Yesterday I mentioned the Number 10 petition wallahs skipping through tulip-filled meadows in their elysian fantasy world.
... the impact on the hospitality trade as a whole has been at worst neutral and in many cases positive. We have seen no significant evidence to date that implies that smokefree legislation ... will create any long-term economic problems for pubs or the hospitality trade in general.
So, today, here are a couple of extracts from stories they may have missed.
In London.
Eleven pubs are closing in London each week as the recession, the smoking ban, high taxes and the structure of the industry force the capital's boozers out of business.
In the first six months of the year, 281 of the estimated 7000 pubs in London called last orders for the final time, according to figures released today by the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA).
And in the world of hospitality business.
Marston's, the brewer and pub chain, has reported a steep fall in annual profits, despite a recent rise in sales.
It blamed the overall falls on agressive discounting in supermarkets, the weak economy and a continuing consequence of the smoking ban.
Here is the Number 10 e-petitions team, pictured earlier today.
8 comments:
Come on, those stats are just as selective as the government's, there's not even a direct correlation with the smoking ban
No mention of how many pubs open, no mention of where consumers are going, but there is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/07/pubs_arent_dying_they_are_evol.html
Bob: who do you think knows the hospitality industry best? Marstons or Number 10?
These are just two articles on one day. The reason I posted them was that I had written something yesterday on the subject. They are a daily occurrence.
Would you not say that this 'implies' that smokefree legislation could be causing a problem?
The government didn't say 'direct correlation', you did.
And on the Mark Easton link (if it's the one I think it is), the comments IIRC put that one to bed quite nicely. Do you want a pub? Or a church hall which has been forced, under Labour, to take out a licence for a fund-raiser?
When it comes to two-sides of an argument I'm not going to believe neither is biased
A brewery obviously has a vested interest, as does the government, and the BBPA always massage the figures to show what they want, as seen in the article I posted
What's interesting is that Marston's reports a fall in profits, yet a rise in sales - surely the smoking ban can only impact sales, nothing more, and from this information the most likely cause would be high rents (the one thing my local landlords say is killing them), high taxes, the economy and supermarket competition - it would seem the smoking ban is just chucked in
OK, Bob, I'll take you at your word as being impartial and not believing either side.
"A brewery obviously has a vested interest, as does the government, and the BBPA always massage the figures to show what they want, as seen in the article I posted"
The breweries and the BBPA came down emphatically on the side of the smoking ban, so I fail to see what vested interest they would have on the matter. It's a continual grumble of mine that they did nothing to fight it whatsoever.
Here is but one small example.
Marstons admitting that the smoking ban is a problem is the reality which they denied prior to July 2007. This sort of 'implies' that there is a problem.
"What's interesting is that Marston's reports a fall in profits, yet a rise in sales - surely the smoking ban can only impact sales, nothing more"
You couldn't be more wrong. I know this as I lived in a number of pubs from 1984 till 1992.
This is the relevant part in the Marstons article.
"The chain ... said that sales had been led by its value-for-money food-oriented pubs"
Marstons make beer. They aren't butchers or greengrocers. Their big profit-producer is the beer that they make for next to nothing. Food is something they buy in and re-sell. The profit on food is a fraction of that which they can collect from selling their core product.
Mr Puddlecote Snr despised customers who came to our successful pub and ate a couple of 'specials of the day' while quaffing their orange squash and half a shandy. We earned nothing out of them at all.
We did earn a lot of money out of regulars who liked to drink beer, spirits etc, and didn't require any other servicing.
Mark Easton was saying thast pubs are evolving. Great. Bully for those who want that, but there are many who don't, and the impetus of the smoking ban has created only one way of trading. That being forcing traditional pubs out in favour of child-friendly (try making a profit out of any kid, even on food) cafe bars, at the expense of profit-making pubs which have been around for generations.
There's where the sales are up and profits down. And that is why the smoking ban is a major driver of the decline.
Rents have their part to play, but then rents are based on sales and not profitability. They used to be based on barrelage, but breweries cottoned on to the new trend and have taken the piss.
The rents issue is secondary to the damage already inflicted by the smoking ban.
The economy and supermarket discounting are red herrings, we've had recessions before and supermarkets have always sold booze cheaply. Pubs didn't close though.
Didn't Alistair Darling admit himself that the smoking ban had caused well over 50% of the pub closures - yes he did.
The government valuation office also offered business tax rebates because of the affects the smoking ban.
Almost every closure of all the working men's clubs and bingo halls have blamed the smoking ban.
It's common knowledge that the smoking ban has had dire effects on the industry, but statistics can be used to spin effects to the contrary.
"Mark Easton was saying thast pubs are evolving. Great. Bully for those who want that, but there are many who don't, and the impetus of the smoking ban has created only one way of trading. That being forcing traditional pubs out in favour of child-friendly (try making a profit out of any kid, even on food) cafe bars, at the expense of profit-making pubs which have been around for generations."
You want your pub, I understand that, but the fact is it's being replaced - whether by market forces, licensing laws, or smoking bans the 'wet-led' pub is becoming less popular - the hospitality industry at large is still going fine, people are still getting their booze and going out, that market has been changing for years
It is sad that you may lose your drinking hole, I hope you don't - my local does fine, the bar is popular in the evenings and the smokers tolerate the weather - it may well be that the rate of decline plateaus in the next few years as I know of many 'proper' pubs in my area still going, just because some are closing doesn't mean they all will
From what I can tell this is just wanting to keep a certain type of establishment for nostalgia's sake
Glad your pub's still around, Bob, but why exactly should smokers have to "tolerate the weather", be it at a wet-led, dry-led or anything else-led establishment?
A non-pub note: was stunned to read this in an otherwise boilerplate piece on snooker's decline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7826970.stm):
"In fact, snooker's undoing must be shared with changes over the past 20 years that are beyond its control: the smoking ban (forcing clubs to close), a change in social habits and the closure of ex-servicemen's and British Legion clubs which had tables on site."
It didn't help our sport when Labour banned our main sponsors, either.
Post a Comment