Restaurants Struggle as Diners Drink Less

[MitchW]

Well, some diners.  And well, according to the NY Times.

Dinner and No Drinks: Restaurants Are Struggling as Americans Drink Less

Is it just a certain cohort of diners?  Is this the reason so many wine bars open?  Yet, I certainly see no shortage of new cocktail places opening.

Quote

 

Other operators, however, say nonalcoholic drinks, while helpful and clearly in demand, can’t fill the financial gap. Marco Canora, the chef and owner of Hearth restaurant in New York City, said his 2025 alcohol sales were down about 7 percent compared with the year before. His nonalcoholic cocktails require the same amount of labor, but consumers won’t pay the same price.

“Even really nice liquor is relatively cheap compared to juicing and good teas,” Mr. Canora said. “Consumers’ brains are like, ‘You’re going to charge me $18 and I’m not even getting alcohol?’ Yeah, because you have no clue what things cost, and you think alcohol should cost more than nonalcohol. It’s actually the opposite.”

 

 

 

[Wilfrid]

Interesting piece. It didn't surprise me that it's a thing; the extent surprised me. I assumed it's a younger cohort.

I do see people posting things like "$14 for a mocktail!" on social media.

[Orik]

The children didn't go to college (drinking school) and before college they're more closely monitored than ever before. They also have access to very cheap and effective drugs that make a martini seem like an incredibly expensive way to get a buzz on.

The serious eaters and drinkers are on GLP-1, boomers are at an age when their doctor asks them to be kinder to their liver, bankers are running away from nyc, journos (as heavy on booze as on coke) no longer exist, people read just sufficiently many word to believe that if they drink at all they will die of ass cancer on the spot. 

[small h]

1 hour ago, MitchW said:

‘You’re going to charge me $18 and I’m not even getting alcohol?’ Yeah, because you have no clue what things cost, and you think alcohol should cost more than nonalcohol. It’s actually the opposite.”

Before the "mocktail era," the non-alcoholic drinks on restaurant menus were significantly cheaper than the alcoholic ones. You could order a vodka soda for $10 or a soda for $3. It's not a mystery why people think it's the alcohol driving the price of the drink.

[Wilfrid]

Canora's comments in the article were interesting (quoted above by MitchW). If you try making mocktails using fancy teas and juices, he says, they can cost as much or more to make as alcoholic cocktails. I find that plausible if you make mocktails that way. Of course a soda is going to be much cheaper.

Quote

The children didn't go to college (drinking school)

I learned to drink before college: over-achiever. Of course, it helped that the UK drinking age is 18 and back when I was a teenager nobody checked IDs (because IDs as such didn't exist and 18 year olds rarely had driving licenses); you just had to look and act 18.

[small h]

28 minutes ago, Wilfrid said:

If you try making mocktails using fancy teas and juices, he says, they can cost as much or more to make as alcoholic cocktails. I find that plausible if you make mocktails that way. Of course a soda is going to be much cheaper.

Right, not disputing that. But often there's a list of complicated alcoholic drinks (with fancy ingredients in addition to the alcohol), and another list of complicated non-alcoholic drinks (with fancy ingredients but no alcohol), and the prices for both lists are very close together. So if you're conditioned to see a big difference in price between a vodka soda and a soda soda, you are going to expect that same big difference in price for your fancydrink.

Is this expectation correct? Perhaps not. But it's unsurprising.

[Wilfrid]

I agree with that.

[MitchW]

I think it's definitely more difficult to make some of the fancier non-alcohol cocktails, due to both labor and product cost, than it is to make a proper Martini or Manhattan or Negroni, for example.

3 hours ago, Orik said:

They also have access to very cheap and effective drugs that make a martini seem like an incredibly expensive way to get a buzz on.

Most definitely.    Except they (the cheap and effective drugs) don't have the same flavor as a beautiful Martini.  That's what they miss out on.

3 hours ago, Orik said:

The serious eaters and drinkers are on GLP-1...

Which, of course, will probably kill them much worse than drinking!

[small h]

26 minutes ago, MitchW said:

Except they (the cheap and effective drugs) don't have the same flavor as a beautiful Martini. 

Nor can you sit there for a time interacting with them, which is one of the things I like about drinking (and liked about smoking cigarettes).