Agreed! I thought the burger was a good unit of comparison as it is virtually on every room service menu I have ever seen.

While Vuittonsofstyle suggests we consider the club sandwhich as an option, I tend to think that there are quite a number of variables in that sanwhich too which might add or subtract from its value. A good point is made about the burger at the FS George V is an excellent example of a higher value burger (though I could hardly swallow that price either).

From an economists point of view, hotels should be measuring the 'elasticity of demand' for room service. The basic concept is that if they raise prices, say, 10% do the number of orders drop by 10% (in which case they neither gain nor lose), or do they drop only 5% (in which case they are ahead), or do they drop more than 10% (in which case they lose money)? Answer the question correctly and you are on your way to maximize revenue (and perhaps profits too).

Although it is nearly impossible to measure this, it is worthwhile to consider. I hear some of us saying that our demand for a burger is relatively elastic (demand changes depending on the price), while others will simply buy the same number of burgers no matter the price (inelastic).

Most of the wealthiest people I work with generally do not spend money foolishly (if you will let me use that word with no negative connotation implied). Most of these same people have a limit as to what they will spend for a burger, even if it has no real impact on their other spending ability. My theory is that demand for room service (in general) is a lot more elastic than hotels believe it is. If they would simply make the prices a little more competitive they would sell a whole lot more, burgers, water, filet mignon, or whatever is on the menu.

Perhaps though I am wrong. I think the evidence is leaning in my direction however, as there is at least one reply supportion the notion that $75 is too much for a burger even if you carry the Centurion card.