Hua said that a few days ago, classmates got together. The organizer said many names on the phone. In a word, Tom, Harry and Wu Wang will come. As I listened, I thought that he was probably "shaving his head and carrying a load." In our embarrassing era-in Dai Wangshu's words, it is "a young old man: too young for autumn grass and autumn wind, and too old for spring flowers." At this age of "Xian Yi, young and old", there are many things at home, so it's hard to get together! Sure enough, four or five people came that day, less than half of the expected number. The meeting place is set in the hotel, which is the store of a well-known local chain catering enterprise, not far from the host's classmate's home. It's time for lunch and people are getting busy. Students booked a private room, and four or five people were seated. After ordering, the waiter was not in a hurry to place an order, reminding the private room that there was a "minimum consumption" and the menu was nearly 100 yuan less. So I ordered a few more, which was enough for "minimum consumption". There is a "minimum consumption" in hotel rooms, which is nothing new, but it is widespread in reality and "has been a long time." Near the end of the year, people's entertainment is increasing, hotel business is booming, and the "minimum consumption" of private rooms is also rising. Correspondingly, complaints about "minimum consumption" have also increased. Like anything else, this "minimum consumption" is generally "fair and reasonable": consumers think that setting "minimum consumption" in hotels violates "consumers' independent choice" and is a "overlord clause"; Of course, hotels are not fuel-efficient lights. They retort that this is a "business rule". The rights and interests of consumers should be protected, but shouldn't the rights and interests of businesses be protected? " !" This argument is not surprising. Standing in different positions, naturally there are different interests. Not all hotel rooms will set a "minimum consumption". Several restaurants near the community that focus on "home cooking" have also set up so-called "private rooms", but there is no so-called "minimum consumption". And those hotels and restaurants with gorgeous decoration and crowded customers generally like to set the rules of "minimum consumption", especially private rooms. But why do hotel rooms like to set "minimum consumption"? It is certainly right to say that businesses are "mercenary" and will always be right, but if they say it, they just don't say it. Because businessmen are not philanthropists, the purpose of opening a restaurant is to make money. The more you can collect, the better. Therefore, the real question is, why do hotels introduce the institutional arrangement of "minimum consumption" in private rooms, and what kind of economic logic exists between it and the pursuit of maximizing their own interests? Generally speaking, hotels often stipulate the "minimum consumption" of private rooms, but dining in the lobby is not restricted by this regulation. Eating more and eating less is up to the diners. Therefore, there are actually two institutional arrangements for the same hotel, one is mandatory "minimum consumption" for private rooms, and the other is casual hall consumption. There is no doubt that under this arrangement, on the whole, the output of a table in a private room is bound to be higher than that of a table in a hall. Obviously, this is the direct result of the hotel introducing the "minimum consumption" arrangement. However, why should hotels deliberately pursue this effect? Actually, it's not profound. Eating in the lobby is usually crowded, the tables are very close, and people are buzzing-I just don't understand why people in China make such a loud noise after eating. Spectacular scenes not only make people think, but also the grand occasion of "three thousand people beating drums and drinking" in ancient times is not necessarily the exaggeration of literati. Private room consumption is not the case. The private room is another small world in the hotel, isolated from the outside world, far quieter than the hall; Moreover, private rooms are mostly decorated by operators and equipped with corresponding equipment, and the dining environment is far more luxurious than the lobby; And the area of the private room is often larger than the same dining table in the hall ... Eating in the hall and the private room are two different dining experiences. The quality of the latter is much higher than that of the former. This is the crux of the problem. For hotel operators, high quality certainly hopes to sell at a good price. If the quality can't be sold at a good price, it will obviously hurt the interests of the hotel. Make a metaphor. The dining table in the private room is like a very fertile land, while the dining table in the hall is an ordinary land. If the yield of this fertile land is lower than that of ordinary land, or flat, there is no doubt that this fertile land has not been effectively used and wasted. Only by making the yield of this fertile land higher than that of ordinary land can it be regarded as "making the best use of everything" Therefore, if hotels want private rooms to play their due role, they must let high-consumption customers enjoy private rooms and exclude low-consumption customers. The problem is that due to information asymmetry, when a group of customers come, the hotel has no way to know which of these customers will spend more and which will spend less. It is not advisable to judge a person by his appearance, and it may not be accurate if there is a dispute. The introduction of the institutional arrangement of "minimum consumption" has easily solved this problem and separated customers. Because private rooms have "minimum consumption", those who are willing to choose private rooms must be high-consumption customers; If you don't want to, choose to eat in the lobby. In other words, the hotel successfully screened out different consumers through the "threshold" of price, provided them with different services, and maximized the income as much as possible. From the perspective of information cost, this example actually shows that in some cases, reducing information cost can be achieved simply by raising prices. In other words, price is a substitute for information cost. On the other hand, generally speaking, because of the existence of "minimum consumption", each table in a private room often orders expensive seafood and other high-end dishes, while people who eat in the lobby usually order cheaper ordinary dishes. Because the gross profit rate of cheap ordinary dishes is high, while the gross profit rate of expensive Caicai is low (gross profit rate is not gross profit rate), the rental value of tables and tables may tend to be consistent. As far as the hotel's overall income is concerned, the rental value of tables and tables is also a necessary condition for maximizing its income-a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. Obviously, this is to look at the function and significance of "minimum consumption" from another angle.