The Illusion Of Choice
An anecdote about marketing and perception, or how long does it take for me to get around to a point about the market.
For more than 20 years I’ve been a part of a small group of friends that meets for breakfast on Friday mornings. We all are connected from our prior employer, OPUBCO, publisher of The Oklahoman newspaper.
As you might imagine, this group of four to five men (the number has varied slightly over the years) is kind of your stereotypical old men solving the world’s problems over coffee. The kids these days . . .
A comment was made this past Friday that got me thinking. The comment was about one of the places we regularly go and how the variety at this particular restaurant was so slim. While I immediately agreed, the more I thought about it the less certain I became that this was actually true. So, of course, this demands some analysis.
Before I get to that, let me just mention an interesting fact that we’ve noticed over our long timespan that is not an illusion: there are not a lot of places that open as early as we would basically require so as to consider them an option. We desire 6:00 AM, and 6:30 AM is the latest we tolerate. It is not so much because a couple of us still have to be at work around 8 AM as it is that some of us (not me) wake up so early naturally that waiting for a 7 or 7:30 start is unbearable.
Not that those times would capture very many more spots. Rather it seems a “breakfast” spot need only open by 8 AM or even later and can still keep the moniker. Sadly because of these late opening choices there are several great places that may as well not exist for my breakfast group.
We also avoid the type of restaurant chain that has a bad mix (in our opinion) of quantity/quality. This would include IHOP, Denny’s, Jimmy’s Egg, et al. There is generally broad agreement among us that these are not for us. Look for more on this quantity/quality tradeoff concept in a future post.
Back to this analysis, I thought I would dive in a bit to each of the restaurants we frequent to see how much choice there actually is and how much is illusory. The places under consideration are:
Culprits was the culprit (couldn’t resist) that was accused of lacking variety. So let’s start with it.
Culprits
As you can see in the picture, the menu definitely has the look of limited selection. And in fact there are only 11 unique items not counting the sides or a la carte (WYSIWYG). Okay, that seems pretty limited. I would have to assume a sleek, concise appearance is intentional. We can argue if this is a profit maximizing marketing approach, but we should start with the assumption that it is chosen.
This is a low bar to hurdle. Let’s see how the others compare.
Cattlemen’s Steakhouse
I’m choosing to work the list bottom to top since Culprits was at the bottom—don’t read anything else into the ordering. For my views on Cattlemen’s Steakhouse as a steakhouse look for a future post rating local area steakhouses.
This menu is certainly larger with more categories and words, but does it actually have more variety? Well . . .
I don’t think so. I actually count only 11 unique items—the same number that was the case for Culprits. I am actually being a bit generous here since I’m counting grits as a unique item. The ability to choose one’s meat selection is available at both restaurants. This is listed out in the case of Cattlemen’s giving the illusion of additional choice.
One could say I’m actually putting a thumb on the scale for Cattlemen’s with regard to omelets (or “Omelettes” as they write it) since I am delineating among them with only cheese and ham & cheese thought of as one unique item. More on that below.
So far, basically the same amount of choice just presented in two very different ways. Let’s check out . . .
Sunnyside Diner
Now we will get a good test of choice—illusion versus true. I had to copy/paste the menu from the website so the layout is jumbled together.
Even grouping certain items together as only one actual item choice, I count 37 separate choices. I think I was consistent with my treatment of the others. Notice that I am excluding some items that are actually more of a lunch item.
They should certainly get bonus points for having plant-based options, and even if you only counted all of these as one unique choice addition, you would still have more variety on this menu than what we’ve seen so far.
Notice another marketing choice in this case. Here they are listing items fully including all alternatives like side or choice of meat fully within the individual descriptions.
I don’t think there is any way I could group these and not result in more than 11 items. Sunnyside = variety. As an aside it also equals a surcharge for use of a credit card unlike any of the other options. Whether this is a backdoor way to punish credit card users or a backdoor way of raising prices is a topic for another post. I will say while it is a bit hidden, they don’t publish prices on their website unlike any of the others. So it is a backdoor increase only when at the restaurant. Also, it might be a way to temporarily raise prices with the chance to bring them back down by simply removing the surcharge in the future.
Perhaps this is a market-based solution to sticky menu prices in both directions—up and down?
Back to our journey here, let’s take Trolley down to . . .
Neighborhood Jam
I’m making some executive decisions on this one. Putting the word “breakfast” in the name of a sandwich does not make it a breakfast item. Putting eggs on something doesn’t make it breakfast either. Yes, yes, I did here and did before count steak and eggs as a separate breakfast item. Still, if you are eating a cheeseburger for breakfast that is a personal decision, and you are an oddity. Throwing an egg on it doesn’t normalize it as a 7 AM decision.
Still, even with strict scrutiny we see a lot of variety. I wanted to say a benedict is a benedict, but these are simply too distinct to do that.
I count 32 unique items. Fewer than Sunnyside, but certainly on the spice of life side of the comparison. I would argue that Neighborhood Jam actually has more range than Sunnyside Diner too.1 Instead of arguing that, though, let’s jump to our last contestant . . .
Hatch
Again I find myself applying strict scrutiny. Chicken and waffles is . . . um . . . it is a lunch item. I just can’t settle on it as a breakfast choice—your mileage may vary. Same with the Cuban, which is how I treated it at Neighborhood Jam.
Regardless, we see again what real choice looks like. There are 42 items by my count. Take a look.
I see only a little overlap in the pancake area. What they term “The Breakfast Club” has only one disqualification and a lot of variety. At 42 do we have a winner on variety and a clear distinction from our two contenders that only clocked in at 11? Well, not so fast.
If you don’t want pancakes for breakfast, offering you 6 or more versions of them (toppings, batter, etc.) doesn’t really give you any choice. At that point a pancake is a pancake. Same with a benedict or an omelet (no matter how many extra Ts and Es you stick in it). Cold oats and hot oats are still just oats.2
So how might this change if we removed that illusion—the appearance of choice within what is a single type of item?
I went back through and grouped up selections very broadly with these rules in mind:
These are unique: pancakes, French toast, and waffles.
Fried or scrambled eggs with or without a meat are all one choice.
Omelets are a single item.
Benedicts are a single item.
Burritos or tacos are all a single item.
Closed-face breakfast sandwiches are all a single item.
Open-face breakfast sandwiches (e.g., avocado toast) are all a single item.
Biscuits & gravy is a unique, separate thing.
A bowl or skillet mash up of various ingredients can constitute a distinct item, but it needs to be meaningfully different. Hypothetically two skillet dishes or bowls that only have different meats or one has and one lacks potatoes would not qualify as being unique.
Here are the results summarized:
Hatch - 22
Neighborhood Jam - 20
Sunnyside Diner - 15
Cattlemen’s Steakhouse - 8
Culprits - 9
The updated menus are below with blue check marks denoting the unique items. Notice how choice gets squeezed out as we generalize. I’m not sure what the best answer is to this question nobody is really asking and I’ve obviously spent WAY too much time on. Still, notice how the choice sets were roughly cut in half on the high side while barely touched or not at all touched in the case of the restaurant originally under scrutiny, Culprits.
There is a bigger lesson here. One size does not fit all. The market helps discover where and how distinct choices are offered. To someone who doesn’t want an omelet, it doesn’t matter what you offer to put inside it. But to someone who does, it matters a lot if it contains only veggies, salmon lox, or bacon. Sometimes customers don’t want to be bombarded with variety, and sometimes they want a broad choice set.
There is never a right and a wrong. There are only tradeoffs.
Thanks for reading.
I grant that I am being quite generous on the “For The Table” items. Take them out or make them one if you wish. The basic outcome doesn’t change.