Hooters Case Study

2259 Words5 Pages

In reference to the argument above we intend to further justify why Hooters should not place a ban on admitting children after 9 P.M. Our three key arguments will help solidify the reasoning for this and it is important because it comes down to a decision that families should be making even though with this issue it deals with decisions that businesses could be making. Our first argument is that it is not up to the restaurant, but the family that goes to the restaurant as to whether or not they should bring their kids. Our second argument is that the restaurant has a mission to profit and not limit who gets served no matter the time. Lastly, our third argument is that we disagree with the ban because Hooters advertises themselves as a neighborhood restaurant to go watch sports and to have a good time, so all should be welcome. Through these perspectives we have not limited Hooters to have any reason to put any bans on who is allowed in and out of the restaurant. The three people that we interviewed were: Nicolette the hostess, Ashli our waitress, and Britany the manager. Each person was able to express their own personal perspectives based on observations that they have made and they cooperated with us well. The location where this took place was the Hooters in Santa Monica on 4th street, which is one of the more common locations in the area as we witnessed on a slow afternoon that it was still fairly crowded and many families were present. 2. Summary Overview Hooters putting a ban on the entry of kids after 9 P.M. can be reasoned easily, but what needs to be remembered is what type of place Hooters is. It’s a neighborhood restaurant that caters to the needs of many people. There are TVs everywhere playing sports games and ther... ... middle of paper ... ..., and even with a 9 P.M. ban, they may view Hooters as losing its edge when it comes to serving families. The other effect is taking a risk by not following through with the ban and having a local or state law become enacted as a result of the complaint, resulting in possible sanctions through fines and forcing them to comply with the child ban. 4. Through Barry’s Rules, the action with the lesser harm would be banning children under 18 after 9 P.M. They should consider the effects that a potential lawsuit would have on their image, and this ban is only on several stores, so the financial impact should not be as rough as projected. 5. It is more important to respect the appeals of the community, and to prevent any potential legal issues by dodging the ban. Hooters wants to remain a neighborhood restaurant, and will continue to serve patrons under 18 before 9 P.M.

More about Hooters Case Study

Open Document