When Two Menus Have A Price Discrepancy

[qwertyy]

Hey Tom, About a month ago, I attended a dinnertime work event at which no dinner was served. Afterwards, I was very hungry, and I wanted something quick and inexpensive, but not fast food. Since I was near Cleveland Park, the Palena bar came to mind. I thought the well-reputed burger there was about $10. I got there, checked the paper menu posted outside the front door, and the burger was listed at $12. OK, a bit more than I planned, but doable. So I sat at the bar, got the menu, and the burger was listed there as $14. I brought this to the bartender's attention, and he said that the menu outside hadn't been updated in weeks or months, and that the price listed on the indoor menu is what I'd pay. I told him I didn't want to make a big stink, but that I'd like to talk to a manager about the discrepancy. The manager came over, I explained the situation, and said I'd like the burger at the price on the outdoor menu. She said no, and asked if I'd like to order something instead. I again explained that the restaurant had made an understandable and easily corrected error, and that the wise customer service move would be to honor the $12 outdoor price. She said that Palena constantly updates its menu, and that's why the menu was possibly out of date. I reiterated what the bartender said, that the menu was updated only every few weeks or months, and that frankly, if the menu was updated as often as she suggested, there would actually be less and not more chance of an error like what I'd stumbled on. Proving the definition of insanity (repeating the same action but expecting a different result), I just kept saying "Your outdoor menu is the face you show the outside world. Doesn't it make sense to honor that advertised price, and generate a positive customer service experience, than to stick to your guns over $2!" After disbelievingly repeating this argument a couple more times, I said in passing that I couldn't believe that a restaurant with such excellent reputation would have such sh*tty customer service." The manager then lost it, saying that we'd been having a civil discussion until I let loose and brought profanity into the picture. She said that she'd be leaning towards making a one-time exception for me, but after my profanity, she just didn't know. Eventually, she relented, and I got the $12 burger. So, my questions: 1.) Shouldn't they immediately have just honored the $12 price? 2. ) What is their responsibility to keep that outdoor menu (printed on paper, not calligraphied 2.) Really, I can't say "sh*tty" to an urban restaurant manager during a disagreement??? 3.) Finally, how does one tip after this kind of incident? The bartender was emotionless but not rude. The manager was inexcusable. But I hated to tip 0% or 5% instead of my usual 20% because it would only confirm their assumption that I am a cheapskate angling for what they thought I didn't deserve. Hopefully, before this story is published in the chat, maybe you, a friend, or a colleague can go by Palena and re-create my experience: check the outside menu (computer printed on easy-to-fix plain paper, in a glass box, facing Connecticut Avenue), check the indoor menu, raise the discrepancy with management, and see what happens? Thanks for the help! Josh

I generally think that a restaurant should not post a menu outside unless it's accurate. On the other hand, I can't identify with someone arguing over $2 for a burger, especially if that person then says the customer service is "shitty." This isn't a customer service issue per se - the restaurant is simply charging what's on its inside menu. I'm not sure that a restaurant is "bound" by its outside menu? Were there fine prints not mentioned? Why was the manager inexcusable?

I was surprised that so many of Tom's chatters came out for the writer. The way he tells it (for some reason I'm pretty sure it's a he), he pushed back ten or more times. Dude. It's two bucks. Ask about it once, maybe twice, and if you don't like the answer, leave and tell them why. Reading his diatribe, I was half expecting him to move on to waterboarding if the manager hadn't capitulated.

Incidentally, after making that much of a stink, I was amazed that he actually stayed and ate. Palena should have agreed that they made a mistake and charged him the $12 from the get-go, but their staff should get a freaking medal for providing him with "not rude" service after that. Sounds like pretty non-shitty customer service to me.

[The Hersch]

Assuming this narrative is more or less accurate (which I think it probably is; if it weren't, the customer would surely have taken some pains to make himself look like less of an asshole), I'd say both sides in this little drama performed poorly. The Palena folks should have said "Of course we will honor the price that drew you into our restaurant! And we'll fix the menu outside at once!" And when they didn't say that, the customer should have said something like "It's only two dollars, but I think you're making a mistake from a public-relations perspective. I'll have the hamburger anyway." In the latter case, the customer could go on to complain publicly about Palena without looking like a complete tool. That the customer thought about leaving a crappy tip pretty much seals the case against him.

[jayandstacey]

I'm firmly in the camp of the diner, though I'm confident no one cares. A menu faces the street for only one purpose I can think of - to attract diners in. It advertises the items and prices.

It is almost always paper from a printer, posted under easily accessible glass plates. It would take less time for a manager to print an updated menu and post it outside than to argue why it isn't up to date. Gas stations sometimes change their prices every day and their signs are sometimes very high in the air. But they consistently update as necessary and would never DARE of advertising on their sign a price that's 15% lower than what they actually charge at the pump. There are laws against false advertising.

I think the diner wanted a hamburger and gave Palena a number of chances to just say "sure, no problem" and sell to him for the advertised price or fix the menu outside - and was right to insist upon that price. Palena inexplicably chose neither, instead to fight him. I'd have dug my heels in too, wondered what kind of twilightlight zone episode I was in, and scratched my head on the tip.

So the poster said that they passed the info to Tom to investigate before posting in the chat - yet here it is. Did Tom investigate? Is it being shared because Tom determined that Palena just doesn't get it?

[Pat]

So the poster said that they passed the info to Tom to investigate before posting in the chat - yet here it is. Did Tom investigate? Is it being shared because Tom determined that Palena just doesn't get it?

I thought it was interesting that the poster said that he submitted early so Tom could get the restaurant's story (which Tom always says he wants) and Tom didn't do that. He said "mea culpa" in some form for not checking with the restaurant before answering, but the fact the writer was asking Tom to check it out actually made me feel more sympathetic towards him than I might have been otherwise. It sounded to me like the writer was tired and wanted a hamburger and couldn't believe he was having the argument he was and that's why he persisted and got profane.

[ChiantiandFava]

As I read it this person was a miserly curmudgeon. This customer is always right stuff is very 90s, I'd like to think we've moved past it as a dining community. As a considerate person you point out to management that the menu posted outside is accurate--then you order the burger at $14 if you want it. If they chose to then remove the $2 or give you something in compensation it's out of the kindness of their heart, not because they owe you it.

Why do you pay the extra $2? Because the price of that choice burger meat went up, or the price of flour to make the bun went up, or they decided to pay their employees a higher wage. You aren't entitled to that $2 because the restaurant made a minor error--and the poster clearly implied a threat to Palena's reputation (which he then carried out) if he didn't get his way.

[DonRocks]

As I read it this person was a miserly curmudgeon. This customer is always right stuff is very 90s, I'd like to think we've moved past it as a dining community. As a considerate person you point out to management that the menu posted outside is accurate--then you order the burger at $14 if you want it. If they chose to then remove the $2 or give you something in compensation it's out of the kindness of their heart, not because they owe you it.

Why do you pay the extra $2? Because the price of that choice burger meat went up, or the price of flour to make the bun went up, or they decided to pay their employees a higher wage. You aren't entitled to that $2 because the restaurant made a minor error--and the poster clearly implied a threat to Palena's reputation (which he then carried out) if he didn't get his way.

I had dinner at Palena this evening. Even though they were extremely restrained in telling their side of the story, I'm convinced the customer was a complete ass. I can say with confidence that Kelli, who has been a manager at the restaurant since they opened, doesn't give a whit about two dollars.

Incidentally, the customer ordered the burger off the menu. And then, well after the order was placed, brought up the price discrepancy.

[bookluvingbabe]

You still honor the price on the menu outside. And you go take the menu that is wrong down from outside immediately while the customer is there.

I loved Palena in the day. But it isn't the same place food-wise or customer service-wise and hasn't been for a long time.

[dcandohio]

There is no excuse for being an ass. However, I am impatient with restaurants whose various public faces (menu posted outside, web site, mailed coupons) don't match the actual facts of the service experience. The fundamental basis of a brand's reputation is living up to promises you make. Part of creating an integrated marking plan, whether you are Procter and Gamble or a popular local restaurant, is to make sure that everything YOU create, that the customer sees and hears, is accurate and consistent. Sure, mistakes happen. But in most other industries, the recovery favors the customer.

Price is a particularly challenging marketing mix variable, because it is the most obvious metric that most people use to assess value. You see a price, you make a choice, and if the price changes, it changes your perception of value. It's not about the $2 itself, but the fact that the consumer's expectations were not met. The promise was not kept. It is a service failure. And recovery from a service failure is an opportunity to create a loyal customer.

If you're posting a menu, it should be accurate. Your web site should be accurate and up-to-date. If you can't achieve this, then don't post a menu outside your door and don't have a web site. Your employees should be empowered to rectify situations where you have failed to make and deliver a consistent promise. But no one should be nasty about it.

[DonRocks]

You still honor the price on the menu outside. And you go take the menu that is wrong down from outside immediately while the customer is there.

One shouldn't claim what a restaurant manager should do at any given moment unless they're there (*), perhaps witnessing an emergency in the restroom, or a disabled customer who needs help, or dishes accumulating on the pass because a runner called in sick.

The price was going to be honored, even though it was already typed into the system, until the profanity and threats began.

That evening, the menu was taken down.

(*) I'm not judging either, btw, other than to report that, in this particular case, what I heard sounded like a clear case of an abusive customer. I'm reluctant even to say this much because I didn't get authorization to repeat what I heard, so I'm skating on thin ice here.

[Waitman]

One shouldn't claim what a restaurant manager should do at any given moment unless they're there (*), perhaps witnessing an emergency in the restroom, or a disabled customer who needs help, or dishes accumulating on the pass because a runner called in sick.

The price was going to be honored, even though it was already typed into the system, until the profanity and threats began.

That evening, the menu was taken down.

(*) I'm not judging either, btw, other than to report that, in this particular case, what I heard sounded like a clear case of an abusive customer. I'm reluctant even to say this much because I didn't get authorization to repeat what I heard, so I'm skating on thin ice here.

Playing amateur detective here, but if "if the price was already going to be honored," why did the "profanity and threats" begin? Was there not an, "of course you're right, sir, we'll take care of it," as soon as the issue was raised?

My guess is that the customer copped a little attitude and that their interlocutor -- perhaps generally a wonderful person -- got snippy in return, rather than taking a deep breath and immediately resolving the situation as they claim to have.

Personally, I'm not one to fret over a couple of bucks, but I'm unsure why the restaurant failed to quickly and calmly make it clear that they, two , were not the type to let a two dollars come between friends.

[DonRocks]

Playing amateur detective here, but if "if the price was already going to be honored," why did the "profanity and threats" begin? Was there not an, "of course you're right, sir, we'll take care of it," as soon as the issue was raised?

My guess is that the customer copped a little attitude and that their interlocutor -- perhaps generally a wonderful person -- got snippy in return, rather than taking a deep breath and immediately resolving the situation as they claim to have.

Personally, I'm not one to fret over a couple of bucks, but I'm unsure why the restaurant failed to quickly and calmly make it clear that they, two , were not the type to let a two dollars come between friends.

Just to be clear, Kelli never claimed to "immediately resolve the situation." There was probably some back-and-forth, and I suspect she was taken completely off-guard, both by the situation, and by the customer's demeanor.

[jayandstacey]

Just to be clear, Kelli never claimed to "immediately resolve the situation." There was probably some back-and-forth, and I suspect she was taken completely off-guard, both by the situation, and by the customer's demeanor.

Just the way a patron would be taken completely off guard when faced with false advertising of the "bait and switch" variety. You feel cheated - it isn't the $2, its the cheat, intentional or not.

I guarantee that when the decision was made to sell the burgers at $14, the inside menus were updated quickly enough that not a single burger was sold at $12. But what was the outdoor menu advertisement waiting for? Someone to complain? How many others noticed and didn't say anything? How many did? The posting says both that it stood that way for "weeks or months" and worse, that the bartender knew it.

A request to be charged only the advertised price should be met with "Of course you'll pay $12 and thanks for pointing out the discrepancy, we'll fix it ASAP." That's it, no matter when the request is made during the visit, including after the patron has settled the bill. Anything less simply feeds the "I'm being cheated" feeling and will set some people on tilt. There's reason for the many laws against it, even if they don't (yet) apply to outside menus.

Things apparently got ugly and I wasn't there or condoning anyone's actions - but it doesn't matter - the BS had already happened and it was the restaurant's fault, even if not the fault of anyone there that night.

BTW, I have a low mileage sports car I'd like to sell for $10. Come on over and enter my garage - I may have a different price posted on the window. But I'd like you to come over anyway.

[jayandstacey]

Not too long ago my Mom called the Maryland Highway Administration (or whatever it is called). She said that as one comes south on I-95 from DE and through Baltimore, there are 2 signs about 10 miles apart. One says "Washington 70 miles" and the next one (10 miles closer to DC) says "Washington 68 miles" (or something like that). She said "you know, it doesn't matter much, and the measurements are probably just to different points in DC. But, to anyone paying attention, it kind of makes Maryland look stupid - and the signs have been that way for about 10 years."

The guy at the other end of the phone thanked her and she thought nothing more of it. Driving down the same stretch about 2 months later, the signs had been fixed and were in alignment, and remain that way today.

[DonRocks]

Not too long ago my Mom called the Maryland Highway Administration (or whatever it is called). She said that as one comes south on I-95 from DE and through Baltimore, there are 2 signs about 10 miles apart. One says "Washington 70 miles" and the next one (10 miles closer to DC) says "Washington 68 miles" (or something like that). She said "you know, it doesn't matter much, and the measurements are probably just to different points in DC. But, to anyone paying attention, it kind of makes Maryland look stupid - and the signs have been that way for about 10 years."

The guy at the other end of the phone thanked her and she thought nothing more of it. Driving down the same stretch about 2 months later, the signs had been fixed and were in alignment, and remain that way today.

This allegory is much more effective than your previous implication of malice.

As an aside, it seems like I have half the world, people in the restaurant industry, hating my guts because "those people on your website" nitpick and criticize every little thing we do, not to mention that I, myself, am often critical and refuse to be swayed by celebrity.

And then, I also have the other half of the world, people not in the restaurant industry, hating my guts because "you're always siding with your 'chef buddies' and pals in the industry."

We won't even get into the "Friends with Don Rockwell Penalty" that certain people have to suffer through because they're guilty by association.

So I figure I'm probably striking a pretty good balance, and have become quite adept at being an equal-opportunity vibrator.

Poo-tee-weet.

[SeanMike]

So I figure I'm probably striking a pretty good balance, and have become quite adept at being an equal-opportunity vibrator.

We won't ask which end the batteries go into.

[jayandstacey]

This allegory is much more effective than your previous implication of malice.

As an aside, it seems like I have half the world, people in the restaurant industry, hating my guts because "those people on your website" nitpick and criticize every little thing we do, not to mention that I, myself, am often critical and refuse to be swayed by celebrity.

And then, I also have the other half of the world, people not in the restaurant industry, hating my guts because "you're always siding with your 'chef buddies' and pals in the industry."

We won't even get into the "Friends with Don Rockwell Penalty" that certain people have to suffer through because they're guilty by association.

So I figure I'm probably striking a pretty good balance, and have become quite adept at being an equal-opportunity vibrator.

Poo-tee-weet.

I hate your guts but never really thought much about why. I'll pick one of these camps and let you know ( just kidding of course)

Funny thing, I just came across an example of this 'bait and switch' at the very place where I just ate 3 hours ago. It wasn't the price that drew me in and I'm a little tiny bit miffed they would advertise at $X, then actually sell for $X+$2 (yes, they are also charging an extra $2). But I see that maybe this is just an error, something that happens often in the fast paced real world.

I also realize that I work in a field where doing precisely this (advertising one price but charging another) could land me in jail and would defintely cost my company $10s or $100s of millions. I am trained to be hyper-sensitive to this error and didn't make the connection until now. Needless to say, I'm not selling cheeseburgers.

Calming down and heading to the gas station for tacos.

[Ferhat Yalcin]

Driving down the street, at a car dealership, you see the advertised price on a specific car. However, when you go inside the actual price is $6000 more. At what price you would think the dealership is going to sell you the car? Outside advertised or the actual inside price?

[jayandstacey]

Driving down the street, at a car dealership, you see the advertised price on a specific car. However, when you go inside the actual price is $6000 more. At what price you would think the dealership is going to sell you the car? Outside advertised or the actual inside price?

The price my lawyer gets from them.

[Ferhat Yalcin]

The price my lawyer gets from them.

If the outside price was $6000 higher than the actual inside price, would you pay that $6000 difference (because you already made up your mind anyway) ?

[jayandstacey]

If the outside price was $6000 higher than the actual inside price, would you pay that $6000 difference (because you already made up your mind anyway) ?

Not if later offered lower.

Advertising deception laws are pretty simple. The gist is that if the advertiser publicizes material facts about a product and the consumer isn't able to realize those facts, the advertiser has broken the law. Similarly, if an advertiser publicizes material facts then the 'actual' facts turn out to be different in a way that causes the buyer to change their mind about a purchase, then they've broken the law.

If a dealer wants to advertise $X then offers me $X-$6K when I walk in the door - two things:

1. I'm still realizing the advertised price - I'm not having to add more than advertised to close the deal

2. It likely won't change my buying decision, rather it may strengthen it. If I (the buyer) refuse the -$6K offer, then presumably there's a deal at the advertised price. If not, there was never any intent to buy.

Companies can't use advertising to lure in consumers on certain promises, then change the promise for the worse once inside. This is well established in law and just bad business. If they want to sweeten the pot, they can do so all day long. It really isn't complicated.

This actual example happened to me.

I saw a car from a national used car dealer on the web for $23,500. I scheduled a test drive for 3 hours later and printed the advertised price from the web. When I got to the dealer, their car sticker said $24,000 - and their PCs all showed $24,000 on what looked like their external website. I was livid and about to walk out before the test drive, but my wife showed the guy the print out we made. "OK, no problem, your price is $23,500."

OK, fine - but what was up with that? I'm not sure I'll ever buy from them again - it was too 'swarmy' and not cool. My wife wanted the car, and we'd said the price was acceptable- but it STILL smacked of a cheat and they lost my (then strong) loyalty.

[Ferhat Yalcin]

Not if later offered lower.

Advertising deception laws are pretty simple. The gist is that if the advertiser publicizes material facts about a product and the consumer isn't able to realize those facts, the advertiser has broken the law. Similarly, if an advertiser publicizes material facts then the 'actual' facts turn out to be different in a way that causes the buyer to change their mind about a purchase, then they've broken the law.

If a dealer wants to advertise $X then offers me $X-$6K when I walk in the door - two things:

1. I'm still realizing the advertised price - I'm not having to add more than advertised to close the deal

2. It likely won't change my buying decision, rather it may strengthen it. If I (the buyer) refuse the -$6K offer, then presumably there's a deal at the advertised price. If not, there was never any intent to buy.

Companies can't use advertising to lure in consumers on certain promises, then change the promise for the worse once inside. This is well established in law and just bad business. If they want to sweeten the pot, they can do so all day long. It really isn't complicated.

This actual example happened to me.

I saw a car from a national used car dealer on the web for $23,500. I scheduled a test drive for 3 hours later and printed the advertised price from the web. When I got to the dealer, their car sticker said $24,000 - and their PCs all showed $24,000 on what looked like their external website. I was livid and about to walk out before the test drive, but my wife showed the guy the print out we made. "OK, no problem, your price is $23,500."

OK, fine - but what was up with that? I'm not sure I'll ever buy from them again - it was too 'swarmy' and not cool. My wife wanted the car, and we'd said the price was acceptable- but it STILL smacked of a cheat and they lost my (then strong) loyalty.

I understand your points and yes, make sense and I agree. However, my point is, these small mistakes can happen very easily at restaurants and shouldn`t be a big deal(dealer example is exaggerated with price). There is no reason for a customer to be jackass over these issues and the restaurant does not have to honor the wrong price. I just walked out to see my menu as I am typing this and I see `hake` is listed. I haven`t served hake in over a month! and I just noticed that. If someone comes in to order hake, guess what? I don`t have it. And if somebody wants to be a big a** about it or sue me, let them be but still no hake.

I also believe that when there is a menu put outside, that is not an advertising. It is just a convenience for the walking customer to read the menu without going in to the restaurant.

[jayandstacey]

I understand your points and yes, make sense and I agree. However, my point is, these small mistakes can happen very easily at restaurants and shouldn`t be a big deal(dealer example is exaggerated with price). There is no reason for a customer to be jackass over these issues and the restaurant does not have to honor the wrong price. I just walked out to see my menu as I am typing this and I see `hake` is listed. I haven`t served hake in over a month! and I just noticed that. If someone comes in to order hake, guess what? I don`t have it. And if somebody wants to be a big a** about it or sue me, let them be but still no hake.

I also believe that when there is a menu put outside, that is not an advertising. It is just a convenience for the walking customer to read the menu without going in to the restaurant.

I disagree with the highlighed statements.

If they are acceptable, then it would be OK for McDonald's to put "20 cent Big Macs" on their drive-thru sign and sell them for $2.99 when you get to the window. I don't believe that's considered right or common practice regardless of the place.

Besides, are you really wanting only to provide conveniences to people who will not be coming into your restaurant? Is the outside menu REALLY only to help people avoid the process of coming in, asking to see a menu, looking at it and getting up and leaving? I know that happens occasionally in places, but has that been an issue worthy of addressing outside the door? Are you saying you're taking actions outside to prevent such people from coming into your place?

(I don't run a restaurant but I'm confident that I would not be posting a menu to convenience people from walking in. Rather, I'd consider it one of my many ways of advertising, meant to attract customers inside and increase profit. If I'm doing anything that doesn't help accomplish both those goals, I'm wasting time.)

Accidents happen and I get that. There's plenty of room for discovery and corrections. But in the Palena case, (according to the info we have), an employee knew of this. It wasn't an accident, even if the purpose wasn't to deceive.

But as you did with the car example, flip the coin over - if you decided a new way to attract customers was to lower prices on your existing menu...and you had a menu displayed outside...wouldn't the new, lower-priced menu be quickly replaced outside on the street, as the price is part of the 'attraction' of the outside posted menu? If Palena lowered the burger price $2 - would they leave the higher price showing to Conn Ave for "weeks or months" knowing it was dated? We'll never know but...I doubt it.

So to play devil's advocate, if these highlighted rules apply outside then they must apply to the inside menu too, right? If the inside menu says $12, but the right price is $14, then put $14 on the bill. Does the restaurant have to honor the inside menu price when it is wrong? I mean if we assume an outside menu facing the public isn't advertising, then the menu put in front a single guest on property certainly is not advertising either and the restaurant reserves the right to charge the right price, regardless what the inside menu says...right?

I owned a business for many years. I advertised products and prices; my 'menu' was 1000s of products that changed daily. Occasionally there was an error. My own policy was simple - the error benefitted the customer until corrected, regardless if they asked for the correction or not.

[Ericandblueboy]

The more that I think about it, the more I agree that the outside menu price has to be honored. People walk in the restaurant in reliance on such menu. Even if it's only a waste of a few minutes, I don't feel a restaurant should waste my time. With that said, I haven't the slightest idea how this story really unfolded.

[Poivrot Farci]

Is the outside menu REALLY only to help people avoid the process of coming in, asking to see a menu, looking at it and getting up and leaving?

Yes. Think of it as a preview that may or may not appeal to your tastes. It is quite standard in most of the developed world where passersby aren't tethered to umbilical mobile electronics.

[jayandstacey]

Yes. Think of it as a preview that may or may not appeal to your tastes. It is quite standard in most of the developed world where passersby aren't tethered to umbilical mobile electronics.

OK, I always thought an outside menu was primarily an attempt to attract outside "on the fence" customers inside. I was wrong.