What zero proof hospitality case studies should disclose

We do not publish case studies about named venues. Trading conditions, ownership and figures change, and a study we cannot verify with the operator would be a story rather than evidence. What this guide does instead is teach the reading: which numbers in a published case study are meaningful, which are decoration, and which are missing.

What to take away

Read the scope before the numbers

The first question is what the figures cover. A drinks program refit, a full room build and a menu redesign are three different projects, and case studies frequently blur them.

The four scope answers are: which project or part of the operation is covered; which costs and tasks are included or excluded; what period the figures cover; and whether the figures are actual, estimated, or projected. Without those four answers, the arithmetic cannot be checked and should not be repeated.

The lines that get left out

Owner labor is first. A founder who worked six unpaid months has produced a number nobody else can reproduce.

Then sampling stock counted as marketing, equipment borrowed rather than bought, and fit-out work done by a friend at cost. Our notes on what price buys in a bar tool cover what that equipment would have cost and which price steps are worth paying.

Regulatory steps are often called expensive when they are not, or free when they are not. For beverages regulated as food, FDA food-labeling rules, including 21 CFR Part 101, are relevant. TTB's COLAs Online system covers alcohol beverage labels; it is not a general approval system for zero proof drinks.

Applying for a certificate of label approval or exemption carries no fee. In most cases the application is complete once it is submitted electronically, with no forms to sign. Those details apply only when a product falls under TTB jurisdiction, not as a cost estimate for an FDA-regulated zero proof beverage. A case study should name the relevant authority and the labeling work included; FDA requirements depend on the product and its claims.

The line nobody puts in the budget

Every hospitality budget assumes nothing goes wrong. The scale of what going wrong looks like is documented. CDC's estimates of the burden of foodborne illness put average annual figures for 2019 at 9.9 million domestically acquired illnesses from six major pathogens, with illnesses from seven pathogens resulting in 53,300 hospitalizations and 931 deaths.

Those are national public health figures, not a prediction for any venue or evidence specific to zero proof hospitality. They are context for why a case study that shows no spend on training, prep space or cold storage should be read as incomplete rather than efficient.

What a useful case study looks like

Scope stated, period stated, labor counted at a real rate, one-off and recurring costs separated, and a paragraph on what the operator would do differently. If the last one is missing, the study is marketing.

A useful study states what it cannot tell you. One venue in one city over one season is one observation. The honest version says so. It does not present a local result as a general finding.

Studies that name their limits are worth borrowing from. You can see if your situation resembles theirs. Our notes on what a usable review contains apply the same test to a product review.

The arithmetic that sits under all of this is covered in our budgeting guide, and the pre-opening decisions appear in our planning guide for alcohol free venues.

Common questions