- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+
News Article Comments : Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+
The damaging impact of the smoking ban one year on is laid bare in a survey of Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR) members, exclusively for the MA.
The survey of 14 companies — operating more than 1,300 pubs between them — found 36% saw sales fall more than 6% since the ban. Half said profits have fallen more than 6%.
Wet sales and AWP income has been hit the worst as many traditional beer-drinking, machine-playing customers stay away.
A total of 43% of operators said wet sales fell more than 6%, while 36% saw a decline of 1% to 5%.
More than two thirds — 71% — of companies saw machine income fall 6% or more.
“The Government needs to realise that pubs are having a difficult time after the smoking ban,” said ALMR chief executive Nick Bish.
But there is some positive news from the survey, with 29% of firms saying food sales are up more than 6% since the ban.
Bish added: “Food-led pubs are stable or showing marginal improvement as people stay longer, and the family t
14 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 1 of 2
|
||
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
Michael J. McFadden 05/07/2008 23:21:34  |
RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ What's most interesting about this story is what it *DOESN'T* say. It leads off with the note that 36% saw declines of 6% "or more" without mention of how much more, and it then notes that 43% only saw declines of 1 to 5%. So what's missing? The headline that 79% saw a decline due to the the ban. Wouldn't that normally be expected as the headline? There's something else missing too: the article notes that "more than two thirds" saw a machine decline of more than 6% (although why 71% should be "more than two thirds" rather than "almost three quarters" is never mentioned) but the article fails to note how many saw a 1 to 5% decline. Could it be that perhaps 95 or even 98% saw a decline? And with such detailed figures gathered, are we to believe that they never thought to ask for monetary impact so that they could write something like "Over 900 million pounds have been lost to the industry since the smoking ban!" ? It certainly seems odd that no mention of total loss was made, does it not? Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" This post replies to this thread |
|
| S Roberts 06/07/2008 09:38:52 |
RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ I don't think you should advertise your book, Michael, unless you balance it by writing a book entitled 'DIssecting Smokers' Brains' so as to fairly represent both points of view; you're clearly invested in pubs for smokers & uninterested in any other kind of pubgoer. Why do you not think that landlords shouldn't just see the smoking ban as an opportunity instead of a lifelong disaster? Just because one group of people no longer visit pubs as much, it doesn't mean other groups can't replace them? That should be seen as opportunity! Landlords are as responsible for adjusting their sails to the prevailing winds as any other businessmen. Living in the past doesn't put money in the till. (And before I attract the usual off-topic remarks, I would point out that I'm a *tolerant* non-smoker). This post replies to Michael J. McFadden > RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ |
|
kevin o'connor 06/07/2008 13:25:08 |
RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ Jake Shepard of AC Nielson said that 175,000,000 less pints were drunk in pubs in the last year and the cause was the smoking ban. If say across the board the average price of a pint was say £2.20 that equates to £57,750,000 in lost VAT alone How much higher price must we pay for social engineering This post replies to S Roberts > RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ |
|
| Ken Nason 06/07/2008 20:55:48 |
RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ Roberts S you really should do some research before you jump in with both feet critisise people out of hand and accuse them of things they haven't done. Firstly it is not your place to say whether he is advertising or not. If you feel he is then report him to Ewan. As it is Michael has posted on this site for some considerable time and has always put his identifying credentials as to who he is at the bottom of each and every post to specifically state his position on smoking. He has never hidden anything on the contrary he has always been up front and totally honest. I am sure he will confirm this himself. I think if your read his posts here and in the USA you will find answers to your questions.The only people who have attacked his byeline are those who have attempted to discredit his work against the smoking ban and support for licensees. This post replies to S Roberts > RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ |
|
| Ken Nason 06/07/2008 21:04:45 |
RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ Kevin old chap you know that there is a lot more to come the smoking ban was just the start. This post replies to kevin o'connor > RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ |
|
| Nigel Wakefield 07/07/2008 05:50:28 |
RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ The smoking ban may be a good thing in the majority of non pub goers eyes and a lot of pub goers, but it has removed the core business from a very large number of pubs. These smokers came in first thing in the evening for a couple of pints and a smoke, and set the pubs in motion, people make people, however distasteful smoking is a good crowd draws more people. These people have now gone and the non smokers have not come in to replace them and many pubs are feeling a very serious pinch. The Pub Co's have failed to address this situation by maintaining high rents and ignoring the realities of falling turnovers and most of the people that I see are struggling, who wants to drink under a smoking canopy on a cold, wet night, you wouldn't leave your dog there. This post replies to S Roberts > RE: Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ |
|
| Michael J. McFadden 07/07/2008 07:23:47 |
Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ Thank you Ken. And indeed, I feel it's very important, particularly when posting on a site that is largely focused on pubowners, that I make clear what my position is. If I did not then I'd be subject to attacks for either "hiding" my possible economic interest in debating the subject or for "posing" as someone in the pub industry. Unfortunately, as we both know, not everyone is as open about their identity and interests on these boards. While anonymity is an old internet tradition, I believe that its time is past when discussing issues and laws that seriously impact peoples' lives and businesses. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" This post replies to this thread |
|
| S Roberts 07/07/2008 07:58:53 |
Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ I'm referring, Michael, to the fact that you're presenting half of an argument and ignoring the other half; the method by which you do so is irrelevant & I will NOT allow Mr Nason to twist my words as is his usual habit, in order to derail threads. He is IGNORED by myself & others for exactly that reason. Are you saying, Michael, that smokers are the only trade welcome in a pub? If so, what percentage of smokers represent the total clientele then, to cause significant negative impact on profits? This post replies to Michael J. McFadden > Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ |
|
| kevin o'connor 07/07/2008 08:53:15 |
Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ Try 175,000,000 pints downturn This post replies to this thread |
|
| Ken Nason 07/07/2008 08:45:29 |
Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ Roberts S, I do not twist anyones words, it is not necessary as they are already convoluted. I am curious as to why you feel it a requirement that someone should present both sides of the argument. No one else here does when presenting any other topic. Pre empting Michael's answer. No he isn't saying that. Pubs traditionally welcome all people who abide by the rules of the house equally and do not discriminate. It is the conspiritorial actions of governments that has removed this from pubs with the resultant calametous damage caused by enforced discrimination against smokers. Your last question does not have a finite answer as all pubs are different. Most on the trade would say that a wet only pub probably had upwards of 80% of their customers as smokers and dry led pubs nearer 50%+. So you can see what impact a ban has especially had on the wet led sector particularily those who had no facilities to erect outside shelters. This post replies to S Roberts > Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ |
|
|
||
