But that IS the issue of the debate. If it’s been proven that when any item doesn’t sell that item is removed from the offerings then there’s no need to prove with a specific item that it has been removed for lack of sales. We already know that if said item’s sales drop below a certain threshold it will go away. So you’re repeated demanding of proof of that happening with large portion sizes was pointless and silly. If you accept the concept that when X doesn’t sell X goes away you have already accepted that if large portioned items don’t sell portion sizes will shrink, thus no proof of it already happening with that specific item should even be asked for. It was silly to keep hounding over and over again.
You’re still not understanding. There are multiple factors involved in consumer food item choices. It is incumbent on the restaurateur to determine what factor or factors are involved in the poor sales results of an item.
The other poster was saying that there was proof that consumers stop buying large portion items, and that the result of that was the restaurant stopped offering the item.
For some reason, you’re stuck on trying to make this a supply & demand type capitalism issue - restaurants respond to consumer buying decisions. It isn’t.
Instead, it is strictly a consumer purchasing decision issue. I don’t think consumers in the U. S. are rejecting large portion menu items, by and large.
Also, I suspect there is a confusion on this thread about cause and effect, and about the reason for a restaurant to pull a menu item. IOW, what comes first - the restaurant pulls an item because they weren’t making a sufficient profit on it, and if they pulled it in response to consumer choices, was it because the item wasn’t tasty enough, or maybe because consumers didn’t perceive the large portion item as a good value.
Maybe consumers began buying two small rather than one large, because they learned they got the same quantity for less money. So, maybe the owner does a little market research and decides that if he lowers the price of the large or raises the price of the small, he can seel more large portions.
IOW, rather than stopping the sale of the large portion item, the restaurant changes the price structure. That’s not what SJSAMPLE said he had proof of. He asserted that if consumers stopped buying, the restaurant would stop offering. Oh, and it also runs counter to your assertion that, “when X doesn’t sell X goes away”. Hmmmmm.
Still think it’s a silly argument?