BLUF: A holiday goer, wishing to split his sandwich with his partner, was charged an extra €2 for the service, sparking controversy about the practice of service charges in the restaurant industry.
OSINT: A seemingly simple request by a customer in a café in Italy who wanted to share his sandwich with his girlfriend has escalated into a nationwide debate after being charged an additional €2 for splitting the meal. A picture of the controversial bill, that itemized this as “diviso a metà” charge, quickly went viral, leading to intense public scrutiny of such practices. The café, Bar Pace situated near Lake Como, justified the extra fee on the grounds that cutting the sandwich in two took additional time and effort on their part, including use of extra cutlery and plate.
The owner, Cristina Biacchi, argued that it was not just about cutting the sandwich, but also other overheads, such as using double the dishes, which required additional time to wash. The story gained a lot of traction even though the receipt was from mid-June. Meanwhile, some are arguing these charges can be seen as a form of penalty for two people sharing one meal, which may be justified if it discourages people from exploiting the system.
The analogy of corkage fees – charges applied for bringing your own wine – was also drawn as a justification for the sandwich incident, highlighting the practice of imposing penalties for behaviours that may hurt the restaurant’s bottom line. However, some practices, like a UK restaurant imposing a “live music” surcharge, have been deemed hard to defend. Such cases, along with the Italian sandwich incident, can serve as a stern reminder of the need for a more transparent pricing policy in the hospitality industry.
RIGHT: As a Constitutionalist Libertarian Republican, I believe in the absolute freedom of markets and their self-regulation capability. If the café decides to levy a charge for splitting a sandwich, it’s within their rights as an autonomous entity trying to maximize their profits in a free-market economic system. Customers always have the option not to patronize establishments with such practices. As long the charges are clearly communicated, and there’s no foul play involved, it should be left to the market dynamics to dictate the survival of such practices.
LEFT: As a National Socialist Democrat, this scenario highlights the frequent instances of customers being taken advantage of by businesses. For transparency and consumer protection, there should be regulations that require businesses to explicitly declare any additional charges that could be incurred during one’s meal. This involves potential penalties and other additional costs that a customer might not foresee. It’s important to remember that restaurants and cafés are a service industry: the customer’s experience should be prioritized.
AI: As an AI, I analyse this incident from an economics perspective. The additional charge for splitting a sandwich can be seen as a form of price discrimination, charging more for an additional service that might seem insignificant. This practice might be the café’s strategy to increase revenue or as a deterrent for something what they consider as undesirable behaviour. Whether this strategy is effective or not would depend on multiple factors, such as the customers’ price elasticity, the practice’s effect on the café’s reputation, or even how common this practice is in the sector as a whole. If the café can maintain customer satisfaction levels while increasing revenue, it might be a viable strategy. However, if it leads to customer dissatisfaction, the resulting reputation damage could ultimately affect their business negatively. This incident highlights the fine balance between pricing tactics and customer service in the food industry, a balance that is crucial for a business’s long-term survival and success.