Post #22846 by tikibars on Wed, Feb 12, 2003 8:59 PM

On 2003-02-12 19:07, ahilava wrote:
"Bottom line is: Neo-Tiki Bar owners have to look at their bottom line and please 'all the peope all the time', as much as possible. Rock music, fast food, and TV's are what Joe Square wants, so that's what he gets - otherwise, there will be no bar at all."

So... original tiki bars don't have to look at their bottom line? Then we should cut the Neo-tiki bars all kinds of slack while we nit-pick the old places since they don't have to make money, right? They must receive tiki social security.

Nothing to peddle at the end of my posting. Aloha!

Of course original Tiki Bar owners have a bottom line, but for many of them, the decor is long since paid for, if not the buildings themselves: in the case of both Hala Kahiki and Tiki Ti, both are family-run businesses in stand-alone buildings. If the familes own the buildings, assuming a 30-year mortgage, they were paid off in 1992 and 1991 respectively. With the Tikis and the bulding paid for, and family running the place, the overhead is cut dramatically. Kowloon in Massachusetts, The Alibi in Portland, and our dearly missed Kahiki (as wll as dozens of others) fall into this category as well.

Anyway, it is not cutting new places slack, it is judging them by different criteria, since they are indeed a different animal altogether. A bar opened in the 1960s and one opened in the 2000s can never be scrutinzed with the same criteria, or at last not fairly.

Scroll down a hair for a bit of peddling.
:)