With buffet prices soaring, is it humanly possible for a person to eat enough at a buffet such that the hotel loses money on it? I was always under the impression that buffets were a kind of loss leader, like free drinks for folks while they were gambling or certain other promotions designed to lure you in and keep you on the premises. When I first went to Vegas, I'm pretty sure I cost them some money at buffets that were $7.77 or $9.99. I know this may be hard to measure, but if a buffet costs $60, do the operators think they're losing money on any customers?
We answered a similar question in 2018, pre-pandemic, of course. At the time, Las Vegas boasted upwards of 70 buffets; only Park MGM, Venetian/Palazzo, and SLS (which became the Sahara again and still doesn't have a buffet) were the only major Strip casinos without one. Resorts World opened without one and New York-New York doesn't have a dedicated buffet space (but does serve an excellent breakfast buffet, seven days a week, in the Chin Chin pan-Asian eatery).
For our previous answer, Anthony Curtis commented, "The lack of a buffet at Park MGM is the exception that proves the rule."
One correspondent who wished to remain anonymous agreed. "I see no signs that the buffet phenomenon is on the wane. Quite the opposite. I think resorts are actually amping up their buffets. The Tropicana relaunched its buffet, AYCE opened at the Palms, Palace Station is remodeling its Feast, and Treasure Island is in the midst of a buffet renovation that will keep it closed until at least August.”
That was more than four years ago and, as we all know, times have changed dramatically.
The fact that out of 70 buffets, only a baker's dozen returned after the shutdown is certainly an indication of something and to us, it seems that the casinos were ready, willing, and especially eager to dump them, especially when most of their competitors were doing the same. The casinos' keenness to stamp them out altogether could easily be interpreted as a sign that they were either unprofitable, more trouble than they were worth, or both.
Though some observers maintained that pre-COVID, buffets tended to be self-sufficient, hence the trend toward higher-priced spreads, we were never quite sure about that. The economics of buffets were and are closely kept and we've never seen any profit or loss figures, but our analysis led us to believe that the least expensive and even middle-range buffets were, indeed, loss leaders, a necessary amenity to keep up with the competition in this copy-cat town.
Buffets are, of course, different than sit-down restaurants. There's a much smaller wait staff. The food is prepared in bulk from a prescribed menu. No one sends meals back to the kitchen. And sure, they have to contend with big-eating customers. But buffets are often a family affair, so even if Dad and Buddy can pack away the poundage, Mom, Sis, and Granny most likely balance them out in the food-consumption department.
Waste is the big expense. We have seen numbers for that and they range from a manageable 5% all the way to an excessive 25%. The trend toward single servings, started by the Wicked Spoon Buffet at Cosmo and adopted by the Palms, Wynn, and Caesars spreads, no doubt improves all their buffet bottom lines.
Yes, it's hard to imagine that Caesars' Bacchanal Buffet at $79.99 for dinner and the Wynn's gourmet dinner at $69.99 lose money. But again, the alacrity with which some of the lesser spreads -- Harrah's, Flamingo, Mirage, Treasure Island, MBay, Paris, Rio, Golden Nugget, Station, Boyd, and M Resort -- were discontinued seems to demonstrate that when all was said and done, for one reason or another, they were losers.
|
Luis
Nov-10-2022
|
|
Vegas Fan
Nov-10-2022
|
|
Kevin Lewis
Nov-10-2022
|
|
Reno Faoro
Nov-10-2022
|
|
Frank Mabry
Nov-10-2022
|
|
Diamonddog2801
Nov-10-2022
|
|
rokgpsman
Nov-10-2022
|
|
Dave_Miller_DJTB
Nov-10-2022
|
|
Hoppy
Nov-10-2022
|
|
IdahoPat
Nov-10-2022
|
|
IdahoPat
Nov-10-2022
|
|
Doc H
Nov-10-2022
|
|
Randall Ward
Nov-10-2022
|
|
Tim Clark
Nov-17-2022
|