$960 Minimum Charge For A Table Of 8 During Games, Plus 20% Tip?!

585

This forwarded email landed in our inbox the other day. We’ve redacted the names so as not to encourage citizens to burn the place to the ground. It’s a pretty clear example of the kind of cash grab that I hoped would be beneath Vancouver’s restaurants. Alas, no.

Thank you for thinking of X for your group reservation.

Unfortunately, during the Olympic period we are only taking reservations for guests willing to commit to a $100.00 per seat minimum spend as well as a $20.00 seat charge. For example, a table for 8 guests will have an $800.00 food and beverage minimum (excluding applicable taxes and 20% gratuity) and will be charged $160.00 for the table reservation. In order to secure the reservation a deposit of 50% of the total will need to be paid in advance.

Due to the magnitude of events each day these fees are imposed being that we anticipate being busy from 10 am to very late night and because of the difficulty/cost in having to keep a space open for a reservation.

We are encouraging all of our guests to come in and find seating on a first come first serve basis.  Please also keep in mind that the Olympic cover charges will begin a 4pm daily.

If you would like to secure the reservation on Feb. XXrd, please let me know and I will send you the event confirmation forms.

Cheers,

XXXXX

I’ve confirmed the accuracy of the numbers with the restaurant in question. The person I spoke to was a little pissy about being asked about it, which led me to wonder how widespread the abominable practice is. Personally, I find it tremendously embarrassing, a black mark of shame upon our restaurant scene. While I understand the need to make a profit during the Games, there’s no need to gouge to this absurd extent.

Comments

15 Responses to “$960 Minimum Charge For A Table Of 8 During Games, Plus 20% Tip?!”

  1. Gross on February 11th, 2010 6:51 pm

    Evil.

  2. amy on February 11th, 2010 6:53 pm

    guess i’ll be eating at mcdonald’s :)

  3. Conrad Yablonski on February 11th, 2010 7:10 pm

    To be expected, avarice knows no limits and hotel/restaurant management is a notorious breeding ground for the vain, the shallow and the just plain stunned.

  4. Marcus on February 11th, 2010 7:32 pm

    I honestly don’t mean this to be antagonistic at all, but I’m just wondering why if you find the offending party to be so offensive with their practices, would you still choose to protect their identity by redacting the identifying information? Seems to be a bit ethically dichotomous…

    Put them on blast so we the public know who to avoid and who to support with our hard earned money! Just sayin’.

  5. Los on February 11th, 2010 8:27 pm

    Why did you censor this story leave out the name of the restaurant? Suggesting that I’m crazy enough to burn the place down. I just want to piss on the side of the building.

  6. Mark on February 11th, 2010 8:50 pm

    Andrew, up until now you’ve been forthcoming with juicy info and opinion. But in this case, the email was forwarded to you, so you’re not the only one who knows, and you’ve verified the accuracy, so SPILL already! What’s up?

  7. Scout Magazine on February 11th, 2010 9:12 pm

    Thanks for the kind words, Mark. Don’t think I didn’t want to. I believe a handful of people in the trade know, so you’ll probably find out soon enough. I’ve hit the place hard enough in the past, and don’t want it to seem like I have it in for them, because I don’t. If this post does anything beyond angering our readership, I hope it steers some restaurateurs away from the temptations that must be there. You may disagree, but I don’t think this fits in the category of “juicy”. What this is is an embarrassment to the restaurant community. It’s not a piece of gossip. The practice of price gouging should be as deeply offensive during a celebration as it is in the aftermath of a disaster. It is, in my debatable opinion, thoroughly un-Canadian.

  8. ThomasV on February 11th, 2010 11:35 pm

    “…there’s no need to gouge to this absurd extent…”

    To what extent would you find gouging acceptable (unabsurd)?

  9. Scout Magazine on February 11th, 2010 11:38 pm

    Poor choice of words on my part. There is a chasm between the unacceptable and the absurd. Much that I’ve known to be absolutely absurd has been perfectly acceptable. Celine Dion comes immediately to mind, but our culture is awash with shining examples.

  10. James Iranzad on February 12th, 2010 4:37 am

    Content further marred by a lack of form…

    Repulsive practice aside, what should be even more embarrassing to this mystery restaurant is the atrociousness of their writing. Gaining some respect and appreciation for grammar & punctuation is the very least you could do before picking the pockets of our visitors. Then again, maybe I should let unwittingly transparent dogs continue to lie.

  11. Stephen Bonner on February 12th, 2010 12:20 pm

    Many restaurants I go to have increased their prices; but there seems to be a “local, neighbour, friend” price in their POS ystems.

  12. Chung-fu on February 12th, 2010 8:31 pm

    my guess is glowball group.
    somebody has to say it.

  13. Alex Rotherham on February 16th, 2010 5:07 pm

    Not only is this sort of price jacking unethical, it sends a horrible message to these tourists that Vancouver is even more expensive than it really is. I can understand an autograt to protect the servers during this time, but price gouging is just pure greed.

  14. appreciator on February 17th, 2010 5:57 am

    Although the practice of jacking up ones prices to gouge tourists is abhorrent… the argument you, Andrew, have made is somewhat specious.

    Without knowing this restaurant and allowing them to respond…. what do we have to go on…

    Your word?

  15. Scout Magazine on February 17th, 2010 10:03 am

    Hi Appreciator! Long time! THe intent of the post was more “Ugh, look what’s happening out there” than it was “Don’t go to x because they’re evil”. Though i’m nothing if not specious, this particular argument was observational, lite.