Cash Bar

JCbride2015

arrrghmatey said:

Jack Sparrow doesn't like consumption bars for a very important reason.

I love the pic!

Consumption bars just mean the host is billed based on how much the guests actually drink, though; the bar is "open" as far as the guests are concerned.  A standard "open bar" charges the hosts per head.  The guests never know the difference.

ohannabelle

Butterflyz419 said:

ohannabelle said:

It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 

What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 

Must it be an " outrageous" hypothetical? 

How about a realistic one? Or two?

I might feel embarrassed because I have asked for something that isn't really being offered to me, and then I might feel presumptuous, and awkward. Oh, no- have I taken more than my share? Is this a rule I've never heard of? Was there a limit in place I didn't understand? 

People are embarrassed by awkward situations.  That's not "outrageous."

Or, equally likely, I often feel embarrassment for other people. 

It's called sympathetic embarrassment, the feeling you get when you see someone making an asshole of themselves, and cringe for them. 

Again, not outrageous.

arrrghmatey

JCbride2015 said:

arrrghmatey said:

Jack Sparrow doesn't like consumption bars for a very important reason.

I love the pic!

Consumption bars just mean the host is billed based on how much the guests actually drink, though; the bar is "open" as far as the guests are concerned.  A standard "open bar" charges the hosts per head.  The guests never know the difference.

Aha! Thanks for the clarification. For some reason I confused it with the capped bar....or whatever that one is called where only a certain amount is paid for (I'm too lazy to go back and try to find it amongst all of these posts, ha.)

fwtx5815

Why can't people accept the fact that even if they don't understand an etiquette rule, that they're not exempt from following etiquette?

There's a lot of shit that I don't and probably never will understand, like gravity, but it's STILL THERE and I don't get to avoid it just because I don't understand the science behind it

etf spelling

banana468

Imagine finding out that you're drinking the last of the red wine and no one after you gets any. Yeah. That's awkward.

I don't understand why we're even debating poor planning. When you run out of refreshments, it's a sign that the party was poorly planned and people take that as a sign to leave.

artbyallie

ohannabelle said:

Butterflyz419 said:

ohannabelle said:

It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 

What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 

Must it be an " outrageous" hypothetical? 

How about a realistic one? Or two?

I might feel embarrassed because I have asked for something that isn't really being offered to me, and then I might feel presumptuous, and awkward. Oh, no- have I taken more than my share? Is this a rule I've never heard of? Was there a limit in place I didn't understand? 

People are embarrassed by awkward situations.  That's not "outrageous."

Or, equally likely, I often feel embarrassment for other people. 

It's called sympathetic embarrassment, the feeling you get when you see someone making an asshole of themselves, and cringe for them. 

Again, not outrageous.

Ooh ooh ooh I get to use my new word! I just learned there is a word for this feeling in German, sort of the opposite of schadenfreude. It's called fremdschamen and actually does mean the feeling of being embarrassed on someone else's behalf.

/threadjack

Really though, we're just not getting through to her. When's that cross-country cocktail party bus happening? You know, the one where we won't run out of booze?

beethery

banana468 said:

Imagine finding out that you're drinking the last of the red wine and no one after you gets any. Yeah. That's awkward.

I don't understand why we're even debating poor planning. When you run out of refreshments, it's a sign that the party was poorly planned and people take that as a sign to leave.

Because she is a consistent shit-stirrer.

Fran1985

Butterflyz419 said:

MGP said:

Butterflyz419 said:

MGP said:

Butterflyz419 said:

Food isn't served for the entire event. Once dessert has been served the hosts are under no obligation to continue to provide guests with any more food whatsoever, even if the event is going to last another two hours. The late night snack trend is a nice add on, not an etiquette requirement. You have given no reasons why failing to provide alcohol for all 5 hours (which is impossible at many venues anyway since they shut the it doesn't make someone a bad host to limit something unnecessary to the guest's comfort like alcohol. 

You are correct about pretty much one thing and that is a host does not have to offer every facet of their event continuously throughout.  Where everyone is disagreeing with you is what those things are.  No one would have a problem with the string quartet stopping playing after the ceremony or the bacon wrapped scallops no longer served after cocktail hour because those things have a specific time and place aka "ceremony music" or "appetizers".  I think most people (except you) would agree that drinks are a constant.  It doesn't matter if you are the first or last person in line at the bar, you should have the same options at all times (ETA - and not have to pay for them).

My point is you need to be prepared to fully and consistently host or not at all.  Would you have someone to your home for dinner and serve them wine during appetizers, then start charging them at dinner?  Would you invite someone to stay in your home for a week and then kick them out after three days because you arbitrarily decided that you had hosted them "enough"?

You don't get the make that decision.  Your only responsibility is to host them PROPERLY.

This is exactly my point. No. I wouldn't start charging them at dinner, but if I served all the wine I could afford to buy for the dinner I also would not go out and buy them more just because they had consumed it all; I'd offer them the iced tea I had instead. You might be disappointed that the wine is gone but that's definitely NOT a cash bar. 

Just as guests shouldn't expect alcohol to begin with, neither should they expect that just because there is alcohol that they it should be drink all that you can. There's no need to announce ahead of time that there's a limit to the bar, and I don't see why anyone would, so there's no need to worry about creating "scarcity" behavior. As long as non-alcoholic beverages are available throughout and no one is being charged for anything then you've done your part.

I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt and just clarify that there is a very big difference between these two scenarios:

You plan and pay for food/beverages for 50 people.  The first 10 to the bar and buffet are horrible, greedy, "gimme pigs" and take enough for 3 people each thus creating a shortage.  That is not necessarily poor planning, it's more like guests being a holes.  If I was a guest that was shorted I would not necessarily be upset with the hosts, I would be upset with the guests.  And hungry.

You want to host 50 people but only can afford drinks to appropriately host 30 people.  A common formula for planning is one drink per hour per guest so let's say you bought enough for 120 drinks (30 people x 4 hour event = 120).  When those drinks run out 2.5 hours in you say "sorry I only bought what I can afford, here have some iced tea".  This is not only poor planning but rude planning.

Do you see the difference?  In the first situation - shit happens.  In the second - you should have only planned to host what you can afford (aka 30 people) instead of working off a wing and a prayer people won't get offended.

Personally I think hosting is a two way street.  Hosts should not plan what they cannot afford and guests should be appreciative as long as they were properly hosted.  I know it's a fine line to maintain and takes a lot of experience to get it right.  Another argument to deal with professionals while planning your wedding, but that's a conversation for another time.

Neither you nor anyone else has given any reason why this is rude. You may not like it, it may be disappointing to find out that the alcohol wasn't unlimited, and you may think it is was poor planning, but it's not rude and does not violate any principle of etiquette. It does not impinge on anyone's comfort. It does not ask guests to supplement the reception. Alcohol is not a necessity. It's not water, basic food, or a seat. Since it's an extra, there can be no reason why just because I'm willing to purchase each guest 3 drinks, I must be equally willing to purchase them 6 or more. I love cake as a guest, I may want two slices of cake if it's good, but there's no reason why a host should order twice the number of slices of cake just in case some people want a second slice just because they were given the first.

Please stop with your weird weird logic. Its not the same as buying double cake- the limited bar means your getting only enough cake for half your guests. Its rude because it tiers your guests and treats them unequally. You cannot say that each guest will get 3 drinks. Like someone said above, you will run out after the second hour- its the one bottle for 10 guests scenario, not the 4 bottles. People who were waiting to drink with dinner, waiting to have a little food in their stomachs will get none or 1 drink. Others will get more than enough. This is very rude to guests to offer something to some of them but not all of them.

Also- just because something is not necessary doesn't mean it isn't rude to put it out and take it away. Filet isn't necessary, but it would be rude to put a very limited quantity at the buffet for the first people up and every one gets the chicken dish. But serving just the chicken dish the whole night wouldn't be rude.

raissyrais

This is how this thread makes me feel: 

MrsMack10612

I have nothing to add except I did have double cake at my wedding.  We invited 120, only 78 attended.  I forgot to call the baker to tell them I needed less cake.

Maggie0829

MrsMack10612 said:

I have nothing to add except I did have double cake at my wedding.  We invited 120, only 78 attended.  I forgot to call the baker to tell them I needed less cake.

Having more cake then necessary is never a problem, especially double the amount.  Just think of the nice sized slices each person got!

beethery

raissyrais said:

This is how this thread makes me feel: 

Right there with ya.

plainjane0415

MrsMack10612 said:

I have nothing to add except I did have double cake at my wedding.  We invited 120, only 78 attended.  I forgot to call the baker to tell them I needed less cake.

I think more cake is always better than less cake.  Is it bad that if the cake is good at a wedding I go back for a second slice?  I always feel a little guilty because I don't want to take a slice away from someone, but if it's good I can't help myself.  FI is the same way.

abbyj700

I'm really really baffled on why someone would WANT to poorly plan their wedding.

We had a guest list of 120, 96 came. We paid $22 a person for a 4 hour open bar. 96 X $22 = $2,112. Holy shit...we were right at your budget for booze, and hosted everyone well. It's not impossible. So instead of just trying to change the definition of good etiquette - maybe you put some effort in to being an appropriate host. 

lyndausvi

abbyj700 said:

I'm really really baffled on why someone would WANT to poorly plan their wedding.

We had a guest list of 120, 96 came. We paid $22 a person for a 4 hour open bar. 96 X $22 = $2,112. Holy shit...we were right at your budget for booze, and hosted everyone well. It's not impossible. So instead of just trying to change the definition of good etiquette - maybe you put some effort in to being an appropriate host. 

Because they would rather pick a pretty venue they can not properly afford than find a venue they can properly afford.

Sure the pictures can be nice, but the wow factor of a pretty venue is lost on most guest after a few minutes. At that point they are talking, socializing, eating and such not looking at the pretty room or view.

We found a venue where we could bring in our own alcohol.   Cost us about $3k for 147 people. Full top shelf.  We could easily have paid less, but having a top shelf bar was important to us.   Other venues the cost would have been much higher.

tammym1001

Butterflyz419 said:

Food isn't served for the entire event. Once dessert has been served the hosts are under no obligation to continue to provide guests with any more food whatsoever, even if the event is going to last another two hours. The late night snack trend is a nice add on, not an etiquette requirement. You have given no reasons why failing to provide alcohol for all 5 hours (which is impossible at many venues anyway since they shut the bar down before the event ends) would be necessary as a matter of etiquette when providing food for 5 hours straight is not. You may consider it poor planning and I would expect someone to budget for each guest to have more than one drink just as you would expect each guest to have more than one hors d'oeuvre, but as long as no one has to open their wallet and some nonalcoholic beverage is available, I can see no violation of etiquette. You want to side-eye it? That's your right, but it doesn't make someone a bad host to limit something unnecessary to the guest's comfort like alcohol. 

This isn't true. There was food served the entire duration of our wedding. Also, if we host an event at our house you will be able to eat food the entire time you are there and probably take some home with you. If we ran out of wine while you were at our house then hell must have frozen over. 

We are good hosts so nobody will ever leave a party that we host hungry or thirsty. Actually, nobody would ever leave our house on a random weeknight hungry or thirsty. If you are going to host people then you make sure you host them well. That means having more than you need so you don't run out. 

FiancB

Having a bar stop serving alcohol at a certain price point will not stop people from getting drunk, because the drunkards will just line the drinks up if they know about the limit or get pissy when they hit it if they don't know about it. 

Have a limited bar and make it clear to the bartenders you want people cut off if they start getting sloshed. Unless you have a huge guest list, this should keep you within the $2k mark. It did for us and we had about 70 people, most of whom aren't shy about drinking. 

tammym1001

Butterflyz419 said:

ohannabelle said:

It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 

What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 

I don't have an outrageous hypothetical, but I have a real life situation that happened at a wedding I attended:

DH went to the bar and ordered us both a mixed drink. When he came back to the table he told me to drink it slow because those two drinks cost $24! Someone at our table overheard him and when the groom came by to greet us the other person said something along the lines of "holy shit dude those two drinks cost $24! That's crazy!"

I was embarrassed that someone had overheard DH complaining about the cost of the drinks and I was even more embarrassed for the groom that someone said something to him about it. It was a very uncomfortable situation for everyone involved. 

redoryx

Butterflyz419 said:

ohannabelle said:

It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 

What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 

Your guest goes up to the bar and orders a drink. They are then told they need to pay up. The guest, not anticipating this, now has to either go back to their chair and dig money out of their purse or wallet if they brought cash with them. Not everyone does, so if they don't have money the guest has to ask OTHER GUESTS if they can borrow money and hope someone has enough to cover the cost of the drink.

You really don't see how that puts your guest in a very awkward and embarrassing position?

beethery

redoryx said:

Butterflyz419 said:

ohannabelle said:

It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 

What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 

Your guest goes up to the bar and orders a drink. They are then told they need to pay up. The guest, not anticipating this, now has to either go back to their chair and dig money out of their purse or wallet if they brought cash with them. Not everyone does, so if they don't have money the guest has to ask OTHER GUESTS if they can borrow money and hope someone has enough to cover the cost of the drink.

You really don't see how that puts your guest in a very awkward and embarrassing position?

My cousin's wedding had the $X amount open, then cash bar set up. Word spread like wildfire, side-eyes were thrown, and that whole side of the room by the bar was shoulder-to-shoulder full of people jostling for drinks before they went cash.

What's that tell you? Host your fucking drinks right. Guests paying for anything at your reception is RUDE, bad hosting.

climbingsingle

My relative had a wedding a few years ago. They had open bar for only one hour. When we went up to get more drinks during during, we were told we had to pay cash. None of us expected it, and no one was prepared. There was no ATM within a 5 minute drive. The groom's family actually left the wedding to drive 20 minutes to a gas station to buy beer (because that was cheaper than paying for beers at the now cash bar). People were pissed. 

Don't do this to your guests. 

southernbelle0915

redoryx said:

Butterflyz419 said:

ohannabelle said:

It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 

What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 

Your guest goes up to the bar and orders a drink. They are then told they need to pay up. The guest, not anticipating this, now has to either go back to their chair and dig money out of their purse or wallet if they brought cash with them. Not everyone does, so if they don't have money the guest has to ask OTHER GUESTS if they can borrow money and hope someone has enough to cover the cost of the drink.

You really don't see how that puts your guest in a very awkward and embarrassing position?

This has happened to me at weddings. It's really embarrassing. I give the hosts the benefit of the doubt that they're actually hosting their wedding. Then I have two drinks in hand and a bill I'm not prepared to pay plus a line of people behind me. Super awkward. 

The only cash I would bring to a wedding is in the card for the B&G. Sorry but that's the only way I can pay for the drink for which they're charging me. What goes around, I guess.

KatWAG

So how long until this ends up in TK newletter or on the main webpage?

beethery

@katWAG SSSSHHHHHHH THEY'LL HEAR YOU

(i love youuuu)

whovianstark

I'm the OP. I couldn't keep up with all of the posts but I really appreciated the recent posts where people listed the examples where things went wrong. Lets just say... I'm a self made woman who clawed her way out of a lower socioeconomic status. So I was ok with the answer no that's poor etiquette but I knew it wouldn't matter at all to my family. So the examples were helpful. I've been to every type of bar at a wedding (cash, partially hosted, ect) and I've never had any problems but I'm also not the type that would hoard drinks and I don't drink much but I can see some guests hoarding drinks which isn't good.

lovegood90

Knottie41717163 said:

I'm the OP. I couldn't keep up with all of the posts but I really appreciated the recent posts where people listed the examples where things went wrong. Lets just say... I'm a self made woman who clawed her way out of a lower socioeconomic status. So I was ok with the answer no that's poor etiquette but I knew it wouldn't matter at all to my family. So the examples were helpful. I've been to every type of bar at a wedding (cash, partially hosted, ect) and I've never had any problems but I'm also not the type that would hoard drinks and I don't drink much but I can see some guests hoarding drinks which isn't good.

You're still not getting it. Your reasoning for not having a cash bar should be because it's BAD HOSTING and RUDE to your guests, not because you're afraid that they'll take advantage and hoard drinks.

novella1186

lovegood90 said:

Knottie41717163 said:

I'm the OP. I couldn't keep up with all of the posts but I really appreciated the recent posts where people listed the examples where things went wrong. Lets just say... I'm a self made woman who clawed her way out of a lower socioeconomic status. So I was ok with the answer no that's poor etiquette but I knew it wouldn't matter at all to my family. So the examples were helpful. I've been to every type of bar at a wedding (cash, partially hosted, ect) and I've never had any problems but I'm also not the type that would hoard drinks and I don't drink much but I can see some guests hoarding drinks which isn't good.

You're still not getting it. Your reasoning for not having a cash bar should be because it's BAD HOSTING and RUDE to your guests, not because you're afraid that they'll take advantage and hoard drinks.

Considering how the rest of this thread went, I'd still call it a win that OP took those examples to heart and didn't come up with long, rambling, nonsensical arguments as to why it should still be OK to do a partially hosted bar. 

NYCMercedes

Another example: while a friend and I were chatting, her husband offered to get us drinks at the bar. When he returned, he remarked they were like, five bucks each. We three were speechless as we'd never been poorly hosted like that. I had no $$$ on me so I was embarrassed that her husband ended up having to buy me a drink.

theartistformerlyknownas

Knottie41717163 said:

I'm the OP. I couldn't keep up with all of the posts but I really appreciated the recent posts where people listed the examples where things went wrong. Lets just say... I'm a self made woman who clawed her way out of a lower socioeconomic status. So I was ok with the answer no that's poor etiquette but I knew it wouldn't matter at all to my family. So the examples were helpful. I've been to every type of bar at a wedding (cash, partially hosted, ect) and I've never had any problems but I'm also not the type that would hoard drinks and I don't drink much but I can see some guests hoarding drinks which isn't good.

To the bolded... so are lots of us here. It's not a good reason for poorly hosting anyone or purposely ignoring etiquette. There's never a good reason for that.

Listen, I get wanting to plan a specific number for the bar. My wedding was 2 months ago, and H and I paid the whole thing ourselves (as did most of the people here). Ours was a consumption bar - the only thing offered by our venue. We didn't have the option of paying per head, and didn't even consider cutting anyone off once we'd reached a certain point. Our event director gave us an estimate that he had established after years of planning events there, and we pre-paid that amount per person for our 190 adults. He said "if it's more or less, we'll square up after the fact." We had a set amount to plan toward, would have some time to figure it out, super duper.

We got home from our honeymoon to a $2,800 bar bill in excess of what we'd already paid. Yuuuup, given his best estimates based on years of experience, quite a few teetotalers and pregnant women, our friends and family out-drank the estimate by almost three thousand dollars. (Note: this included charges for soft drinks and coffee as well.)

I say this not as a horror story, though. Our wedding was SO MUCH FUN, and would have SUCKED if the bar got cut off 3 GRAND EARLY. People stayed til the end, were laughing and singing along, the dance floor was packed. I was happy to pay the excess because I saw what a great time everyone was having. So you can plan all you want, but then there needs to be a better back-up plan than "shut it down" once the planned number is reached. Sometimes the best estimates are wrong.

PrettyGirlLost

tammym1001 said:

Butterflyz419 said:

ohannabelle said:

It's rude because you are creating an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation for your guests when they go to get their drink, and are told "no." 

What? I can't even figure how even in the most unlikely scenario how this would be embarrassing for the guest, but feel free to give an outrageous hypothetical if you have one. If anyone would be subject to embarrassment it would be the host, not the guest, when the bartender explains that it's only non-alcoholic drinks for the rest of the night as the bar was limited. 

I don't have an outrageous hypothetical, but I have a real life situation that happened at a wedding I attended:

DH went to the bar and ordered us both a mixed drink. When he came back to the table he told me to drink it slow because those two drinks cost $24! Someone at our table overheard him and when the groom came by to greet us the other person said something along the lines of "holy shit dude those two drinks cost $24! That's crazy!"

I was embarrassed that someone had overheard DH complaining about the cost of the drinks and I was even more embarrassed for the groom that someone said something to him about it. It was a very uncomfortable situation for everyone involved. 

Good on them!

What did the Groom say?