Diners now get the same value without the shared counter

The argument

A second argument for this position is about substitutes rather than costs. Proponents hold that the format occupied a specific competitive position: it was the cheapest way to obtain a large quantity of varied cooked food, chosen by sight, for a price known in advance. What has changed is that each part of that position is now available elsewhere. The argument sets out the alternatives. Large portion takeaway and delivery supply quantity at a known price without travelling, queueing or sharing a serving counter, and the range available across a delivery service in a single order exceeds what any counter can hold. Fixed price table service offers unlimited rounds without self service. Multiple item deals and family bundles supply bulk cheaply. Prepared food sold by supermarkets and convenience retailers meets the same demand for variety at low cost with no restaurant visit at all. Each is a partial substitute, and together, proponents argue, they cover the whole of what this format uniquely provided. The conclusion drawn is that the category loses its reason to exist rather than merely becoming less profitable. A format survives when it does something nothing else does as well, and this one's claim to that was always comparative. Once a diner can get more variety at a comparable price without leaving home, the remaining attractions are the room itself and the pleasure of choosing from a display, which proponents regard as too thin a foundation for a category that competed on value. On this reading the surviving venues will be occasional and nostalgic rather than a standing part of how people eat, and that is what disappearing as a format means.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics of this argument hold that the substitutes it lists miss what the format actually sells. None supplies a room, a shared occasion and unlimited choice by sight, and the social function of a large group eating together for one known price has no equivalent in an order delivered to a door. They also object that the alternatives compete on convenience rather than on value per unit, so a diner whose aim is the greatest quantity for the least money still does best at a counter, which leaves the comparative advantage intact where it mattered. A further objection is historical rather than economic: this prediction has been made each time a cheaper way of eating appeared, and the repeated failure of those forecasts is itself a reason to hold the present one more loosely.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics hold that the substitutes listed supply none of the room, the shared occasion or the unlimited choice by sight that the format sells. [Rejecting P2] The alternatives compete on convenience rather than on value per unit, so a diner seeking the greatest quantity for the least money still does best at a counter. [Rejecting P3] This prediction has been made each time a cheaper way of eating appeared, and the repeated failure of those forecasts is a reason to hold the present one loosely. [Rejecting C] The comparative advantage survives where it mattered, so the category retains a reason to exist.