How often have you bought something you felt was not worth the money?
What if you could set the price?
What factors would influence your number?
For years, behavioral scientists have studied such questions.
They often look at a model called PWYW (Pay what you want, that is.) The idea may seem like a consumer’s giddiest fantasy. However, a real-life extreme version of the experiment unfolding at a restaurant in Montclair, New Jersey, is affirming the researchers’ predictions. It has been prompting a panoply of reactions — including anxiety, delight, incredulity, guilt and, yes, rampant opportunism.
Zod Arifai, a local chef, is offering customers a menu with no prices this month, encouraging them to order as many dishes as they would like at his two side-by-side restaurants.
When diners signal for the check, servers ask: “How much would you like to pay?”
With no price guidelines — such as a museum’s “suggested donation” — the offer compels diners to gaze inward and develop ad hoc criteria, to look a fresh-faced server in the eye and announce the meal’s value.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONFLICT
Ayelet Gneezy, an associate professor of behavioral sciences and marketing at the University of California, San Diego, who has studied the model, said it could set off psychological conflict: People like to see themselves as “fair” and even generous, but also want others to see them as “prudent and not a sucker.”
“I know I’m going to overpay,” Morgan Torres said the other night as he perused the menu. “I don’t want them to think of me as ‘that cheap guy at Table 5.’”
At the next table, Sid Dvorkin was having no such crisis of conscience. He would simply base his amount on what he had paid before.
“The concept of overpaying is not something I gravitate toward,” he said.
Given the PWYW opportunity, consumers easily rationalize their decision, Gneezy said.
Barbara Rowe and Richard Katz made up their own rationale: palate power. They paid US$12 for each of five dishes they loved, and US$8 for one they did not.
A decade ago when Arifai, 52, opened his first restaurant, Blu, in Montclair, a diverse suburb of New York City, the New York Times rated it “excellent.” Then he opened the more casual and also warmly praised Next Door, next door. Blu’s skate with cauliflower, wild mushrooms and truffle broth used to be US$26; Next Door’s meatloaf with chipotle glaze on soft polenta was US$14.
Now, with his lease ending, Arifai has decided to move on, and eventually open a restaurant in Manhattan.
A former rock guitarist with ungovernable hair, Arifai wanted to thank the community with a month of pay-what-you-want dining — despite the entreaties of family and friends who pronounced the concept “insane.”
In the spirit of equality, he is serving the same menu at both restaurants. However, at the upscale Blu, with its sleek stemware and soft sconce lighting, diners are paying about US$3 more per dish than those at Next Door, with its bright, basic decor. (Alcohol is not included; the restaurants are BYOB.)
TAKING ADVANTAGE
Overall, Arifai said, diners seem to be paying slightly less than half the old menu prices, though a direct comparison is difficult because the portions are somewhat smaller.
“The majority of people want to take advantage of the offer, but also recognize that it feels weird,” said Kathleen Vohs, a professor of marketing at the University of Minnesota who writes about the psychology of money. “So they limit what they order, do a good job of valuing it, and then walk back from what it’s worth.”
At least once a night, the staff gets a bad taste — such as from the “young, smug” table of five that ordered 25 dishes, paid US$15 and left a US$5 tip.
Indeed, at one end of the bell curve, customers will have an “economically rational” attitude, Vohs said: “‘I’ll take everything I can and leave no money, because the restaurant’s letting me do it.’”
One family ordered eight dishes and sneaked out, leaving a handful of dollar bills.
“My daughter told me: ‘You gave people the option,’” Arifai said. “Maybe they’re poor and a night out means eating at McDonald’s. So that’s what they left. But you gave them a good meal.’”
However, another family left a thank-you note with their modest amount: “The food and service was worth way more than we were able to leave. As a kid in college and a mother doing inconsistent freelance, without the deal we wouldn’t have gotten the chance to come.”
Vohs said that what might compensate for those who underpay are the angst-ridden outliers squirming at the other end of the bell curve “who feel they have to make up for what they see as others’ misdeeds.”
SUCCESSFUL ENDEAVOR
The other night, Lesley Jarbe was in a swivet as she anticipated that post-dessert moment of truth. She had heard stories about the shortchangers.
“I want to show the chef that I love his food and I appreciate what he’s doing,” she said. “And I worry about the kitchen staff. The waiters. I’m so anxious.”
Then there was the customer who somehow covered both ends of the bell curve: He took advantage of Arifai’s generosity, even as he expressed concern about the server’s pending unemployment. The solution? He left US$5 for the food and a US$50 tip.
Profit aside — and it certainly will be — Arifai considers the endeavor a success.
“I’ve learned that humanity is not as bad as we think,” he said. “Yes, 20 percent are paying less than a dollar a dish, but 80 percent are not.”
The other night as Andrew Manno, a waiter, was collecting money from a couple, their six-year-old daughter asked: “Aren’t we supposed to pay what we want for our food?”
Yes, Manno replied.
“I want to pay for my ice cream,” the child said.
Then she reached in her bag and handed him a candy bar.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS