-eat sushi restaurants and the catch at all of them was: it is only Nigiri (not sashimi) and you have to eat the rice.

I can't remember if they simply refused additional servings until the rice was gone or if they charged a la carte for un-eaten rice portions, but one way or another, the goal was you had to fill up on rice ...

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#118

Post by mmhsieh »

mxcrossb wrote: post #64
katzgrau wrote: post #16

The only thing I found more interesting than all-you-can-eat buffets actually turning a profit is that there are business people who are apparently content running a business with such slim margins. This article quotes a 5% margin. I know food industry margins are low in the first place, but as a business owner in a different field I'm left wondering why anyone would even bother. The same business prowess and attenti…

I think the average margin might be misleading. After all, most restaurants fail pretty quickly. That number could be skewed by the unsuccessful businesses. But I think it’s an interesting point. Why fight all day long for a 5% margin when you could put your money in index funds?

the index fund can have a losing year, but you have better control and visibility of risks when you are running the business.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#119

Post by Reedx »

asdkhadsj wrote: post #97
jasoneckert wrote: post #68

I stopped going to all-you-can-eat buffets years ago for the simple reason that you don't stop eating when you're full - you stop eating when you hate yourself. If the number of all-you-can-eat buffets drops, it's likely because society is starting to advocate healthier lifestyles in my opinion.

Hell, I struggle with even normal restaurants. I like going out, my wife and I can afford it, but I feel like I'm going out for the freshly, crispy yummy food.. and yet, I always end up taking half of it home because they hand me a massive plate. I'm thinking next time we go out we'll try and get the same thing and split a plate. .. and then tip as if we ordered 2 plates because I feel guilty to the server. Hah.

Can recommend, it works well. We use that strategy a lot, and pass the savings to the server.

The portion sizes at many restaurants is just ridiculous and results in a massive waste of food and an unhealthier population.

Reduce the portions, reduce the cost, reduce the waste, reduce negative health consequences.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#120

Post by MisterTea »

derefr wrote: post #114

One nice thing about buffets—all-you-can-eat or not—is that, if you want, you can eat small portions of a wide variety of things, rather than large portions of a small number of dishes. The economics of a buffet are the only reason this is really possible; it’s not like you could place an order for e.g. “five breaded shrimp, three grams of braised pork, two wontons’ worth of wonton soup, ...” from a Chinese restauran…

Agreed. A friend recently had his 40th at a nice Thai restaurant and had a buffet instead of individual orders. More expensive but there was something for everyone and I got to sample everything.

The local casino/racetrack also had a really nice all you can eat that I'd go to with friends and family just to have dinner. The variety was amazing with Asian, seafood, meats, Italian, Indian, etc. But it didn't turn a profit and closed within a few years. They had the crowds but the cost of food + the number of employees needed to serve it all was immense vs making a few grand a day from a few hundred people. Shame because I loved that buffet.

I used to enjoy the local Chinese all you can eat buffets but the quality became subpar. I visited one not far from me that I haven't been to in a good two decades and I was astonished to see the interior was exactly the same 90's chain restaurant decor down to the worn red plastic "glasses". It felt grimy and dirty and they were clearly not turning a good profit as their awning was tattered in places. It closed down last year.

Post reply on HN