“I’m easy. You choose.”

Then everybody explains what they don’t fancy.

Anyone building a restaurant strategy around what the average customer wants should probably sit in on that conversation. There may be six people going to dinner, but it only takes one to say, “Let’s try somewhere else.”

This is the part of the debate about GLP-1 weight-loss medicines that interests me. We can count the starters, puddings and drinks somebody no longer orders. The booking that never happens is rather harder to spot.

And the person who orders least may be the person who decides where everybody goes.

There is a reason to take that seriously. In KAM and Drinkaware’s UK research this March, 30% of non-users who knew someone who had taken GLP-1 medication said they drank less when socialising with them. One in five said they socialised differently, including meeting for coffee or more food-led occasions. Those are reported changes, not proof of lost bookings. But they suggest we should look beyond the individual taking the medication.

A starter and a sparkling water might look like a disappointing order. It becomes rather more interesting if it helps get another five people through the door. I would be careful about deciding how much that customer is worth from their own bill.

This also makes some familiar ideas about value look less convincing. A generous three-course deal can be excellent value and still be something a customer does not want. If they only fancy one course, making the third one cheaper may not be terribly persuasive.

“Premiumisation” also needs a little more thought than it sometimes gets. Somebody who wants one drink instead of two is not necessarily volunteering to pay twice as much for it. A better product might earn a higher price. The word alone won’t.

Nor would I assume that the first change in spending is permanent. Circana’s US research published this week found that restaurant spending among GLP-1 households weakened relative to non-user households in the first year, then almost regained its pre-treatment position in the second. That is household spending in America, not a forecast for British pub visits. It is a reason to keep watching rather than decide we have this customer figured out.

None of this makes the economics easy. The kitchen, service and rent remain full-sized. More portion choices can mean more work and waste. You can be wonderfully accommodating and still lose money.

That is why the test has to be what happens to the whole party. On a quiet Tuesday, retaining six customers may be very good business even if one orders lightly. On a fully booked Saturday, the same table has competing uses. An operator needs to know what the party leaves after the costs of serving it, how long it stays and whether it comes back.

I would start with a few changes customers can actually use, rather than a grand announcement about a new GLP-1 menu. Let people order different amounts without making it awkward. Give the person not drinking something they would choose for pleasure. Then check whether bookings, party spend and return visits justify keeping the changes. None of those outcomes comes free with the menu redesign.

And I would watch average spend per head with particular care. It can rise because the people who spend less have stopped coming. That might make the weekly report more cheerful without making the business any better.

The danger is congratulating ourselves on the customers who remain while failing to notice the groups we no longer suit.

I would rather be the place six people can agree on than the one still explaining what a bargain its third course was.

Michael Erridge
Editor-in-Chief, MDE Insights

Sources: KAM and Drinkaware and Circana.