ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: RTP-area local music and culture
List archive
- From: grady <grady AT ibiblio.org>
- To: RTP-area local music and culture <ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:00:49 -0400
Glenn, I appreciate this big first step you're taking, and I hope it will work out in your favor. (while we're talking about steps to take, there was a post in that thread about on-campus shows, in which the poster implied that under-21s can't get into bars where the rock happens . . . that's true at the Cave, but I thought you were still letting over-18s in, right? Might need some outreach there . . .)
Although I sympathize with your concern about losing business, I'm compelled by your scenario, below, to provide a counter-scenario:
I go to a show at Local 506. After the first band, the smoke is bad enough that I go outside to be able to breathe a bit before the next band (this is a regular occurrence for me and dozens of other people, btw). While I'm out there, some of us nonsmokers start talking about the other shows that night, at Nightlight, the Cradle, and The Cave, all of which are within walking distance, and all of which are nonsmoking, and we all take off to one of those shows.
Or maybe we skip the part where we come to Local 506 at all.
Maybe I'm biased, but that seems at least as reasonable as your theoretical situation. In fact, it happened to me a week ago, in the sense that I was sitting outside Local 506 talking to some friends, contemplating going in to see Filthybird, but ultimately I decided to walk to the Cave instead.
Do you really think that having the ability to smoke *inside* Local 506 is the only factor keeping the smokers from fleeing? It seems to me that people only come to Local 506, which has a cover charge most nights it's open, to see bands play. With the exception of Reservoir, the other bars within walking distance who have bands play are all non-smoking (the Cave allows smoking in the back, but nonsmokers never have to go back there unless they want to play pool). So if the smokers leave to go see another band, they're quite possibly going somewhere else nonsmoking.
Or are you saying that your smoking patrons are so fickle and/or so addicted that they'd rather sit at the Sports Bar and smoke & drink, instead of seeing the band at your bar? If so, then why would they bother coming to the 506 and paying the cover charge at all?
People are going to go in and out of clubs. One of the great things about Chapel Hill is that you *can* walk from one bar to the next, and see many different bands in one night, if you're so inclined. I think the wise thing to do is to factor that into your business model as best you can, as I'd argue that setup is a net PLUS for everyone involved.
As you yourself stated in another post, one thing that really keeps attendance down is unpredictable start times. I'd add to that "and really long-ass lags between bands." In an environment where there *are* so many other clubs nearby, having predictable schedules is pretty crucial. Making your club somewhere inviting enough that people hang around between bands is helpful, too, but I'd argue that the music is the most inviting thing you have to offer. Making it as easy as possible for people to see that music, and have a great time while doing it, is the best way to optimize, *as long as* you're charging a cover.
It sounds to me like the bottom-line of your argument is this: people only buy drinks between bands. If the club is nonsmoking, then the smokers will go next door and buy drinks there between bands, and then come back when the next band plays, thus draining your profits away.
So here's a solution, since, as you say, the Sports Bar apparently isn't even open: Buy the Sports Bar. Open it back up. Make it a smoking establishment. Rake in the profits! ;-)
xo
Ross
local506 AT gmail.com wrote:
I had so many conversations about this last night at the Schooner
show, and everyone I countered the 'non-smoking' argument then
understood the dilemma I face. As I thought was understood, if no
smoking is allowed in 506, then smokers will be forced to exit my
business and, perhaps, smoke outside. However, they may equally
choose to visit one of the other bars within walking distance to not
only smoke, but also buy their next drink, And heck, they may have
such a good time, they might not venture back. And if the Sports Bar
re-opens next door, I'm sure plenty of bands will find their potential
audience not only not drinking at Local 506, but not listening to
their band either.
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking
, (continued)
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
Chris Rossi, 08/22/2007
- Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking, Chris Calloway, 08/22/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
ron thigpen, 08/22/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
Chris Rossi, 08/22/2007
- Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking, ron thigpen, 08/22/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
Chris Rossi, 08/22/2007
- Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking, Kevin Slater, 08/22/2007
- Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking, local506, 08/23/2007
- Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking, DJ Golf, 08/23/2007
- Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking, johngreenSF AT gmail.com, 08/27/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
local506, 08/27/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
grady, 08/27/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
James Hepler, 08/27/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
grady, 08/27/2007
- Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking, James Hepler, 08/27/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
grady, 08/27/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
James Hepler, 08/27/2007
- Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking, James Hepler, 08/27/2007
- Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking, will, 08/28/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
grady, 08/27/2007
- Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking, Rawls nospam, 08/22/2007
-
Re: Local 506 vs. Smoking,
Chris Rossi, 08/22/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.