No Reservations - No, Really: No Reservations

[Waitman]

Can you please explain further?  I genuinely don't understand why going someplace else causes any of these problems.  A reservation seems very convenient to me because you won't have the stress of worrying about a wait or whether or not you get in, and you'll have a great meal and visit with your friend, which is what the trip is about anyway.  Plus, if you aren't waiting in line, she can hit one more museum or monument, making the trip that much better.  Win-win-win.

No offense was meant, although it seems to have been taken.  An internet risk, I suppose.  I still don't really understand why there is such desire to go somewhere that makes it difficult to get in, no matter how good the food is.  Dinner is the entire experience, and I'll simply go elsewhere.  To those who choose to be angry, frustrated, put out, or offended, well, carry on. 

No harm done, and, as a youngest child, telling people what to do isn't really my schtick.  I do, however, genuinely want to understand why people behave very differently than I would in the same situation.  If you read my post and hear the voice of a confused Mr. Spock in your head, you'll get a decent sense of my demeanor.

I'm still casting a vote for the restaurants of excellent food and least resistance.

Maybe you and I just have a  different approach to these things. When I consider what restaurant I want to go to, the first consideration is what I want to eat.  Then I work through the various factors that limit my access to my first choice: cost, location, hours etc.  When additional barriers are put up -- worse, when the whole restaurant journey is thrown into doubt, because you can't get a real answer before setting out regarding when or whether you might eat -- I see that not only as a limit on my choice, but an unnecessary one and one that calls into question the notion of a "hospitality" industry.  You say "I still don't really understand why there is such desire to go somewhere that makes it difficult to get in..."  I say, "why are they making it so difficult to get in to someplace I desire to go?"

[lperry]

Maybe you and I just have a  different approach to these things. When I consider what restaurant I want to go to, the first consideration is what I want to eat.  Then I work through the various factors that limit my access to my first choice: cost, location, hours etc.  When additional barriers are put up -- worse, when the whole restaurant journey is thrown into doubt, because you can't get a real answer before setting out regarding when or whether you might eat -- I see that not only as a limit on my choice, but an unnecessary one and one that calls into question the notion of a "hospitality" industry.  You say "I still don't really understand why there is such desire to go somewhere that makes it difficult to get in..."  I say, "why are they making it so difficult to get in to someplace I desire to go?"

We agree on boldface point one.  As for boldface point two, here we differ 180 degrees because I have zero desire to go some place that isn't welcoming or that doesn't make it easy for me to visit.  One of the most amazing meals I had in the DC Metro area was colored by rudeness from the reception staff, and I will not return to that restaurant.  I don't care how good the food was.  There are other places to go where the food may not be the same, but it will still be excellent, and the staff will be wonderful as well.

For me, dining is about having a relaxing, enjoyable experience.  Putting myself in a mindset or situation where that relaxing, enjoyable experience is compromised is simply contrary to the way I try to live my life.  I don't understand dining as a competitive sport.  There are plenty of things I can be angry about, and I don't want my dinner to be one of them.

[kwhitney]

Is this the "New Cruelty"?

[B.A.R.]

I've been to the Prime Rib only a few times, because I rarely want to don a coat and tie on a day off. If I want steak in an elegant (albeit pre-cambrian) atmosphere, I go somewhere else. I'd LIKE to go to the Prime Rib more often, but their dress code dissuades me. That's fine.

I've been to Cafe Milano just once, and the food blew, the staff was insufferable, and it was outrageously overpriced. This does not seem to keep them from being filled on a nightly basis with Washington glitterati, but they wont be seeing me. That's fine.

I've never been to the Inn at Little Washington. By all accounts the accolades heaped upon the restaurant are well deserved, but their pricing structure is too expensive for me, so I have not gone. That's fine.

My wife cannot handle spicy food, so she has never been to Little Serow. When we want Thai, we choose to go somewhere else, somewhere more flexible. That's fine.

It seems to me that Rose's wanted to open a reasonably priced restaurant serving great food in a neighborhood that can afford and support it. Taking reservations would exclude a significant amount of the neighborhood and increase their operational costs, so they chose not to. This decision means I don't get to go there often, and may never go again. That's fine, too.

So I guess I am in the minority here because I don't care whether I ever eat there again and I don't see their no reservations policy as something to get worked up over. If it works for them, good.

What I do find interesting is the backlash over where they do take reservations: the rooftop. Aside from the "rent it all" component, is there that great of a difference between what Rose's is doing with the rooftop, and Roberto's 8, Volt's Table 21, etc? Are we mad at those restaurants for taking away tables from "normal" patrons to serve a much more expensive fixed price dinner?

[DonRocks]

What I do find interesting is the backlash over where they do take reservations: the rooftop. Aside from the "rent it all" component, is there that great of a difference between what Rose's is doing with the rooftop, and Roberto's 8, Volt's Table 21, etc? Are we mad at those restaurants for taking away tables from "normal" patrons to serve a much more expensive fixed price dinner?

But where is this backlash?

[B.A.R.]

But where is this backlash?

Could have swore I've read a few complaints that their rooftop reservations are elitist. I don't have time to re-read a bunch of threads now, but will later and if I don't find them I will amend my post

[Joe H]

I've been to the Prime Rib only a few times, because I rarely want to don a coat and tie on a day off. If I want steak in an elegant (albeit pre-cambrian) atmosphere, I go somewhere else. I'd LIKE to go to the Prime Rib more often, but their dress code dissuades me. That's fine.

I've been to Cafe Milano just once, and the food blew, the staff was insufferable, and it was outrageously overpriced. This does not seem to keep them from being filled on a nightly basis with Washington glitterati, but they wont be seeing me. That's fine.

I've never been to the Inn at Little Washington. By all accounts the accolades heaped upon the restaurant are well deserved, but their pricing structure is too expensive for me, so I have not gone. That's fine.

My wife cannot handle spicy food, so she has never been to Little Serow. When we want Thai, we choose to go somewhere else, somewhere more flexible. That's fine.

It seems to me that Rose's wanted to open a reasonably priced restaurant serving great food in a neighborhood that can afford and support it. Taking reservations would exclude a significant amount of the neighborhood and increase their operational costs, so they chose not to. This decision means I don't get to go there often, and may never go again. That's fine, too.

So I guess I am in the minority here because I don't care whether I ever eat there again and I don't see their no reservations policy as something to get worked up over. If it works for them, good.

What I do find interesting is the backlash over where they do take reservations: the rooftop. Aside from the "rent it all" component, is there that great of a difference between what Rose's is doing with the rooftop, and Roberto's 8, Volt's Table 21, etc? Are we mad at those restaurants for taking away tables from "normal" patrons to serve a much more expensive fixed price dinner?

I made the comment about the $1,000 prix fixe minimum for food + wine, beverage, tax and tip.

As for Roberto's 8 or Table 21 a single person can make  a reservation and pay for only him or herself.  They do not have to guarantee all eight seats.  And that is the difference for me:  instead of a large picnic table Rose's could have put several tables accommodating two or four people on their roof and used them for reservations.  Rather they elected to go the private "club' route.  I thought they should have addressed the issue of the possibility of several reservations first but they didn't.  If they had done this AND also accepted a limited number of very early or late reservations similar to Red Hen I would feel completely different.

[Bart]

I look at Rose's rooftop policy as extension of their no reservations policy and along the lines of Ian Boden's post above (#71).   It's just cheaper and easier for the restarurant.

Instead of having to keep track or 8 or 10 reservations per night, they only have to keep track of 1.  (which is a 100% or 1000% or 100000000% increase from what they were doing before!)

It's not like they're trying for exclusivity or to go the "club route", they're just trying to minimize the effort they have to expend in filling seats.

At least that's my uninformed opinion of what's happening

[TedE]

"why are they making it so difficult to get in to someplace I desire to go?"

The answer is that they have not designed their dining experience for you personally.  A restaurant operates in a way that is most efficient and profitable for the restaurant knowing full well that one aspect or another will turn some subset of potential diners off:

- "You don't offer any interesting vegetarian options!"

- "It's too loud in here!"

- "A Miller Lite costs how much?!"

- "There's no valet and this neighborhood is hard to park in!"

Etc., etc.  Having no reservations is just one decision made with this in mind.  People seem to be complaining that by not taking reservations a restaurant is writing off their (the individual's) business.  And you know what?  They are writing it off. But with full seatings at prime times and consistent 2-3 hours waits they can afford to because they are taking all of the business that they can handle.  That's all this comes down to.

[Joe H]

I look at Rose's rooftop policy as extension of their no reservations policy and along the lines of Ian Boden's post above (#71).   It's just cheaper and easier for the restarurant.

Instead of having to keep track or 8 or 10 reservations per night, they only have to keep track of 1.  (which is a 100% or 1000% or 100000000% increase from what they were doing before!)

It's not like they're trying for exclusivity or to go the "club route", they're just trying to minimize the effort they have to expend in filling seats.

At least that's my uninformed opinion of what's happening

Ian Boden's The Shack is a very different restaurant which is MUCH smaller.  There are a total of seven tables with an absolute capacity of 28 people.  A total of three staff, perhaps four at peak for the entire restaurant.  Rose's Luxury has a total, I believe, of 79 seats (three bars all of which serve dinner totalling 21 seats, a table for eight in the back of the main floor, the table for 10 on the roof and the rest all two and four tops + a small five seat lounge area adjacent to the upstairs bar.  I am guessing that total staff at Rose's may be 15 during peak operation. City Paper has photographs of almost every area while the restaurant was under construction.

My whole point is that Rose's is a wonderful, considerate restaurant with excellent food once you are seated inside the door.  But getting there, whether the absence of valet parking or the probability of a long line to get in without the opportunity for even an early reservation is a great deal of trouble much of which could be alleviated by the restaurant.  Rose's choose not to do this.

Enough.

[DanielK]

We'll only know whether Rose's no-reservations policy worked in a couple of years.

Then, some other place will have taken over the "new and hot" mantle. The hip crowds will flock elsewhere. And two questions will apply:

1. Is there enough neighborhood interest, and can they keep the quality high enough, to keep the place full when something else is drawing all of the media attention?

2. Will patrons who chose not to brave the crowds now when it is crowded and they couldn't make a reservation give it a chance once it is easier to get in?

The risk on #2 is that a no-reservations policy now can irritate enough people that #2 doesn't happen later. I think that's why some places that don't need to take reservations when they are hot do anyway, to preserve goodwill for future visitors. And why you see a lot of places that start out not taking them, shift to at least taking some reservations.

[DonRocks]

We'll only know whether Rose's no-reservations policy worked in a couple of years.

Then, some other place will have taken over the "new and hot" mantle. The hip crowds will flock elsewhere. And two questions will apply:

1. Is there enough neighborhood interest, and can they keep the quality high enough, to keep the place full when something else is drawing all of the media attention?

2. Will patrons who chose not to brave the crowds now when it is crowded and they couldn't make a reservation give it a chance once it is easier to get in?

The risk on #2 is that a no-reservations policy now can irritate enough people that #2 doesn't happen later. I think that's why some places that don't need to take reservations when they are hot do anyway, to preserve goodwill for future visitors. And why you see a lot of places that start out not taking them, shift to at least taking some reservations.

My only problem with this thread is that it's focusing too much on a few individual restaurants, but I suppose Little Serow and Rose's Luxury are somewhat unique right now in that they're the places with lines at opening time.

Regarding Daniel's questions:

1. No, not full all the time.

2. Yes, I don't see why not.

Can anyone think of any other DC restaurants in the past that have had a no-reservations policy *and* had lines out the door at opening time? Momofuku Noodle Bar used to be just like this (and still may be). Maybe Toki Underground and Pasta Mia.

I'm honestly surprised this thread has acquired legs this long because the concepts seem so clear to me, but I also have no problem with Little Serow and Rose's Luxury not taking reservations, just like I never had a problem with 2 Amys or Colorado Kitchen not taking reservations. I wish I had some great insight to add to the conversation, but I really don't.

[Keithstg]

What I do find interesting is the backlash over where they do take reservations: the rooftop. Aside from the "rent it all" component, is there that great of a difference between what Rose's is doing with the rooftop, and Roberto's 8, Volt's Table 21, etc? Are we mad at those restaurants for taking away tables from "normal" patrons to serve a much more expensive fixed price dinner?

Me too. However, I think that some (most?) of the backlash comes from a misunderstanding of what constitutes a private club versus what is simply a different way to experience a restaurant.

[Pool Boy]

To be perfectly frank, the problem of partial arrivals, no shows and late cancellations is due to all age groups.  Any age can and does abuse the social contract that is a restaurant reservation.

Right now, we are giving out reservations for the early turn for those who want to come in then and are first come first served later.

Hey Dean - I get why you need to take this approach, really I do, especially after reading the latest two dozen or so posts on this thread. But taking reservations early and only early, well, while it does address the audience of potential customers who crave or demand the ability to get a reservation, means you have to eat dinner EARLY. While I do that on occasion, most of the time I prefer a later meal, say 7:30 to 9 as the start time. If reservations are only possible early and I am preferring to dine later, I either choose to show up and wait (to your place or any of a number of place with similar reservation policies or no reservations at all) an unknown number of minutes (5 to 30 to 80 or more minutes - who knows?!), well it means I will probably frequent that place far less. It is simple mechanics. I'd rather find a place I can get a reservation, because I don't want to stand around waiting for this unknown time frame waiting to dine. Others have mentioned having a 'waiting for my name to be called' strategy. I am curious as to how this works. Do places that take names only (only, or only after a certain time), well, call the name of the person? Or do you take mobile phone numbers? Or what? I would imagine it horribly annoying and rude for a restaurant if a soon to be patron stopped, put a name in, then left to go to a bar a couple blocks away, and then expect to still get seated (eventually). If they are not in the restaurant or at the bar at the restaurant, their name goes off the list IMHO and you move on to the next one. If they come back angry, so what. They put their name back on the list. Right? Since I do not often go to places without a reservation, I am a little out of the loop over what is currently expected or allowable or acceptable.

[DonRocks]

Hey Dean - I get why you need to take this approach, really I do, especially after reading the latest two dozen or so posts on this thread. But taking reservations early and only early, well, while it does address the audience of potential customers who crave or demand the ability to get a reservation, means you have to eat dinner EARLY. While I do that on occasion, most of the time I prefer a later meal, say 7:30 to 9 as the start time. If reservations are only possible early and I am preferring to dine later, I either choose to show up and wait (to your place or any of a number of place with similar reservation policies or no reservations at all) an unknown number of minutes (5 to 30 to 80 or more minutes - who knows?!), well it means I will probably frequent that place far less. It is simple mechanics. I'd rather find a place I can get a reservation, because I don't want to stand around waiting for this unknown time frame waiting to dine. Others have mentioned having a 'waiting for my name to be called' strategy. I am curious as to how this works. Do places that take names only (only, or only after a certain time), well, call the name of the person? Or do you take mobile phone numbers? Or what? I would imagine it horribly annoying and rude for a restaurant if a soon to be patron stopped, put a name in, then left to go to a bar a couple blocks away, and then expect to still get seated (eventually). If they are not in the restaurant or at the bar at the restaurant, their name goes off the list IMHO and you move on to the next one. If they come back angry, so what. They put their name back on the list. Right? Since I do not often go to places without a reservation, I am a little out of the loop over what is currently expected or allowable or acceptable.

Thomas, I propose the *only* reason Little Serow and Rose's Luxury are being cited like they are is because there are problems with *early* tables. There are *lots* of restaurants who don't take reservations during prime-time dinner rush, and it's next to impossible to get a table, especially on a weekend. For these restaurants, the effects of their equally rigid policies (which I have absolutely no problem with (note that nearly every restaurant in this little list is ranked in Italic)) may be less devastating, but the rationale for their existence is exactly the same - and, yes, "they would if they could." These include (please note these are educated guesses, and I haven't done proper diligence) Sweetwater Tavern, Estadio, Pearl Dive, Etto, Eat The Rich, Palena Cafe, Dickson Wine Bar, El Chucho, 2 Amys, Birreria Paradiso, Mockingbird Hill, Southern Efficiency, Izakaya Seki, The Passenger, Kotobuki, Boundary Road, and if I researched this for ten minutes, I could probably list plenty more - note that many of these are in "hot" neighborhoods with lots of walk-in traffic. The ridiculous lines at Georgetown Cupcake? A variation on the exact same theme. If I remember correctly, Cork - the pioneer of 14UP which is now staving off massive competition - previously didn't allow unrestricted reservations, although they do now (but as equal punishment for the diner, they were early adapters of the odious policy of bringing dishes out "when they were ready" (whether you were, or not)). It will be interesting to look back at this little list in five years and see if how the policies have changed. If anyone is interested, it would be quite simple to come up with a list of "tough tables" using my Dining Guide as a base, to be used as a time capsule and opened in a decade. Times will have changed to such an extent that you simply won't believe it. Mark my words on May 29, 2014.

[SeanMike]

Hey Dean - I get why you need to take this approach, really I do, especially after reading the latest two dozen or so posts on this thread. But taking reservations early and only early, well, while it does address the audience of potential customers who crave or demand the ability to get a reservation, means you have to eat dinner EARLY. While I do that on occasion, most of the time I prefer a later meal, say 7:30 to 9 as the start time.

As I think Don was saying - those are the times when no-shows are the most impactful. If your restaurant is half-full at 5:30, or 9:30, and there's a no-show - you're not turning people away at the door. But at 7-8? A lot of places will be packed no matter what, and having an open table sitting there getting unused for a no-show not only means you don't get the money for that table, but you're going to have some pissed off patrons going "why won't they seat us, I see an open table!".

[B.A.R.]

Can anyone think of any other DC restaurants in the past that have had a no-reservations policy *and* had lines out the door at opening time? Momofuku Noodle Bar used to be just like this (and still may be). Maybe Toki Underground and Pasta Mia.

I can.

Zaytinya. Despite being cavernous and having 280+seats- opened with a no reservations policy. AND a "only seat complete parties" policy to boot!. This lasted for the first few years. The place is a factory and could churn out food quickly, yet waits still exceeded 1.5 hours on peek - yet the masses came. And when they started to notice their revenues declining, they opened up for limited reservations at "off" hours and people booked. They continue to tweek their reservations policy to this day and remain in business.

At their height of popularity sans reservations, they even had an upstairs room for Private parties you could reserve, for at least X people and a minimum spend. People rejoiced, not complained, and booked it!

The only differenece between this and Roses is a) Zaytinya had the scale and infrastructure to take reservations and STILL chose not too, b ) no one thought it was that big of a deal, and c) they had valet parking, which I don't believe anyone on Barrack's Row offers because its in a neighborhood that has really no good parking options, for residents or people wishing to dine in the area.

This only thing new about this is the outrage.

[TedE]

Then, some other place will have taken over the "new and hot" mantle. The hip crowds will flock elsewhere.

Analogous: How much do you want a 2015 Corvette Stingray?  Enough to pay several thousand dollars above MSRP for one?  Any of a number of dealers that have inventory for this new and currently limited resource will gladly take your money.  It's up to you whether the price is worth it for the exclusivity of driving around in one on release.  And remember when people were paying $5-6K above sticker for the VW New Beetle?  A BEETLE!!!  Or you could wait until these cars are on the market for 6 months or a year and haggle with the dealer like a normal transaction.

[deangold]

Hey Dean - I get why you need to take this approach, really I do, especially after reading the latest two dozen or so posts on this thread. But taking reservations early and only early, well, while it does address the audience of potential customers who crave or demand the ability to get a reservation, means you have to eat dinner EARLY. While I do that on occasion, most of the time I prefer a later meal, say 7:30 to 9 as the start time. If reservations are only possible early and I am preferring to dine later, I either choose to show up and wait (to your place or any of a number of place with similar reservation policies or no reservations at all) an unknown number of minutes (5 to 30 to 80 or more minutes - who knows?!), well it means I will probably frequent that place far less. It is simple mechanics. I'd rather find a place I can get a reservation, because I don't want to stand around waiting for this unknown time frame waiting to dine. Others have mentioned having a 'waiting for my name to be called' strategy. I am curious as to how this works. Do places that take names only (only, or only after a certain time), well, call the name of the person? Or do you take mobile phone numbers? Or what? I would imagine it horribly annoying and rude for a restaurant if a soon to be patron stopped, put a name in, then left to go to a bar a couple blocks away, and then expect to still get seated (eventually). If they are not in the restaurant or at the bar at the restaurant, their name goes off the list IMHO and you move on to the next one. If they come back angry, so what. They put their name back on the list. Right? Since I do not often go to places without a reservation, I am a little out of the loop over what is currently expected or allowable or acceptable.

So far, we are trying to figure out how the flow of business is and that precluded taking late reservations for now.  Most nights we are fairly empty early and then fill up from 7:30 to 8:30.  So we might add late reservations when we can figure out how to manage them.

Our reservation system, City Eats has a cell-phone page system.  We can text you when your table is ready.  We would hold tables for 5 or 10 minutes after your text went out and then move on.  If you showed up much later without texting back your eta, you would probably go lower on the list behind anyone we quoted a shorter wait time to because we didn't know if you were coming back.  as in all things, we try and be fair but not play into the folk who feel free to abuse the system.

When we opened in Cleveland Park, we didnt take reservations for the first 3 omnths and 13 days we were open.  Even up to the time we closed, we still heard from people "What? you take reservations?  When did you start?"  Hence the early reservations from day one.

[Tujague]

The only differenece between this and Roses is a) Zaytinya had the scale and infrastructure to take reservations and STILL chose not too, no one thought it was that big of a deal, and c) they had valet parking, which I don't believe anyone on Barrack's Row offers because its in a neighborhood that has really no good parking options, for residents or people wishing to dine in the area.

This only thing new about this is the outrage.

Actually, there are several restaurants on Barracks Row that offer valet parking, all on the 500 block. I know Cava and Trattoria Alberto participate in that; I'm not sure which others do. And, as others have noted, there almost always seems to be plenty of parking in the lot beneath the freeway, which is a block away from Rose's. Parking is less of a problem than many make it out to be; it's just not all on the street.

Slightly off-topic, but many also complain that Little Serow only will take parties up to 4 people; Rose's seems designed mainly for 2-4 people (I think there's one table in the back bar area that may accommodate 6), so the upstairs deck does give them an option for larger parties, who are willing to pay for it. In both cases, though, it seems like the menus are designed in such a way that it would be hard to serve people easily in larger groups, unless there is that dedicated area with a different approach, which Rose's now has.

[DonRocks]

I can.

Zaytinya. Despite being cavernous and having 280+seats- opened with a no reservations policy. AND a "only seat complete parties" policy to boot!. This lasted for the first few years. The place is a factory and could churn out food quickly, yet waits still exceeded 1.5 hours on peek - yet the masses came. And when they started to notice their revenues declining, they opened up for limited reservations at "off" hours and people booked. They continue to tweek their reservations policy to this day and remain in business.

At their height of popularity sans reservations, they even had an upstairs room for Private parties you could reserve, for at least X people and a minimum spend. People rejoiced, not complained, and booked it!

The only differenece between this and Roses is a) Zaytinya had the scale and infrastructure to take reservations and STILL chose not too, b ) no one thought it was that big of a deal, and c) they had valet parking, which I don't believe anyone on Barrack's Row offers because its in a neighborhood that has really no good parking options, for residents or people wishing to dine in the area.

This only thing new about this is the outrage.

Funny, I had actually typed "Zay"... and then broke to a new screen to assuage my doubts, saw Zaytinya takes reservations now at all hours and days, and simply couldn't remember if there was a time when they ever didn't, so ... I erased it. Well done, sir. Still, I am not convinced that any "outrage" exists other than from what's been displayed by several people speaking on very visible platforms. Mind you, that doesn't mean it *doesn't* exist; only that I cannot conclude that it does.

[ktmoomau]

I think there was always outrage about the Ray's the Steak no-reservation or strange reservation policy.  And it was always crowded.  I seem to remember lots and lots of complaints.

[DonRocks]

I think there was always outrage about the Ray's the Steak no-reservation or strange reservation policy.  And it was always crowded.  I seem to remember lots and lots of complaints.

This was more for the 90-minute table-turn policy, no?

[Pat]

This was more for the 90-minute table-turn policy, no?

Not necessarily.  That was part of it.  You had to call during a certain time window on certain days to make a reservation.  You could try over and over and not get through, as with attempting to get online reservations at Rose's.

[dcs]

And on the other end of the spectrum.......  A Ticket to Dine.

[lion]

Bonjwing Lee, Ulterior Epicure, has an interesting time with his recent visit to DC and the no reservations policy at some reservations. 

[Joe H]

Bonjwing Lee, Ulterior Epicure, has an interesting time with his recent visit to DC and the no reservations policy at some reservations. 

Extremely interesting and a pleasure to read.

[cheezepowder]

Interesting article from Nick Kokonas about their experience with taking reservations at Alinea and Aviary and the use of tickets at Next, Alinea, and Aviary.

...This is my attempt to outline exactly what we've done with restaurant tickets, why it's interesting, and the results of the experiment"¦ along with real data from our restaurants.  People tend to treat business data as something that shouldn't be shared, but I don't really see the harm in openly examining the data.  So the numbers provided are the real numbers from Alinea, Next and the Aviary....

[Josh]

Interesting article from Nick Kokonas about their experience with taking reservations at Alinea and Aviary and the use of tickets at Next, Alinea, and Aviary.

That was fascinating.  Thanks for sharing.  I love the system he describes for Aviary  and the rationale he gives for using it.