Church of the Customer Blog
« Public smoking bans are good for business | Main | Napsterizing customer feedback scores »
February 18, 2006
Public smoking bans are good for business
Fans of customer evangelism know that to rally people around a cause sometimes means sticking a polarizing stake in the ground.
Banning smoking in restaurants and bars is one of those stakes. If you believe in this cause, read on...
Chicago's recently enacted smoking ban is already returning good news: Customers love it.
Restaurants with lounges are, inexplicably, exempt until 2008 to ban smoking, but some operators aren't waiting. Here's to spreading some good word of mouth.
* Signature at the 95th restaurant: "We thought we would have this tremendous negative reaction from smokers. We had just the opposite. We started getting positive letters."
* Keefer's restaurant: "The month of January we were up 17.7 percent for sales. This is awesome and I wish I had done it sooner."
* Poor Phil's restaurant: "My business changed. Sales are up 10 percent."
I was at the Lucky Strike last night which, in the old days, would be a trifecta location for smokers: it's a pool hall, bowling alley and restaurant/lounge. The Lucky Strike has also decided to ban smoking altogether rather than wait until 2008, and the place was full. Even with a below-zero windchill gripping the city last night.
A public ban provides the necessary political cover for business operators who want to ban smoking but would find themselves overwhelmed by enforcement measures and the loud protestations of the smoking minority.
To the likely dismay of free-market purists, public smoking bans in Chicago, New York and countless cities (and countries) prove they're good for business.
Other blogs that reference Public smoking bans are good for business:
» Thank you for NOT smoking from Adventures of a Texan
Not a smoker, per se, yet occasionally I will enjoy a stogie and a scotch. But, this bit of news was rather unique. There have been several restaurants and night clubs that have banned smoking, and have actually seen an [Read More]
» Smoking Bans May Be Good For Business from iampowered
Chicago's recently enacted smoking ban is already returning good news: Customers love it.Restaurants with lounges are, inexplicably, exempt until 2008 to ban smoking, but some operators aren't waiting. Here are some of the responses:* Signature at the ... [Read More]
I have always suspected that cleaning up the air would be a positive thing. The loudest uproar before any ban always seems to assume that the only people that ever ate out were smokers and that they'd never cross the stoop of a restaurant or bar that didn't let them smoke. I just couldn't see that happen.
I'm just amazed that the country that committed to doing this first was Ireland of all places. If you ever went there before the ban, you would know that a very large proportion of the population smokes. I wonder if many people were inspired to give up after the ban. After all, it's hard to imagine anyone giving up going to the pub.
I always liked it when California was smoke-free and New Zealand has followed suit. The only down side that has been reported, other than an initial drop-off in business, is that BO is now more noticeable!
Laura -- And just think of the insurance savings years from now as all of the smoking-related maladies decrease.
Just a couple months ago Washington state voted to ban smoking from all public places in the whole state, it's been amazing! I love being able to go bowling or play some pool without worrying about stinking up my car and my house from that lingering smoke smell that just clingsto you.
As a result of these bans in public places, do you all notice cigarette smoke much more quickly than five years ago? I certainly do and appreciate the fact that the air is that much cleaner in public places.
The very interesting word of mouth study is to see how smokers did NOT rally together in the last five years and persuade the public to maintain the status quo. The pro-smoker crowd never had those powerful evangelists promoting their side of the story.
Here's another example of how something perceived as bad for business turned positive.
In Sweden opinions have arrised on banning porn in hotels pay-TV mix. While the hotel associations do everything to stop a regulation, some politicians have actually started to take action.
Which also som hotels have done, deliberately and by their free will. The result?
A rise in usage of pay-TV.
Why? Because now "pay-TV" on your receipt never more will equal porn. Prior to bannings a lot of people actually never dared to watch pay-TV because of what the ladies in administration would think and gossip about.
I don't smoke and never have, but am I the only one that doesn't believe we should be banning legal behavior?
If governments want to regulate behavior, why not make it illegal? Also, where does the banning of perfectly legal actions end? Fast food, SUV's, Islamic cartoons...(threw that one in there for good measure).
Bottom line is that people chose to work in establishments where you were allowed to smoke and when patrons visited those establishments they knew people would be smoking. What ever hapend to personal choice and responsibility. I think it's "great" too, but at what cost?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The suggestion that legislation can effect economies is obviously true. The suggestion that this redounds to the ill of free markets is risible. To wit: we could pump restaurant sales through the roof by banning the sale of food anywhere else.
True, you could ban anything at anytime in anyplace to cause ripple effects on the microeconomics of just about anything.
But just as it's reprehensible for me to dump motor oil down the sewer or to operate a chainsaw in my neighborhood at 2 a.m. -- even though it might be convenient and I was able to do it once upon a time -- is the same reason why smoking should be banned in bars and restaurants. Public smoking presents a nuisance and/or health risk to people nearby and the immediate community.
While there are solid (in some cases Nobel winning [ http://coase.org/aboutronaldcoase.htm ]) refutations of the "tragedy of the commons," the greater canard is the one in which these bans are predicated upon the ostensible danger posed by ETS. I would point here [ http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/EPA.html#EPA ] for a succinct exposition of the facts about ETS and the infamous EPA study (while the source is clearly biased, the studies and congressional records are referenced.) You’re at greater risk frankly, by practicing Catholicism, what with the particulate matter from candles and incense [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4026537.stm ].
