Revenues up 9% in New York Bars

Fox News | 3-29-04 | unknown

[at bay]

Fox news reported that bar revenues are up 9% over a year ago when the smoking ban went into effect. Apparently the "If I can't have my way I'll stay home" crowd of puffers were outnumbered by "Now that the air has cleared I think I'll stop in for a drink."

Since these numbers are supported by public tax revenue records, there's n o doubt all the "chimney chicken little/ sky is falling" scenarios proved to be just whiners blowing smoke.

[Gabz]

I can honestly say I don't know one person who doesn't think this has done good things for the bar business.

You obviously don't know bartenders, barowners or wait staff on a personal enough basis where they would feel free to express their total disagreement with you.

OTOH, the bar owners and staff in most places I know in Maryland are absolutely thrilled with the smoking ban in Delaware..........the owners and staff in Pennsylvania and New Jersey feel the same way about the bans in both Delaware and New York.

The owners and staff of of the places I go here in Virginia have seen a major increase in their business since the Delaware ban went into effect....people that used to vacation in Delaware are now coming down here. And they are just not Delawareans, they are New Yorkers, in fact most of them are from NY....at least the ones I've met.

I was born and raised in Brooklyn and left when I was 22....nearly 22 years later, I must say, I've never looked back.

[The Mayor]

I heard the results of this poll today, wasn't this done by a group in favor of the ban.

Around Buffalo and Grand Island where I reside bars are dying and closing doors. The health dept are putting outrageous conditions on waivers.

I think this is bull$hit.

[Gabz]

I love it....

You would.

...the Baghdad Bob's of the smoking world will claim this is all a lie however.

The Bahgdad Bob's of the anti-smoker world will continue to skew the numbers to suit their purposes and ignore statements of facts of all the establishments in New York City that have documented proof of 20-30% decreases in business.

We're talking about bars.....most restaurants in NYC have been smoke-free for years....the antis of the Bloominidiot administration are mixing apples and oranges by attributing a slight uptick in business to his pet project (smoking ban) and saying it is for ALL business.

Unless these numbers are derived from ONLY bars/taverns they are meaningless...........and you know that as well as anyone.

[supercat]

There's a lot more to bar revenues than smoking or non-smoking, but the simple fact is that the people who predicted a huge drop in business after the ban went into effect were wrong.

How are the statistics measured? And how many bars have gone out of business or started up business? And what is the base for the statistics?

If business dropped 25% the first year and then picked up 9%, that would still leave it down 18% from what it was before the ban. Some degree of "rebound" effect would be expected with any such ban, but I see no reason to expect any more rebound than has already taken place.

Further, depending upon how the statistics are collected and computed, there are a variety of factors that could cause an increase in apparent revenues even if the effect of the ban was actually to decrease revenues.

For example, if the revenues are computed on a per-bar basis, the fact that the average revenue per bar of the bars that remain open went up does not show that the ban was good for most bars, or even any bars. As a simple example, suppose a city has three bars, with monthly revenues as follows:

	Bar #1	Bar #2	Bar #3
Pre-ban	$500,000	$100,000	$30,000
Post-ban	$400,000	$80,000	CLOSED

The pre-ban per-bar average monthly revenue is $210,000. The average post-ban revenue is $240,000--an apparent increase of 14%. Of course, looking at the individual bar statistics it's pretty clear the ban wasn't actually good for any bar.

Another way the statistics could be cooked is if they tally up the total revenue of all places with bar licenses. If they do that, the figures could increase if bars that go out of business free up liquor licenses for businesses which get most of their revenue from sources other than alcohol sales. For example, if bar licenses are hard to get, a theatre may decide to go without one. But if they become readily available, the theatre might get one. Most of the theatre's revenue, of course, would not come from the sale of alcohol, but the total revenues of the theatre could be higher than the total revenues of the bar whose license it bought.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Alcoholism on Rise due to Smoking Ban. LoL.

[Cosmo]

This is all correlative. What do you want to bet that people are simply going out more now that the economy has turned around and the lingering effects of 911 are dissipating?

[Ichneumon]

I'm going to keep countering the smoke and mirrors routine some of the chimney people engage in herein.

I'm a life-long nonsmoker (not one of your "chimney people"), and even I think your post here is long on arrogance and short on critical thinking.

Along with the confounding factors that others have pointed out which undermine your tidy oversimplistic conclusion, there's also the fact that the economy in general has improved over the last year, so that alone may explain the (alleged) revenue increases, irregardless of your desire to claim "victory" by attempting to attribute it all to the smoking ban.

[Itaintwhy]

I recognize that like minded folks can differ on a variety of issues, but how someone posting on this forum can support this law is beyond my comprehension. This ban represents the quintessential example of liberal doctrine - imposing upon others what those in power deem to be in the best interest of those incapable of determining what's in their best interest.

Any Freeper supporting this draconian law, whether in NYC or elsewhere, really needs to reinvestigate their core principles. "I like going out for a drink without my clothes smelling from smoke" doesn't cut it. That's lazy. That's easy. Lazy & easy, what party's ideology does that remind you of?

This is New York for God's sake. Smoke filled bars are part of the city's legacy. And a damn good legacy it is. The ban of smoking in a bar is akin to banning toilet paper in a restroom. That's what people use in a toilet, and that's what people do in a bar. And if for some reason you don't, then do us all a favor and go to the bar with no toilet paper.

[SW6906]

How about I start a business - putting my own capital at risk - and then decide whether or not I want to allow my patrons to smoke. Then, when you walk through the door and see people smoking, you can choose not to patronize my business.

It's called choice. I'm pro-choice, you just want to control my life.

[Gabz]

You don't like smoking, so be it, but it obviously clouded your opinion of the story you posted.

The data used in the press release from NYC is skewed because it mixes different types of businesses. You would see this if you weren't so blinded by your hatred of smoke and smokers, as would the rest of the anti-smokers here and elsewhere.

[hoot2]

"Revenues up 9% in New York Bars "

news flash; election year politics driving public to drink!

[Rahmulus]

It's so simple either a "This is a Non-Smoking Bar" or "This is a Smoking Bar". What is so difficult about that? Why do they have to be such communists about this issue? You know what it is, non-smoking types think they are missing out on something (they are not of course, smoking sucks), they see people having fun, smoking and carrying on. They are brainwashed as much as the smokers are about cigs and being "cool".

These smoking bans are just pointless. Nicotine is a drug, when you deny people it just make it more precious, creating a stronger bond between the smoker and the smokes.

[SW6906]

No one was forcing you to eat at those restaurants, just like no one was forcing you to swim in that piss-filled pool.

There are restaurants that have no smoking - the market demands them. If you think there isn't one and think you could make a go of it, then you pony up the cash and start the restaurant, don't tell me what to do with my hard-earned money.

[Cboldt]

Ireland it isn't.

[ladyjane]

PS lung cancer is quick, think about that while you sit in dialysis and contemplate dementia.

Not quick for the person who has it or that person's friends. Not quick enough. It's bad.

[supercat]

One question I wish the anti-smokers could answer: if banning smoking would improve business, why don't bar and restaurant owners do it? Do they not want to make as much money as possible?

If there is noplace in a market area where people can get a drink without smelling like an ashtray, and if there are many people who would buy drinks if and only if they could do so without smelling like an ashtry, then it probably won't be long before someone decides to cater to the as-yet ignored market. And indeed, such places do spring up sometimes. In general, though, opening up a smoke-free bar is a losing proposition, especially if any alternative bars exist.

[SW6906]

"I recognize that like minded folks can differ on a variety of issues, but how someone posting on this forum can support this law is beyond my comprehension. This ban represents the quintessential example of liberal doctrine - imposing upon others what those in power deem to be in the best interest of those incapable of determining what's in their best interest.

Any Freeper supporting this draconian law, whether in NYC or elsewhere, really needs to reinvestigate their core principles. "I like going out for a drink without my clothes smelling from smoke" doesn't cut it. That's lazy. That's easy. Lazy & easy, what party's ideology does that remind you of? "

Good point. Real good point. Bears repeating.

[Gabz]

Thank you.....that is exactly the point I have been trying to make. A restaurant is not a bar, many restaurants have bars, but there is still a difference in the two businesses.

They pulled the same nonsensical BS in Delaware last November on the anniversary of that ban being in effect....they based it upon liquor tax revenue.......which included the package stores (can't buy any kind of alcohol in Delaware, except in a package store)......and they forget to mention the fact they finally allowed the package stores to be open on Sunday.....of course alcohol tax revenues werre up, Delawareans no longer had to drive to Maryland or Pennsylvania to get a case of beer or a bottle of wine on Sunday.

The smoking ban in Delaware has been an unmitigated disaster for the hospitality industry there. Bands that used to get 2 or 3 gigs a month in a few places I know haven't been booked in any of them in nearly a year. The places can't afford to pay them anymore.

[supercat]

You know what it is, non-smoking types think they are missing out on something (they are not of course, smoking sucks), they see people having fun, smoking and carrying on. They are brainwashed as much as the smokers are about cigs and being "cool".

I think part of it is that anti-smokers will look in non-smoking bars and see that they're dull and lifeless, and they'll look in smoking bars and see people having a good time, and decide that it's not fair that there isn't any smoke-free place they can have a good time like people are having in the smoking bars.

Somehow it never clicks that there might be a reason the non-smoking bars are no fun.

[murdocj]

However the numbers were achieved, is the "up 9% because last year was an off year" the big drop so many people predicted? I didn't hear one person say "revenues will only be up 9% next year". I did hear many dire warnings of collapse, but they don't seem to have come true so far.