Quote:
Originally Posted by RhodyGuy
Having an arrangement with The Cheesecake Factory isn't consistent with this theory. It's the business person in me that is intrigued as to how/why a corporately owned restaurant has a working relationship with one casino it leases space from but not another. There are two losers in this arrangement, Bobby's and Us, the players.
My guess (purely a guess) is that the haggling between the local restaurant owner and the casino over the actual "exchange rate" the casino is willing to fork over for a comp dollar is the issue. A comp dollar within the casino probably really only "costs" them a fraction of its stated value, as the profit margin built into the good being exchanged for it is so high. For example, a $5 comp beer really only costs the casino $1 (even assuming overhead.)
So the external restaurant probably isn't willing to take much less than close to their own stated prices for their goods, to preserve their profits. They don't really gain from the usage of these $$ (whereas the casino does in terms of the good-will to retain their players.) That's why you see many in-casino restaurants in other places only give 2-for-1 comp $$ use: those places are not owned by the casino. They need to preserve margin.
You can argue (and the casino probably does) that it will bring additional "add on" business from folks using comp $ as a part of a larger group or bill, but Bobby's must be doing quite fine without giving up the margin.