U.S. consumers are getting more budget-conscious, meaning they are eating at less-expensive restaurants and even ordering cheaper items when they go out.
“I’m sorry, sir. You’ve eaten every shrimp at every Red Lobster in the entire state and it’s only been six hours. We don’t have any more shrimp for you. That will be $20.”
Did a thing like that in my 20s. Got stoned with my best friend and gf, hit the local seafood joint.
Coming back to the table with my 5th plate of shrimp and my friend heard a man tell his wife, “Well it is all you can eat. He can do that if he wants.”
If we are being pedantic, the article mentions it promotion as all you can eat rather then unlimited, except in the title and one place in the article. So the big question is what was it marketted as and is it just the author using the terms as synonyms?
There is a big difference between these if you are being pedantic and not really fair to blame the restaurant for the article authors choose of words.
But being realistic I would think it is fair to say unlimited and all you can eat are basically synonyms when it comes to restaurant promotions. And fair limitations should apply - like the restaurant running out of stock (assuming they a reasonable amount to begin with).
Indeed, matter is finite. However, you are making the assumption that eating shrimp destroys the matter. In fact, eating the shrimp simply returns the matter to the ecosystem, where it will eventually contribute to more shrimp.
Unless you can prove the eventual heat death of the universe, which Red Lobster™ is prepared to fight in court.
Signed, Red Lobster Legal Division
P.S.: If you even think about trying to make Cheddar Bay Biscuits™ using one of those online recipes, we will pursue legal action. We make Nintendo look like Linus Torvalds.
Yes, it’s surprising when a loss leader leads to losses. For example, Olive Garden and their soup, salad, and bread sticks are probably loss leaders because of how cheap they are, but they make up that little loss with much better margins on entrees (and, I assume, drinks).
i hate how the term ‘loss leader’ is bandied about like i’m meant to feel sorry for them so generously losing money on something when at the end of the night it’s obviously one transaction for everything with a healthy amount of profits baked in
Belgium. You are not allowed to sell any item at a loss. Fire example Ikea had to increase the prices of its restaurant and a supermarket that did a 3 for 1 promo got in trouble.
What else should it be called? I don’t think there’s some moral responsibility placed upon the patron to make up for the loss, even with that name. It’s a gamble for the business that is usually thought out and is intended to lead to an increase in profits overall due to margins baked into items that aren’t on promo.
Sure, it’s considered poor taste to come to a restaurant solely for the free bread and some water and then leave, but it’s completely fair game to take advantage of a loss leading promotion like “endless shrimp” or Costco’s $1.75 for a hot dog and soda. The loss leader gets you in the door. They have other strategies to make that loss worth their while. If you walk in and pound more shrimp than Red Lobster can cover with the margins on the rest of your ticket, that’s their fault not yours… the house lost that bet.
Soup might not actually be a loss leader. Their soups are pretty cheap to make in bulk- especially if they’re using left over ingredients that are not quite as fresh.
I'm sure they're fresh, darden(who used to own red lobster) likely doesn't get too granular with it's produce suppliers in the area. They'll make one contract for all their subsidiary restaurants I'm sure.
I doubt red lobster seafood is fresh (lobster are from the tank, the rest not so much). It’s frozen. (They’d have to fly it in special, for most of their locations. Which. Is not cheap.)
Their soups… I dunno 50/50 on them being warmed out of giant bags made in some distribution hub.
Their biscuits are made from a dry mix (probably identical to bisquick)
I was speaking to OG’s soups (which are made fresh- during prep that morning.) are pretty freaking cheap to make- especially since they probably use all the not-quite as fresh ingredients left over from the previous night; and stocks made from bits and pieces that would otherwise be tossed (like chicken carcass or skins/peels from carrots and onions).
That's what I was taking about. I was taking about darden getting fresh produce. They're who own olive garden. They just also used to own red lobster but got rid of it.
Soups usually get things that are not-as-fresh because they get simmered all day anyway- no one is gonna notice if the the carrots were getting flacid or if the protein is dried out from being cooked and not served.
They make the soup fresh daily- just in the morning. and they keep it hot so as to get it out quickly. The ingredients they use, though “fresh” are not the freshest in their pantry, if that makes sense. It’s the left over trimmings that get chopped up so as to hide it (this is actually a good thing. It reduces waste.)
The next executive will convince somebody it’s just a matter of time until they hit on the correct endless shellfish, then resign in disgrace after the endless clam promotion costs too much.
That's back when they were owned by Darden, who decided to spin them off because seafood prices were too volatile.
Edit: what's funny about this is Darden was a restaurant group that mostly didn't focus on seafood, so red lobster wasn't a good fit. This company, Thai Union group, is a seafood packaging group (chicken of the sea, King Oscar), which also puts into question how well they're able to supply fresh fish. I don't think red lobster will ever be consistently profitable for these corporate chains.
Edit 2: Oh, they supplied the shrimp with slave labor, lol
Thailand's seafood industry, and by implication, the Thai Union, was the subject of a year-long study of the Thai shrimp industry commissioned by Nestlé. The report, conducted by Verité on behalf of Vevey-based Nestlé, was released on 23 November 2015. It found "indicators of forced labor, trafficking, and child labor to be present among sea-based and land-based workers."[28]
After clawing her way to the top at Red Lobster, Edna Morris is out as the chain’s president for letting hungry customers eat too much of its all-you-can-eat crab dinners.
clawing her way to the top: such amazing journalism
Add comment