I read through all the posts in this thread and this is a very silly misreading. Nobody is calling people with different opinions on the fees who are actually participating in discourse on that topic stupid. The point is about the stupidity of many consumers in the way that they supposedly respond differently in the market depending on whether the sticker price on each menu item reflects the true cost of the meal. That’s a point about behavioral economics, not about people who don’t agree with them.
(Those in this thread who appear to be pro-junk-fee because they believe in this effect are most likely empirically correct but also normatively wrong. I think it is pretty likely that junk fees end up slightly boosting restaurant demand by making prices look cheaper on the surface, but that’s not a reason to have them - restaurants are using them to exploit information gaps in the same way as a more egregious scammer would, and should be made to stop.)
well said, and couldn’t agree more. that one can exploit a deficiency in consumer psychology when it comes to behavioral pricing, does not mean that one should. it’s essentially a form of bait and switch. one of the more egregious examples of this i observed recently when checking lodging rates a luxury establishment. the cheapest room i could find was
And i think the psychological debate is whether people dislike uncertainty more than certainly high.
My chips are on people disliking uncertainty more, so i believe junk fees are starting to hurt the restaurant industry and we should ban them.
I dont think of either consumer behavior as dumb. Different people dislike different things. The price for the meal is likely unchanged, if a restaurant could bring down prices it would.
““With today’s signing we can uphold the principle of providing consumers with up-front price transparency without inadvertently harming food service workers or small businesses,” Dodd said Saturday in a news release. “This new law will require clear, conspicuous disclosure of any fee, and a description of its purpose, on all advertisements, menus or other displays that contain the price of a food or beverage item. Now we can ensure restaurant customers are not shocked when they get their checks.””
"Restaurants will have a year to ensure the text meets the legal definition of “clear and conspicuous,” which is a larger or contrasting font than the surrounding text, or “set off from the surrounding text … in a manner that clearly calls attention to the language.”
" “Restaurants are vital to the fabric of life in California, and they should be able to cover costs as long as they do so transparently,” Wiener said Saturday in a news release. “SB 1524 clarifies portions of the law that pose a serious threat to restaurants. The bill strikes the right balance between supporting restaurants and delivering transparency for consumers, and I’m proud to support it.” "
No extra reaction from me, enough ink spilled. Just color me disappointed.
Reddit is starting an initiative ordinance to roll SF Mandates into their menu prices.
Therefore, I have drafted The Transparent Restaurant Pricing Act, an initiative ordinance to undo the mess that the state legislature is creating. It will require restaurants to wrap surcharges like “SF Mandate” into menu prices. For more ways to support (and to join our mailing list) see sfclearprices.org. Our measure is still pending review by the City Attorney so we cannot collect signatures yet, but the website and mailing list is how we will send out updates once we have them. We will need to collect over 10,000 signatures to get this on a ballot.
