It seems that when eating out it is not the food that makes the bill expensive. It is the wine. Is it wise for restaurants, in these tough economic times, to still have more than 100% markups on their wines?

When eating out the price of the wines are usually in the same (or higher) range as the price of the food. Some restaurants have a 100% even 200% markup on their wines. Surely the input and serving costs of wine for restaurateurs must be much less than the preparing cost of food?

With the current economic woes restaurants are struggling to fill their seats. This implies that the continuing restaurant slump has been a boom (or helped keep afloat) wine retailers, as a wallet-strapped public opts to eat at home more often and pay retail prices for wines rather than often-massive markups.

Restaurants make a lot of their profits on beverages, but they can’t sell wine, beer or soda if there are no customers. So cutting prices and increasing promotions on their liquid assets make sense, especially because their profit margins on food are often minimal.

More restaurants are prepared to introduce bring-your-own- wine policies (BYOW) and relatively cheaper corkage fees are charged.

Would you eat out more if the restaurant wine markups are less?

Source: startribune.com