Meal Appeal: Patterns of Expenditures on Food away from Home

Geoffrey D. Paulin

Dining out is an activity many Americans enjoy. Whether for social contact or convenience, purchasing food away from home (such as meals or snacks from restaurants, vending machines, employer cafeterias, or other venues) is a routine and seemingly unremarkable occurrence. But, on closer examination, there are interesting patterns to these expenditures. This Spotlight on Statistics provides valuable data for you to digest.

In 2018, the average consumer unit (similar to a household) spent nearly half of its food dollars on food away from home.

The average consumer unit spent $3,459 in 2018 (or about $67 per week) on food away from home. To put this in perspective, that is about one-fourth the amount spent on basic shelter (mortgage payments, including principal, interest, and other charges; maintenance and repairs; property taxes; and rent). It is somewhat less than the amount spent on utilities, fuels, and public services. Spending on food away from home is almost twice the amount spent on apparel and services.

It is often said that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. However, the highest average weekly expenditures are for dinner. In 2018, the average consumer unit spent almost five times as much each week (more than $28) on dinner away from home than on breakfast and brunch (less than $6 per week). In fact, spending on dinner away from home was about the same amount as the combined spending for breakfast and brunch, lunch, and snacks and nonalcoholic beverages.

Dinner comes in second in terms of frequency of reporting meals away from home. While exactly half (50 percent) of consumer units reported expenditures in a given week for dinner away from home, more than half (53 percent) reported expenditures for lunch away from home. About one-third reported expenditures for snacks and nonalcoholic beverages (35 percent) or breakfast and brunch (30 percent).

By themselves, the previous charts do not tell the whole story. For example, the average expenditure includes positive values for those who purchased, and $0 values for those who did not. So, for example, if “everyone” buys lunch, and spends $50, the average is $50, and the percent reporting is 100. However, suppose that only half of “everyone” buys dinner, and those who do all spend $100. The average expenditures will still be $50. This means dinner is twice as expensive but half as frequent. So does the average spent by those who purchase dinner show a different pattern than in the previous graphs? Perhaps surprisingly, it does not. As shown in the first graph, dinner is the most expensive meal ($56 for those who purchase). Lagging behind are lunch ($34), breakfast and brunch ($19), and snacks and nonalcoholic beverages ($13).

Breakfast, lunch, dinner or snack, the most popular vendor for these meals is fast food, delivery, or take-out type restaurants. More than one-third of consumer units purchased dinners at these venues each week, and about one-fourth reported breakfast and brunch or snack and nonalcoholic beverage purchases. But the “whopper” is for lunch; three in seven consumer units reported weekly expenditures for lunch at fast food and similar establishments.

When viewed by venue of purchase, the story changes. Lunch was the biggest seller for fast food and similar establishments (42 percent of consumers reported it each week in 2018), followed by dinner (34 percent reporting). But dinner was the most frequently reported purchase for full-service restaurants, followed by lunch. Not surprisingly, snacks and nonalcoholic beverages were most frequently reported as purchased from vending machines and mobile vendors, with 8 percent of consumers reporting such expenditures in a typical week.

Also not surprising, among those who purchased, the highest expenditures were reported for full-service establishments. And the meal for which they spent the most there was once again dinner.

Unsurprisingly, average expenditures and the percent reporting them increased with income, regardless of meal or venue. Similarly, these expenditures and reporting rates generally were higher for consumer units whose reference person was under age 65 than for those whose reference person was age 65 or older. Those 65 and older are more likely to be retired and presumably to have more time to prepare meals at home. They also may face mobility or other constraints that limit their access to meals away from home.

But there is one surprising result: Those age 65 and older reported higher and more frequent expenditures for breakfast and brunch, and for lunch, but only at full-service restaurants.

Despite the difference in percent reporting, the average spent per week for breakfast or brunch and lunch at full-service restaurants is about the same. Purchasers under age 65 reported about $37 per week for lunches at full-services restaurants, compared with $36 for those age 65 and older. Similarly, those under age 65 and age 65 and older reported $29 per week for breakfast and brunch at full-service restaurants. Despite similar percent reporting (29 and 27 percent), however, older consumers spent less on dinner at full-service restaurants. Finally, while infrequently reported, those who purchased snacks and nonalcoholic beverages at full-service restaurants spent about the same amount on average when they did purchase, and it was substantial—nearly half of what purchasers spent on breakfast or brunch.

When considering food away from home, one might ask, “What about date night?” Do married couples eat as cheaply as one?

For all meals away from home in 2018, on average, married-couple consumer units (that is, couples without children or others living with them) spent about twice what single people did. This makes sense, if each member of the couple orders a separate meal. But, within each meal type, there are differences by type of venue. Consider dinner, for example. The average weekly dinner expenditure overall for married couples is about twice what it is for singles ($34 compared with $16). At fast food restaurants, spending was about 1.5 times higher for couples than singles. At full-service restaurants, spending was about 2.5 times higher for couples than singles. (The chart does not show dinners from mobile vendors or employer/school cafeterias because the percent reporting was less than 1 percent for both singles and couples.)

Expenditures for those reporting were far less than twice for married couples than for singles. Perhaps the couples share an entrée or a side order of fries. Or perhaps it is more subtle. Consider two sets of two singles who meet for dinner. In the first case, each person pays separately. In the second case, one person buys for both. Even if the meal costs are identical, the percent reporting in this sample is 75 (because three of the four people reported an expenditure). Now consider two married couples. It does not matter whether the members of the couple dine together or separately (for example one goes to lunch with colleagues from the office and the other does not), the percent reporting is 100 percent if either member of both couples incurs an expenditure. So, as they say, when comparing singles and married couples, “It’s complicated.”