Scottish & Newcastle, the UK's biggest brewer, is reporting that it will suffer because of the ban on smoking in pubs - but is that really the case?
The ban on smoking in public places in England this summer will contribute to falling beer sales across the country, with the number of pints of beer served in UK pubs and bars dropping by an estimated 8%, according to the nation's biggest brewer, Scottish & Newcastle...It could be that there is actually a shift in purchasing patterns. The article goes on to note that the brewers brands were up by 7.1% in the supermarket-dominated off-trade but that profit margins in these sales are lower. No wonder: "The cost of a pint of S+N's Foster's lager is 66p in supermarket multi-packs, compared with 2.25 in a pub." This reminded me of the stat Ken Wells notes in his book "Travels with Barley" that bar bought beer in the US has gone from 75% of all sales to 25% over roughly the last 20 years. Price (and maybe better cable TV choices at home) has got to play a part in that.
It is true that some UK pubs are not doing well. CAMRA reported last week that 56 pubs are closing in the UK each week now - even though there is no smoking ban yet in England. It is also interesting to note in Scotland - which brought in the ban about a year ago - that claims of reduced sales and pub closures are now being blamed on that land's smoking ban...even though there is evidence of a small boom in pub sales early on after the ban came in, not to mention increased sales during the 2006 holiday season...not to mention an improved attitude to the Scottish pub since the ban.
Could it be that deflecting blame for some of the anticipated losses in pub sales due to a cultural shift is being pinned on smoking to stem the tide through keeping the more profitable pub - as opposed to the difference in the price of beer - in the mind of the public? And could it even be that other more entrepreneurial pubs instead see an opportunity in this situation? We in Ontario went through this a few years ago as has New York State. I should dig up more stats on sales changes but have to note that there has not been wholesale closures doomsters claimed there would be. And there are more families like mine now in the pub for a meal.
Comments
Travis - February 22, 2007 3:33 PM
They have had the ban on smoking in New York for a while now. My cousin owns a "club" and has said that it effected the number of people he had coming there until he opened his "smoking deck" that is covered and a good place for smokers. Now he says that it makes the whole scene there a lot better because people are not packed in all the time.
I am tworn on the issue. I hate that the government is telling us what we can and cannot do, but I like going to the bar and not dealing with smoke, butts or burns. Policy wise it's crap, in practice though it seems to be good.
Thats jsut my take.
tedo - February 22, 2007 7:43 PM
Alan,
I agree with cnybrew, that policy wise its crap, but the experience down here in Texas has shown it hasn't affected business. In the cities that have banned smoking, they have actually seen an INCREASE in sales, not a decrease. People that smoke are not going to stop going out and having a drink even if it means stepping outside to grab a cig. But as a nonsmoker I will not go into a bar or pub if its too smokey. Just my two cents.
T
Bostonbeerman (Jim Olson) - February 22, 2007 10:12 PM
I just don't see how this is crap policy, it is great policy. I don't see it as an infringement on smoker rights, but as a declaration of the rights of non-smokers. Smokers are generally the minority and the dangers of second hand smoke are pretty much proven. This is a public health issue and a quality of life issue. If they want that cig so bad, go stand out side.
I like to taste and dare I say smell my beer and a veil of smoke and stench of nicotine generally do not enhance my experience.
Todd R. - February 23, 2007 7:45 AM
I'll second the "it's not crap" policy. New York tried to ban smoking a few times, and each time failed, until they presented it as a workplace safety issue. Why should restaurant and bar staff be exposed to toxic air, when someone working in an office has protection from second hand smoke? It's a legitimate concern, and it stuck.
I for one have been very happy that I can stop in a local pub for a pint on the way home from work and not walk out smelling like a cigerette factory.
Todd
Travis - February 23, 2007 10:14 AM
Bostonbeerman and Todd R.-
I cannot speak for the policy in other states, but in NY it is a crap policy and here is the reason:
The policy was founded on the work place safety logic which makes all the sense in the world. The problem is the "smoking ban waivers" that the state gave now has the right to issue. In NYS if a bar, pub or club shows a measurable financial loss due to the smoking ban, they can apply for a waiver. The waiver has a significant cost associated with it and assuming the establishment shows the proper rate of loss, suddenly it's okay to endanger the lives of your workers.
That's why this is crap policy more than anything. I often complain about the infringement of freedoms and what not, but I wear a seat belt and I am happy other drivers are required to as well because the last thing I would want is some one's death on my mind. The smoking ban is similar in that it is an infringement on the smokers rights (to a point) and that bothers me a little, but what bothers me more is the NYS and the waivers. They say "Don't smoke because you are killing your workers, unless it's costing you money, then you can kill your workers, just pay up"
That's how they do it here in NY, I don't know about other states.
Travis - February 23, 2007 10:18 AM
One more quick note while I am complaining about NYS:
The state put the burden of enforcement on the couties with no additional funding. It was the old Albany "Unfunded mandate" which showed a real lack of seriousness from the legislature to produce meaningful policy.
Alan - February 23, 2007 8:28 PM
That is deinitely different from up here. 100% ban with no exceptions. No porch smoking either.
Stonch - February 23, 2007 10:31 PM
I can't wait for the smoking ban to be implemented in England, and almost everyone I know (including smokers, interestingly) agree.
Bostonbeerman (Jim Olson) - February 24, 2007 1:21 AM
Interesting. I would be pissed if there were exceptions in Mass. I don't know of any. I love the fact that they put the burden on the counties. That way Bloomberg, et al look like they are doing something about smoking and protecting workers and customers, yet they are willing to let it slide for a couple of bucks. What a crock of horse puckey.
fstar - March 8, 2007 9:15 PM
pittsburgh is on their way towards a smoking ban as well