Why is it that some restaurants don't take reservations?

November 13, 2004 9:09 AM

Why is it that some restaurants don't take reservations? What purpose does this serve?
posted by jdroth to Food & Drink (29 answers total)

I'd imagine reservations are a pain in the ass to deal with (late people, no shows, different number of people in party then res). If they're busy enough without it then why should they take reservations?
posted by dobbs at 9:13 AM on November 13, 2004

In a restaurant where your business might be split between walkups and reservations, reserved tables make you less money. That's because a reserved table sits empty for a longer period of time than a walkup table. If it's pushing 8pm, and you know you need that six-top for a 9pm reservation, you'll probably have to turn away a walkup party since they won't be done in time to clear by 9, for example. Restaurant owners spend a lot of time trying to maximize the number of "covers" (diners) per night and for some types of businesses it's better to take no reservations at all than have a few reservations clogging the pipe. Or at least that's my experience.
posted by bcwinters at 9:23 AM on November 13, 2004

To elaborate slightly on what dobbs said which is basically the answer. Reservations are hard, and they vastly decrease the table turnover you can get in a night. Because the amount of time a single table will linger varies dramatically, you can't know when your 7 o'clock reservation will leave. Which means, you can't put another reservation on that table until well after your average stay time, and even then, you'll occasionally be in trouble. But it also means that if someone comes by at 6, looking for a table, you can't drop them into that table, because you need it for 7. This is a lot more complex when taken over sets of tables, of course, but the basic problem remains. In order to preserve tables for reservations, you must keep them open and empty for some variable amount fo time before and after they're actually being used, or you run the risk on not having a table for someone who does have a reservation, which is a customer service hell.

On the other hand, if you do no reservations, as soon as an open table can be cleaned, you can pop the next people in line into it. Your turnover is higher, because your tables never stand empty.

The other things that dobbs mentions, like no-shows (how long after a reservation time do you hold a table for people who aren't there yet? 15 minutes? 5?) and ever changing numbers of attendees add additional complexity. Sure, you've got a table for four at 7, but by the time they show-up at 7:30 with 6, do you have any place to put them?
posted by jacquilynne at 9:27 AM on November 13, 2004

I used to be a host at a busy restaurant, and yeah, dobbs basically has it (and, on preview, bcwinters).

Some restaurants get business in waves that are, for whatever reason, fairly unpredicatable. You don't want to promise someone that they can bring in a party of ten at 2 pm, when it's hard to guess how busy you'll be at 2 pm.

A better question might be, Why is it that some restaurants DO take reservations? If they would be busy anyway, they don't need to, and it's really a pain for them to do so. They take reservations (usually) if their customer base is made up people who would rather not show up if they're going to have to wait.
posted by bingo at 9:28 AM on November 13, 2004

Indeed, bc. Basically, some resturaunts don't take reservations because they don't have to.

This is usually the case in smaller resturaunts with alot of walk-in traffic. Large resturaunts with lots of walk-in traffic still usually have enough tables to take reservations, and small resturaunts without alot of walk-in traffic are usually desperate enough to hold tables.
posted by ChasFile at 9:31 AM on November 13, 2004

isn't there software to handle table reservations? it wouldn't be hard to write, and would be able to guarantee that reservations have tables available in some percentage (like 90%) of cases. you'd need some historical data to get general usage patterns and a description of available tables, but after that it's a pretty standard optimisation problem.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:48 AM on November 13, 2004

I might buy the "because they're busy enough without reservations" explanation except:

1. There are many restaurants around here (Portland, OR) that aren't particularly popular that still won't take reservations;
2. The refusal to accept reservations seems to universally generate ill-well among the customer base;
3. And reservations aren't that hard. I worked for several years at a lousy, but busy, restaurant (it was in a hotel). We took reservations, and there were problems, of course, but not that many problems.

Still, you're all probably right, even if it doesn't make sense to me. :)
posted by jdroth at 9:55 AM on November 13, 2004

thinking a bit more, i guess one problem with software is no-one is going to reliably record when someone is using a table and when not.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:56 AM on November 13, 2004

Actually, on re-read it's all making sense, thanks in part to chasfile's additions...
posted by jdroth at 9:58 AM on November 13, 2004

There are, in fact, many software packages that allow you to do this, (Positouch, Micros, etc) none of them well. The basic problem is that it is impossible for the software to predict how long a table will be occupied; there are simply too many variables. You need a human there who can physically look at your (for instance) 6-top tables and see that they are only on drinks because the kitchen got a rush and say "it will be at least an hour."

Also, with reservations, 90% is not near good enough. If people have a 7PM reservation and they have to wait until 7:15 because the previous occupants were lolligagging, they will completely flip out on you. It just easier to say "We don't take reservations, but if you come at 6:30 we should have you at a table by 7." Remember that in a resturaunt time is of the essence. Woudl you rather have your hostess (who - lets be honest - you hired for her perky 17-year-old tits and not her data entry and manipulation proficiency) fiddling with a computer screen entering tables or simply saying "Its a 15 minute wait," and then moving on to something useful?

Finally, keep in mind that resturaunts only take reservations because they have to. Why buy an expensive and complicated software system to implement a procedure you not only don't need, but don't even want?
posted by ChasFile at 9:59 AM on November 13, 2004

I know there would be lots of pressure to use nice expensive reservation software...but you can do it with a notebook and a telephone. Just saying.
posted by crunchburger at 10:06 AM on November 13, 2004

I should point out that you are generally correct, jd, it is a rare resturaunt that can actually get away with it. But you have to balance the annoyance no reservations inflict on some customers with the extra seats you fill. Like everything else in the biz, there are alot of factors that go into the decision, and there isn't a universal rule that works in all situations.

I worked in a college-town resturuant, where the diners are typically pretentious grad students and visiting parents. Every year there is a whole new crop of customers coming into town, so offending a few people by refusing their reservation is far outweighed by our ability to seat everyone else faster.

I have also worked in a locals-only type joint, and despite the relatively small size of the place it was essential that we take reservations so that the regulars felt the place was comfortable and familiar. We relied on the repeated visits of a much smaller customer base, so we really had to bend over for these people. I guy could roll up in a Ferrari and promise order 20 Filet Mingons, and we'd still keep him away from our reserved tables.

It all depends, and alot of factors go into the reservation/no-reservation decision, like you say. I was just pointing out that given a choice, under ideal circumstances, most resturaunts would probably not take reservations. I am done thread-monitoring.
posted by ChasFile at 10:09 AM on November 13, 2004

The refusal to accept reservations seems to universally generate ill-well among the customer base;

In keeping with ChasFile's last comments, the truth is that taking reservations also (indirectly) generates plenty of ill-will among the customer base. Once you take a reservation, you are accepting an additional responsibility in an already complex situation. The promise you've just made may be hard to keep, yet the fallout if you fail to keep it could be huge.

At the restaurant I hosted for, on weekends we didn't allow 'incomplete parties' (i.e. not everyone in the party has been arrived) to sit down, even if there were empty tables. A guy whose wife was 'parking the car' would stand there and watch aghast as I blew him off in favor of the two people who walked in together right behind him. Sure, he was mad. But whether he realized it or not, he was mad that I was refusing him the opportunity to get in the way of other customers who would, most likely, start and finish eating faster, and probably tip better too.
posted by bingo at 10:20 AM on November 13, 2004

Software would be serious overkill. Reservation books and the mind of a host/hostess are a much simpler and better solution. Doing your reservations through software would most likely net you no benefit, and cost you money in set up time, productivity, equipment, maintenance, and force you to warp your practices to suit the software.

Tech solutions are not always better by virtue of being tech.
posted by lodurr at 10:47 AM on November 13, 2004

1) Reservations are for snobbish self-centered rich people.
2) The best restaurants can charge prices only snobbish self-centered rich people can afford.
3) The masses tend to believe only the best restaurants would need to accept reservations.
4) Thus restaurants will take reservation either because only snobbish self-centered rich people can eat there, or they want the masses to believe they're that good.

Some restaurants don't take reservations because they value food over rich people and games.
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:08 AM on November 13, 2004

damn. real world is more complicated than computational science. again.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:17 AM on November 13, 2004

The snobbish theory is way off. Nothing generates that small restaurant high-on-its-own-grandeur East Village buzz like a long line of people waiting an hour for one of 6-10 tables.
posted by Caviar at 11:46 AM on November 13, 2004

1) Reservations are for snobbish self-centered rich people.
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:08 AM PST on November 13

You've got to be kidding me. When going on a date, you don't want to put on a suit and then wait with your date 30 minutes for a table.

You want to walk right in.
posted by four panels at 11:48 AM on November 13, 2004

do only rich people have telephones in the states? wow.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:54 AM on November 13, 2004

i've been told i can only have a table if i'm relatively quick, which seemed fair enough. but no, not that.
posted by andrew cooke at 12:17 PM on November 13, 2004

Yeah, y6y6y6's theory may apply specifically to San Diego, but in real cities (I grew up in SD; I'm allowed this) reservations are just a modern convenience not some kind of class divider.

That said, to address jdroth's question, I've noticed that the places that dont take reservations at least here in San Francisco, are focused toward more of the bohemian crowd. In some cases, such as waiting for a weekend brunch table at Boogaloo's, standing outside with the waiting crowd is itself part of the experience. In other cases, the place has an attached or nearby bar and so its no big deal. (I'd imagine in those cases where they encourage to go to their own bar to wait for your table, the restaurant manages to increase its profits significantly.)

I am a fan of no-reservation places since I like to do things spontaneously and if you go to a no-reservation place, none of the other diners gets any points for planning ahead.

Its also true in both SF and NYC that if you eat dinner early (like 5:30) you can pretty much go to any restaurant in the city, even the most exclusive ones. Most of them set aside some walk-in tables anyways but they are usually all gone by the time most early diners show up.
posted by vacapinta at 2:00 PM on November 13, 2004

When going on a date, you don't want to put on a suit and then wait with your date 30 minutes for a table.


You wear a suit on a date?
posted by bingo at 3:40 PM on November 13, 2004

Suits usually come after the date for you?
posted by yerfatma at 4:27 PM on November 13, 2004

Wearing a suit on a date sounds like something an old man would do. Unless the date is some kind of extremely formal affair, like...a wedding, maybe.
posted by bingo at 4:50 PM on November 13, 2004

Many many many restaurants in the Boston area only take reservations for parties of six or more. I think it's a factor of the local restaurateur culture--my sense is that people simply can't be bothered taking reservations for two-tops, since either a) the restaurant is so popular they don't need to, or b) the restaurant needs to boost its popularity and they feel that requiring reservations would be a turn-off.

jdroth, I would encourage you to pick your favorite couple of restaurants and get all your friends to write them letters saying you would absolutely eat there more often if they had reservations.

However, you suggest that the restaurants that won't take reservations "aren't particularly popular". If they're not so popular, what difference does it make whether they take reservations or not? (To me, "not popular" means "always has a table".)

Finally, I would suggest that the hippie paradigm is still alive and well among enough of Portland's restaurateurs that they feel awk about asking for reservations. I have to say, though, that I have never had to wait more than five minutes for a table in Portland, even on a Saturday night.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:56 PM on November 13, 2004

"Ok, have you ever been told that you need to finish up your dinner because your table is needed for a reservation?'

As a matter of fact, this happened at a company dinner at a very expensive (for the area) steakhouse. We had reservations because of the size of our party, had an automatic 18% service charge added (also due to party size), and yet were asked to leave before everyone had finished dessert because "a larger party has reserved the room and we have to have it ready for them."

Some of us hung out in the bar across the way for two hours afterward, and the table we were hustled away from stayed empty for the entire time. So, the next time the boss was in town, and the time after that, and so on, this restaurant was never again considered.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:37 PM on November 13, 2004

Fewer and fewer restaurants in Vegas take reservations. Not sure if the trend holds in other cities, but it seems to be dying out here.
posted by rushmc at 7:49 PM on November 13, 2004

I kind of think of reservations as a hold-over from when dining out was special-occasion only. Now, so many people just walk in that it's not really necessary. And I think in neighborhood places, at least in the downtown areas I've lived, it actually creates more ill-will among the regulars to take reservations -- nothing more annoying for us elitist urbanistas than walking into the local hangout and watching suburbanites get whisked directly from their valet parking to a table while we wait around at the bar for hours, seeing tables stand empty waiting for more suburbanites.
posted by occhiblu at 10:50 AM on November 15, 2004

And I have heard of at least one restaurant in Boston getting rid of its reservations in an explicit effort to cut down on the number of suburban couples coming to the place, because the locals were getting fed up enough that they weren't coming at all anymore, making the place crowded on Fridays and Saturdays but empty during the week.
posted by occhiblu at 10:52 AM on November 15, 2004