Unlike tech, where exits are common and founders share their journeys, the restaurant world has few acquisitions. Successful operators rarely disclose their numbers or strategies, creating a "super opaque" environment for newcomers trying to learn the business of hospitality.

Food distributors like Cisco may employ a black-box pricing strategy where they sell the main protein—the 'center of the plate'—at or below cost to win a restaurant's business. They then recoup margins by quietly increasing prices on less scrutinized items like napkins, a potential violation of pricing laws.

What people claim they will do in surveys often differs dramatically from their actual purchasing behavior. This phenomenon, 'consumer dissonance,' makes survey data on price sensitivity and buying intent highly unreliable. Real-world A/B testing or sales data provides a far more accurate predictor of consumer action.

Tipping creates an 'economic surplus' because consumers mentally discount its cost (a $1 tip feels like 80¢) while couriers inflate its value. This inefficiency gives tipping-enabled platforms a competitive advantage, making the feature almost inevitable for any delivery app to maximize revenue and compete effectively.

Regulatory capture is not an abstract problem. It has tangible negative consequences for everyday consumers, such as the elimination of free checking accounts after the Dodd-Frank Act was passed, or rules preventing physicians from opening new hospitals, which stifles competition and drives up costs.

Starbucks' delivery revenue hit $1B, driven by larger order sizes. With a 40% food "attachment rate," customers add items like egg wraps to their coffee order to justify the delivery fee, a behavior akin to filling a shopping cart on fast-fashion sites to unlock free shipping.

Travis Kalanick claims delivery app tipping isn't about service feedback but is a tool to maximize consumer price. He posits that consumers are economically irrational, perceiving a $1 tip as costing only 80 cents, while couriers perceive it as being worth $1.20. This psychological gap creates an economic surplus that competitors can exploit to gain market share.

Our willingness to pay isn't just about the product's utility. Richard Thaler's "transaction utility" concept shows context matters. We'll pay more for an identical beer from a boutique hotel than a beach shack, even if we drink it in the same spot, because our perception of a "fair" price is tied to the seller's perceived overheads.

Customers are more receptive to optional payments when they believe the money directly supports employees rather than the company. This psychological framing increases participation and goodwill, even though businesses ultimately pay their staff.