DeMango
DeMango
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 2780
Thanks for this post from:
MichaelBluejay
September 28th, 2019 at 10:54:13 PM permalink
All of you ignore the success of The Palace in Biloxi. Non smoking in a sea of smoking casinos. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1561
September 28th, 2019 at 11:19:26 PM permalink
Quote: DeMango

All of you ignore the success of The Palace in Biloxi. Non smoking in a sea of smoking casinos. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!



Great, so surely more casinos will follow suite.
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 48
  • Posts: 1214
September 28th, 2019 at 11:58:03 PM permalink
The idea that every company will almost make the best business decision is simply comical.

(1) Go to Yelp and see the wide swath of horribly-reviewed businesses. Is pissing off your customers in myriad ways good for business? It must be! Because they're doing it! Companies never act in ways that would hurt their profits!

(2) Volkswagen rigged its emissions tests, something they couldn't possibly keep secret, and wound up not only tarnishing their brand but being on the hook for DOZZENS of BILLIONS in dollars in penalties. Great example of a company seeking to maximize its profits.

(3) Sears failed because they didn't modernize to compete with the likes of Target, Walmart, and Amazon. It clearly would have been in their interest to do so, but they didn't.

The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Claiming that "if it were profitable, they'd do it" flies in the face of all available evidence.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1561
September 29th, 2019 at 8:02:39 AM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

The idea that every company will almost make the best business decision is simply comical.

(1) Go to Yelp and see the wide swath of horribly-reviewed businesses. Is pissing off your customers in myriad ways good for business? It must be! Because they're doing it! Companies never act in ways that would hurt their profits!

(2) Volkswagen rigged its emissions tests, something they couldn't possibly keep secret, and wound up not only tarnishing their brand but being on the hook for DOZZENS of BILLIONS in dollars in penalties. Great example of a company seeking to maximize its profits.

(3) Sears failed because they didn't modernize to compete with the likes of Target, Walmart, and Amazon. It clearly would have been in their interest to do so, but they didn't.

The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Claiming that "if it were profitable, they'd do it" flies in the face of all available evidence.



1. And, many companies do.

2. Brilliant example of a company putting aside public health and the law to maybe increase profits.

3. Sears is an interesting example. It did a lot to innovate for most of its existence. In the early 90s it got rid of its catalogue (including the infrastructure of people who filled cstalgoue orders), which is why it took them so long to get on the online store going. Sears modernized for most of their history, unfortnely, their last couple decades they had some issues and made some choices that did not work out. But, saying they failed to innovate is also not true.


But, yes, companies will do what increase profits. Showing examples of some unlucky companies, and some scandals is not representative of most.

Full smoking bans simply do not increase revenue. There are some niche examples of an individual casinos banning smoking working (but these are very rare), casinos are more likley to have no smoking areas.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 261
  • Posts: 8851
September 29th, 2019 at 8:50:05 AM permalink
So what are indoor smoking laws in vegas and AC?

Can you smoke inside movie theaters and bars, restaurants?

Or do casinos share some special exemptions?

I certainly wouldn't go to movie theaters that allowed smoking. It would be nothing but a cough box.

And they used to allow smoking in theaters so its not beyond credulity
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1561
September 29th, 2019 at 9:07:03 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

So what are indoor smoking laws in vegas and AC?

Can you smoke inside movie theaters and bars, restaurants?

Or do casinos share some special exemptions?

I certainly wouldn't go to movie theaters that allowed smoking. It would be nothing but a cough box.

And they used to allow smoking in theaters so its not beyond credulity



In NV you can smoke in most bars (I think they have to be screened from minors) and anywhere in a casino where minors are prohibited (so most bars, clubs, etc...)
Pretty much anywhere minors are not allowed in NV you can smoke (strip clubs, brothels, bars, tobacco stores, etc....) . You cannot smoke in movie theatres or restaurants.

NJ is much more restrictive, you can only smoke on 25% of the casino floor, you cannot even smoke in bars (in casinos some bars get around this by being on the casino floor). However, casinos are one of the few indoor exceptions, NJ has one of the strongest smoking bans, smoking is banned in virtually all indoor locations. Casinos are a very rare exception to the smoking ban (limited to 25% max for smoking areas.).
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 19999
September 29th, 2019 at 11:06:49 AM permalink
Quote: Gandler

In NV you can smoke in most bars (I think they have to be screened from minors) and anywhere in a casino where minors are prohibited (so most bars, clubs, etc...)
Pretty much anywhere minors are not allowed in NV you can smoke (strip clubs, brothels, bars, tobacco stores, etc....) . You cannot smoke in movie theatres or restaurants.

NJ is much more restrictive, you can only smoke on 25% of the casino floor, you cannot even smoke in bars (in casinos some bars get around this by being on the casino floor). However, casinos are one of the few indoor exceptions, NJ has one of the strongest smoking bans, smoking is banned in virtually all indoor locations. Casinos are a very rare exception to the smoking ban (limited to 25% max for smoking areas.).

I'm pretty sure you can't smoke anywhere in California.
That's obviously a joke, but it sure seems like they're fairly strict in some places. Some hotels/motels won't even let you smoke outside anywhere on their property. Some cities or counties won't even sell menthol cigarettes.

I remember something here in Nevada about not being able to smoke inside your car in the hospital parking lot.

If I recall correctly Oklahoma casinos don't allow smoking.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1561
September 29th, 2019 at 11:19:23 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

I'm pretty sure you can't smoke anywhere in California.
That's obviously a joke, but it sure seems like they're fairly strict in some places. Some hotels/motels won't even let you smoke outside anywhere on their property. Some cities or counties won't even sell menthol cigarettes.

I remember something here in Nevada about not being able to smoke inside your car in the hospital parking lot.

If I recall correctly Oklahoma casinos don't allow smoking.



California is pretty strict as well, NJ and CA led the charge in State level smoking bans. Probably the two strictest.

As far as hospital parking lots in NV, that sounds like more of a campus policy than a law.
michael99000
michael99000
Joined: Jul 10, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2112
September 29th, 2019 at 11:22:56 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Quote: Gandler

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Gandler

Quote: MichaelBluejay

(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.

(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.

(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.


(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.

(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.

What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?

Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?



All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...

Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.

However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....

Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...

All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.

I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....

Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/

'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'

It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....



But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after adding the smoking section

So it didn't add revenue?



It did, along with their "gambler wanted" campaign, but not enough to save the casino. They were so far in the hole a small increase in revenue hardly mattered at that point...

But, the point is, smoking bans do not work when other casinos allow smoking at least in part, you will drive away customers.

Again, all examples show that smoking bans do not work, if they did every casino would have been doing it long ago without government force....



I understand your argument. Without government force one casino would be buried if it banned smoking while others allowed it.

However, to say revenue would be significantly lower without smoking would mean jurisdictions where government disallows smoking would never be able to generate anything comparable either.

With smoking banned indoors everywhere (NYS for example) the casinos do quite well, such as aqueduct.

If NJ and Vegas etc passed similar laws, then the casinos would not suffer.

There are plenty of things the government forces on us for our own protection. Many of those things do lower profits but I dont see smoking as one that does.



Wasn’t the Revel no smoking in the entire place ?
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1561
September 29th, 2019 at 11:25:14 AM permalink
Quote: michael99000

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Gandler

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Gandler

Quote: MichaelBluejay

(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.

(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.

(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.


(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.

(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.

What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?

Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?



All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...

Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.

However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....

Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...

All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.

I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....

Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/

'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'

It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....



But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after adding the smoking section

So it didn't add revenue?



It did, along with their "gambler wanted" campaign, but not enough to save the casino. They were so far in the hole a small increase in revenue hardly mattered at that point...

But, the point is, smoking bans do not work when other casinos allow smoking at least in part, you will drive away customers.

Again, all examples show that smoking bans do not work, if they did every casino would have been doing it long ago without government force....



I understand your argument. Without government force one casino would be buried if it banned smoking while others allowed it.

However, to say revenue would be significantly lower without smoking would mean jurisdictions where government disallows smoking would never be able to generate anything comparable either.

With smoking banned indoors everywhere (NYS for example) the casinos do quite well, such as aqueduct.

If NJ and Vegas etc passed similar laws, then the casinos would not suffer.

There are plenty of things the government forces on us for our own protection. Many of those things do lower profits but I dont see smoking as one that does.



Wasn’t the Revel no smoking in the entire place ?




It was upon opening, it quickly reversed course to the standard 25% when revenue was far below expectations.

  • Jump to: