Adult smokers offer added value to Britain's pubs
Wednesday, September 22, 2010 We have tweaked our new campaign advertisement to include an interesting fact:
38% of British pub goers are smokers and account for 49% of an average pub’s income
This figure comes from Harris International Marketing and is based, I believe, on a sample of 4038 pubs.
The advertisement (above) will appear in the Labour conference edition of the New Statesman, out later this week.
Click here to download it as an A4 poster and an A3 poster for your local pub.
Simon Clark
The research conducted recently by Harris International Marketing also found that:
- adult smokers visit the on-trade more often than non-smokers
- an average adult smoker spends more on drinks per visit
- an average adult smoker spends more on food per week
- an average adult smoker spends over £10 more through the on-trade than an adult non-smoker per week
An industry source tells me: "What is remarkable is the difference in the spending of adult smokers versus adult non-smokers. Adult smokers account for 49 per cent of the income of an average on-trade business, despite the fact that only 26.1 per cent of the UK adult population choose to smoke (BMRB/TGI 2009)."
Simon Clark
Very good article by Pete Robinson on The Publican website:
Pub closures? All in your imagination says ASH.
Reader Comments (23)
38% of British pub goers are smokers and account for 49% of an average pub’s income. Yes that's true overall i'm sure. But some of the pubs were already non smoking or had smoking non smoking areas.
The ones that were hit hardest were the ones where most of us smoked.
I suppose ASH sssssss, booooooooooo, sssssssss, managed to pay for the column inches i.e. we all want to give up really ,er no we don't.
Second hand smoke is lethal and bar staff suffer, er no in most of the real pubs I frequented before the ban the bar staff used to nip round the bar for a smoke. Second hand smoke as we all know is a big lie sold to the MSM, says a lot about the state of journalism now, no wonder no one reads it anymore.
Wine bars frequented by Guardianistas and other bores, yawn zzzzzzzzzzz may have been so. I'm sure the ex licencees would agree with me.
Is this a post ban figure of 38% or a new twist on the pre ban figure of 68% which is the reason the ban has caused so much damage Simon?
Don't believe a word of it! All pubs I frequented pre ban must have been at least 80% smokers.
Before the ban 68% of regulars were smokers. This goes to show how smoker have deserted the pubs.
I'll echo Frank's view - pre-ban, the majority of pubs I went to were solidly smoking. My guess is that these are the ones that collapsed first.
The Licensed Vituallers Of Wales came out with this report in 2005, key quotes are:
"..but they are strongly opposed to the outright ban as discussed by the Assembly. Only 8% want a full ban with 72% proposing that the outlets should be split into smoking and non-smoking areas or rooms."
"68% of licensees believe that over half of their ‘regular’ customers (who visit at least twice a week) are smokers – 37% of them believe that three quarters or more of their regulars smoke. Although there are slightly more non-smokers among the general pub-goers – only 33% estimate that this proportion is less than half."
"48% of licensees thought that the ban would lead them to lay off staff and a further 29% believed that they would close altogether. Not a single licensee thought that a ban would encourage them to hire more staff. These impacts would be the result of a major drop in customer numbers and a steep business decline with 90% believing that both would drop and none (including those that favour a ban) believing that they would increase."
"66% thought that a smoking ban would lead to more noise disturbance for neighbours and 84% that it would lead to increased drinking in the home."
They conclude: "We believe that a complete smoking ban in Welsh pubs would be
disastrous for our industry and jobs and deeply damaging to the communities that our members serve."
2 years before the ban Welsh licensees saw what was coming.
http://www.airinitiative.com/docs/LVWales_Smoke_out_the_Truth.pdf
Well, if this report thinks that 38% of smokers still visit pubs, it means that roughly half the smokers have decamped-and look at the state of the industry. If the half decamp we'll be looking at 20,000 pubs in 5 years and government benefit payments on a colossal scale!
An 'official smoking rate' of 26.1 implies (per research by Prof Colqhoun) prevalence above 30% (5 out of every hundred people who claim to be non-smokers are lying when tested by mouth swabs for cotinine, and this effect is higher in the UK and US when compared to Poland, the difference being accounted for by a more disapproving medical establishment in the former countries).
This of course does not account for the confounders of city dwelling and people who only smoke other peoples fags....
So, if anything, I suspect Harris has actually underestimated the size of the effect.
Actually, I find these stats rather encouraging. Never mind ASH and all the other head-bangers. The fact is that - sooner or later - our 'representatives' will be COMPELLED to acknowledge the COMMERCIALLY harmful effects of the Ban. And that - all the health-based, utopian claptrap aside - must be in our favour.
And there IS another point, of course: how much REVENUE has been lost to the Exchequer as a result of all the pub and club closures, and the reduced levels of regular attendance? Quite a tidy sum, I'd imagine.
@Martin V yep!
"In 2006 it was calculated that every pub in Britain directly contributed an average of £78,000 into the local economy, taking everything into account from employment to charity. Take the 10,000 pubs (CGA) that have closed so far and you have a £0.78 Billion black hole - every year - growing ever wider. And that's assuming no more closures when we're facing another 15,000 pubs disappearing over the next few years."
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=67386
As an ex bar worker of 23 years in a traditional drinkers pub I can state that in my observations at least 75% were smokers as were the same percentage of bar staff.
The workmen used to come straight from work for a couple of pints every night and they ALL disappeared as soon as the ban came in. The darts team halved and then folded as did the pool team.
Soon the young Mums started to appear for a coffee and coke for the kids and ALL the remainder of the old regulars disappeared.
As I wanted to serve drinks to adults and join the banter of drinkers I decided to hand in my notice as the 'new' aroma of baby sick and nappies made me feel like I was working in a creche.
The pub closed in 2009 and is now a Costa coffee shop and travel agent.
Sorry Simon, but all this says to me is that there are a heck of a lot of smokers still goling to the pub and quite happily popping outside for a smoke, so why amend the smoking ban? To the non smoking non regular pub goer this statement only endorses their belief that the smoking ban is in no way responsible for pub closure.
Let us look at the facts. The 38% include the ones who attend gastric pubs with the family. It includes those who are fortunate enough to have a pub with the outside space and investment to provide a decent outdoor facility. It includes the youngsters who go to the pub because it is a place to meet the opposite sex. What it DOESN'T include is the thousands of pubs which are teetering on closure if they have not closed already, which are/were adult wet led pubs with little or no outside and an average of 80% smoking.
Yes, quite telling that even post ban, when many smokers have stopped going to the pub (I used to go three times a week, now maybe once every three months and I know of 4 friends off the top of my head who haven't been to a pub since July 2007! And they too were 2 or 3 times a week, big-spenders) and smokers still account for 38% of customers and 50% of trade. So what was it beforehand? How much money has been lost by not catering to that big-spending chunk of the market?
It also, as always, rubbishes a number of ASH claims.
1) "That smokers love the ban, too, with 80% of smokers supporting it." Yeah, right. To the point that half of them no longer do what they have always done, week-in, week-out for all their lives. Give them a choice and they vote with their feet.
2) That pubs are doing better since the ban. Well, yeah. Right. Obviously.
3) That only 20% of the population smoke. When a third of all tobacco smoked is smuggled in because of ASH-inspired taxation rates (yet another brilliant idea from the geniuses at ASH) how do they know? Who would even admit to being a smoker in the current climate (unless you actually "had one on" at the time)?
4) These figures don't include non-smoking friends. My non-smoking friends (probably most of my social group, in fact) now hold parties, attend my smoky-drinky evenings, hold Poker Nights etc and they too now only visit the pub infrequently. They're lost to the trade now as they don't feel comfortable in pubs, either. They moan about the lack of atmosphere and the "waiting room" sterility of pubs now. They hate the constant interruptions to conversation or, more often, sitting outside with me. Not because I'm so fantastic and am the life of the party (although I am, of course) but because that's where everyone else is. I've lost track of the times I've been crowded outside with every single customer AND all the bar staff AND the landlord outside an enormous, and completely empty, pub. The actual building is redundant in many places, they may as well just set up a bar in the garden (although we don't have the climate to actually do that, of course).
God, this law is preposterous....
In addition to the revenue that has been lost to the Exchequer as a result of the decline in the hospitality trade, people should also be asking how much has been spent as a result of the other consequences of the ban.
Not only in terms of money spent on advertising and NHS cessation, but also in terms of increased health expenditure for those adversly affected, the increased police expenditure, and the increased expenditure on carers.
The cost of smoking to the health brigade is a non-starter and should be blown out of the water.
The cost to the health of individuals as a result of the ban should also been blown out of the water. I cannot comprehend how the cost of murder, rape, suicide, domestic violence, stress, hypothermia and lonliness can be ignored when they spew out their figures .....I suppose I can comprehend really, the health of these people are just ignored, as they don't count!!!
We know, and anyone with any sense, can see that SHS is a make-believe health hazard.
We also know, and anyone with any sense can also see, that the crusade against smoking has nothing to do with health.
It's about time that the MPs who voted on this ridiculous law admitted that they do actually have a bit of sense and can see through the lies that they had originally been fed.....or will they begin to admit that they were in on it?
Every lie that ASH used to spoon-feed and promote their agenda has been spun time and time again. Each one of these lies has been proven as a lie, yet the truth is still hidden.
I do apologise if I sound bitter and untrusting; this legislation has made me this way.
I will never trust an MP, nor a doctor. They are both so obviously bought (with the odd exception, I must add)
Good points Helen.
As well as the costs relating to the (now sadly literal) decimation of our pubs (over 1 in 10 gone and growing every day), there are the costs to associated licensed venues (Bingo Halls, Social clubs, nightclubs - a big one near me has just closed) as well as the rarely-mentioned cafes (especially those of the "greasy spoon" variety).
There is also the cost to the taxi trade (I've had several taxi drivers say that they are only covering themselves now, whereas prior to the ban they were busy, especially at weekends);
There is also the vending machine industry - I understand this was worth £5 billion pre ban, and a hell of a lot less now.
Then there is the cost of funding ASH, Tobacco Free Kids, Smokefree Northwest, Smokefree Northeast, D-Myst and the legions of other parasites. Then there is the cost of funding the BHF and CRUK.... who funnel a lot of their money to the aforementioned groups. Then there is the cost we pay to NHS Quit clinics, Smoking Cessation Officers, "health" advertising, "tobacco research", etc via our taxes to the NHS.
And the money we pay to the EU to fund its various anti-tobacco inititaives.
Then there is the money we pay to the Councils to pay for all the posters, signage, Smoking Enforcement Officers and the like. I saw somewhere that after a FOI request one Council, which admitted it didn't even enforce the Ban very much, was spending £100,000 a year on this garbage. Then there are maybe even the increased costs of picking up litter as they don't supply ashtrays anywhere (as that would be "encouraging smoking"), again a problem that is caused by (and costs money because of) the anti-tobacco bandwagon.
If you add up the direct costs of all this then also factor in the costs to the economy of the loss of income tax from the 100,000 unemployed pub-workers, the loss of tax from previously successful businesses (and their suppliers), the loss of VAT of thousands of pubs no longer selling booze and food, the dole now being paid to people who previously had jobs etc etc etc, and we are talking billions. Billions upon billions. All for something that no-one (save the handful of people at ASH) ever asked for, didn't vote for and doesn't want.
Yet in time of recession no less, the politicos are standing there with their fingers in their ears singing "la la la". It's just incredible.
I sometimes even wonder if the Ban has had a substantial impact on the recession itself. When you look at the number of things that are affected and you are talking about 25% of the population (at least) having their spending behaviour "modified" by it, there has to be a massive impact. Just using myself as an example, I have saved £20,000 since the Ban came in. And I've not been a hermit, I've just attended Smoky-Drinkies etc. But no more nightclubs, lapdancing clubs (;) ), pubs and taxis etc, which all add up to a former regular pub-goer who no longer visits pubs. I also stopped visiting Dublin when their ban came in. How many others have done the same to us? What are the costs to Tourism? An extreme example perhaps, but Hawaii lost 30% of its tourist trade. And I no longer visit Dublin and will no longer attend Munich's Oktoberfest. For this one reason. How many others are like me re: visiting the UK?
AXE ASH.
Look at the damage they have caused.
If only ....
Fingers crossed.
Sadly M A, England is on my and hubby's hit list of countries to avoid since the smoking ban.
We used to love going to London for the odd weekend pre ban.
But why go for more of the same persecution we already have to suffer in our own country.
The smoking ban looks to me like the 'last straw' for many pubs, as opposed to the root cause . . . For instance, in my home town, Portsmouth, pubs had been closing down for quite a few years before the ban, because of the scaling-down of the Navy, not to mention changing social patterns - the pub used to be just about the only thing to do in the evenings, before people had the Internet, DVDs, etc etc. Nevertheless the ban clearly has had a terrible effect.
The thing is: there are people who like the ban and will tie themselves into all kinds of knots trying defend it - and people who hate the ban, and will do likewise to attack it. Surely it's pointless to argue ad infinitum about whether the ban is the main cause or the 2nd or 3rd most important, or how many pub customers are smokers . . . so what? How many are vegetarians? How many are gay? Shouldn't we be trying to please as many people as possible in what is still (less and less convincingly) known as the Hospitality Industry?! Isn't that the whole point?
In other words we should recognise that both sides exist, and the obvious answer is FREEDOM OF CHOICE so that both sides can be catered for. I was in New York shortly after their ban was enacted, and I went to a 'town hall' meeting where the effects were debated. One bar owner got up and said the ban was great, it hadn't affected his business, and he was happy to be protecting the 'health' of his staff. Another woman got up and was almost in tears as she described how her bar was on the verge of going out of business, all the regulars were gone, etc. And several people around me turned to each other and stated the blindingly obvious: 'why can't they just both run their places the way they want?!' I think that the right (in a free market democracy) of publicans to run their own business on their own property in their own way, is not pushed enough!
Compromise has never been on the agenda. ASH and their ilk effectively want to continue with their attacks on smokers in the same way as is happening in the US. Maybe if the cuts start to bite and these so called 'charities' find their gravy train drying up, it may be time for the like of Forest to push a new agenda of tolerance and freedom of choice. However, while these charlatans still have large budgets and half the media in their pocket there will be no change.
Exactly.
They are hiding behing DOH funding it gives them credibility.
If they were funded privately the vested interests would be transparent.
I think they would struggle to get private funding too.
I've seen Simon's update and I still don't buy it. These figures mean that nearly half the people in a pub, pre ban, were non smokers? in my 'extensive' experience in many pubs, not a hope in hell!
Ash doesn't care about pubs, people or their social lives, so long as they stamp out tobacco and its use. Millions of people have now stopped using pubs and or use them less frequently. Neither does it care about the personal misery and the failure of businesses that their smoking ban has caused. They say its all about health and saving lives; with their lies about second hand smoke. They have no proof that SHS is directly responsible for causing illness in others in the short term. In public buildings air management systems would more than solve any shs problem. Its about time our government questioned their nonsense.
There is no reason for this ill treatment of people, forcing them outside by law just because they smoke. Separate areas in adult venues should be allowed.
With more smokers in Scotland and Ireland now than before their bans were introduced. 100000 jobs lost, thousands of pubs closed, but how many lives have been saved? Can they even name one person????
Leave the fantasy fiction to Ash.
"but how many lives have been saved?" Not one, I should think, Bill. But plenty have been ruined - or at least made considerably less joyful than they once were. Only the Soulless and the Sour would regard that as a 'success'.