Paying for Non-Alcoholic Drinks with dinner

Perrieviaquasani springs?

I normally don't have a problem with the price of soft drinks at restaurants, but last weekend we went out for dinner, and my diet coke cost almost as much as my husband's 24 oz beer. Of course, soft drink prices were not displayed anywhere on the menu. The food was great, but I was surprised by the price of the drink when we got our bill.

I know what you mean, I've noticed that several times myself when I'm dining out. After working for a food supply house, for a while, what I came to realize was how frequently prices for the staples a restaurant uses fluxuates. Cheese almost doubled in price within a 4 or 5 month period. A drought, flood,a massive fire (like what California recently experienced) or a truckers' strike, any number of things can happen, that can cause the price of some essential items a restaurant uses -like cheese or vegetables or shortening- to skyrocket almost overnight. Most restaurants would do almost anything rather than change the prices on their menu. It makes more sense to let the beverages act as a bumper to the last resort of menu price hikes. Raise the price a few cents on something you sell to almost everybody - like soft drinks- rather than hike the price of an entree several dollars.

A lot of good ideas and opinions have been expressed on this thread.
As for me, I don't think that colas, etc. have gone up much in the past 20 years in really nice restaurants. I was a cashier at the Brown Hotel in the 1980's and we had to charge $1.50 for a cola back then. Of course, the question here is: was the drink already overpriced? I can see paying $2.00 a drink now but I can't figure out why the $2.50 I was recently charged seemed high. Oh yes, now I remember. The establishment was pretty casual. Regarding free desserts, as in having Happy whatever sung for us (esp. in Italian and by trained opera singers!), the idea is to make us happy and to make us feel "special". My husband can't figure out why I want more than just food when I go out to eat. I would eat at McD's if all I want is food. He does...I don't. I go to a nice restaurant to feel "special". I am willing to pay for the experience. The management who knows that, gets my money and more of it.

Well, the place that we went to charged us $2.75 for a drink. Granted, there were free refills, but the glasses were small! My husband's 24 oz beer (not a mass produced one, either) was $3.75. I thought it was a bit overpriced for the atmosphere, as this was a casual place, not a fancy-shmancy one. I obviously wasn't paying for the atmosphere.

does this lady even begin to realize how benevolent restaurants are to the community at large?? The two restaurants I've been a part of the last twenty years are constantly contacted for donations to every type of cause imaginable. Taste of
Derby, Taste of Downtown, Taste of Frankfort, Church picnic raffles,
fundraisers for the sick, March of Dimes, House of Ruth, Girl Scouts,
Homeless shelters, Dining out for Life, on & on & on. Good causes all; It was very rare in my 19+ years at Kunz's that we said no to anyone. LEN & Nancy @ L&N likewise as I'm sure most others in this town are.
Those fortunate enough to dine out for pleasure should not complain about paying for something that has cost the operation $$ to provide.

that anyone thinks anything should be free. If I have to pay for it, why don't you? Should I lose money on beverages? Believe it or not, they're not as cheap as most people think....and the wonderful folks at good ole' Coca Cola Enterprises won't give me a fountain machine so we actually purchase cans. The average person will drink atleast two (with one free refill), but we also have those who get four or five refills (all for free). So, should we say, one soda is free, but anything more you have to pay?

And what about fast food places? Do you think those should be free? You are paying for a meal there, too. I guess I really just don't understand the rationale behind why they should be free.

I'm intrigued though---

Amen Sister!

Well, the place that we went to charged us $2.75 for a drink. Granted, there were free refills, but the glasses were small! My husband's 24 oz beer (not a mass produced one, either) was $3.75. I thought it was a bit overpriced for the atmosphere, as this was a casual place, not a fancy-shmancy one. I obviously wasn't paying for the atmosphere.

a) I never once stated that they should be free, and b) I was simply stating that in my opinion, some places overcharge for soft drinks. If a drink price had been listen on the menu, I wouldn't have ordered a drink, and would instead, have ordered water.

When I posted my reply it was in response to actually the very first thread---and several after who said that non alcoholics should be free. I wasn't implying that you said they were free, and honestly, I didn't read your post until AFTER I posted.

Having said that...Robin, I do notice this sometimes...that when I post, it's kinda random. Is it a time thing? When I hit post reply, why doesn't it automatically follow the post I was reading? Just curious.

And, the whole free soda/nonalcoholic drink thing really is interesting to me for several reasons....
1. I'm kinda shocked that a few people (and honestly I don't even remember names---just posts) think they should be free.
2. Someone posted the idea that servers feel the NEED to refill constantly, but at the same time, if your drink is full, you will drink more....great point.
3. How do people feel about say, $1 for each soda---first, second, fifth---no free refills---no high price?
4. Just pointing out----not that we are New York, BUT, in NYC, several of the restaurants I've been in, charge per can---usually $1.75 or more. Makes me drink one, that's fo sho!

[Robin Garr]

Having said that...Robin, I do notice this sometimes...that when I post, it's kinda random. Is it a time thing? When I hit post reply, why doesn't it automatically follow the post I was reading? Just curious.

Ashley, good question! This setup isn't really intuitive in that regard. If you hit REPLY, your post simply goes at the end of the discussion, and in a long thread, it's hard to tell where it fits.

So, any time you want to respond to a particular message within a thread, it's much better to hit QUOTE rather than REPLY. The QUOTE button is also a reply, but it opens a window with the previous post enclosed between "tags" that look like this: {quote=Someone's name} and {/quote}. This prompts the forum software to display your reply (as I've done here) with a little box that repeats the post you're replying to, which helps give context.

One thing that a lot of people don't think to do: If you're quoting a very long message, or a message with a previous quote in it, you don't need to repeat the whole thing. Just mark and delete most of the prior post - taking care NOT to mess with the {quote} and {/quote} tags, so people don't have to read the whole thing again.

By and large, it makes long discussions much more clear if people respond with QUOTE rather than REPLY. Look over the forum and you'll see what I mean - and feel free to play around with it. If you mess things up, just let me know, and I can use SuperMagick to step in and fix it for you.

Having said that...Robin, I do notice this sometimes...that when I post, it's kinda random. Is it a time thing? When I hit post reply, why doesn't it automatically follow the post I was reading? Just curious.

Ashley, good question! This setup isn't really intuitive in that regard. If you hit REPLY, your post simply goes at the end of the discussion, and in a long thread, it's hard to tell where it fits.

So, any time you want to respond to a particular message within a thread, it's much better to hit QUOTE rather than REPLY. The QUOTE button is also a reply, but it opens a window with the previous post enclosed between "tags" that look like this: {quote=Someone's name} and {/quote}. This prompts the forum software to display your reply (as I've done here) with a little box that repeats the post you're replying to, which helps give context.

One thing that a lot of people don't think to do: If you're quoting a very long message, or a message with a previous quote in it, you don't need to repeat the whole thing. Just mark and delete most of the prior post - taking care NOT to mess with the {quote} and {/quote} tags, so people don't have to read the whole thing again.

By and large, it makes long discussions much more clear if people respond with QUOTE rather than REPLY. Look over the forum and you'll see what I mean - and feel free to play around with it. If you mess things up, just let me know, and I can use SuperMagick to step in and fix it for you.

Robin,

Thanks for the education on the quote feature- I didn't know it did that.

The way I've always done it previously (and I thinks still works well if you are responding to a specific point in a posting and not necessarily the entire post), is to highlight and copy (CTRL+ C) the selected comment in a thread, then paste ( CTRL + V) it inrto the beginning of your reply. Then you highlight the pasted setion and use the "quote" button at the top of the message body to turn it into a quote. This way you are missing who the author was (which you can add in manually if it matters) but it easy to see the point being referred to.

Deb

[Robin Garr]

Thanks for the education on the quote feature- I didn't know it did that.

Looks like you've got it!

Do note, though, as I mentioned to Ashley, that for tidiness it's nice to trim back the quoted material to a key line or two (as I've done here) so we don't take up a lot of space with repetition. Not mandatory, but useful. And of course, in deleting, make sure you don't mess with the {quote} and {/quote} tags, or the results will be ... untidy.