Raising prices would reduce the volume of customers, so the restaurant could maintain its quality standard, but Stanich felt his mission was to give back to the local community of regular diners. He didn't want to price out regular, repeat customers from the neighborhood and have only tourists eating there.
Others in this thread have suggested that the restaurant give locals a 'locals card', which would allow them to purchase food at a more reasonable price.
Burger pass. $30 for a burger pass. Gets you burgers for $4 for the rest of the year. or pay $20 for a burger now. You can secretly give out burger passes to locals when the tourists aren't looking.
I live in a touristy area with lots of great, but high demand and correspondingly high priced, restaurants.
Several of the local places do "frequent diner/visitor" loyalty cards, where the 5th or 9th meal (for restaurants), coffee (coffee shops), etc are free. This offsets the otherwise high prices charged on menu items.
Also, once a year (during the off season, of course), the local high school sells a booster card that gets a percent discount off for the entire year at numerous local places.
This is of course not unique to a touristy area, but I find myself using them far more often than in other places I've lived.
This sounds like a super good idea to me, I really love it. Seems pretty simple but just makes a lot of sense.
Any person travelling just coming by for the "best burger" probably would not want to spend $34 and not use that card anymore so $20 sounds great. Any regular would probably be super cool with paying that extra $30 knowing they can get a burger once a week or whatever for $4. This works out for the restaurant and the regulars, and like you said they can just hand out those cards to anyone for any reason.
Well, sure, but having the customer flash a card to the employee would save more time than having the customer hand over the card for inspection by an employee.
...but it would invite a secondary market for these cards. The logistics of fabricating them would suck, and you have to look at an ID to judge if a card should offered anyway.
Plus having special cards feels corporate, not homey. Looking at an ID for locals discount is pretty well trodden ground.
> but it would invite a secondary market for these cards
There are already markets for fake IDs, so unless you're suggesting that small local restaurants purchase scanners to confirm the authenticity of each ID, it would be relatively easy to circumvent this check too. (Some states require IDs to be scanned for selling alcohol, but many, e.g. in Oregon, do not, and the only check is some employee looking at a card in their hands for a couple of seconds)
> Plus having special cards feels corporate
Not at all. Plenty of local restaurants in my are (Portland, OR) have rewards cards, where you get stamps and a free meal after some amount of stamps.
The high prices would be to ward off these one-time customers who are only there for the single instagram photo. If someone is invested enough to make a fake ID just for cheaper burgers, presumably they're going to be repeat customers that develop a relationship with the restaurant, which is what he wants.
The point is, there are ways to distinguish between locals and non-locals. There are merits and drawbacks to having your own ID card vs. using a state ID card.
Also... he was just burned out. An experience many here may identify with. That's why the place is still closed.
It's possible there was something he could have done to make things good again... if he wasn't too burned out by the experience to figure it out and carry it out.
What about raising prices (at the exclusion of the locals), and then using the increased revenue to philanthropically give back to the community in a meaningful way?
There are some things in a capitalist society that are the domain of philanthropy, and some things that are not. A school or library might be a suitable target of philanthropy, but a burger place or pub or barber shop isn't; there's no way to fund it and have it end up the same sort of place it would be on its own.
At best, it can be a target of a GoFundMe or something - but that's just to pay operating costs. The store itself has to operate like a normal capitalist store for the concept to work, accepting customers, charging money, etc. There is no concept in our society of a non-profit burger joint.
I think daveslash was suggesting the burger joint runs as the for-profit entity that it already is and that it is the source of the philanthropy, not the target.
To give an example, charge exorbitant prices for burgers knowing there are still people desperate enough to try the burger that paying $30 is fine and then use the extra revenue to give back to the community, possibly by paying for the local soccer club to get a new clubhouse, or possibly by providing free/subsidized burgers at local events where the crowd will be local. In this way the business stays open and isn't overwhelmed by the demand, while not completely isolating itself from the local community that the owner wants to give back to.
Yes, that is how I understood 'daveslash. My claim is that this fails to accomplish any of the goals of the burger joint's owner: he wants to provide a burger joint for the community, not a soccer club for the community. Saying "Why don't you run a fancy burger place and help the community in other ways than you wanted" isn't actually a solution to anything.
I love this idea: zero profit capitalism. Sure some people would abuse savings accounts more than others, but taxing standing profits on a gradually increasing scale the longer they stand (sure the market already does this at a minute level, but it's not enough to deter wealth hoarding) seems like an effective way to solve the wealth extraction problem corporations introduce.
