Times are tough for French café owners

It is an interesting article.

I'll make some observations not directly related to the article. I do think that the type of the establishment matters.

So maybe that type of cafe isn't doing well, but others are still thriving. For example, I went to Toraya in Paris last week. It's a Japanese pastry shop on r. Florentin, and there used to be a store in NYC too. The place was absolutely packed for lunch. When I tried to take my parents there in June, there was a long wait too. We didn't end up eating there, but I decided to wait and got to sit down last week.

The noodle shops on r. Ste-Anne are also doing very well.

It's the same here in NYC. From looking at some restaurants, you'd not think that there's actually a recession. And whenever I've been in Cafe Grumpy in Chelsea, it's been crowded. Granted, that's not a French cafe, but people are still paying $4 for their coffees.

So maybe there are just too many French cafes and some need to close. It's an economic reality, I suppose.

I have discussed this with my personal banker and we've decided on a bailout.
First we have to come up with our airfare so we can deliver our aid package in person.

The line was out the door for the Starbuck's on Blvd. St. Germain near St. Peres intersection just the other day. I think most young people want to be able to grab a coffee and a muffin and get going. They don't have time to sit.

Many other places wear also packed, like Flore and Deux Maggots where you can still sit outside and have a ciggie.

Marketing and location are also key. I always sat at a cafe were I would have a good view of people passing by. I love to look at shoes.

Miss Thang au Lait de Gin

As a former bakery owner, I do feel sympathetic to the plight of the cafe owners. However, some of the fault lies in the quality and price of the cafe food. Whene we visted Paris last summer, the food we tasted at various cafes was not just disappointing but nearly inedible and expensive.

If it had been called Les Deux Maggots as per the previous post, it would have closed down long ago...

Very interesting article Underhill. Thanks for posting it. My DH and I were a trifle meloncholy thinking about the cafes.

I read this article too.

THe changing way of French life may contribute more to the cafes demise.

Everywhere I saw in Paris over the weekend was busy.

From the article,

" on Jan. 1 of this year, after much huffing and puffing, France extended its smoking ban to bars, cafes and restaurants.

Marco Mayeux, 42, the bartender of Le Relais, a Paris cafe in the 18th Arrondissement, said the ban alone had cut his coffee and bar business by 20 percent".

I submit that only a sadist would prevent people from smoking while drinking coffee or alcohol.

Ira, I beg to differ. First trip to Paris in 2006, I had a headache and sniffles the whole time, the smoke nearly killed me. DH and I are not smokers and we were often surrounded by smoke. We'd sit outside the cafes on the edges where we'd be less likely to have smoke and still we were bothered.
France October 2008, what a big difference. It was so much better, no headache, no sniffles, no coughing fits in restaurants.
I'm not one who can't tolerate some smoke, but when so many were smoking in so many places, it just made it very uncomfortable.
DS smokes, which drives us nuts, but never in our home or cars.
I sympathize with smokers, but we certainly enjoyed France much more this time around.

Thanks for the post Underhill - Interesting, but the countries including mine - South Africa, went through this smoking ban years ago and recovered quite well. It started off rough for a while and now our cafes and restaurants are packed because inside we eat in peace and outside (even with an awning down to the ground sometimes) people smoke, eat & drink and we are all as happy as can be.
It will get better, especially next year when we are flying over to spend our poor weak little rands to help them along!LOL

This is something which applies in the UK and in the Netherlands too.
Café and pub owners are keen to blame the smoking ban (which is widely disregarded here in NL btw) but forget to mention that their prices have gone up faster than inflation, and because of this people are choosing to buy their booze in the supermarket for half the price and drink it at home.
Here in NL prices in cafés and restaurants have gone up by nearly double the rate of inflation. It started with the conversion to the Euro - when they just changed the guilder sign to a euro sign, and has continued ever since.
It has little to do with the smoking ban or the credit crunch and everything to do with their greed.
Good restaurants here are still packed, mediocre ones are empty. It's the same with cafés to some extent.

Here is an interesting, vaguely related article, that I remembered from a couple of years ago:


http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/09/news/journal.php

"I submit that only a sadist would prevent people from smoking while drinking coffee or alcohol."

Some people will do or say ANYTHING to rationalize their nicotine habit, right, Ira..and YES I AM going to stay on your ass about it for as long as possible..if I didn't think sohighly of you on MOST days I wouldn't bother...

"I submit that only a sadist would prevent people from smoking while drinking coffee or alcohol."

And I submit that only a sadist or smoker would inflict/enforce their disgusting habit on others who wish to breathe and enjoy their meals.

I don't smoke, though I am content to let the proprietors decide whether they wish to permit smoking on their premises. If an establishment permits smoking, those disgusted should be free to find and enjoy a smoke-free environment at places more suited to their liking.

What has driven the no-smoking regulations in many places is that governments and insurance programs do not want to pay for the damage caused by second-hand smoke, for the waiters and waitresses. Imagine, for example, a pregnant waitress who is forced to work in a smoky environment, which is a health hazard for both her and her fetus.

This was one of my few complaints about Vienna. In Europe, even Italy and Spain have moved to no inside smoking, for the most part, but this is still alive and well in Vienna.

I live in Lausanne Switzerland and there are three, THREE! non-smoking restaurants here. Why should we be limited to three and smokers get to choose from hundreds of restaurants?

I am trying to imagine anyone who is not incarcerated who is "being forced to work."

Beaupeep: Why not start your own restaurant for non-smokers. There must be enormous pent-up demand -if you are right about consumer sentiment.

People tend to need to work. The trend nowadays is not to expose people to toxic workplaces.

Because hmmmm, I have a job, well-paying and I don't know how to cook nor do I have the energy at my age to stay up until 1:00 washing dishes.

Beaupeep:

I have a nice paying job, also. That doesn't make me believe I have the right to force other people to subsidize my own consumption choices.

WillTravel: There may be some folks, say smokers, for instance, who might enjoy working in cafes and restaurants that permit smoking.

In my newspaper this morning there's a report of a survey of UK pub landlords in which the majority blame the bad weather of the last 2 years for their downturn in business.

Mr. Quartier and his union have started a school for new cafe owners, to try to teach them to find a niche, to serve better drinks and food, to think about installing a flat-screen television, to make sure they serve the favorite bottled drink among French youth: Coca Light.

At least somebody in the industry is trying to address the real problems, rather than blaming it on smoking. I suspect that, like in the US, smoking is going to decline in popularity and the cafes would have had to change - law or no law.

I guess I just don't have too much sympathy for many of these owners. They seem to be hanging on to nostalgia at the expense of offering customers what they want to buy. Look at the picture. It looks like my grandmother's kitchen, only more sterile. Tourists may regret the loss of sterotypical French cafes, but I suspect the average Frenchman long ago expanded their culinary wings and the stereotype started looking stale and outdated.

Personally I am less likely to go in somewhere with either smoking or a TV.

I agree Travelgourmet. I just hope I don't see a TV in the place. But, some change would be nice. And as far as using the smoking ban as a scapegoat, well, as John Stossel would say, "Give me a break". Let's get to the real reason they are losing business.
And it just really gets me all of the whining from smokers about their rights to smoke when they have totally disregarded the rights of others for decades and decades as to the right not to have to breathe in their smoke. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they're whining after having it for SO long their way? It's just one of those issues that perplexes me. Happy Travels!

Beaupeep, maybe its because the business owners don't want to cater to non-smokers.

To the poster who alleges that the smoking ban isn't the cause, its the people buying the bottles and taking them home to drink that are the real issue. Don't you think there might be a link between the smoking ban. A smoker would certainly be in that group who buys and brings it home. Why sit in the bar/cafe and have a drink when you can't smoke?

BTW, these bans were not driven by, nor remotely influenced by the insurance companies. They get more money for the "higher risk", so why would they want to stop it? It was, and is driven by non-smokers.

It's not the smoking ban that pisses me off, its the thought that I as a business owner can't run my business in a way I want. I guess you could simply inquire of every guest whether they are a smoker or not. Then tell the non-smokers they are not welcome and only allow the smoker's in. They wouldn't be able to smoke, but at least the business would be controlled by a non-smoker. But I'm sure the non-smokers would argue for a law to prevent business owners from choosing their clientele next.

From a NON SMOKER, BTW.

They get more money for the "higher risk", so why would they want to stop it?

Because the market willing to pay for that "higher risk" is drying up - on both sides of the pond. In Europe, the government is usually the provider of the insurance, or at least is a big buyer of private insurance. They have no interest in subsidizing the smokers.

In the US, the same problem rears its head. The governments have a material interest in driving down Medicare/Medicaid costs. Similarly, most companies want to drive down their costs.

Smokers simply don't bear the financial risk associated with their habit. That risk has always been largely borne by whoever is paying for the insurance. Only in very rare circumstances is that person actually the smoker.

Of course, one could try to shift this burden, but the policing seems problematic. It is too easy for the smoker to check the non-smoker box.

>>But I'm sure the non-smokers would argue for a law to prevent business owners from choosing their clientele next.<<

No doubt it varies from country to country, but in the western world that very principle has been subject to anti-discrimination laws for decades. If you go into business you don't have a totally free choice of clientele.

TravelGourmet: In the US "discrimination bans" were designed to prevent members of "suspect" classes (e.g., race, religion) from being treated unfairly. It is hard to demonstrate that non-smokers, a large majority, need the protections of minorities. Markets work fine, but that's the rub. The banners want to overrule market based choices.

PatrickLondon: If you want to assert that governments have a right to ban smoking in public places, because "governments" bear the attending health costs then you can assert all smoking, including in private places should be banned, not to mention anything else the health nannies want to stop as unhealthy, from consumption of alcohol to fried foods to ice cream. I'd rather keep my private insurance and freedom to choose.

No, I would assert that governments have the right to

(a) use the law to encourage, and if necessary enforce, civil behaviour (hence interfering with the market to the extent of banning discrimination) and therefore

(b)ban smoking in public places because it's both a dirty habit and one harmful to other people, just as there were in my childhood enforced laws to stop people spitting in public. That is a matter of public health, rather than costs to the provision of publicly-funded health care services (obesity doesn't of itself harm other people, so is irrelevant to this issue).

Markets work fine, but that's the rub. The banners want to overrule market based choices.

You will find no bigger proponent of markets than me, but I'm not sure it is the right mechanism in this case. And I am puzzled what this comment has to do with my comments. I was specifically refuting the implication that these bans weren't pushed by the insurance companies.

Indeed, I think there is simply no market for the risks associated with smoking. Smokers are too divorced from the costs to change their behavior. Attempts to try and push the insurance costs to the smokers would likely result in significant underreporting of smoking habits to the insurance companies.

And, even if you could resolve the cost problem, there is the thorny issue of the externality of second-hand smoke.

Personally, the free-marketeer in me would probably prefer that they just tax the hell out of tobacco and tobacco products - I'm talking $25+ per pack. The realist in me recognizes that too many people would be upset by this (smokers, tobacco farmers, tobacco companies, storekeepers, etc) and it would likely fail politically. Besides, it isn't clear that it would help defray the costs of those that do smoke, which are still largely borne by private companies by way of higher group insurance costs.

>>the free-marketeer in me would probably prefer that they just tax the hell out of tobacco and tobacco products - I'm talking $25+ per pack<<

But the free-marketeer would have to recognise the opportunities for contraband. We certainly have an issue with smuggled tobacco on sale on the streets.

There is a market for cafes that permit smoking. If not, there would be no need for government to compel "smoke-free" cafe environments [the opposite holds too. If there were great demand for smoke-free cafes, the market would furnish them, without government compulsion].

I don't smoke and avoid places where it is practiced beyond my levels of tolerance, but, I don't feel any overpowering urge to force business owners and patrons to kowtow to my private sensibilities.

And, once you argue containing healthcare costs as a justification for banning smoking from cafes, there is simply no reason not to apply that line of reasoning to banning any act, public or private, that someone deems unhealthy. After all, obese people don't all bear the costs of their dietary ways--rather, they externalize their healthcare costs also.

Insurance companies are perfectly capable of pricing health policies for smokers.

We were in Paris recently and the weather was generally very cold and frequently raining. What we observed was that the interior spaces of cafes were quite empty, while the exterior tables were full. Sufficient or nearly sufficient warmth was provided by those freestanding heaters. The vast majority of the customers outside were smoking. So the French government, in its infinite authoritarianism, announced a ban on outdoor heaters.

I continue to be amazed that some people equate obesite with smoking, having seen no evidence that overeating harms anyone near the person consuming the food.

travelgourmet wrote: "Personally, the free-marketeer in me would probably prefer that they just tax the hell out of tobacco and tobacco products - I'm talking $25+ per pack."

That's not a free market approach. Tax is an interference with the market.

[I don't take the view that interfering with the market is necessarily bad. It is often a very good thing. Some of our current economic woes might be attributable to excessively free markets.]

Underhill: Some folks are arguing that the government has a right to ban smoking because the government or "the people" (besides the smokers) bear some or all of the healthcare costs of treating the smokers. The argument has nothing to do with protecting the health of bystanders (second hand smoke).

That cost containment argument applies equally to obesity-others pay the healthcare costs of the obese (and has nothing to do with second hand adipose). Indeed, if the government can alter behavior because it pays healthcare costs of some, why can't it command everyone to exercise, take vitamins, eat 6 servings of vegetables, as ways to contain costs?

Enjoy your Thanksgiving--in moderation. You never know who's watching.

When Canada went to smoke-free spaces several years ago, I recall reading an article that the government's interest in the whole thing was to counter possible law suits of workers exposed to second-hand smoke. It had nothing to do with health concerns of the smoker but all about the responsibility of the government to provide safe work places and, thereby, possible liability.

What's wrong with allowing adult workers to assume the risks of working in a smoking environment? Again, some of them might enjoy smoking themselves. And, I bet it's safer than coal mining and other dangerous occupations.

If the government is legitimately concerned about lawsuits, the legislative branch has the power to confer immunity from civil liability on the activity. The ban is nanny smothering and cost shifting, plain and simple.

I like the idea of sitting at outside cafe tables in cooler weather.