What is a "support local fee"?

I was trying to order pickup at a restaurant and I used Google Maps to set up the order but the "ActiveMenus" platform that I was placing the order on tacked on a "support local" fee of $1.50.

What the heck does that go towards? I'm paying a fee to pick up food because the restaurant is a local outfit?!

I ended up backing out and just placing the order via GrubHub instead, which not only didn't charge such nonsense (at least overtly) but one of the items was slightly cheaper as well.

Solid_Sonic posted...

What the heck does that go towards?

Restaurateurs who cannot compete with franchised restaurants, I suppose.

my local sushi restaurant uses a cheap janky website that gives me a 10% off just for using it over ubereats.

acesxhigh posted...

my local sushi restaurant uses a cheap janky website that gives me a 10% off just for using it over ubereats.

We have a place that serves "Asian street food" locally that gives you a little card telling you how to order if you don't want to use Doordash when you do. I'm not sure how advantageous it is, though.

acesxhigh posted...

for

You mean "to validate the shoddy work of some lazy/incompetent web developer".

EclairReturns posted...

You mean "to validate the shoddy work of some lazy/incompetent web developer".

Hey, if it saves a buck...

yeah I'm not complaining, they actually lowered the prices when they made the switch to the crappy system so I respect that

EclairReturns posted...

Restaurateurs who cannot compete with franchised restaurants, I suppose.

I'm not sure it's the store charging me, though. It seems like it was the platform itself.

They're trying to offload what they wouldn't charge the business to the customer because "we're trying to cut small businesses a break," maybe? Seems counter-productive to me.

Solid_Sonic posted...

we're trying to cut small businesses a break

Maybe. But that also has the drawback of discouraging potential customers from supporting the business altogether.

EclairReturns posted...

Maybe. But that also has the drawback of discouraging potential customers from supporting the business altogether.

At least in my case that place will always have my business as they serve something no one else locally does.

However that platform probably cost itself a slice of the pie by pushing me towards Grubhub. Business still gets my dollar but I don't feel like I'm having my arm twisted either.

they could also up their game to be competitive with chains. most chains started out small

they could also up their game to be competitive with chains. most chains started out small themselves. further, restaurants/businesses fail for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with bigger competition. hell just watch the news and you'll see even the big chains are struggling right now.

dfwQuerns posted...

they could also up their game to be competitive with chains. most chains started out small themselves.

Chains started out small when there were no other chains to compete with, and have generally pulled up the ladder (intentionally or otherwise) such that competing with them within their niche is all but impossible for any new business without an enormous amount of funding (which nobody that isn't already rich and/or well-connected is going to get because restaurants are a relatively risky investment). That's not really a meaningful comparison to small businesses in today's world.

EclairReturns posted...

Maybe. But that also has the drawback of discouraging potential customers from supporting the business altogether.

Painting fees like that in a positive light by calling it "supporting local" can actually have the opposite effect. A lot of people like the idea of doing more to support local businesses, given that the money spent there stays within the community and gives them an opportunity to meaningfully shape what's available in their city. It's widely accepted that that often means spending a bit more because small businesses don't have as many opportunities to cut corners as larger ones (economies of scale, negotiating supplier discounts with larger buying power, supplier exclusivity deals), so if a delivery platform tacks on a fee that's explicitly meant to support local businesses (and it does, because delivery platforms' fees take a huge chunk out of small businesses' revenue), people accept that as an inevitable cost of the greater good. Framing the fee like that also hides that it does not itself directly support local businesses, since these delivery platforms are generally multinational corporations.

There are limits to how much you can get away with charging, but if you frame it right, people are happy to spend it.

adjl posted...

Painting fees like that in a positive light by calling it "supporting local" can actually have the opposite effect. A lot of people like the idea of doing more to support local businesses, given that the money spent there stays within the community and gives them an opportunity to meaningfully shape what's available in their city. It's widely accepted that that often means spending a bit more because small businesses don't have as many opportunities to cut corners as larger ones (economies of scale, negotiating supplier discounts with larger buying power, supplier exclusivity deals), so if a delivery platform tacks on a fee that's explicitly meant to support local businesses (and it does, because delivery platforms' fees take a huge chunk out of small businesses' revenue), people accept that as an inevitable cost of the greater good. Framing the fee like that also hides that it does not itself directly support local businesses, since these delivery platforms are generally multinational corporations.

Unfortunately there've been multiple studies done that seem to imply that people will generally choose "cheap" over all other considerations when spending money, except in major edge cases. Whether that means shopping at a Wal-Mart instead of nearby local businesses (even if that kills local businesses in the long run), or buying lower quality products (even if that means you're actually spending more in the long run because you need to replace things more often). We may say we want to support smaller or local businesses, but in reality we rarely do (unless said business offers some unique service or experience).

Even worse, people tend to resent extra costs more if they feel they have no real say in the matter. People who would otherwise be happy to tip for service may see an automatically assessed and charged gratuity as an imposition. Or may wind up tipping less.

A lot of extra fees slip through because people aren't paying attention, but "forced charities" can definitely be a turn-off for people, even if they might otherwise agree with the sentiment . Not to mention potentially being wary that the money isn't necessarily going where it claims to be going (is it really supporting local businesses, or is the only business it's supporting the delivery service itself?).


Though this discussion is somehow making me want to get Chinese for lunch, so if nothing else it may have helped at least one small local business.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Unfortunately there've been multiple studies done that seem to imply that people will generally choose "cheap" over all other considerations when spending money, except in major edge cases.

While true, if they've chosen to shop local, they've already established themselves as an edge case. People don't order from a local Italian restaurant over Olive Garden because it's cheaper (sometimes it is, but we'll put that aside as an exception to the trend), they order local because they like the food better and/or want to support a local business instead of a multinational chain. They've already made the decision to spend a bit more to get the benefits of shopping local, so the fact that that decision is rarer than we might like to think it is doesn't actually matter here.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Not to mention potentially being wary that the money isn't necessarily going where it claims to be going (is it really supporting local businesses, or is the only business it's supporting the delivery service itself?).

That's kind of a moot point in this case. That "support local" fee is most likely going directly to ActiveMenus and not the restaurant itself, but if ActiveMenus didn't get that $1.50 from the customer, they'd get it from the restaurant instead. That would mean either the restaurant would take a loss (in which case paying the fee effectively gives the money to the restaurant), they'd charge it themselves for pickup orders (in which case they get it, but use it to pay for the order platform so there's no net change), or they'd bury it in their menu pricing (which has the same ultimate effect as charging a pickup fee). Of the four options (platform takes the fee, restaurant just takes the loss, restaurant charges the fee directly, restaurant hides the fee in other pricing), this is probably the one least likely to hurt the business' bottom line.