Bill P wrote:My rant was more directed at the increasingly practice of charging 3X retail.
Kurt R. wrote:From what I understand The Bristol made an effort to reduce their markup on wine in 2009 and if it went well would continue into 2010.
David Clancy
Foodie
730
Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:09 pm
A couch in Andy's house.
Robin Garr wrote:This would be a great topic for Marsha's monthly Industry Standard column, although come to think about it, since I just wrote it, maybe I ought to make a column out of it myself.
David Clancy wrote:2.5/3 markup is the status quo. I challenge any purveyor/restauranter to tell me otherwise.! It's about money! Prices for wine are steep to be sure, but, the real money is in hard alcohol, (mark up is 6x on that). Business is business......
Nimbus Couzin wrote:I'll just chime in briefly here. I believe this is a key concept that Robin was alluding to: it is part of their business model, the way to make it all work. We've all observed the number of places that fail, so obviously it isn't pure profit going on.
In short, if they were to charge less for wine, they're going to charge more for something else - perhaps your entree. Maybe you wouldn't mind paying an extra dollar or two for your entree, maybe you would. It is a trade off, and that is exactly what is going on. The managers and owners are simply deciding how to best please their customers. Personally, if I'm going out, I don't usually buy wine, so I'd prefer that the food prices are lower and wine higher. But if you always get wine, that would probably be reversed....but the restaurants may do better keeping lower food prices and letting people splurge for wine (which they're doing anyway whether at double markup or triple).
Cheers
(p.s. Isn't 30-35% COGS usually the normal business model? An average, not every item) (COGS= Cost of Goods Sold)
David Clancy wrote: the real money is in hard alcohol, (mark up is 6x on that). Business is business......
Users browsing this forum: AmazonBot 2, Claudebot and 2 guests