Going smoke free profitably -- Do it with a splash! 

• In all of our discussions with restaurant operators, one thing stands out loud and clear: those who went smoke free quietly did not fare as well as those who did so with a splash.
  
• If they simply hung a sign saying "We are now smoke-free," the only people who knew about it were their current customers. While they may lose a handful of these folks, they usually regain the losses as word slowly filters out that they are now smoke free.

But this is a foolish waste of time and revenues. Why wait even one more day? They should hang a large banner on the building saying "Enjoy Smoke-Free Dining." They should boldly print it in every ad, build it up in radio ads and seek out talk-show formats. 

Why not tell the world? Why keep it quiet until the smokers reach the door? Why avoid getting the word to the people who would be attracted by it?  Even if they are just passers-by who notice the banner, they are new customers who otherwise wouldn't exist!

Some operators erroneously believe that by doing it quietly, they will offend fewer smokers. But those who will be offended will be offended no matter how it is done. The secret is an affirmative action to replace the 2-3% of die-hard smokers even before they are lost.

When operators are bold about their new policy, word gets out in record time. They will begin seeing growth in three areas: 

(1) Old customers who were previously chased away by the smoke will begin returning to their once-favorite eatery; 

(2) new customers will be attracted from the competitor down the street who still allows smoking, and 

(3) nonsmokers who have avoided eating out because of the smoke problem will start venturing out.

Its a win-win situation. Especially for the lungs and cash register.

Tobacco Industry Lies

Historically, the tobacco industry has done an excellent job of convincing restaurant operators that since 25% of the population are smokers, going smoke-free would cost them 25% -- even 30% -- of their business. Clearly erroneous, but it is easy to see why operators would balk at making such a drastic change. 

But why isn't the restaurant operator equally afraid of losing the 75% who do not smoke?  Because rather than complain, these folks just quietly slip away to cleaner air down the street. Operators see the smokers return; but they do not see the nonsmokers who stay away.

If you are really looking for
an excuse, try one of these....

We're too small to have a nonsmoking section!

Think about it. If your restaurant is really that small, should you even allow smoking at all?

The smaller the restaurant, the less air space there is to dissipate the smoke, and the more nonsmoking customers you will chase away. Guaranteed!

Remember that nonsmokers represent 75% of the adult population. Why limit your marketplace to the 25% who smoke and the few nonsmokers who don't mind being around smokers?

Why not expand your market to the 75% who are nonsmokers, plus the 20-30% of the smokers who prefer smoke free dining themselves, and the few smokers who will gripe but continue coming back because they like your food?

Don't bury your head in the sand on this issue. Do your math. That's 88% of the market!

Smoke-free restaurants aren't doing so well!

That's exactly what the tobacco industry would want you to believe, but it's not true.

In Wisconsin, we've grown from 65 smoke-free restaurants in Wisconsin in 1992, to over 2000 today! Do you think these operators would continue being smoke free if it weren't profitable?

Virtually all of the smoke-free restaurants in Wisconsin have reported unaffected or increased revenues as a result of removing the ash trays. Some have experienced significant increases (when they go smoke free with a splash). Only a handful have reported slight decreases, and these could have been avoided with smarter planning and a stronger commitment. Even if sales remain the same, a decrease in cleaning costs will still yield an increase in profits.

I can't afford to lose even one customer!

Wrong! You can afford to lose any customer who chases away other customers on a continuing basis. Smokers chase away nonsmokers, and as smokers return they chase away even more nonsmokers. A serious, repetitive cycle sets into place, sometimes resulting in closing the doors.

Why do restaurant operators fear losing even one smoker, yet they can ignore the many nonsmokers lost because of that smoker? We estimate that, because of this repetitive cycle, each smoking customer will eventually cost a restaurant five nonsmokers in exchange. Is it wise to allow this trend to continue?

I'll win my smoke-free competitor's smokers!

Smart. For every smoker you get of his, he'll get two of your nonsmokers. The math isn't in your favor. And, what's going to happen when your customer base is 100% smokers?

In Madison (WI) on State Street, as more and more restaurants went smoke free, the hard-core smokers migrated to the few eateries that would still allow them. But then, these owners started to lose even smokers who could no longer stand it -- until they, too, joined the smoke free trend. While they all did ultimately switch, it cost them business before they made the conversion. There is no reason to let that happen to you. (Madison eventually became totally smoke free and an increase in restaurant tax revenues was seen).  

I can't afford to offend any of my smokers!

Now come on. Better to ask, can you afford to offend the 75% of the population who are nonsmokers? Think about it.

First, you're assuming that all smokers will be offended by a smoke-free policy, when that is not even close to being correct. About one-forth of smokers prefer smoke-free dining, and a large number will choose the nonsmoking section with their friends and family. Only 2-3% of the entire population are hard-core smokers who might stay away from a smoke-free eatery. And for every smoker you might lose, you stand to gain two non-smokers in their place. That kind of math is on your side. Don't let that 2-3% destroy your logic, your health or your business.

Secondly, smokers are becoming increasingly aware of the problems created by their tobacco habit. They can't smoke in movies, retail stores, theaters or planes, and sometimes even in their own homes. They understand why they are finding fewer restaurants in which to smoke. Besides, most smokers don't quit eating in their favorite restaurant when it goes smoke free, they just quit smoking in it.

Most of my customers are smokers!

First, that's probably not correct, but if it is, you are in even deeper trouble than are most of your colleagues. If you have allowed your smoking clientele to take over your establishment, you and your staff are at greater health risk than ever before. Under normal circumstances, waitresses are only at 2 1/2 times the risk of developing lung cancer, yet it is even more dangerous with a higher ratio of smokers.

Also important, if you have lost that many nonsmokers already, you should be poised to regain a greater number of them when you do go smoke-free! And a number of your smoky competitor's patrons, as well.

And if most of your customers are smokers, it proves the point we've consistently made here: smokers chase away nonsmokers to the detriment of the business!

We want to accommodate all of our customers!

That's exactly what the tobacco industry wants you to do, too, and Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds even provide decals for your doors to show your customers how "accommodating" you are to smokers.

But don't kid yourself into believing that this will work in your favor. What smokers and nonsmokers choose to breathe into their lungs are mutually exclusive. One wants clean air; the other wants tobacco smoke. You cannot satisfy them both.

These signs will actually lead to increased smoking in your establishment (exactly what the industry wants), with a resulting decrease in nonsmoking patrons (exactly what you don't want). Don't let the tobacco industry trick you into putting their profits ahead of your own. Many nonsmokers will avoid (even boycott) restaurants that encourage smoking with these tobacco-industry signs, or at the very least they warn them not to come back. 

My customers don't complain about the smoke!

Few will. Only 1 in 25 nonsmokers (4%) will speak out when offended by tobacco smoke. Most just quietly walk away to a nonsmoking restaurant -- and the losing operator never knows why they've left. Silent losses, indeed.

However, since some smokers complain when not allowed to light up, operators are often left with the false impression that they are satisfying more people by allowing smoking and reducing complaints, when in fact they have only reduced the number of people to complain.

The owner is a smoker!

That may be true. But it's our guess that the owner is also (or wants to be) a good business person and to maximize profits. If removing the ashtrays increased revenues, that owner would satisfy his or her smoking habit outside.

Besides, there is only one thing worse than having a patron light up and ruin your meal: it's having the owner or an employee do it. Even if smoking is allowed in a restaurant, it is absolutely foolhardy for owners or employees to contribute to the problem and themselves chase away nonsmokers. 

That said, when smokers must also breath other people's smoke, it adds 1-2 packs of cigarettes to their own daily intake.  

Smokers have rights, too!

Nobody has the right to disperse into the air a known toxic or smelly substance for others to breathe, regardless of how long the practice has been tolerated in our society. You wouldn't let non-smokers disperse radon, asbestos or any other annoying substance into the air; why must you allow smokers to do it?

To the contrary, nonsmokers (but mostly, your employees) do have the right to breathe clean, safe air. That right is guaranteed by both state and federal laws, and restaurant operators will see increasing numbers of lawsuits from employees if they fail to address this safety issue.

Importantly, employees must breathe the smoky air 40 hours per week, and the cumulative effect can be deadly. It is precisely because of employee safety that most smokers understand why you've made the decision to go smoke free. Few, if any at all, will challenge a decision based on employee safety.

I can't afford to make any changes!

Can you really afford not to?

If things are not going well, being smoke free will likely make them better. It could even make the difference between staying in business and closing the doors. Ironically, we've seen several restaurants close their doors, while at the same time refusing to try something new, like a smoke-free policy, to turn things around. Does that make any business sense? Is it any wonder that the failure rate for restaurants is so high?

If business is already good, are you not open to making it better? We've even had some say that "business is too good," and they couldn't stand to make it any better! Well, then, how about just making it safer without losing any business?

I'm waiting for it to become law!

Why wait until the playing field is leveled, when you can capitalize on the trend and gain a competitive edge before everybody else is doing it too?

The restaurants in Madison that led the smoke-free trend, long before the ordinance was passed, developed a loyal following that remained even after the ordinance leveled the playing field. You, too, can be a leader and capitalize on this profitable trend. Don't be the last one to make the move. As well, push your restaurant association to get behind a universal state law. 

And our favorite..... 

We've got to be fair to everybody

Is it really "fair" to force nonsmokers (and your employees) to breathe second-hand tobacco smoke, just so you can be "fair" to smokers? Do they really need 100% of the air space? Is it fair to force non-smokers to sit on the patio, so smokers can light up inside? Isn't maximum fairness providing everybody clean, safe air to breathe while enjoying their dinner?

The National Restaurant Association findings...

According to a February 12, 1993 memo from the NRA to its members, citing a New York Times/CBS poll regarding smoking in restaurants:

A full 67% of those polled favor a complete ban on smoking in all public places -- including 39% of current smokers, 74% of former smokers, and 78% of those who never smoked.

According to a study fielded by the National Restaurant Association in January 1993,

• 56% of adults said they would be more likely to go to a restaurant that voluntarily banned smoking as opposed to one that continued to permit smoking, and
  
• 26% would be less likely to go to a restaurant that voluntarily banned smoking as opposed to one that continued to permit smoking.

Now plug in your calculator!

If you are not smoke free, you are losing business you need not lose. While the above illustrates a 215% greater (56% vs. 26%) preference for smoke free dining, even if the former exceeded the latter by only 1%, it would translate to an increase in sales!!! For every smoker who would eat there less frequently, two nonsmokers will take their place.

That results in a gain no matter what language you speak.

Smoke-free Bars?  
Bars with nonsmoking sections?

Not out of the realm of possibility...

For far too long, restaurant operators have assumed that banning smoking would cost them business. Just as most smokers don't quit eating in their favorite restaurant when it goes smoke-free, the same holds true for bars. Smokers don't have to light up everywhere they go -- they just do when they are allowed to.

Bar owners typically believe that a large percentage of bar customers are smokers. And they are, because the owners force it that way. 

Nonsmokers are not necessarily non drinkers, they just seem that way because they avoid smoky bars. Most bar owners have no idea how much business they are losing as a result, because they only see the smokers who return and do not see the nonsmokers who stay away.

According to a San Jose State University study, on a "per person" basis, smokers consume twice the level of alcohol than do nonsmokers. But, numerically, nonsmokers outnumber smokers by 3:1.

Think about that: 

Using the 3:1 numerical advantage of nonsmokers, for every two beers consumed by one smoker, three beers are consumed by three nonsmokers. No matter how you cut it, the nonsmoker market is greater than the smoker market! As a group, nonsmokers consume 60% of the total alcohol market. That is a significant oversight being made by most bar and tavern owners.

Moreover, owners must recognize the dire shortage of smoke-free bars in most cities. Taking advantage of the larger nonsmoker marketplace and advertising your new smoke-free bar will surely draw nonsmoking patrons away from your competitors, and your food sales should increase even more. Nonsmokers are desperate for good places to go where they will not be assaulted by tobacco smoke.

As stated earlier, smokers chase away nonsmokers, both in the bar and restaurant settings. As the smoker returns, the cycle repeats and even more nonsmokers are lost. This creates the significant imbalance bar operators see between smokers and nonsmokers. We estimate that every smoker will, over time, chase away five nonsmokers!

The attrition rate of nonsmokers is high and the effects harmful and costly. It makes no sense to let this continue.

Any smoke can be detrimental....

Nonetheless, everybody in these categories have made a life choice to not breathe tobacco smoke, and they go out of their way to patronize nonsmoking facilities.

That leaves the bars with the smokers, the few nonsmokers who are indifferent about smoke, and those who have just quit smoking themselves and thus are not yet bothered by the smell.

But the majority of nonsmokers are a vast marketplace that smoky bars and restaurants will simply lose as more and more places go smoke free. In fact, our goal is to divert as many nonsmokers from smoky restaurants and bars as we can, and send them to smoke-free establishments instead. We hope to create a major market shift toward smoke-free restaurants in order to give owners of smoky restaurants financial reason to change.

Smoke-Free restaurants with attached bars

Most bars that are a part of a restaurant can and should be smoke free. If an operator determines that being smoke-free will increase the food marketplace, going smoke free in the bar adds one more service to the nonsmoking patrons. Restaurant owners whose business increases only moderately when going smoke free, are very likely not receiving the full impact of their new policy because they left the bar smoky.

After getting new nonsmokers into the restaurant for dinner, many of these patrons avoid the smoky bar -- both while waiting for their table and for after-dinner drinks. It seems a waste to see these nonsmokers walk past the bar on their way out, maybe even going to a smoke-free bar elsewhere in town.

Bar-Only settings

While we recommend 100%, even without going totally smoke free bar owners can improve the situation by separating the bar into smoking and nonsmoking sections and exhausting the smoke from the smoking section and drawing the fresh air into the nonsmoking section. 

Read this: Not ventilation or filtering or smoke eaters or recirculation, EXHAUST!

Yes, this will increase heating and ventilation costs, but the increased nonsmoker marketplace should more than offset those costs. Everybody will be pleased with this arrangement, even the smokers. 

Changes in bar smoking policies can be made without sacrificing any of your smoker business. Although you might not be ready to make your bar smoke-free, many have done so and enjoyed an increase in profits. If in doubt, contact Kathie Bundie at the Stagedoor Saloon in Manitowoc, WI at (920) 684-5338. She reports great success.

Employer liability?

Note, however, that even if the above does satisfy smokers and nonsmokers, it does not remove the significant health risk experienced by the staff. If you thought the air supply was bad in the restaurant setting, brace yourself. It is probably triple that in the bar.

According to the University of California, restaurant environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is about 3-5 times higher than typical workplace exposure; restaurant employees' ETS exposure is 8-20 times higher than "at home" exposure; the most heavily exposed restaurant workers inhale the benzo(a)pyrene equivalent of actively smoking 1 to 2 packs of cigarettes per day, and waitresses have the highest mortality of any female occupational group (with almost 4 times the lung cancer mortality and 2 1/2 times the expected heart disease mortality rate).

How does all of this translate to the bartender? Or to the owner who runs the bar?

We don't know the answers yet, but it certainly can't be good. And it sure could be a deadly mistake to ignore the issue just because you haven't developed lung cancer or emphysema yet.

For others views on the business effects, click here and here.

Prepared by
Jack E. Lohman
Founder and Director
Wisconsin Initiative on Smoking and Health
P.O. Box 597
Sussex, WI 53089
414-477-8686
jlohman@execpc.com