Parental Prohibition
pete quentin, 4 January 2008
To tackle the increasing danger of ‘over-hydrated’ parents, those with children are being subjected to a harsh rationing of 2 drinks per visit. Perhaps Wetherspoon’s (famous for cut price alcohol and meal deals) is set to become a guiding light in the battle against binge-drinking, by advocating a sensible approach to responsible parenting?
Wetherspoon’s have asserted “what we don’t want is the adult just staying and drinking in the pub while the child is just sitting there”. Ah, so we are also concerned for the mental stimulation of our future generations – “We don’t want children there bored while adults drink.”
However, reading between the lines suggests Wetherspoons’ motive might be less admirable, writes Claire Daley.
The detail appears to be less about protecting children from parents who consume vast quantities of alcohol and more about ensuring a speedy turnover of customers. “Once a child has finished his or her meal, then the adult could maybe stay for 30 or 35 minutes”. After all a long relaxed family meal does not produce the most enviable profit margin. Young, childless individuals fit far better onto the conveyor belt model of speedy drinking, dashing in and out of establishments.
So why stop at drinks rationing? Why not remove all tables, menus and comfort of any sort, people will be in and out like a shot and children will be relieved from the abhorrent cruelty of slow-drinking parents, (symptoms of such boredom include “can we gooooo yet?” whinging).
Evidently Wetherspoons’ rationing policy is not about protecting children from parents at risk of consuming vast quantities of alcohol because parents will be prevented even from purchasing additional soft drinks.
The company said it was “uncomfortable” with children being on the premises for long periods because of a lack of play facilities. Philanthropists might therefore advocate investing in play facilities…
“We are comfortable with children coming into the pub as it is commercially viable”. Not anti-children then. Right. But Wetherspoons only like children when they generate profit.
As a retired hotelier, licencee and family man – I say well done Wetherspoons! – what is wrong with something that is good for business and the family at the same time. This simply makes good sense.
Isn’t it rich for the media to complain about a private company introducing its own rules for its own premises?
This being done to try and make up for the loss of income after the government introduced a range of anti smoking rules. These were last seen in 1930’s Nazi Germany – the modern implementation have a much similar style of totalitarianism about them! The media didn’t really question the loose definition of private and public property at that time – I guess its ok for governments to bully the same businesses whose tax is used to fund NuLab’s mad ideas!
All Witherspoon are trying to do is to stop benefit mums spending all day in the pub while their darling rats spoil the pub for everyone else!
Is that too much to ask?!
Is this view not just a tad overly cynical?
Where this article seems to extrapolate a little too far, for me, is in the suggestion that there is a deliberate aim to exploit, or least treat customers with low regard: Such a suggestion doesn’t really tally with how modern businesses including, one would imagine Wetherspoon’s, usually think about the economics of customer management. Invariably, the marketing department mantra is that offering anything other than genuinely good service is unprofitable. Good service, leading to re-patronage, is most often an important if not central necessity in a profitable business model. This comes down to (a) the high costs involved with winning customers {which needs to be repaid over many visits}, (b) the need to maximise revenues (i.e. customers) to offset the business’ fixed costs.
With this in mind, it seems to me that Wetherspoon’s are more guilty of a misjudged attempt to please two groups of customers with incompatible needs: Group 1 is the family, wanting a place to eat out where they can take the kids and still have a drink. Group 2 are the social adult drinkers, wanting peace and quiet from Group 1!
Therefore, a less cynical but still plausible explanation might be that Wetherspoon’s goals have been a bit idealistic; rather than purely opportunistic. Agreed, though, its all come a bit unstuck.
I think that Claire Daley is in the pay of Wetherspoons and has written this article to ensure a huge amount of free advertising for what must be a very popular measure on their part.