Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nicolas Mouchel's avatar

I'd push back on the core premise that spend commitment is a meaningful proxy for the right guest.

A minimum spend floor tells you someone has money. It doesn't tell you they care about the food, know the team, or will ever come back. The repeat guest who comes in on a Tuesday, orders whatever the kitchen is excited about, and brings three friends the following month — that person is the actual lifeblood of a restaurant. Dorsia's model doesn't surface them. It just replaces one transactional guest (the influencer) with another (the wealthy one-timer).

There's also something worth naming about the old system Lotenberg says he's disrupting. Knowing the maître d', having a relationship with the owner — that access was earned. It was relational. What Dorsia is doing is formalizing the grey market it claims to replace, just with a cleaner UI and VC backing.

The honest pitch is: Dorsia optimizes primetime revenue and reduces no-shows. That's a real and valuable thing. But dressing it up as taste curation or 'the right crowd' is a stretch. Spend and taste are not the same thing, and conflating them is exactly the kind of thinking that's been hollowing out genuine hospitality culture for years.

Lenú's avatar

On the making “relationships systematic and scalable” point I believe we need to embrace serendipity a bit more in the industry. One thing is curating, another is over-calculating. One of the aspects that made restaurants and hospitality great 20 years ago was the diversity of people that could access certain places. In some ways, it felt flatter (think Chelsea Hotel in the 70s). Yes, choices can be empowered by data, but if you over-calculate you can end up with what seems to be a diverse clientele that ends up being absolutely homogeneous in spirit.

11 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?