(Closed) Minimum Guest Requirement and No Way Around It?

posted 6 years ago in Reception
Post # 3
Member
1137 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: September 2010

You’re right, they are dumb.

I would tell them “too bad, I was willing to spend $1 million to rent our your restaurant for just FI and I, but since you have a minimum of 80, I guess we’ll go elsewhere!” 🙂

Post # 4
Member
5093 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: January 2012

I agree.  They’re just dumb.  I can’t think of a good reason why they wouldn’t let you just pay extra.

Post # 6
Hostess
16217 posts
Honey Beekeeper

A minimum spending amount makes sense. A minimum guest count doesn’t.

Post # 7
Member
42 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: October 2012

That seems ridiculous to me. The venue we decided to have our wedding at had minimums  but if you were going to have less and willing to pay the difference it doesn’t matter as long as you pay the minimum amount. Are you sure they understood what you were asking??

Post # 8
Member
13101 posts
Honey Beekeeper
  • Wedding: July 2010

Yeah – if you are willing to spend the cost of having a headcount of 80, I don’t see why they wouldn’t let you.  That seems odd.

Post # 9
Member
962 posts
Busy bee

Not only is their response dumb, it is also unusual. EVERY venue I looked at had a minimum requirement BUT they all allowed me to pay the difference and they would make it up in extra food or enhancements. For instance, one placd had a 135 person minimum. If you had 120 people you would still pay for an extra 15 people, but that money would go toward providing more food for the 120 people you did host. Are you sure that the restaurant understood your request? Did you talk to a higher up in managment or did you talk to a lower level sales person who maybe didn’t understand what you were saying. Really, their response makes no sense.

Post # 11
Member
916 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: April 2011

I agree with previous posters, their response makes no sense. We came in under the minimum at our venue, and just paid the difference.  I feel like that is standard practice.

Post # 12
Member
1962 posts
Buzzing bee

@Lemma: My last post didn’t post but I am still thinking the same thing after reading your note.  Methinks that the restaurant assumes that you will not pay for 80 guests total.  If they knew you would be willing to actually pay for 80 but still have 50, their story would likely be different.  Not that you would want to pay that but just sayin.

Post # 13
Member
849 posts
Busy bee

It does seem dumb, maybe they assumed no one would want to pay $3,000 extra for less people? But it would make sense to at least give you the option, if they’re losing your business either way

Post # 14
Member
3314 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: October 2010

If the person was having a fuzzy brain moment, they may have thought you were trying to negotiate a lower price.  Maybe counter back with “Do I need to physically have 80 people or just *pay* for 80 people?”

Post # 15
Member
6512 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

Yeah, if they are unwilling to have you pay for 80 people, they are ridic.  I negotiated a minimum guaranteed revenue instead of a per person cost for my venue.  Its a win-win:  They know they are getting at least X amount, and we have some flexibility for menus and guest count. 

Post # 16
Member
2442 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: April 2011

Maybe they didn’t understand what you were saying.  There is no financial difference for the venue if you pay for 80 people and 30 of them don’t show up.  It would actually be a financial gain for them if you told them ahead of time you were paying for 80 but only 50 were coming.  Maybe you should talk to a different representative of that venue.  

The topic ‘Minimum Guest Requirement and No Way Around It?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors