The Solo Diner Dilemma: the Ethics of Restaurants Charging Double
As someone who has been dining out up to 7 times a week, in both a professional capacity, and for my own pleasure, for over 40 years, I have been disturbed by recent reports of restaurants, largely those at the upper end of the quality and price scale, shifting to a contentious position of penalising single diners by charging them as if they were a table for two.
The argument of lost revenue is a spurious one at best. In recent months I, as a single diner, have spent in the region of £5,000 eating out. On principle, this is revenue that would be lost to the places I choose to frequent if they were to invoke such a rule.
Dining out is an experience that has evolved over many centuries to cater to various preferences and lifestyles, from communal tables to private booths. This current trend raises questions about the ethics, fairness, and underlying motivations of such pricing strategies.
From a business standpoint, the practice of charging single diners double may seem rooted in basic economics. Restaurants often base their prices on a variety of factors, including food and beverage costs, labour, overheads, and desired profit margins. When a single diner occupies a table that could otherwise seat multiple customers, restaurants may feel justified in charging more to offset potential lost revenue. This concept is especially prevalent in establishments that emphasise group dining or cater to larger parties.
I would argue that this approach oversimplifies the situation. The true cost of a meal doesn't necessarily correlate directly to the number of diners at a table. Other factors, such as the type of cuisine, quality of service, and overall dining experience, play a significant role in determining the value a customer receives. For me, charging single diners double appears to be an arbitrary penalty, with the potential to alienate a valuable customer demographic and creating an unfavourable perception of the restaurant.
The proposed practice also raises ethical concerns in relation to fairness and discrimination. Restaurants are meant to be inclusive spaces where patrons can enjoy a meal without experiencing bias or prejudice. Charging one group of customers more based solely on their dining companionship could be seen as discriminatory, targeting a specific demographic without legitimate justification.
I believe that restaurants have a responsibility to create a welcoming environment for its patrons, regardless of their party size.
Modern lifestyles often lead to an increase in solo dining due to factors such as work commitments, travel, and changing family structures. As society evolves, restaurants should adapt to accommodate these changes rather than imposing penalties on those who dine alone.
There is also a cultural consideration here. In some cultures, communal dining is a deeply ingrained tradition, whereas in others, individual dining is more common. Of course, individual establishments will want to target and appeal to what they see as their core market, but in doing so they are limiting the possibilities to appeal to a wider audience. This is particularly relevant at the moment when in a struggling economy the aim must surely to be encourage patronage, not alienation.
Promoting a culture of acceptance and appreciation for solo diners can lead to positive word-of-mouth, increased patronage, and a reputation for being a welcoming establishment. This approach not only aligns with ethical principles but also positions the restaurant as a leader in accommodating diverse dining preferences.
Rather than penalise single diners, restaurants should be willing to explore alternative strategies to maintain their revenue while promoting inclusivity and fairness. Some establishments offer smaller portion sizes, prix fixe menus for solo diners at a reduced cost, make available bar space, or provide communal tables. By adopting creative alternatives and rethinking their pricing strategies, restaurants can balance their economic interests with the ethical imperative to treat all customers with fairness and respect.
In my own case, I would argue that the cost of me dining alone is not in fact double; less food has to be prepared for starters (forgive the pun). My gut feeling is that we should boycott such restaurants, but should I find myself in the unenviable position of dining alone at double the cost, know what I would do? Order the second meal and insist on taking it home in a doggy bag!
.jpg)
