Broken Business Models - How are they still making money?

I'd like to know more.
post covid, the hotels are expensive because of resort fees, you have to pay to park, the resturants costs a ton of money for not a lot of food, its expensive for what you get.

if you think you can offset the expense with casino winnings the industry has been shifting to high volitity slot machines that only pay out 2x-20x bet on average and higher house edge table games like 000 roulette and 6/5 blackjack.

the casino hold has been getting higher every year so your return is generally lower.
 
It was a better business model before the dawn of diversity and bars getting taken over by middle aged persons. Might as well get a bar that boots anyone over the age of 35 or fails the palette test if you want the youth dollars. The successful bars I know of nowadays cater to friend groups over the age of 30. Trivia hour, happy hour, etc. exist to attract customers who are coming for general socialization and not sex.
Going out is too expensive for the youth seeking sex as well, even trying to stay on the "cheap" side you're still going to end up paying a significant amount of money just for transport and overpriced drinks, after a few outings you'll have wasted enough money to hire a whore.
 
Going out is too expensive for the youth seeking sex as well, even trying to stay on the "cheap" side you're still going to end up paying a significant amount of money just for transport and overpriced drinks, after a few outings you'll have wasted enough money to hire a whore.
Is dating merely a route to meaningless sex or is it an attempt to find a longterm intimate relationship?
I suppose it would be wasted money if you don't actually enjoy the conversation despite multiple outings, but why not just hire a whore if mediocre sex is the ultimate aim?
 
Is dating merely a route to meaningless sex or is it an attempt to find a longterm intimate relationship?
I suppose it would be wasted money if you don't actually enjoy the conversation despite multiple outings, but why not just hire a whore if mediocre sex is the ultimate aim?
Dating is both a route to meaningless sex and an attempt to find a longterm intimate relationship, but that's assuming you even get to that point. How many hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars would be spent before that point? Why not use that saved money to invest in making yourself more physically and financially attractive rather than gambling on a rigged game?
 
Dating is both a route to meaningless sex and an attempt to find a longterm intimate relationship, but that's assuming you even get to that point. How many hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars would be spent before that point? Why not use that saved money to invest in making yourself more physically and financially attractive rather than gambling on a rigged game?
1779633760601.png
I don't get the impression that money is the issue, and I don't think it will help you become more attractive to either sex.
If thousands of dollars were required to find a longterm relationship, then theatres and bars wouldn't be examples of broken business models.
 
If thousands of dollars were required to find a longterm relationship, then theatres and bars wouldn't be examples of broken business models.
I maintain it's not an issue of money that's broken the business model. It's that the customers no longer get what they paid for. If $40 of overpriced booze bought you a conversation with a semi-attractive woman, you'd have men lined out the door at your establishment. The trouble is getting the semi-attractive women and keeping them from getting spooked off by the less desirable customers. Way back in the 80's, lady's night was a way to encourage women to show up to bars so that the men would also show up and buy drinks. And, for a while, it even worked. However, I postulate from my own bar experiences that now bars are attracting very undesirable men (diverse, old, sexually aggressive, and generally unsafe). This bunch being present turns off both the men and women who used to frequent the establishment and they either find a new bar or stop going to bars altogether.

Another thing to bear in mind is that not all bars are made for the same purpose. As I mentioned earlier, social bars (i.e. pubs in the UK or sports bars in the US) are doing just fine. They're thriving even. As long as you can run a few evergreen social events to bring in customers and maintain the right atmosphere, they're booming business and largely don't attract unwanted persons. The bars in Utah are among the best in the US because local laws mandate that they must keep a full service restaurant during operating hours. It's one thing I won't criticize the Mormons for. No excuse for drinking on an empty stomach in Salt Lake City.

Airport/hotel bars also seem to be doing fine. Businessmen and yuppies seem to be ok paying $20/pint for the convenience. What else are you supposed to do on 2 hour layovers?

Really, I think it's just hook up bars that are dying off now. Otherwise, there's always been major churn in the restaurant scene to explain for bars and restaurants shutting down frequently. Only a small percentage become successful ventures.

Similar thing for theaters. Merely having movies isn't enough. They're overpriced, the food is shit, the beverages are shit, the movies are shit, and so the customers are bailing. The more successful venues I've seen are either dinner theaters w/ a full service restaurant + liquor license or IMAX. Parents will sit through a shit movie drinking beer if their kids can tag along and eat tendies and fries.

TLDR: Theatres and bars aren't dead. They just need to adapt to changing client demands. Theatres need booze + food. Bars need social events and ways to shoo away diversity.
 
However, I postulate from my own bar experiences that now bars are attracting very undesirable men (diverse, old, sexually aggressive, and generally unsafe). This bunch being present turns off both the men and women who used to frequent the establishment and they either find a new bar or stop going to bars altogether.
Bars have always attracted undesirable men as they've been predominately male spaces since the 18th/19th centuries as men worked away from the home during industrialisation. If you look at photographs from the 1950s or 60s, many public bars are overwhelmingly male. Attitudes began to change in the 70s and 80s as a result of marketing efforts like "Ladies' Night" as you mentioned.
pubs in the UK or sports bars in the US) are doing just fine. They're thriving even
Pubs in the UK are definitely not thriving.
https://www.ismypubfucked.com/
 
Ver archivo adjunto 9174927
I don't get the impression that money is the issue, and I don't think it will help you become more attractive to either sex.
If thousands of dollars were required to find a longterm relationship, then theatres and bars wouldn't be examples of broken business models.
He's right though. I would say I'm going to go off topic, but I can tie it back.

Dating has been a mess for a while. Women who see it as a free meal, expecting starred restaurants, bringing friends and family who they expect to "eat for free". There was one viral video where the guy refused to pay when the woman turned up with a party of 18 people. Friends, family, all expected to eat while a stranger pays because it's a "date".

Dating apps have long been struggling with perverse incentives. Because if they are good at matching people, they quickly lose customers. If they suck at matching people, they lose customers. The goal is to string people along with the hope of finding someone. This is one of many factors that have led to modern dating becoming a hellscape. You see many jokes online about how if a guy wants a date, he "just" has to be a 8 foot tall billionaire werewolf.


Similar thing for theaters. Merely having movies isn't enough. They're overpriced, the food is shit, the beverages are shit, the movies are shit, and so the customers are bailing. The more successful venues I've seen are either dinner theaters w/ a full service restaurant + liquor license or IMAX. Parents will sit through a shit movie drinking beer if their kids can tag along and eat tendies and fries.
That doesn't seem like a viable long term strategy though. While I can see it working for kids movies. Adults are going to be put off with the high prices and restaurant bullshit. And even then, it's expensive for what you get. Adding a shitty movie in the background doesn't seem to be worth the inflated price?
 
There was one viral video where the guy refused to pay when the woman turned up with a party of 18 people. Friends, family, all expected to eat while a stranger pays because it's a "date".
This isn't normal, and I don't think it represents the attitude or expectations of most young women any more than Cowcel's attitude represents most young men.
I agree dating is a mess, as a result of dating apps, porn, social media, and viral videos skewing how young people perceive the opposite sex.

In the future will dating apps become a failing/broken business model? Are people becoming increasingly reliant on them or will there be a rejection of Internet dating and a return to touching grass in pub gardens?
 
Dating has been a mess for a while. Women who see it as a free meal, expecting starred restaurants, bringing friends and family who they expect to "eat for free". There was one viral video where the guy refused to pay when the woman turned up with a party of 18 people. Friends, family, all expected to eat while a stranger pays because it's a "date"
that was a birthday party for the broad, not a date. small distinction. but the birthday girl expected dude to pay for everyone. easily avoided by not dating gully girls.

a lot of the other broken business models i'm thinking of are old recreations like bowling and skating rinks. but i cant say they're really broken.
 
UK high streets are mainly scams at this point.
  • Vape shops, laptop repair shops, sweet shops, anything that's always empty with a brown guy behind the counter. These are drug/immigration money laundering fronts for ethnic gangs. They violently pushed out the high street inspectors (who were used to petty scammers, not Abdul showing up with his 20 cousins threatening to rape and behead you) and now central government is quietly making its own version of the FBI to deal with them.
  • Charity shops. The owner lets out the shop at a reduced rent, allegedly as a favour to the charity. Actually it's it's so they can claim whenever it was last let out at market rate (probably 20 years ago) as the book price, because they have loans secured against this value. Banks don't look too closely because they know the property securing the loan isn't worth shit.
  • Fast food places have become deliveroo spawn points. Last time I went in one they asked for my number because they were so used to everyone being a delivery guy. Only a matter of time before they ditch the seating and become literal warehouses. Soon it'll be robots handing packages to robots, which tbf is preferable to Afghans.
All because the high street itself is a broken business model. Whole thing is a house of cards waiting to collapse like it's 2008.
 
The car industry has a lot going on. Others already mentioned Chine and the Tesla-fiction of cars. Another major sticking point is EU regulations. I've seen that blamed on why a cheap, reliable, efficient car for the masses doesn't exist.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) really did a number on pretty much everyone. It's astounding the impact that poorly written, outdated oil crisis era legislation had on the automotive landscape. The entire reason why SUVs took off was because they are considered "light trucks" and are therefore given lots of extra leeway compared to normal, sensible cars, which are forced to become tinier and incorporate more bullshit technology ridden to meet the fuel economy requirements. That was a major reason behind why Japanese and European cars stole the USDM market in the 1980s, as American manufacturers were used to building large vehicles. You could say that the 1970s cars were too large, and yes they were (which was not helped by the 5 mph bumper regulations; which were not bad, just unexpected and resulted in reinforced bumpers being tacked on to cars which were already as big as practically possible), but the first wave of downsizing (1977 for General Motors, our relative benchmark) brought these traditional American vehicles back to the levels of popularity they deserved.

Later, in the mid 1980s, fuel prices actually went down and due to new technology, it was entirely possible to make larger, more powerful cars again (which is what the Germans did) without guzzling excess amounts of gas. Lower fuel prices (which lasted into the 1990s and beyond) also made consumers highly willing to buy these larger vehicles again (hence the rise of SUVs as we will get to later). Unfortunately CAFE regulations tightened year-by-year, and did not take into account these factors, which forced the companies to downsize their vehicles even more to compact and sub compact sizes. These new small cars were often too narrow to comfortably sit 6 like the original full-size cars which were dead for Mopar by the mid 1980s, dead for GM by the mid 1990s, and dead for Ford after selling them in low volume until the very early 2010s. American makes were used to making vehicles like that, and were not structured to adapt to make these new small cars (as the new "economical" cars were often front wheel drive, unit body, and used 4 and 6 cylinder engines) unlike the Japanese and German makes which were able to take high quality vehicles they had been making for years in their insular, protected home markets and bring them to the US with clever marketing. By the 1980s American makes had the reputation of being poor quality, low class for the luxury models, and no longer had size and traditional burly American engineering to fall back upon. Now as the American makes were playing second fiddle in regards to high-volume cars, they shifted to SUVs which were far less damaged by CAFE regulations and could be sold to consumers who by this time genuinely desired larger vehicles (as aforementioned due to general prosperity & lower gas prices). They marketed these glorified agricultural machines (SUVs) as "hip" and really did improve how civilized they were (starting in the 1990s, around the GMT400 generation Chevrolet Suburban). At their core these vehicles were still gussied up work trucks though, and came with the disadvantages that entailed; worse performance than an old body-on-frame car, were less comfortable as you sat up higher and got more leverage from bumps in the road, and had worse visibility except for the woman cope of "oh well I sit up higher so I can see everything".

Now, speaking of that cope, it came in full force when crossovers came into the market. A crossover is just a lifted lightweight hatchback, unit-body construction, 4 cylinder transverse engine, optional AWD, which has been designed to just barely count as a "light truck" for CAFE regulations. You still sit up high, but now because the vehicle is lightweight the ride quality becomes even worse, your 4 (or optional 6) cylinder engine gives you middling performance, the raised suspension height for nothing more than to meet that light truck standard kills handling capabilities (unless you stiffen the suspension, which sacrifices ride quality even more), etcetera. There are plenty of complaints about those vehicles but they still remain at the top of the market because they provide something more roomy than the average sedan, and as women make up most consumer spending here in America, that "I need to sit up high to feel safe" standard kicks in quite hard. Of course, Japanese companies pioneered the idea and continue to pump crossovers out such as the Honda CR-V & HR-V & Toyota RAV4. German makes, which in the past (1960s-1980s) wouldn't be caught dead selling trucks as "luxurious", began to pump them out (BMW crossovers, Benz crossovers, and Benz's famous traditional, body-on-frame G-Wagen). The same factors that had American makes playing second fiddle in the compact-car business had them doing even worse with crossovers as they had nothing to fall back upon but pickup trucks & huge truck based SUVs. Ford today only produces pickup trucks, SUVs, and crossovers with only the low volume Mustang as an exception. Same thing with GM, as the only true cars they produce these days are the Corvette and various low volume Cadillac sedans. Now, those two of the big three are shells of their former selves, but the third, Mopar, is pretty much dead. Chrysler only sells one legacy minivan, and while Dodge and Ram seem to be hanging on they are all owned by Stellantis, a foreign company that owns Fiat, among other European makes. The American car industry is undeservedly dead & dying.
 
Part of the issue is what I call the "numbers trap". Its when people who run businesses are smart enough to know that numbers and data matter but they don't realize the importance of understanding the reliability of the numbers or other factors at play. So you end up with companies suffering from things like the Doorman Fallacy or making foolish investments. A perfect example I've seen is where companies will set moving production standards and employees will overestimate the time they spent doing easy work to keep the quota low while underestimating the time they've spent doing more difficult work. As a result, the quota for the difficult work will go up while the easy work's quota will stay low. Then someone who sees the numbers will be like "hey, if we automate the process for this easy job, then we'll save tons of money" only for the production efficiency of the harder job to nosedive once people couldn't underestimate the time they've been spending on it. So the investment in automation isn't as profitable as the numbers suggested and now the quotas have become impossible to achieve thus destroying moral and incentivizing blatant lying.

Numbers only matter if you understand the meaning behind them, their accuracy, and the incentives for people to lie. Moving standards/quotas can easily destroy moral once they incentivize lying.
 
Now, speaking of that cope, it came in full force when crossovers came into the market. A crossover is just a lifted lightweight hatchback, unit-body construction, 4 cylinder transverse engine, optional AWD, which has been designed to just barely count as a "light truck" for CAFE regulations. You still sit up high, but now because the vehicle is lightweight the ride quality becomes even worse, your 4 (or optional 6) cylinder engine gives you middling performance, the raised suspension height for nothing more than to meet that light truck standard kills handling capabilities (unless you stiffen the suspension, which sacrifices ride quality even more), etcetera. There are plenty of complaints about those vehicles but they still remain at the top of the market because they provide something more roomy than the average sedan, and as women make up most consumer spending here in America, that "I need to sit up high to feel safe" standard kicks in quite hard. Of course, Japanese companies pioneered the idea and continue to pump crossovers out such as the Honda CR-V & HR-V & Toyota RAV4. German makes, which in the past (1960s-1980s) wouldn't be caught dead selling trucks as "luxurious", began to pump them out (BMW crossovers, Benz crossovers, and Benz's famous traditional, body-on-frame G-Wagen). The same factors that had American makes playing second fiddle in the compact-car business had them doing even worse with crossovers as they had nothing to fall back upon but pickup trucks & huge truck based SUVs. Ford today only produces pickup trucks, SUVs, and crossovers with only the low volume Mustang as an exception. Same thing with GM, as the only true cars they produce these days are the Corvette and various low volume Cadillac sedans. Now, those two of the big three are shells of their former selves, but the third, Mopar, is pretty much dead. Chrysler only sells one legacy minivan, and while Dodge and Ram seem to be hanging on they are all owned by Stellantis, a foreign company that owns Fiat, among other European makes. The American car industry is undeservedly dead & dying.

And auto makers are even one-upping the 4-cylinder 2.0T engine trend by putting even smaller 4-cylinders, i.e. GM's 1.5T 4-cylinder, and some even started putting 3-cylinder engines in their cars, i.e. Nissan Rogue's 1.5 VC-Turbo 3-Cylinder, Chevrolet Trax's 1.2T 3-Cylinder, and Ford Bronco Sport's 1.5T 3-Cylinder. And Ford even put cylinder deactivation the 3-cylinder, so it can run on 2-cylinders, which screams a massive nightmare to fix.

The Japanese have also had their shares of blunders too. Toyota's V35A V6 turbo engines have had numerous failures in the Tundra, Honda's 1.5T 4-cylinder likes to blow head gaskets, and Nissan single-handily gave CVTs a bad name with how much they break.
 
Unrelated to the previous car rant but this was pretty interesting:
As someone with family members who've worked in manufacturing, I have to give some constructive criticism to that video:
  1. They shouldn't use the words "pot metal" since that substance, being zinc with random (s)crap as a filler, has long since become obsolete. ZAMAK alloys are far better than old pot metal and don't suffer from zinc pest that causes deformation and disintegration like old pot metal that had lead mixed in. Pot metal was the plastic of the early 20th century and was somehow even worse since at least plastic retains its own shape.
  2. ZAMAK guns didn't use the alloy for the barrels, firing pins, or other critical parts. The alloy was used for the frames and slides while steel was used for the important mechanisms. The fact that ZAMAK 3 Hi-Points and ZAMAK 5 Heritage Arms revolvers are so reliable proves that zinc wasn't the problem with cheap guns. The steel parts were bad. Though the case of the one gun exploding at a firing range suggests that their QA sucked since serious porosity in the slide was likely the issue there. Again, ZAMAK is brittle and wouldn't be used for any parts that actually come in contact with the rounds themselves.
  3. The argument that the person didn't destroy the guns because a logo was poorly buffed out is really dumb. Diecast parts are made with dies so it was retarded for the court to demand that the guns be destroyed while ignoring the dies. It sounds like machinists just tried to machine out the logo in the die and just make more frames. No one would waste their time trying to erase a logo on a gun frame when they can just chuck it in a melting pot and cast a bunch of new guns using the same old die with minor modifications. Also, logos are part of the dies and not machined afterwards since there's no reason to add an extra step.
  4. The argument about how long it took to make the guns is highly innacurate. The parts would be made in steps and it takes at least 40 seconds to cast each part. Then they have to be trimmed, tumbled, drilled or tapped, and electroplated. The final assembly part where the pieces of put together may have only taken a few minutes but that's just a small fraction of the time it took to manufacture those guns. Its also retardedly wasteful to be dedicating a Bridgeport for drilling opperation like that in the video when a drill press could be used instead. And God I hope he wasn't tapping those parts without one of those tapping clutches or else the threads will be messed up.
tl;dr don't blame the zinc for the failures of the steel.
 
Theaters are contractually obligated to by the studios, that's why. For example let's say you want Disney to give you a better cut of the ticket price when it comes to screenings of Toy Story 5, in many cases that's gonna be bundled in with also forcing you to have screenings of shit like Mando and Grogu for a long time no matter how empty the room is, and there's even times where if you don't play ball with those terms the studios will only let you show the movie in a couple hundred of screens while your competition gets the full release.
Isn't block booking illegal?
 
Isn't block booking illegal?
It's not technically the same thing since nowadays it's more along the lines of staying in good terms with the studios and getting them to give you some extra things and shit. They aren't technically forcing you to book a summer blockbuster together with the most obvious box-office bomb in history since the last one, you're simply been granted more advantageous terms for the blockbuster if you also agree to some screenings of the flop.
 
tl;dr don't blame the zinc for the failures of the steel.
What's even the appeal of working with zinc? It's not a particularly cheap metal. Is it really just the castability that drives its usage in guns? Why not other castable alloys?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo