Andrew Hyde: Ten Tables of Four Please - A Modest Proposal
Tittanas
· 1 year ago
Great ideas.. i really love the random sitting chosen by the host. A free round of shots would be cool. I'd suggest a 4 to 6 tables and maybe some sort of standard appetizers to be served to everyone so no one is waiting, there's a good excuse to start drinking asap and taste something while picking up the main course.
andrewhyde
· 1 year ago
I like the standard apps, perhaps the restaurant or host could spring for them.
Justin Ruckman
· 1 year ago
Agreed. Large tables are a huge hassle for everyone involved, unless the restaurant specializes in private parties and you have a reservation. (Some places can serve 40 people together without flinching.)
andrewhyde
· 1 year ago
While some are great at it, others are more than bad, and I feel like I have dined at most of them :)
BrettFromTibet
· 1 year ago
I totally agree with this direction... big tables are a mess... but I think people will still be clamoring to sit at the "hot" table for 4 rather than the one with the boring old nobodies... but at least the conversation will be focused and you can make actual connections.
andrewhyde
· 1 year ago
I wonder how that would work out, great conversations can happen with anyone, it doesn't matter how known or not you are.
lordbron
· 1 year ago
I like the idea in principle, but I can't help but think it's a failure on two parts: the organizer and the restaurants lack of technology.
1) The organizer should make sure people come prepared. This means that there should be "Bring 40 with you: a twenty, a ten, a five and five ones." There should also be agreements in place: "Boozers split the drinks tab separate of food. Appetizers are covered with the meal and the tab is split equally." Also, letting them know in advance that your coming with a group is key as well so you don't freak them out. With just taking 5 minutes to send an email beforehand, you make it stress free at checkout. This assumes there's an organizer though.
2) The technology needs to be better. What I mean by this is that in your model, 4 tops are easier because that's how the kitchen is set up to process orders. I think the whole ticketing system is crap. What we need is a system that knows how much time each item takes to cook. Then coordinates by saying when things should be "cooked" or "prepped". The kitchen need not know of tables, just dishes.
That's my thought. The 2 hour instead of 3 is a ding against your system, but that's just a matter of preference. I know my biz partner would freak out over a 3 hour dinner, whereas I'd see it as just right.
I do agree though. We need better systems, because the general madness just doesn't work.
andrewhyde
· 1 year ago
re 1) I wish a simple as would make it easy, but some people need to use their corporate card, don't carry cash or have been on the road for a while and won't make the time to do it. With the small tables, splitting alcohol sales is pretty easy.
re 2) I've worked with chefs that can do this, it is pretty entertaining to see a four person kitchen produce 120 meals in an hour.
It is a 2 hour base, and could go longer.
I want to try this out!
Brandon Whalen
· 1 year ago
Planning ahead has to be the best way to go about it.
The restaurant should know ahead of time how many are coming in.
to aid the process, the guests could even pre-order what they want to eat (not everyone but a good chunk, I know a lot of people like to make a game-time decision). Emailing a copy of the menu could save a lot of time.
This way the restaurant knows what to expect in terms of orders and the number of people.
andrewhyde
· 1 year ago
I've seen many variations of this tried, and it never seems to work out. I wish they did, but restaurants work in sections, and very few will break up a table to two waitstaff.
Actually, some of the worst dinners I've been to this year were preorder dinners. Don't know why that is.
Devin Reams
· 1 year ago
I think you have some good points. When doing the CommunityNext VIP dinners we would seat people randomly (so you'd get to meet people you otherwise wouldn't). We would have them at small tables (so you get to intimately talk to them). We would also have drinks afterwards (so you can introduce your new friends to your old friends).
andrewhyde
· 1 year ago
I love the random seating idea. If you are at the same conference, the chance you can learn or share something of value is there. I love dinner at tables of 4 or max 6.
Grace Piper
· 1 year ago
Great post. 1. I have rarely enjoyed a meal with more than 5 people at the table, especially in a crowded resto where it can be hard to hear what others are saying. Also, don't you find there is always that one person in a group who doesn't put in their fare share? Ten four tops. Hell yeah.
2. I don't know I like the random seating idea... Theoretically it's great, but I've been burned before. :) I don't care what you do, I care who you are. Been stuck next to boring dullards before.
3. Tip well. I'm with you Andrew. This is key. If the location is great we want to be welcomed back.
4. I'd be happy to be included in any dinner experiments.
-Grace
TimothyJ
· 1 year ago
I also think trading seats with people post the meal can work if you're going to grab that capuccino. Order it, wait for it, take it with you and see if someone wants to swap with you for a bit. This is usually better in groups where everyone knows each other.
Larry McKeogh
· 1 year ago
Good suggestion Andrew. Defrag used an interesting process for their conference and getting people out to dinner. They called it "Birds of a Feather" They set up a conference wiki with different topics that were of interest and people signed up for what interested them. You could do something along the same lines for your 4 tops so that participants had something in common to talk about. I like the part of gathering in the bar for apps and drinks beforehand. These two items are the most discretionary in a dinners selection. Stepping back into the bar after dinner could allow a quick clearing of the tables for a dessert / coffee round at different table so you'd get double the exposure. Many in social medial enjoy the conversations that large crows create. Limiting the tables to 4 tops impedes this. Rotating between distinct courses brings back the social element. Just cannot do it too many times or staff will go nuts.
BugFrog
· 1 year ago
Good idea. Some love the big group gigs, but getting to know a smaller group better would make the next large group meeting that much easier. If you are new to a group, only having to give your "I am/I do" speech once or twice would be great.
Meeting people and creating relationships can be very different things. This idea would seem to serve for creating beneficial relationships much better.
gruen
· 1 year ago
Make it an iPhone app. Have you thought about China?
Jeremy Tanner
· 11 months ago
This makes too much sense. The anonymity and chaos of a 40-60 person group makes paying for dinner hell. As far as dictating how the bill is split up at a small table, I've never had dinner at a small table with good people that didn't end in too much money on the table.
All Comments
1) The organizer should make sure people come prepared. This means that there should be "Bring 40 with you: a twenty, a ten, a five and five ones." There should also be agreements in place: "Boozers split the drinks tab separate of food. Appetizers are covered with the meal and the tab is split equally." Also, letting them know in advance that your coming with a group is key as well so you don't freak them out. With just taking 5 minutes to send an email beforehand, you make it stress free at checkout. This assumes there's an organizer though.
2) The technology needs to be better. What I mean by this is that in your model, 4 tops are easier because that's how the kitchen is set up to process orders. I think the whole ticketing system is crap. What we need is a system that knows how much time each item takes to cook. Then coordinates by saying when things should be "cooked" or "prepped". The kitchen need not know of tables, just dishes.
That's my thought. The 2 hour instead of 3 is a ding against your system, but that's just a matter of preference. I know my biz partner would freak out over a 3 hour dinner, whereas I'd see it as just right.
I do agree though. We need better systems, because the general madness just doesn't work.
re 2) I've worked with chefs that can do this, it is pretty entertaining to see a four person kitchen produce 120 meals in an hour.
It is a 2 hour base, and could go longer.
I want to try this out!
The restaurant should know ahead of time how many are coming in.
to aid the process, the guests could even pre-order what they want to eat (not everyone but a good chunk, I know a lot of people like to make a game-time decision). Emailing a copy of the menu could save a lot of time.
This way the restaurant knows what to expect in terms of orders and the number of people.
Actually, some of the worst dinners I've been to this year were preorder dinners. Don't know why that is.
1. I have rarely enjoyed a meal with more than 5 people at the table, especially in a crowded resto where it can be hard to hear what others are saying. Also, don't you find there is always that one person in a group who doesn't put in their fare share? Ten four tops. Hell yeah.
2. I don't know I like the random seating idea... Theoretically it's great, but I've been burned before. :) I don't care what you do, I care who you are. Been stuck next to boring dullards before.
3. Tip well. I'm with you Andrew. This is key. If the location is great we want to be welcomed back.
4. I'd be happy to be included in any dinner experiments.
-Grace
Defrag used an interesting process for their conference and getting people out to dinner. They called it "Birds of a Feather" They set up a conference wiki with different topics that were of interest and people signed up for what interested them. You could do something along the same lines for your 4 tops so that participants had something in common to talk about.
I like the part of gathering in the bar for apps and drinks beforehand. These two items are the most discretionary in a dinners selection. Stepping back into the bar after dinner could allow a quick clearing of the tables for a dessert / coffee round at different table so you'd get double the exposure.
Many in social medial enjoy the conversations that large crows create. Limiting the tables to 4 tops impedes this. Rotating between distinct courses brings back the social element. Just cannot do it too many times or staff will go nuts.
Meeting people and creating relationships can be very different things. This idea would seem to serve for creating beneficial relationships much better.
Jeremy