Are you able to put these links in another format? I’m still in the Dark Ages on some technology (being the old fart that I am).
Those are hashtags. You can search for them on Twitter or Facebook.
Thanks for replying. Yes, I recognize them as hashtags, but I don’t do either Twitter or Facebook. I guess I’ll just miss these.
Google will find them too.
I wonder if there are any updates on the existence of a “Plan C”?
Some interesting details here.
One place, on an order for $44 of items from the menu, the restaurant gets $35.20, which is to say that DoorDash takes 20%. The customer pays DoorDash another $8.29, so the company gets a total of $17.09.
Apparently Toast is a much better deal for the restaurant. The restaurant pays Toast a flat service fee of $7, and the restaurant can pass that along to the customer. The delivery is still handled by Doordash.
1 Like
I don’t know how it’s in California but here in Boston >95% of all restaurants are on Toast for that reason
That’s an amazing figure.
I suppose the other 5% are high-end restaurants where food served must be fresh from the kitchen or not at all, and where food presentation, service, tableware, and ambience are essential to the overall dining experience (and the price).
None of which can be reproduced by takeout, or delivery.
I think Toast’s popularity in Boston is due mostly to Toast being a Boston company. If your point-of-sale system goes down, it’s nice to have their offices nearby.
I wonder if the name “Toast” came from:
(1) Similar sardonic sarcasm.
(2) The clinking of wine glasses in a “toast”.
(3) None of the above.
Better late than never?
Be betterer.
1 Like
2 Likes
This sounds really good and I hope it goes through, even though it’s only about 1/3 of what’s needed. But I don’t understand the part about being part of a group of up to 20 facilities. Does that mean that individual mom-and-pop places are left out?
No, the opposite. Chains with over 20 would be excluded.
I don’t know how I mis-read that!
Here’s the first bullet at the top of the article, which is repeated in the article itself. (In the article, this is in bold.)
- The RESTAURANTS Act would provide grants of up to $10 million to restaurants and bars that are part of a group of up to 20 facilities.
I’m going to chalk this one up to an egregious editorial screw-up. I’m sure reality is the diametric opposite, as you said. It can’t possibly be (could it?) what’s stated in the article verbatim, which reads, pretty much unambiguously at face value, some strange conditions for the grants.
The only sloppy bit in the article is that it suggests that independent restaurants are not eligible.
That’s the only thing that I found problematic with the article, as well.