High-end UK restaurants making minimum spend standard in face of no-shows
Say goodbye to that romanticised memory of dining in major cities. The latest trend to hit restaurants in some major cities is the minimum spend.
Concerned by rising costs, last-minute cancellations or no-show diners, restaurants are forcing customers to commit to spending a minimum amount of money per head when they attend.
Minimum spends hit the headlines when two Michelin star London restaurant Gymkhana announced that each guest would have to pay at least £100 (€121) on their dinners.
Gymkhana isn't alone. Other restaurants across the UK capital are requiring diners to accept parting with a minimum amount of cash on entry. Fellow gourmet Indian restaurant Chutney Mary demands a £60 (€73) minimum spend, while Hutong in The Shard requires £80 (€97).
The most expensive minimum spend requirement we found in London was the Araki, a sushi restaurant in Mayfair, that charges at least £300 (€364) for the pleasure of eating there.
Pay to reserve
Alongside minimum spends, there has also been a rise in restaurants asking for deposits before bookings. It's not uncommon in London and other major UK cities for a guest's credit card to be charged around £20 (€24) per head to secure the reservation.
What's the reasoning behind these measures? According to Gymkhana, it's 'in part due to the number of cancellations and no-shows we were seeing per service'. However, speaking to the Financial Times, the Indian restaurant explained that after they received their two Michelin stars, their site was inundated with 'large volumes of bots and reservation resale websites'.
Minimum spends and reservation deposits are aimed at tackling a rising trend in the restaurant industry that has plagued live music for some time. New York restaurants have been plagued by bots that make huge swathes of reservations at trendy spots so that people can then bid on the reservation closer to the time.
It's a system that means those with the cash to spare can find a booking at a great restaurant with a moment's notice, but leads to restaurants having no-show reservations and less wealthy potential diners missing out.
No shows, no money
Outside of the bots world, restaurants are also tired of the trend where people book tons of potential reservations ahead of a dinner plan, only to visit just one of the reserved restaurants or none at all.
No-shows are increasingly troubling for restaurants who are facing huge hurdles to remain financially stable. Costs have risen from all corners: rent, energy and ingredients. As a result, high table turnover and increased individual diner spend has become more necessary than ever.
'There's no desire to gouge the guests or the customer in any way,' Matt Tucker, CEO of Tock, a restaurant booking app, told the Financial Times. 'This is just saying, 'we are making a contract between the two of us that you're going to show up and I'm going to provide you the best meal, the best service'.'
Minimum spends might be a reliable way for high-end restaurants with social media buzz in major cities to guarantee reliable income. But it shouldn't be a widespread trend. Any restaurant that serves a local community, values repeat customers, or tries to create an inviting atmosphere is going to struggle with implementing a minimum spend.
While many diners will accept the economic motivation, nothing will cut through any pretense of a convivial charming local eatery than the threat of the card machine lingering over you.
Whether it's the kind of place where you feel brought into someone's home and catered for personally, or a fine dining experience that whisks you away into a world of luxury, the best restaurants allow you to simply enjoy the sumptuous food in front of your and forget that the industry is a goods and service for money exchange.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
a day ago
- LeMonde
Donald Trump is on the verge of winning his trade war
When Donald Trump decided, in early spring, to abruptly suspend his unilateral tariffs after triggering a financial panic, the Financial Times published a sarcastic comment about the US president in early May, calling him "TACO" for "Trump always chickens out" in trade negotiations. This infuriated the head of state. "That's a nasty question," he said in the Oval Office of the White House after a journalist asked him about it. On July 15, Wall Street Journal columnist Greg Ip offered a less humorous but more direct evaluation: "Forget TACO. Trump is winning his trade war." The issue is not to defend Trump's trade policy – the WSJ called it "the dumbest trade war in history" – but to analyze whether the president is achieving the goals he set for himself. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, is set to meet the US head of state in Scotland on Sunday, July 27, in a last-ditch effort to reach a deal before the August 1 deadline to avoid 30% tariffs on European goods. The WSJ columnist recalled that the president's intention was to impose the highest possible tariffs to protect American industry and fund all or part of the income tax. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent used the argument of tariffs as a negotiating tool in an attempt to reassure US partners. But that was not Trump's concern.
LeMonde
2 days ago
- LeMonde
'If a dictator issued a call for tenders to reopen gulags, some consulting firms would be ready to bid'
The British daily Financial Times revealed in early July that Boston Consulting Group (BCG), a major consulting firm, had carried out an assignment for an American security company, commissioned by an Israeli think tank, on the "reconstruction of Gaza." The study discussed the displacement of 500,000 Palestinians and assessed proposals – if one dares call them that – to make to Gazans, weighing which would be most effective: $9,000 in cash or $5,000 and four years of rent. A plan conceived without the residents, for a reconstruction without the survivors, billed at several million dollars. BCG apologized, fired those responsible, and gave up its fee. That might have been enough, if not for the countless deaths, horrors and suffering. We could pretend to forget the McKinsey controversy in the United States, in which the consulting firm recommended increasing opioid dosages to drive up prices. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), this resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people from overdoses. Once again, the firm expressed its "deep" regrets and, in 2024, reached a settlement of nearly a billion dollars to avoid litigation. Those fond of calculations will appreciate the irony. We could settle for these acts of contrition. A moment of nausea, before moving on. But it would be more useful to ask what makes these scandals possible. Like all businesses, consulting firms have "processes." No one is staffed on a project without approval. No new client is accepted without a risk analysis. No work is done outside the rules of deontology. Poorly known codes These rules do exist: Some firms refuse to work for the sex, gambling, or tobacco industries, others avoid certain countries. All of them establish "Chinese walls," supposedly protecting against conflicts of interest. But unlike regulated professions (lawyers or certified public accountants) or those with formal codes (like journalists), these rules are rarely published and often little known even to the consultants themselves. Everything depends on self-regulation.
Fashion Network
3 days ago
- Fashion Network
India-UK trade deal signals Modi's priorities as New Delhi eyes EU, US pacts
India's trade deal with Britain is a sign of New Delhi's new gradual shift to opening up its markets while shielding crucial sectors from competition and could be its template for future agreements, government officials and analysts said on Friday. Signed on Thursday and hailed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi as "a blueprint for our shared prosperity", the deal with the UK represents India's biggest ever strategic partnership with an advanced economy. It comes at a time rising global trade tensions and at a pivotal moment for India's historically protectionist trade strategy, as the Asian giant looks to strike similar deals with partners including the EU, U.S., and New Zealand. Under the pact, India notably agreed to cut tariffs on imported British vehicles, opening up competition for a domestic industry that makes up nearly 7% of the Indian economy. "This is a policy shift, especially as India has long used high tariffs to protect domestic manufacturers," Ajay Srivastava, founder of Global Trade Research Initiative and a former Indian trade negotiator, told Reuters. The easing of its protectionist stance also applies to government procurement and pharmaceuticals and will likely be replicated in deals with Brussels and Washington, he added. But it remains a cautious shift. The calibrated strategy aims to leverage trade for economic growth, the official said, but the government will continue to shield millions of Indians dependent upon subsistence farming and low-margin work. Indian exporters will benefit from zero tariffs on goods including textiles, footwear, gems, furniture, auto parts, machinery, and chemicals. "With zero tariffs, India's garment exports to the UK could double in three years," said N. Thirukkumaran, general secretary of the Tiruppur Exporters Association. "This also paves the way for the EU agreement, which could bring even bigger gains." But the strategy could face a major test in negotiations with US President Donald Trump's administration, which has used the threat of steep tariffs to pressure trading partners into making concessions. Trade Minister Piyush Goyal told Reuters on Thursday that India is also hopeful of reaching a trade agreement with Washington that includes "special and preferred treatment".
