A fixed price against an average appetite is a durably profitable model

The argument

Proponents of this position argue from the arithmetic that has always made the format work. An operator charging one price for unlimited servings is not betting against the hungriest diner but pricing against the average of everyone who comes through the door. A few people eat a great deal, most eat a moderate amount, and some eat less than they would have ordered from a menu, so the variation averages out as soon as the number of covers is large. The model is therefore more predictable than a menu rather than less, because revenue per head is fixed in advance and only the cost side moves. That cost side, the argument continues, is deliberately built to absorb the variation. The dishes that fill a counter are chosen for low cost per portion and for holding well in quantity, with starches, rice, bread and pasta carrying most of the volume, while the expensive items are placed where they are taken in smaller amounts. A diner who eats a great deal is mostly eating the cheapest things on offer, which is why the heavy eater that critics worry about is already priced in. Proponents add that the labour structure is the format's quiet advantage. Diners serve themselves, which removes most table service, shortens the time each cover occupies a table, and lets a small kitchen produce a narrow set of dishes in bulk rather than a wide menu to order. As labour grows more expensive, a model needing less of it per diner becomes relatively more attractive rather than less. On this account none of the fundamentals has shifted, so there is no reason to expect the format to change.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Those who reject this argument hold that the averaging it relies on works only at high volume, which is precisely what thinner footfall removes: with fewer covers the variation stops cancelling out and a quiet service can lose money outright. Critics also argue that the cost side is no longer the cushion described, since the bulk staples the model leans on have seen some of the sharpest input and energy cost increases, so the cheap filler that absorbed heavy eaters is no longer cheap. A further objection is that self service is not the labour saving the argument claims, because replenishing, clearing and maintaining a display is continuous work that scales with hours open rather than with covers served. Critics conclude that the argument explains why the format once worked rather than showing that the conditions still hold.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics hold that the averaging works only at high volume, so thinner footfall stops the variation cancelling out and a quiet service can lose money outright. [Rejecting P2] The bulk staples that absorbed heavy eaters have seen some of the sharpest input and energy cost rises, so the cheap filler is no longer cheap. [Rejecting P3] Self service is not the labour saving claimed, because replenishing, clearing and maintaining a display is continuous work that scales with opening hours rather than with covers. [Rejecting C] The argument explains why the format once worked rather than establishing that its conditions still hold.