Tobacco Documents Online

111C1.SOabifII & As~at~ TO: ALI, nyrrjus= PARTIES FROM: F4BR12IO, NICI.AUGHILN AND ASSOCLATES ~ RE: EXECIJTItiE SL'INiM ARY - SURVEY OF NEW YORK CITY RESTAURATEURS DATE: MAY 8, 1995 What foIIow-s are the methodology statemeat, key fmd'mgs, and sanmnaiy for our rcc=t survev of New York- City Full Service Restaurants conducted for the National Sm.ok.eis AlIiance. A. coazpleze copy of the sutvry instrumcat with aggregate responses and demograpbic data are attach.erL MethodoIozy Statement This survey of attitndes was conducted among Rssta***~*+~ Owners and/or Managers of Full Service Resraurants in New York City betweea May 3 and May 6, 1995_ ~ AIl mtenzews were conducted via telephone byprofessionaIly trained personneL Resp ondenss were randomly selected from lists of kaown FuII Service Reszanrants in New York City. Intct~,~iew; w-~e targace. gcograpbicaIly to re$ect FuII. Service Restaurant dismft)urion throughout the five boroughs. This suivey of 1,000 Full Service RsstaIIraat Owncrs and/or.Maa.a;eis has an accuracy of+/- 3.1% at the 95% coafidence mtervaL Ktv F"indines ./ Fuily 913 % of Restauratears state that in the past leir customers have baa generally sati~ed with the acc.ammodation ofhaving a smokmg and non-smls.nzg section in the'rr restataams. J V'zrtuaffy all Resrs=eurs (98.1 %) are aware of the new smoking ban that wcnt into effect in Apn1 FabTizio. Mcia*ghlin & tlssociates. Im •(703) 684-4510 - FAJC (703) 739-0664

./ Nearly sx in tea Restaurateurs (59.3%) cozrcctly stated that the new smoking ban applies to offices, sp orts areaas and restaurants. Ad.diti.onally, 3.3% stated that the baa applies to offices and restaurant; 4.6% =ted that it applies to sports arenas and restaurants; and 20.8% stated that the ban applied exchsvely to restavraa*s. ./ A staggering 683% (33.0% "greatty diQupted" and 35.3% "somewhat disrupted") of Restaurateurs state that the newly mzQosed smoldng ban has disrupted their normal business operations. Only slightly more than one in four Restaurateurs (27.5%) said that the banhas caused no disuption to theff busmesses at alL ./ A clear maj ority of Restaurateurs (51.0 %) state that sznce the smoIdng ban has gone • into effect, they have received more customer complaints than usual. Only 13.3% reported receivmg fewer com.plaints and ~shghtty less than ono-thad (31.7%) reported receiving as many complaints as before. ./ A sizable majority ofRestaurateurs (56.4%) state that since the smolimg ban went into e$'ect they have experienced a decrease in sales as compared to 38.8% who have not J Among those Resraurateurs who have experienced a decrease in sales since the smoldag ban went into effect, the average loss of sales was self-esrimated to be 16%. J A phumlity of Restaurateurs (4'7.2 %) state that they expect the smohng ban to resurt in a decrease in business over the nezt year. Only 8.8% expect an mcrease in sales with 35.5% expectmg sales to remain about the same. .~ An o majoritv of Restaurateiss (81.1 %) sY= that the sm,okin ; ban is an example of "governntent over-reguletion of small business." Only 132°'o said that it was not govemmeut reguiation. .r By more than a three to one margin, state that they have rcccived more negative comments from smoking customers about the ban (48.8%) versus posaive commcats about the ban from non-smoking customers (15.5%). An addrtiana118.8% of Restaurataus said they have reccived an equal number of comments from both sadrs. ./ Fully 30.0% ofRestaiuztenrs state that they have experieuced an increase in non smojang customers and a dezrease in smoking customers. When coupled with the 10.7% who state that they have eagiecieaced a decrease in both smokiag and non- sm,oicimg customcrs, more than four m ten Restaurateurs (40.7%) reported to have less smoking customers. A phira.ii<y of Restaurateurs (31.0%) said that they have experienced no change m the number of smoking and non-sm,oiing customers. --- E==xve Sraamwy ofNtw. Yark Ci1y Restaroate= Smvry may 8, 1995

v/ If given the choice, an ovetwhehmiug majority ofRestaura:teaus (84.1%) would choose to have their establishment cater to both smoking and non-smoking cust.oauss_ Only 11.4% would choose to be totaIly smoke-frre.establishments and 2.5% would cater exr.hstvelyr to smokmg customers. Sumzn.arv 0 With more than 68% ofRestaurateurs st2tin that the smokmg ban has disupte3 thea normail business, 51% receiving more customer complaints than usual and negative coummts about the ban outpacmg posisive commez,r~ by a three to one margin, it is clear that the newly imp osed smokm,g ban is having a negative impact on New York City's fuil seivice restaurants More importantEv, the impact of the baa is not limited to just negative customer comments, it appears to be r= i Itmg in a signific-.~u tut loss of revenue for Restaurateurs A clear majority (56.4° o) of R.estaurateurs state that they have already experienced a loss ofreventre due to the baa- With the average loss so farpegged at 16%, the long- term impact on restaurants could be staggeffig. Already, 40.7% ofRestaurateurs report a decrease in snokmg customers. Moreover, a pbiraIiry of (4'72%) expect the smolaag ban to resah in a decresse in revnnues over the nead year. The dissatisfaction of asizabIe portiorp ofthe average Restanzate= s' cavzmrr base coupled with the immediate and perceived long-tezm fmancial losses, add up to maeased pressure on an already distressed 'mdusrry. WitFt 81.1% ofRescaurateurs cimg the smokrng ban as an cxample of "govern.ment over-reguiSition of =aIl busmessy" 91.3% stating that their customers were satisf ed under the old p olicy of separate smo16hg aad non-anoldn g sections and 84.1% wanting their estabJishment to cater to both smokmg sad non smakmg customers if gzven • the choice, it is apparent that Restaurateurs are not pleased with the smoking ban and would prefer a retum to the previous law. SURVEY INSTRMI LENT WTTH QTJESTION WORDING, AGGREGATE RESIILTS AND DEMO GRAPHIC DATA IS ATTACHED. EurutTVt Summmy of New York Cily Rtsta=atetas SsQvry May 8, 3995