Hacker News Reader

Comment by diafygi | Hacker News Reader

I suspect that designated drivers are economically worse than sponsored rides. A designated driver is a person not buying drinks and yet still taking a spot in your capacity. If you can sell $1000 more drinks by sponsoring rides, and those rides cost $500, it's totally worth sponsoring rides.

View on HN

Soon, analytics will find the teetotalers that are buying tickets and automatically tack on a surcharge so that their non-drinking spot is amortized at a rate that is determined by the average revenue generated by a drinker. Past ticket holders who have shown themselves to be exceptional at both consuming alcoholic beverages may be eligable for a reduced price ticket.

You make this seem like a bad thing, but as someone who doesn't drink a lot, I would prefer to pay a surcharge rather than deal with a 2 drink minimum.

Is there anything that has a drink minimum besides comedy clubs?

Many "Gentleman's Clubs" do, or so I've been told.

Many Jazz clubs.

On the other hand, you can sell a parking spot if there's a DD. I don't know the going rate, but it's at least a couple drinks' worth ($45 spot = 3 x $15 beers)?

On the whole, stadiums may prefer to have a big line of ubers/lyfts lined up to take people home, but it's not like it's a total loss to have DDs.

From a strictly economic perspective: Free rides homes may mean charging overtime for the spot because they leave their car there overnight and also selling more liquor.

But I don't see why this should be viewed in terms of pure economics. What if people who make beer et al are actual human beings and are bothered by the fact that drunk driving kills people? Since their product is involved, what if some of them feel some personal sense of responsibility to reduce death's due to drunk driving?

Totally agree that it's not just a pure business decision. I was just responding to the sentiment of the GP that indicated that stadiums might be supporting plans like this because more drinkers means more revenue. That isn't to say they want people to drive drunk — this was just comparing getting people home via DDs (who don't buy alcohol) or getting more drinkers in the stadium and getting them home safe on uber/lyft.

Parking rates, while seemingly expensive, are usually subsidized by the other economic activity of the business.

Except that you're paying for a lot of overhead for those parking spots year round... Not just during the event. Everything from infrastructure (land, buildings), personnel, etc. That's a heavy, real cost to the stadium and surrounding community compared to a few drinks. And that space could be better utilized for shops and housing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com