Do Restaurants Hate Non-Drinkers?
There is a reason alcohol occupies such a prominent place in the hearts of restauranteurs, it’s their most profitable item. At full-service restaurants, alcoholic beverages typically account for roughly one-fifth of total sales, yet their substantially higher gross margins makes them disproportionately valuable to the bottom line. In an industry where costs have risen dramatically and restaurant owners worry that passing every increase along to customers will drive them away, it is easy to understand why alcohol, with its enviable economics, has long been seen as “the answer”.
And, that may help explain a growing trend that should concern anyone who chooses not to drink—restaurants increasingly treating alcohol not as an option, but as an expectation.
The tension between food and alcohol sales has become a matter of public debate in some places. In Louisville, Kentucky, restaurant and bar operators pushed back against a petition for a city ordinance requiring every establishment to derive a minimum 70% of sales from food. The restaurant and bar coalition argues that such a rule could put many of them out of business. Other states and municipalities have similar regulations that keep the pressure on, but the message is clear. Restaurants have food to bring us through the door, but alcohol keeps the lights on.
Doesn’t Everyone Drink?
Nope. There’s another group sitting at those tables whose interests are rarely considered in this economic equation – the non-drinker.
There are many, and their reasons are varied. Some, like my better half, simply don’t like the taste of alcohol. Others don’t care for its effects, have religious objections, are in recovery, or have simply chosen to live a healthier lifestyle. Then there are those like me, who still enjoy a pre-dinner cocktail and a glass of wine with a meal, but find that as we grow older, our tolerance for alcohol declines. Half-pours and smaller servings or abstention suddenly becomes reality.
At special dinners and culinary events I appreciate the wine pairings and revel in the experience. My wife, however, is a true teetotaler. No wine or cocktails. No mocktails or caffeinated beverages. Water is her drink of choice.
That brings me to our recent experience.
We were invited to dinner at a high-end venue. It was a multi-course fried-chicken dinner, accompanied by a wine pairing. Yes, I thought, that must be some mighty fine fried chicken! Sign us up.
The invitation was appreciated, but I knew the wine pairing presented a problem. I contacted the restaurant and asked whether there might be a reduction in price for my wife, since she would not drink the wine.
The answer was a polite no.
The restaurant did offer to substitute the wine with other beverages. I explained that my wife’s beverage of choice was water, and why. At that point, there was obviously no substitute of comparable value.
The owners explained this was a popular event, others were clamoring for seats and they wanted to maximize their profit from it. So, I should understand their position.
Here it could get Ugly, But…
I do understand.
In fact, I understand perhaps better than they realized. As a business-school graduate, I have spent more than half a century operating in both the corporate world and as a small-business owner – including restaurant management. I understand margins and fixed costs. I understand that a successful event is an opportunity to make money, and I understand that restaurant economics are extraordinarily difficult.
But understanding their decision doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.
Their comment seemed to reduce hospitality to a raw calculation of how much money could be extracted from every chair. So, reluctantly, we canceled our reservation.
Their stance surprised me because over the years, I have dined at many fine-dining establishments, enjoying a multitude of tasting menus. Wine pairings have been readily available, many of them extraordinary. But they have always been optional. The guest chooses whether to add them to the experience and that distinction matters.
A tasting menu is a meal. A wine pairing is an enhancement to that meal. When the pairing becomes mandatory, the restaurant is no longer offering a choice. It requires every guest to purchase something that some cannot consume.
What is Hospitality?
Here is where I wonder if hospitality is still the guiding principle.
Restaurants are, after all, in the hospitality business. Hospitality means welcoming people as they are. It means recognizing that not everyone at the table has the same tastes, preferences, appetites, or limitations. It means understanding that the person who orders the $200 bottle of wine and the person who drinks tap water are both guests.
The irony is that non-drinkers are not asking restaurants to give them something for free. They are simply asking not to be charged for something they cannot drink.
The restaurant has a legitimate argument. Wine pairings can be an integral part of the event’s economics. The price of the dinner and cost of food, staff, preparation, service, venue and wine calculated to generate a certain level of profitability. Alternatively, if every guest (unlikely, but I’m trying to be balanced here) opted out of the pairing, perhaps the event would no longer be financially viable.
But there is another way to look at the equation.
Unintended Consequences
If the restaurant does not always sell every available seat, for every service, is the extra $100 of revenue today really worth potentially losing hundreds—or even thousands—of dollars in future business? Is the short-term profit from a rigid policy worth the disappointment it creates in a customer who might otherwise return again and again?
This was supposed to be our introduction to this restaurant. In our case, they did not simply lose our two seats for one evening. It lost the opportunity to earn our business on future visits. We may eventually return for regular service, when alcoholic beverages are not required as part of the price of admission. But there are many excellent restaurants nearby, and disappointment has a way of influencing where we choose to spend our dining dollars.
Perhaps the larger question is, how can restaurants protect the economics that keep them alive while still making room for guests who don’t drink?
Some have it figured out, offering reduced-price pairings with half-pours. Others craft nonalcoholic pairings with sophisticated alternatives. Others make the pairing optional, allowing those who want it to indulge while everyone else enjoys the same food and hospitality.
None of these solutions is perfect. Each restaurant must determine what works for its business, its customers and its bottom line.
I am well aware of the problems facing restaurant owners today. Rising labor costs, food prices, insurance, utilities, rent, and the endless list of expenses that come with keeping the doors open have squeezed margins from every direction. Restaurants have every right to pursue profitability. Without it, there is no restaurant.
Is it really a Black and White choice?
Profitability and hospitality don’t have to be opposing ideas.
For me, the issue isn’t whether restaurants should be allowed to require a wine pairing. Of course they can. They own the business, and they get to establish the rules. The question is whether doing so is wise—and whether it is consistent with the hospitality they want their guests to remember.
Every restaurant owner has to decide what makes economic sense. Every guest has to decide where to spend their money. But in an increasingly competitive dining landscape, it might be worth remembering that a guest who drinks water is still a guest.
Sometimes, the most profitable decision a restaurant can make isn’t maximizing the check tonight. It is making sure the guest wants to come back tomorrow.
Do restaurants really hate non-drinkers? Probably not, but sometimes and some restaurants can make it feel that way.