Lazy Lifestyle ‘Reporting’ Doesn’t Help An Already Struggling Restaurant Industry

The restaurant industry has been on a rough ride for the past few years. And the current administration's policies are exacerbating the issues. Tariffs, the immigration war being waged, and the country’s fall from favor as an international travel destination are all wreaking havoc on the industry, not to mention the plummeting level of consumer confidence across the country, which is hitting the top line and bottom line of hospitality spaces. 

Restaurants in response have been throwing away the traditional playbook and thinking outside the box — getting creative, and leaning into technology to save their businesses.  

Which makes a recent article published in the Infatuation, “Restaurants Used to Be Fun,” pretty disappointing. In it, the writer takes umbrage with the ways in which some restaurants are trying to be more efficient and streamline the dining experience. While it’s understandable that most people don’t know the realities of running a restaurant right now, the operator’s perspective is critically absent from this piece. I would hope that someone writing and reporting about restaurants — which can have lasting effects and damaging consequences depending on the piece — would at least try to figure out why things are the way that they are. Unfortunately that wasn’t done here. 

So I’m going to do what the author should have done, and break down why these restaurants do what they do, which is more likely for operational or financial purposes and not because they’re trying to ruin “the cultural experience of going out to eat.” 

Pitt’s in Brooklyn, N.Y. has a quirky, kitschy vibe that permeates everything from the decor to the food. This is all intentional and thoughtfully planned. Some of the staff wear headsets, which the writer is bothered by:

“As far as we can tell, the headsets are primarily used when a table orders a pancake soufflé so the chef can fire it immediately, shaving a few minutes or so off the prep time (and the time before they can flip the table).” 

According to Pitt’s chef and owner Jeremy Salamon, team members wear headsets — and it’s just the host and the busser, to be exact — not to speed up the table time (which is two hours for a two-top compared to 90 minutes at most places), but to optimize when the popular pancake soufflé comes out. For those that don’t know, soufflés are challenging to execute properly and take 40 minutes to cook. At Pitt’s, the server “fires” the soufflé, which must be ordered at the start of your meal, when the entrees hit the table. Runners are given a 10 minute heads up for when the soufflé will be ready, so if a table isn’t quite ready for their dessert, the soufflé being prepared may need to go to another table. Due to the distance of the bakery to the dining room floor, the quickest way to report this is via — you guessed it — a headset. If this sounds like a lot for a soufflé, maybe it is. But all of this is to ensure the guest experience is fluid and timed properly. 

Unfortunately we never hear about the food or the service from the writer, only the kitsch of the place, an obvious dislike of the headsets, and the idea that they’re pushing table turns. But Pitt’s offers something different from the majority of cookie cutter restaurants out there, so it’s a real shame that this article might be readers’ only impression of it. 

At Philadelphia’s Sampan, the writer criticizes that “diners are required to provide a credit card directly after ordering, presumably to expedite the check-out process and safeguard against dine-and-dashers.” 

This approach addresses a common complaint in sit-down restaurants: the lengthy process of closing out checks. It’s enough of a problem that large tech players and top tier hospitality operators like Danny Meyer are all in a race to develop checkless payment technology.

It’s also very possible that Sampan has had issues with dine-and-dashers — that still happens to this day. Oftentimes a system like this is set up in response to a rash of walk-outs. A little empathy and understanding would go a long way.  

It’s a pretty standard practice at bars to start a tab and put down a card, primarily because there is a historical precedent nationally for people walking out on their tabs at bars. Does this make bars less fun? If a restaurant has that problem, what is the issue with them taking the same precautions?

While I think time limits are vital, it’s true that not all establishments execute and communicate them the right way, so let's talk about why they are there.

Restaurants need to turn tables to survive. Turn times are usually less stringently adhered to on slower weekdays, and if the place is mellow, chances are they won’t be enforced at all. But on busy nights, generally the weekends, restaurants need to turn tables — this is how they make money to stay in business. According to recent data, consumers are dining on weekends even more than they have been the past few years, and that weekday traffic is down across the board, making weekend traffic not just important but vital. Having worked in hospitality at all types of establishments over the past 30 years, I can tell you that sometimes guests need to be reminded of the time limit, not everyone gets the point. 

But the one thing restaurants fear most on a busy night is the dreaded camper. Ask any restaurateur and they all have stories about guests who will have a two hour meal, finish everything leisurely, and then sit for another two hours ordering nothing but water. That’s lost revenue for the restaurant, from another customer who may not have been able to dine, or even worse, have the seating time for their reservation pushed, so now we have lost revenue and an unhappy guest, because someone overstayed their welcome.  

So while “dining against the clock” isn’t always the most pleasant, especially if you’re being constantly reminded of it, it’s a practice that’s in place for a reason that didn’t necessarily exist in the past. I’ve had very poor experiences with being pushed out myself, and I don’t love it. But I would say it’s the exception, not the rule. 

You go to a couple of restaurants that have robots and hear about a few others that have them and now waiters are obsolete? Seriously? For the foreseeable future waiters will still be around. Sure, their presence might change and labor policies across the states will force adaptation to different service models. But they aren’t going to be replaced by robots. People crave human interaction, especially after years of limited socializing, not to mention to the fact that many of the robots out there are cost-prohibitive, making it unlikely that the majority of service at sit down restaurants will be dominated by robots any time soon.

These types of establishments are few and far between. People choose to dine at them for the novelty they offer. If it's not to your liking, that’s fine, there's no obligation to go. But to claim they're destroying the restaurant experience is a bit of a reach. 

Contacting a restaurant is the one area I find some common ground with the writer. I don’t love AI voice chatbots for restaurants, I really want to talk to a human. Humans are flexible and often willing to move things around to make something happen for a guest or potential guest. That being said, I’ve spoken with operators over the past year who have needed to move to AI voice bots because hiring for the position has proven an insurmountable challenge. 

As per no phone at all, it’s a lost touch point with a guest. In this tech heavy world where everything is on apps and at everyone's fingertips, calling is a rarity. But when guests do call, it’s because they want to come in. Most people will just look for online reservations and maybe waitlist themselves on the reservation platform. But a person who calls really wants to dine with you, and that is an opportunity as an operator to make a customer for life.

Ultimately, it’s unfair to imply restaurants aren’t fun anymore, because that’s simply not the case. There are just more challenges today facing operators in an industry that’s already pretty hard to begin with. Some diners might not like how restaurants are adapting to face those challenges. But for anyone who truly supports restaurants and the industry, writing a takedown at a major publication is reckless, pompous, and not a constructive way to deal with it.