Diners want visible abundance, and no other format supplies it

The argument

A second argument for this position concerns what diners are actually buying. Proponents hold that the appeal is not the food in particular but the removal of two anxieties at once: whether there will be enough, and what the bill will come to. A diner who has paid at the door can take what they like, return as often as they want, and know the cost before eating, and no other arrangement in a restaurant delivers that combination. The argument stresses how widely that is valued. Families with children who eat unpredictably, large groups who would otherwise be dividing a shared bill, diners with narrow tastes who want to choose by sight rather than from a description, and anyone who simply wants a great deal of food for a known price are all served better by this format than by a menu. Proponents argue that these are standing features of how people eat together rather than passing preferences, and that a format meeting them has a secure market. Attempts to supply the same thing by other means, the argument continues, fall short in ways diners notice. A set menu fixes the price but not the quantity, sharing plates leave the bill uncertain, and a discounted menu offers cheapness without abundance. The specific promise of unlimited quantity at a known price requires the display, the self service and the scale that define the format, so an operator wanting to make that promise ends up rebuilding it rather than replacing it. On this account the reason such venues will look the same in future is that what they sell cannot be delivered in any other shape.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics of this argument hold that the promise is already being met in altered forms, including unlimited rounds ordered from a short menu and fixed price service brought to the table, each of which keeps the guarantee while abandoning the open counter. They also object that the preferences described are price sensitive rather than loyal to a format: a family choosing on value will move to whatever supplies quantity most cheaply, and that need not be a counter. The sharpest objection is that the argument slides from a claim about demand to a claim about form. Even if the appetite for unlimited quantity at a known price is permanent, it does not follow that the particular delivery mechanism is permanent, so the evidence offered supports survival in some shape rather than continuity in this one.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics hold that the promise is already supplied in altered forms, including unlimited rounds from a short menu and fixed price table service, which keep the guarantee and drop the counter. [Rejecting P2] The preferences described are sensitive to price rather than loyal to a format, so diners choosing on value move to whatever supplies quantity most cheaply. [Rejecting P3] The argument moves from a claim about demand to a claim about form, and a permanent appetite for quantity at a known price does not make one delivery mechanism permanent. [Rejecting C] The evidence offered supports survival in some shape rather than continuity in this one.