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.

[at bay]

Guess I put a little opining in the above slot, when it belongs here. I'm going to keep countering the smoke and mirrors routine some of the chimney people engage in herein.

The excesses of the whiner's responses remind me of a fortune cookie "Strong words denote a weak cause."

No doubt, homey.

[ClintonBeGone]

what do you think? More propoganda from the smoking nazis?

[eastforker]

Or, one could say that since smokers can not smoke, this law is causing more alcoholics since they are drinking more than before when they could smoke. Instead of dying of lung cancer now their livers will rot out, need to ban the alcohol they will be screeming next.

[JimVT]

Fox news reported that bar revenues are up 9% over a year ago

Did they list a source?

[t1b8zs]

B S

[need_a_screen_name]

Oh really?

NYC Cig-Ban Burns

February 16, 2004 -- KAPPA Beta Phi, whose motto is "we sing, we dance," should now be changed to "we sing, we dance, we smoke" - after recent published reports outed the esteemed society's blatant disregard for Mayor Bloomberg's silly smoking ban, and in his presence no less.

We should fear for Bloomberg. After all, by virtue of his own reasoning, the mayor put his life and well-being on the line, by subjecting himself to what he sees as the detrimental and life-threatening effects of that group's second-hand smoke - and from cigars, to boot!

Bloomberg, remember, proclaimed that such smoke kills up to 1,000 people a year, in New York City alone.

Fortunately for him, however, there is not one shred of scientific evidence to back that claim (or for that matter one signed death certificate anywhere that cites the cause of death as second-hand smoke).

On the other hand, the smoking ban that went into effect last March has brought about much distress to our industry and those who work in it.

In a recent statement by the New York City chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA), Executive Vice-President Chuck Hunt noted that "the city's bar, tavern and nightlife operations have suffered mightily as a result of the smoking ban."

In a membership survey the group conducted in November and December of 2003, 76 percent of the respondents reported a decline of 25 percent or more in bar sales and 15 percent or more in food sales.

* It is the first acknowledgement from NYSRA that the law hurts the hospitality industry. Before its passage, NYSRA had supported the law.

* It clearly refutes the mayor's much-hyped assertion that people would dine out and drink more as a result of the ban.

The ban also has resulted in an epidemic of quality-of-life complaints that have maligned our trade ever further. Ironically, we warned our political leaders of these issues before the ban became law, but to no avail.

(snip)

-----------------------------

Laura Miller, the Dallas mayor, also pushed through one of these idiotic smoking bans. Good for business? Yea right! People should at least be able to smoke in a bar. A bar isn't a church, for crying out loud. You gotta love a place like New Orleans, where people can slurp oysters, drink, and smoke all at the same time if they want to....

[knarf]

"what do you think? More propoganda from the smoking nazis?"

Personally, as a smoker ... I think the nazi's are winning this one.

I know all the data, and I've tried to quit many times. The only answer I can come up with for not quitting is a combination of desire and enjoyment.

That being said, I have no problem with being put in a smoking only place, but I resent to all get out, the law mandating what I choose to do.

Where's the anti alcohol crowd?

Maybe I should open up a smoking bar and ban alcohol.

[HighWheeler]

I was listening to the local FM news commie talking about this story on his top of the hour news. It was a hoot while he tried to explain the increase in revenue was only because of the smoking ban, to spite the "sagging economy".

What an idiot.

[Lee'sGhost]

"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.""

I think this is a bit off. No numbers to back it, but here's how I think it shakes out.

A relatively small number of smokers TOTALLY quit going out to eat/drink -- whatever. Most say, "this sucks, but I still want to got out and eat and drink, so I guess I'll deal with it."

ALL of the non-smokers who would not go out and deal with the smoke say, "ALL RIGHT!." Bottom line, net gain for business.

[microgood]

Since these numbers are supported by public tax revenue records

Not sure I'd believe anything coming out of Bloomberg's administration, might be like Clinton's GDP figures for 2000.

[stinkypew]

The effect on "business" in general is irrelevant. The simple fact is that no one was putting a gun to your head and making you go to a place which allowed smoking.

You gonna make me start eating healthy too, mom?

[Miss Marple]

Could be. Plus smokers who want to stop for one drink order munchies to put off the craving until they leave the bar.

[t1b8zs]

"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)

[Gabz]

You obviously did not watch Cabuto's program (there was a substitute this afternoon) and hear the bar worker who's personal income has been down 50%; the vending company owner who's revenues are down between 20 and 35% depending upon the location; or the bar and restaurant owner from Austin, Texas that not only helped unelect the Mayor who put the stupid thing into effect, but got it reversed.......

You want a smoke-free bar or restaurant, talk to the owner or open your own....keep the government out of the entire issue.

[Kay Ludlow]

So there was a 25% decline in bar sales after the ban went into effect over a year ago (from nasn's post), and now there's been a 9% increase from that abysmal level (from the original post).

Hmmm - sounds like it's still a business problem to me, not a cause for celebration. A net decline of 16% from 2 years ago would be the death knell for many businesses.

[BikerNYC]

It is so freakin' nice to come home after a night out and not have your clothes smell like a smokestack. I can honestly say I don't know one person who doesn't think this has done good things for the bar business.

[blackdog]

Market forces are a good thing. Smoking/no smoking is not exempt from the forces governing choice. Especially now that non smokers have a greater disposable income by not spending $10 per day on smokes.

[Gabz]

You're right - just more propaganda.

What everyone is ignoring is the fact that many taxes have increased in NYC during the same time as the smoking ban has been in effect......I'm surprised they are only reporting a 9% increase............it means things are even worse than they should be.

[t1b8zs]

I don't know one person Need to expand that circle of friends a bit there Biker dude...Whats it a Honda Dream?

[finnman69]

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

[Diverdogz]

I live in Florida, where for maybe the last year, there has been no smoking allowed in restaurants.

Good God do I love it!!! I can go to a restaurant and eat a meal without gagging on secondhand smoke from some nasty, rude geezer's cigarette. No itchy eyes, no gnarly smells - just savor the kitchen aromas.

They all had smoking sections before, but those were about as effective as having a "no peeing" section in a pool.

[MNlurker]

I agree. I like to smoke when I'm out and thought I would hate the rule when I visited California. Not that big a deal really.

Of course, what is a New Yorker going to do? Its not like you can jump in the car and drive to the bar the next town over that still allows smoking. Captive populace. There should be smoking and non smoking bars. Patrons will go to the one they prefer...

[BikerNYC]

Hey...the fewer smokes people buy, the more money they have to buy booze. And it's great not smellin like the inside of an ashtray.

[BikerNYC]

Hey...the fewer smokes people buy, the more money they have to buy booze. And it's great not smellin like the inside of an ashtray.

[Ron in Acreage]

Revenues would be even higher if the ban was not in effect. Probably 20% or more.

[t1b8zs]

Sorry there Biker dude...... 2001 Yamaha V-Star 650 Classic (Black)

...... when and if ya go to Daytona do ya stand on the side walk and window shop and not step inside for a brew and a look see cause ya dont want yer leathers to smell of smoke...
Missen all the fun Dude.....

[norton]

"No doubt, homey."

I just love a graceful winner.

Bite M* homey.

What it means is that smokers can generally find a congenial crowd outside...local fave has a great patio that a couple of locals shut down as a jazz venue (more mindless 'my way or else' types) and last time I was on the east coast there were more friendlies outside than in...

says something about the average Matre-De (matra-di, matter-dee, whatever) and the average breathe-not-on-me nazi.

Fact of the matter is, I'll happily step outside to smoke 'cause I'm tired of listening to the typical bar/restaurant drone.

One of my favorite memories of my father was listening to him berate people wearing cologne (pansy) or perfume in public. That man could gag and snort like he was having a true fit....he died at 74 of (get this) a birth defect.

PS lung cancer is quick, think about that while you sit in dialysis and contemplate dementia...Oh, wait, not likely that you could actually contemplate dementia is it?

[Ben Chad]

LOL BUMP

[HarryCaul]

If it's anything like bars in California, they just ignore the rule if they feel like it.

[dasboot]

I can tell you I'm pretty sure no smoking ordinances are killing business. I'm a pub bard part-time. In the towns around the two larger cities I'm near that passed no-smoking laws, the bars, once pretty busy, are dying off: non-smokers might come in, but they usually have one or two and leave...it's a lifestyle thing for a lot of folks. These places are having to rely on their food business to float the once more profitable bar business..and going under.
I played a new place last Friday in the city that , of its own, decided to go smoke-free. They have no regulars. I pulled a crowd, but they apologized to me and left in dribs and drabs--almost all of them-- soon after arriving....one smoker in a group of four who has to go outside will persuade the group to go elsewhere ...won't be playing there again: it hurts my business. I now have to remember to ask about smoking policy for my customers.
On the other hand, the city bars that still allow smoking are absolutely crammed SRO on the weekends. People are loud, rowdy, puffin', dancin', and drinking. My kind of place. The burbs are toast.
So there are winners and losers.

[tiki]

I've known about 10 people who have died of alcoholism (My 51 yr old cousin just died Saturday) and I only know 1 who has died of lung cancer and he smoked but he also loaded and flagged a crop duster. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[murdocj]

I didn't see the FoxNews story, but this just went online:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8306867.htm

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.

Revenues up 9% and anti-ban people have a list of reasons why that involve all sorts of different factors and ignore the ban. Why didn't they mention any of these other factors last year when they predicted doom and gloom?

[tinamina]

I have a young friend who lives in NYC and says that what they do now is go to many bars and smoke while walking from one to the other.
Personally I think Bloomberg cooked the books on this one, since bar owners are all saying business is down. But then maybe they had to raise their prices to compensate for the lost business.

[Stentor]

The excesses of the whiner's responses remind me of a fortune cookie "Strong words denote a weak cause."

Whiners? Sanctimonious irritating prigs? All the same to me.

[Gabz]

Hmmm - sounds like it's still a business problem to me, not a cause for celebration. A net decline of 16% from 2 years ago would be the death knell for many businesses

It has been.

I've spoken with numerous bar owners and workers in NYC and through out NY state and they all say the same thing....the ban is killing them.

I have watched many of my friends who are either owners or workers seriously hurt in Delaware....and that ban has been in effect even longer. I was in Delaware 2 weeks ago and stopped to see some friends.....an Irish pub on the afternoon of St. Patrick's day was empty...........tell me the smoking ban is not hurting the bars and I will point to the bridge in Brooklyn I have to sell......

[Cicero]

When did the smoking ban go into effect? Bloomberg has been mayor for more than three years, now. As suggested above, the figures may have risen since last year but plunged from the year before that.

Frankly, I don't believe this. I suspect that if the figures are true, they massaged them by carefully picking the time period involved. That's an old trick.

[microgood]

Whiners? Sanctimonious irritating prigs? All the same to me.

Its funny the way Rush describes the anti-smoking zealots: they think they have this right to go anywhere in the world and be free of smoke. Rather than just going to non-smoking establishments of which there are many, we must all conform to their view of the world. It must be hard to have fun with people that take themselves so seriously. Kinda reminds you of that atheist guy Newdow.

[microgood]

Frankly, I don't believe this. I suspect that if the figures are true, they massaged them by carefully picking the time period involved. That's an old trick.

You are right. The link on post #32 shows they used the 2002 figures, right after 911. How convenient.

[kaki]

The news?person we heard either misstated or we were'nt listening closely, but he said the tax revenues in "restaurants" went up. That's when my husband and I looked at each other and asked "Why did they not report tax revenues for nightclubs, bars, lounges, etc.?? We could understand "restaurants", but what about the other businesses had to close due to the smoking ban? FYI, I am an ex-smoker and my husband still smokes.

[NYCVirago]

Wrong. 2002 was a horrible year for bars and restaurants, due to the aftermath of 9/11. That's what they're comparing these revenues to, which is very misleading. If you compare the post-smoking-law revenues to pre-9/11 numbers, it will paint a very different picture.

[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.