At present, many restaurants pay the bill before eating. What's your opinion?

This sudden major epidemic has had a great impact on all walks of life, especially on the catering industry. Due to objective reasons, it is not feasible to pay the bill first and then eat. Many catering industries are shuffling and re-planning, making great efforts in service mode and quality, expanding service scope, constantly reforming and innovating, and attracting customers and consumers through various channels. This is the best comprehensive purpose of service.

This is a violation of secular customs. Since ancient times, in this world, people have to eat first and then pay the bill. Relevant management units should express their views on this and take action.

This is understandable, because the hotel business is relatively concentrated, and there are so many people in just one or two hours. If you don't pay first, you will probably leave because you don't have time to collect money and don't pay for meals. This is in favor of losing money. I ate in a restaurant in Shanghai. The two of us were together, and the other two at a table ate and went out. When we paid the money after dinner, they remembered that there were two more people, and we said they had left. At that time, I was very busy, and there were many such situations, so I understood that people should pay before spending, as long as they don't charge much, they should give what they should, just a little earlier and a little later.

I agree and support this. Under the impact of the epidemic, many wine businesses have closed down, and those who can survive are operating at a loss in debt. If they are caught in the process of maintenance, it will be even worse. To be on the safe side, it is feasible to pay the bill first and then prepare it, which is also the procedure that has been used in the past. Understandable.

I am engaged in business and marketing. My philosophy is that customers are always God, and to limit customers is to limit yourself.

First, the dining place is different: fast food restaurants and restaurants with rich dishes.

Generally speaking, fast food restaurants, cafeterias and canteens, or food stores that only sell single items, all pay the bill before eating, and the ordering frequency of different restaurants is different.

Simple examples, such as mala Tang and hot pot, are not suitable for paying bills before meals. When customers frequently order food, if we pay the bill before the meal, it will cause a waste of manpower and an unpleasant dining experience. Of course, this can be solved by improving brand effect (customers know brand products better) and service level.

Second, the difference in turnover rate.

Payment before meals can significantly improve the transaction rate, but it will also slightly reduce the average unit price. If your restaurant has a high turnover, it is almost necessary to pay before meals. This has a lot to do with the location of the store (such as whether it is facing the street) and the type of customers.

However, if it is a high-consumption restaurant based on the unit price (rather than the turnover rate), you can consider paying the bill after the meal. In fact, the breakfast shop is very keen on the turnover rate, and customers are familiar with the menu, so they don't repeat the order. But why do many breakfast shops pay after meals?

Because many of these breakfast shops are mainly regular customers, in order to maintain the consumer psychology of regular customers, they adopt a more traditional and conservative way of paying the bill after meals (even forgetting to bring money to brush their faces). Similarly, many mid-to high-end hotels also pay the bill after meals, and even sign the bill. It is to maintain the customer's consumption relationship through the customer's consumption psychology.

Third, different market routes.

The restaurant that eats first and pays later is for another market route. This kind of restaurant is generally a medium-sized or large-sized restaurant, with large investment, rich and comprehensive dishes and relatively expensive dining price. The final settlement is generally calculated at 100 yuan.

Consumers are generally in groups, and will have meals with family members, relatives and friends, classmates or colleagues, and there are more people eating. When ordering food, it is not a one-time order, but with the passage of meal time, diners will increase the consumption of dishes from time to time. Therefore, the method of eating first and finally settling accounts at one time is adopted.

Fourth, the cost of supervision is different: it may be avoided and there is no need for excessive supervision.

In addition to the above two reasons, there are also different regulatory costs faced by these two restaurants with different dining patterns. Fast food restaurants will also adopt the mode of eating first and paying later, but it will reduce the operating efficiency and spend a lot of extra time to operate.

Moreover, due to the large flow of people, if you pay the bill after eating first, there may be evasion. Therefore, adopting the mode of paying first and then dining can not only improve efficiency, but also avoid unnecessary economic losses caused by ticket evasion.

In fact, the two modes of paying the bill after eating first and paying the bill first are related to factors such as ordering frequency, transaction rate, customer's consumption psychology, labor cost, brand scale and so on. Generally speaking, if the main consumption purpose of customers is food, they are more inclined to pay the bill before meals. If customers' main consumption purpose is environment and service, they are more inclined to pay the bill after meals.

What's wrong with that? There are fewer things, and there are fewer troubles. Paying for a meal is nothing.

I think it's a good thing, but on the surface it seems bad. I never go to a restaurant, but at most I go to a food stall to buy a box lunch. Just like a box lunch in a food stall, you don't have to wait until you eat it to know how much it costs. Wouldn't it be even more humiliating if you just didn't have enough money? It's like going to a restaurant, if two people are eating. Just after eating the bill, one slipped away temporarily, and the other thought he was paying the bill himself, so he let himself pay the bill. Don't you lose face just because you don't have enough money? If you pay the bill first, even if you are not enough, it is better to make up for it or less cheap, which is better than causing embarrassment. So it's good to pay the bill first and then eat.

Fast food and set meal agree to collect money before eating, and order food before settlement. Ordering tableware has various personalized characteristics and can be adjusted at any time. Paying after ordering tableware is conducive to in-depth marketing to respect and facilitate users. Early repayment can save costs and improve efficiency, but it is not conducive to development and consumption.

I don't have any opinions. Pay the bill first before eating, and pay the bill first after eating, which has little influence on diners, and the merchants who pay the bill first have less worry.