The pub chain JD Weatherspoon is to allow parents only two alcoholic drinks if their children are with them, citing a lack of play facilities.
Sounds like a socially responsible thing to do right? Children don’t have to experience the sight of their parents getting bladdered, or risking being driven home by over the limit Mum or Dad. And though some may complain that the rights of parents are denied well quite frankly, a pub is private property and the landlord is free to refuse anyone entry, let alone serve them a drink.
But JD Weaterhspoon is a private enterprise and it wouldn’t be undertaking such an initiative if it didn’t think it was profit maximising in some way. How could this be?
- It sends a positive signal to a group of actual and potential pub goers that JD Weatherspoon attempts to create a nice environment for all
- Parents with children drink less and more slowly; children don’t drink at all and their place could be taken by faster drinking adults
- The presence of families deters drinkers who would prefer to enjoy their drinks without being reminded they have their own families at home to look after
To me, the second explanation seems to most plausible. It seems Weatherspoons would actually like to ban all slow drinkers, unless their companions are able to make up for the lost revenue by drinking above average amounts. The friends of a designated driver on a night out will almost certainly do so; the father of two children will find it more of a challenge. The third explanation shouldn’t be entirely discounted though. I can imagine adults being deterred at the sight of children in a bar area.
What the story illustrates though is that Weatherspoons, by following its own natural inclination to boost profits has, in this case at least, created a socially beneficial outcome.*
As an aside, it’s interesting to think why such a policy isn’t enforced in France, where the sight of children in bars is not as common as some would have you think, but certainly not a rarity. Perhaps the French can drink a lot and drink it responsibly, and there isn’t the same mystique with alcohol over there compared to the UK. And perhaps if children were effectively banned, then unlike the UK, there may not be faster and heavier drinkers taking their place. The number of drinkers may in fact decrease if people can’t idle away an hour or two with a bottle of wine with their children. Again, a logical outcome of profit maximisation.
Both good examples of what this guy would call, ‘The logic of life’.
*Of course, I’ve assumed that those parents don’t carry on drinking at home in front of their children. If this were the case, it’s not clear to me what’s worse (for the children): parents getting drunk in private, or in pubs.
no comments