How I Cost Dishes for Different Guest Groups Fairly

I separate offer formats, not people

When I cost dishes for different guest groups, I do not quietly charge different prices for the same plate just because different people are sitting at the table. I separate by offer format: lunch plate, regular evening portion, children’s portion, menu, or a side made for sharing. That is the fair starting decision. If the scope, production and service effort are genuinely different, the price may also be different. If almost the same thing lands on the plate, I should not build an artificial price world around it. That keeps the menu credible, and my team does not have to justify doubtful differences to guests in the dining room.

A practical example from my own way of organising a restaurant: I might have a chicken dish with rosemary potatoes and vegetables. For the office lunch crowd, I plan a more compact portion with fast plating and one fixed side. In the evening, I can offer the same flavour profile as a larger plate with extra sauce and calmer, more attentive service. For families, I add either a clearly defined children’s portion or an extra bowl of potatoes for sharing. Those are three clean offers built from a similar base, but with a different economic framework. That is much better than a mixed calculation where the quick lunch quietly subsidises the long evening service without anyone noticing.

The costing starts with the dish, not the target group

My calculation always starts with the recipe, raw quantity, yield, waste and plated quantity. Only when that base is right do I decide on prices for different usage situations. For the chicken dish, I check the meat, potatoes, vegetables, oil, herbs and sauce, including the raw quantity and the final served amount. I cost a prepared sauce as its own base recipe so that small changes do not shift costs invisibly across several dishes. In Bonzumo, I can assign ingredients and quantities to a recipe and review the resulting recipe cost together with target food cost and selling price in a structured way. The usefulness comes from maintained master data, not from magic.

Only after that do I look at the moment of use. Lunch in my operation usually means short dwell time, high turnover, little explanation, and plates that do not sit long. Evening service often means longer table occupancy, more guest guidance, more starters or desserts, and more modifications. That is not just marketing language; it is a different economic situation. A dish that sells safely at lunch in higher volume can be priced with a tighter margin than an evening item sold in lower numbers with a higher holding risk. So I never compare recipe cost alone. I always compare volume, speed, spoilage risk and the organisational effort per selling window before I decide what is fair and sustainable.

These differences actually matter in costing

I only separate factors that measurably change cost or revenue. First, portion size: 140 grams instead of 200 grams of the main component is a real difference and should exist as its own item. Second, service intensity: a fixed lunch is cheaper to organise than an evening dish with substitutions and repeated questions. Third, side structure: a fixed side reduces complexity, while free choice increases production and communication effort. Fourth, demand pattern: some time windows support tight menus better than broad ones. Fifth, spoilage risk: niche items often need more margin if holding stock creates leftovers. A vague feeling about what a guest might be willing to pay is not enough for me.

For example, if weekend guests often order regional specials, I do not cost by where those guests come from. I cost the extra effort of stocking an additional fresh component. If families often share sides, I do not need a fuzzy “family calculation”; I need a defined bowl of roast potatoes with a clear quantity and price. If evening guests are more likely to order wine, I can sometimes price a main course more tightly because the whole table generates a different overall contribution. The mistake would be to blur all of those effects together and spread the same markup everywhere. My team needs understandable reasons: different scope, different workflow, different risk. That is the language they can stand behind when guests ask honest questions.

The menu should stay understandable instead of collapsing into exceptions

I organise the menu in a few offer lines instead of endless special cases. In practice, that means a lunch line, a regular main menu, and focused additions for children, sharing or seasonal moments. Each line gets its own costing targets, but not automatically the same margin. Lunch may be simpler to produce and turn faster; the evening menu may carry more variation. What matters is that ingredients are reused sensibly. Chicken, potatoes and the base sauce can run through several offers without forcing me to operate three parallel kitchens. For the basic structure, it helps to keep recipes and stock in view in Understand what goes into every dish on your menu.

For each line, I set clear boundaries. One example: at lunch I may cap the offer at twelve main dishes, including some reliable volume sellers and one daily special that helps capacity utilisation. In the evening, the same kitchen might handle more positions, but only if mise en place, station workload and replenishment stay manageable. For families, I would rather create two or three strong solutions than ten weak children’s dishes. A common trap is keeping rare special requests on the menu forever just because they happen occasionally. I review whether a variant sells enough, stays stable in the workflow and truly earns its contribution margin. If not, it gets removed or bundled into a clearer format.

I make fairer decisions with numbers than with instinct

Take a hypothetical example: the recipe cost of the evening portion is 5.80 euros, while the compact lunch portion comes to 4.20 euros. If I set a lower target food-cost percentage for the evening than for lunch, that already creates different calculated selling prices. But I do not stop there. I also check how many portions I can realistically sell, how much waste and holding effort I expect, and whether the dish triggers follow-up revenue. A cheaper lunch portion can be economically strong if it reliably brings frequency into a narrow service window. A more expensive evening portion needs its justification through scope, pacing, service and lower volume. That is why “higher price” alone never counts as a good explanation in my business.

The calculation basis also has to stay clean. I compare food-cost percentages and margins only on a consistent net or gross basis, and the contribution after food cost is not yet the full profit. In Germany, as of 30 September 2026, restaurant and catering services for food are again generally subject to 7% VAT from 1 January 2026, while drinks remain generally subject to 19%. Gross selling price and net revenue therefore have to be separated; 10.70 euros gross at 7% equals 10.00 euros net. The relevant official guidance comes from the Federal Ministry of Finance and Section 12 of the German VAT Act. The tax assignment still depends on the concrete product and transaction, so the setup has to be checked carefully.

Price changes only work if the logic is clear inside and outside the team

If I introduce differently costed offers, my service team must be able to explain them without excuses. That is why I label the differences visibly: “lunch plate”, “evening portion”, “children’s portion”, “menu”, or “sharing side”. Every term needs a recognisable difference on the menu and on the plate. Before launch, I go through the exact scope, typical questions and active recommendations with kitchen and service. The most common internal mistake is that kitchen and front of house hold different pictures of the same item. Then arguments start around gram weights, modifications or free extras. I prevent that with binding portion descriptions and short station notes so that the promise made at the table matches the plate sent out from the pass.

Honesty also pays off with guests. If I sell a smaller lunch portion, I do not hide it; I phrase the benefit clearly: quicker, lighter, suitable for a break. If a side is intended for sharing, I define its scope so the table does not build the wrong expectation. Complaints usually do not arise from price alone, but from a gap between expectation and result. That is why my team should speak precisely rather than softening the message. “This is our compact lunch portion” is better than “it is basically almost the same as the evening one.” For me, fair costing always includes clean expectation management. A clear sentence at the table often prevents the kind of awkward remake, discount discussion or frustrated review that really damages margin later.

Control, adjustment and Bonzumo’s real role in the process

After introduction, I do not only check whether something sells; I check whether it sells in a healthy way. I look at quantity sold, actual selling prices, the development of food cost and the operational friction around the item. Friction is a real cost factor: a cleverly designed family platter becomes worthless if it constantly triggers modifications or slows down pass times. A cheap lunch may attract guests, yet still be a bad decision if it displaces stronger items. Bonzumo helps me here through one shared data basis from the sold item to the final close. I can trace transactions, use Z reports and closing documents, and clarify questions at the specific sale instead of relying on memory. For the follow-up, I use Understand the day's activity before you close up to keep the commercial picture tied to the actual daily process.

The most common thinking error is still the urge to build a separate price world for every guest group. In practice, a few recognisable formats with clean costing and disciplined maintenance work much better. If an ingredient price rises, I do not automatically increase everything. I check which line is truly affected, where a portion adjustment helps, where a recipe change helps, and where a menu format makes more sense than a single item. The kitchen reports yield and production issues, service reports guest questions, and I decide on that basis before maintaining the recipe or the selling price. That keeps the costing economically sound, explainable to the team and understandable for guests. In other words, I do not price by stereotype; I price by product, process and risk.