|
|
|
|
|
|
by NitpickLawyer
416 days ago
|
|
|
While we used to have "rounding up" tipping here as well (closest 5 or 10, depending on where you lived), it's sadly becoming norm to ask for percentage based tipping in europe as well, especially in the more touristy places. This is what I don't get about tipping percentage based. It makes no sense to me. The serving effort is exactly the same between a 10$ salad and a 100$ steak. Take plate, bring plate, place plate on table, smile and check back. That's it. It gets even more obnoxious when dealing with drinks. A 20$ bottle of wine requires the same effort as a 200$ bottle of wine. (well, except that pretentious bs about breaking the glass, but that's ridiculous anyway) Same goes for drinks at bars. 5$ shot of your cheapest whiskey takes the same effort as a 50-500$ of a top shelf / ridiculously rare whiskey. Tipping a percentage of that makes absolutely no sense at all, and people defending it with "you get better service" really should visit high end restaurants in London / Paris etc. and see what "great service" really means. |
|
|
Of course it makes sense and I think you understand it even if (very reasonably!) you don't like it: it's a rough but effective effort at a progressive taxation/extractive pricing scheme. They're trying to extract the maximum amount of money from each customer for each individual transaction [0], orthogonal to effort or value. They aren't a government of course though and don't have full visibility of anyone's exact income or personal psychology. But as a simple proxy somebody buying a $200 bottle of wine is more likely to either have a lot more money or (just as good here) simply be in a mood/occasion to splash out and due to how humans tend to judge relative expenditures they're a lot easier to convince a $30 tip is acceptable if it's 15% of the price instead of 150% the price. Even if they aren't rich and/or are typically value-oriented, on a "special occasion" it's probably going to be easier to squeeze them harder while not framing it as getting squeezed. Once people commit to paying higher numbers that frames the rest of their economic decision making for the transaction.
And clearly it does work for a lot of places, at least in the short term, same as other exploitive human economic hacks (like the predatory rise of microtransactions in video games). It lets the businesses (including not just owners/managers in this case but many employees as well) make a lot more money.
----
0: Ie, treating it as a non-iterated game theory situation, which probably is rational for a lot of restaurants and particularly tourist ones where odds may be that they will only ever see any given customer once (or perhaps single digits, close enough) in a lifetime. In an iterated game, where a large/critical percentage of business depends on local repeat customers, it can make more sense long term to build loyalty by not feeling exploitive and have lower-per-transaction profits that are steady over years/decades. And I have seen that play out to some extent. Some places may also split the difference, such as by offering special local discount scheme sort of things, or having very different pricing/offerings certain days of the week when statistically very few tourists are there vs locals.