[Meg]

The New York Times recently ran an article about portion sizes in restaurants and TGIFriday's new Right Size menu. Studies have shown that the bigger the portion, the more we eat regardless of our good intentions and self-discipline. And we're eating 15% more calories per day than we did just twenty years ago. A coincidence?

The problem is that customers say that they want smaller portions but then don't buy them, restaurants report:

The strategy of serving consumers smaller servings has a lamentably unprofitable history. Many restaurateurs remember far too well what happened to the Ruby Tuesday chain in 2004 after it trimmed some portions and started printing nutritional information on the menu of calorie-packed burgers, steaks and ribs. Consumers complained about the changes, and after about five months, Ruby Tuesday plumped the portions and provided nutritional information only when asked.

Check out the article - it's full of interesting facts about the history of supersizing.

Will Diners Still Swallow This?

[Suzanne 3FC]

I think it's about time. I would definitely order smaller portions if available. But I don't think it will be a successful campaign, unfortunately.

[trekkiegirl]

I live in NYC. It will be interesting to see what happens here after July 1, when restaurants will have to have the caloric amounts not just in menus but on the display boards. I'm curious to see if, despite having the right to know, the public really wants to know or if they would prefer "don't ask, don't tell." I mean, you've basically got three populations: those who'll eat the high calorie foods and won't care, those who wouldn't eat and wouldn't care, and those who might/might not eat based on what they learn. It'll be interesting to see if the new measures will be embraced, resisted or ignored on the customers' parts.

[jillybean720]

I like that they address the concept of value to the customer in the article. The reason I hate ordering "lunch" or "half" sized portions is that it's typially only a few bucks less than getting the full portion. Why would I spend $5.99 for what they call HALF a salad when I can get the WHOLE salad for $7.49? I'm glad to see that in this particular case with Friday's, they seem to have responded to that mentality by taking 1/3 of the food away and appropriately reducing the price by about 30%.

[MariaMaria]

Originally Posted by jillybean720

I like that they address the concept of value to the customer in the article. The reason I hate ordering "lunch" or "half" sized portions is that it's typially only a few bucks less than getting the full portion. Why would I spend $5.99 for what they call HALF a salad when I can get the WHOLE salad for $7.49? I'm glad to see that in this particular case with Friday's, they seem to have responded to that mentality by taking 1/3 of the food away and appropriately reducing the price by about 30%.

Part of what we're paying for at a Friday's is the setting and the service.

When we want just to pay for the food cost, we go to a supermarket and not a restaurant.

[jillybean720]

Originally Posted by MariaMaria

Part of what we're paying for at a Friday's is the setting and the service.

When we want just to pay for the food cost, we go to a supermarket and not a restaurant.

Well, yes and no--I have NEVER in my life been able to make a dish at home that tastes as good as when it's made in the restaurant (granted, I'm not much of a cook, so others may have had more luck in this area, but not me). I'm just as happy often ordering the meal "to go" instead of eating it at the restaurant, in which case I do not get the atmosphere, nor do I get service other than someone cooking the food for me.

I worked in restaurants for a few years. I definitely know what costs are incorporated into the meals other than just the food costs. But in the eyes of the customer, less food=less value when it's not much less of a price.