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.

[murdocj]

You're right. I don't like smoking. Would I be off-base to suggest that maybe your opinion of the story might be clouded a little, as well?

A 9% increase is not what I heard people predicting last year.

Yes, this story is spun a bit. Just like every story is spun (at least) a bit. Why are so many folks opposed to acknowledging that maybe the smoking ban isn't the end of the bar business in the free world?

You are wrong about my "hatred of smoke and smokers", though.

Besides, some of my best friends are smokers.

[Gabz]

One question I wish the anti-smokers could answer: if banning smoking would improve business, why don't bar and restaurant owners do it?

The owner/manager of a "sports bar" (it had a restaurant license and could be open on sunday)in Dover was quoted in the paper during the debate about the Delaware smoking ban that his customers "don't come here to smoke" and supported the smoking ban...........but refused to ban smoking in his establishment until everyone else had to do it.

The day after that article appeared in the paper my husband and I were in there - there were 19 people at the bar, 17 were smoking and all 3 of the bartenders were also smoking....the owner refused to speak to me. Even before the ban was enacted and months before it went into effect 15 of those 19 people, including the 2 non-smokers, stopped going to that place.

[metesky]

Sportin' a rice burner and don't wanna be smelly...eewwhh!

Bwahahahaha!

[Gabz]

One of the more popular bar/restaurants in one of the more popular resort towns in Delaware did just that - they went totally smoke-free. Shortly after the staff started to revolt because their tips had dropped so badly, so they openned a "cigar-bar" in the upstairs area....everyone was a bit happier.......

When the total smoking ban went into effect they lost their niche market, as did every other place that had chosen to be smoke-free.

Everyone forgets the places that were already non-smoking and how these bans have hurt them. They no longer have their targetted market. The anti-smokers love the fact they have destroyed the market of those places that chose to cater to smokers, but they refuse to acknowlege the damage they have inflicted upon those establishments that were seeking to cater to them. I know a lot of people that don't bother with the 45 mile drive to that place anymore because there are good places to get a steak 5 miles from home.......they only went there because it was non-smoking.

[CurlyDave]

The simple fact is that no one was putting a gun to your head and making you go to a place which allowed smoking.

I consider the lack of smoke-free establishments to be one of the few failings of the free enterprise system. Before the no-smoking laws there were no non-smoking bars or restaurants. And the system had failed me because it did not give me the choice I wanted.

Despite the fact that I think there is no such thing as "smoker's rights", I do think it would be possible to reach a compromise. Charge bars & restaurants for a smoking license. It would have to be a high enough charge to prevent them all from converting back, but at some price they would be about 50-50.

If they want to recoup the cost they could charge smokers something like $1.00 per cig to smoke in the place...

[smonk]

[from the article from the miami herald]

Using 2002 -- when the economy plummeted after the 9/11 terror attacks -- as a baseline for comparison is unfair, bar owners say.

"Why don't they just compare job stats to 1929 -- it's about as relevant," said David Rabin of the New York Nightlife Association, co-owner of Lotus. "Two thousand two was probably the worst year to compare to in 20 years. And they simply refuse to separate out bars, clubs and taverns [from restaurants]. They know numbers are bad there."



Sounds like intentionally deceptive use of statistics.
And any report from the health department that purports
to demonstrate a business effect ought to set off alarm
balls in everyone.

[Gabz]

I did hear many dire warnings of collapse, but they don't seem to have come true so far.

Talk to some of my friends in both New York and Delaware who no longer have a business........then tell me the bans don't cause problems.

[cinFLA]

"that bar revenues" All bars?What Bars?Whose Bars?Geme a friging break...this is crap....down on Atlantic Ave in WPB Cnty Fla they were shuting down because of lost revenue.....Smoking and booze go hand and hand.....sorry its a fact of life(or death)

All bars? What Bars?Whose Bars?Geme a friging break...this is crap....

I hate to tell you but drinks taste much better WITHOUT tobacco!

[cinFLA]

Even before the ban was enacted and months before it went into effect 15 of those 19 people, including the 2 non-smokers, stopped going to that place.

Then you are saying the ban had nothing to do with the loss of those customers.

[cinFLA]

I went to a no-smoking bar on a week-night and it was packed - SRO! Even with the smokers outside it was still SRO!

[RightOnline]

I have smoked for thirty years. It's legal.

...and don't call me a f**king "chimney". You surely wouldn't to my face, dweeb.

[Gabz]

I will acknowlege my view is also a bit clouded, but not because I am a smoker, it's clouded because I have actually seen the books of bars in Delaware from the years before the smoking ban and since the ban. I realize the 9% is NYC not DE, but my point still remains - they mix apples and oranges to come up with the numbers.

Why are so many folks opposed to acknowledging that maybe the smoking ban isn't the end of the bar business in the free world?

Why are so many folks opposed to acknowledging that maybe smoking bans should just be left up to the owner, employees, and customer preferences of a bar business????

I put smoking bans in the same category as seatbelt and helmet laws..........I'm an adult, I do not need Big Brother government telling me what is best for me.....if I don't like smoking I will work in or patronize a place that doesn't permit it; I chose to wear a seatbelt because I choose to do so; if I'm on motorcycle I'm going to wear a helmet because I think I should.

Why does the government need to get into any of these issues????

I'm glad to hear you have friends that smoke, I've got friends that don't - we compomise.

[Great Dane]

If that be the case, it's the fist City not to suffer from a smoking ban............... in other words, I don't believe it.

[supercat]

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.

The predictions were made before the ban went into effect. Following the ban, there was (per other posters) a 25% dropoff of sales. Although some of that may have been a result of 9-11, the fact that sales didn't even make up 3/8 of the lost ground is pretty dismal.

Many businesses may survive a year where revenues fall 25% short of expectations, if they have reason to believe the shortfall will only be temporary. Even if the business operates at a loss for that year, staying in business may be worthwhile to reap future profits that lie ahead.

If revenues fall 25% and don't rebound fully, however, then business survival becomes much dicier. Many business owners may choose to invest personal capital in keeping afloat a business which is temporarily operating at a loss. Few, however, would be willing to waste their personal assets keeping afloat a business which--thanks to politicians--no longer has any reasonable expectation of turning a profit.

Besides, even beyond the fact that the 9% "rise" after a bad year isn't very significant (even after such a rise, they'd still be down 18%), without knowing how the figure was computed one can't know whether even the feeble 9% figure represents any sort of reality.

What would be interesting would be some histogram charts showing what fraction of bars saw what effect on their business. My proposed formulation:

• Compute for each tavern in the state [including taverns that have gone out of business and those that have started up business] the following two quantities: average_biz == (new_revenue+old_revenue)/2 and delta_biz==(new_revenue-old_revenue)/(new_revenue+old_revenue). The latter quantity will range from -1.0 (for taverns that have gone out of business) to +1.0 (for taverns that have started up).
• Sort taverns by delta_biz.
• From left to right, place on the graph a bar for each tavern whose width is proportional to average_biz and which runs vertically from 0 to delta_biz. Each bar should sit immediately to the right of the immediately-preceding one.
• For each bar that sits below the Y axis, the area will be proportional to the dollar revenue decrease by that tavern; for each bar that sits above the Y axis, the area will be proportional to the dollar revenue increase.

Such a graph would show at a glance where the market was going (though unfortunately it wouldn't really distinguish between larger and smaller taverns). Additional plots could be used to provide more detailed information, but without seeing the first plot it's hard to know what additional information would be most meaningful.

[Gabz]

I consider the lack of smoke-free establishments to be one of the few failings of the free enterprise system. Before the no-smoking laws there were no non-smoking bars or restaurants.

Good Grief, man - I can't believe anyone would actually make such a statement. Long before the total smoking ban in Delaware, I knew exactly which bars and restaurants were smoker tolerant or non-smoking......and I'm not talking months here, I'm talking years.

The only failing is on the part of the non-smokers.....not enough of them spoke to the owners or managers of their favorite establishments to go non-smoking. Instead they chose Big Brother government - to control the lives of others, including private property owners and small business people.

[murdocj]

I have no problem with leaving the choice to smoke or the choice to eat at a place that allows smoking up to individuals. That's the way I'd prefer it. I don't like the fact that smokers are taxed just because there are enough people who think they know better.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing complete bans in places paid for with government funds and all privately-owned businesses free to choose.

That being said, this discussion isn't about free choice or the fight of the government to intervene. The article and the original post simply point out that the smoking ban isn't the end of the world overall. That is worth noticing, I think.

[lewislynn]

Did they list a source?

Do you ask that of eveything you hear from Fox News?

[supercat]

The only failing is on the part of the non-smokers.....not enough of them spoke to the owners or managers of their favorite establishments to go non-smoking. Instead they chose Big Brother government - to control the lives of others, including private property owners and small business people.

Actually, there is another failing--one which some marketing person should exploit--a lack of any convenient means, in many places, to find the non-smkoking bars and restaurants which already exist. The logical solution to anti-smokers' complaints would be for someone to publish a guide which lists non-smoking bars and restaurants (or to include a 'non-smoking' section in existing restaurant guides). The publication of such guides would make it easier for non-smokers to find bars and restaurants they'll enjoy while simultaneously encouraging bar and restaurant owners to consider going non-smoking (especially if the guides don't list any non-smoking competitition).

[Gabz]

Sounds like intentionally deceptive use of statistics. And any report from the health department that purports to demonstrate a business effect ought to set off alarm balls in everyone

They always mess with the statistics......we all know that.

The only alarm bells that will go off are with people that understand exactly what you are saying. Unfortunately we are generally blown off as propagandists of the tobacco industry as opposed to just being people that have wide open eyes.

[lewislynn]

An oldie but goodie:

Record Liquor License Applications in California