Chapter 15 — Self-Check Quiz

Twenty-four questions. Answer without looking back, then check yourself. All prices and keg costs are illustrative; alcohol pricing and promotion rules vary by state.


Multiple choice

1. Pour cost is computed as: a) beverage purchases ÷ beverage sales b) beverage COGS ÷ beverage sales c) beverage COGS ÷ total sales d) beverage contribution ÷ beverage sales

2. A bar begins the week with \$9,400 of inventory, purchases \$2,150, and ends with \$9,720 on \$8,000 of beverage sales. Its pour cost is approximately: a) 20.6% b) 22.9% c) 26.9% d) 31.1%

3. Bellwether's blended cost of goods sold is 27.8%. The primary reason it is below 30% is: a) the kitchen buys well b) the wine list runs a low cost percentage c) 28% of revenue arrives at a 22% pour cost instead of a 30% food cost d) the plan excludes non-alcoholic beverages from COGS

4. A 750 mL bottle contains approximately: a) 23.6 fl oz b) 25.4 fl oz c) 27.0 fl oz d) 33.8 fl oz

5. A sixth-barrel keg (5.16 gallons) contains approximately: a) 512 fl oz b) 660.5 fl oz c) 992 fl oz d) 1,984 fl oz

6. At a 14-ounce pour and 12% loss, a sixth barrel yields approximately how many sellable glasses? a) 36.3 b) 41.5 c) 47.2 d) 55.0

7. Which category typically runs the highest cost percentage in a full-service beverage program? a) well spirits b) cocktails c) draft beer d) wine

8. The tenths method is best described as: a) counting only ten percent of the inventory as a sample b) valuing inventory at ten percent above cost c) estimating each open bottle's remaining contents to the nearest tenth and summing the decimals d) weighing each bottle and dividing by ten

9. A weekly bar variance of +2.5 points should first prompt you to: a) install cameras b) interview the bartenders c) recount and check for missed invoices and unbooked transfers d) raise prices to absorb it

10. An unrecorded comp, compared to a comp rung with a reason code, results in: a) higher COGS b) lower net sales c) identical financial results but no visibility d) a lower pour cost

11. A cocktail sells for \$15.00 and costs \$3.20. Discounted to \$10.00, how many more units must you sell to earn the same contribution? a) 33% more b) 50% more c) 73.5% more d) 100% more

12. Jiggering every drink at Bellwether's volume costs roughly \$233 a year in added labor. The leak it closes at a half ounce of drift is: a) \$763 b) \$3,494 c) \$7,631 d) \$16,169

13. Which of these is not a legitimate reason beverage carries a lower cost percentage than food? a) the product arrives finished, with no trim or cooking loss b) shelf life is long and spoilage is nearly optional on spirits c) the portion of the expensive component is small and exact d) bars are counted less often, so the reported number is lower

14. Line cleaning at Bellwether costs \$1,560 a year against roughly \$1,129 of yield benefit. The correct conclusion is: a) skip the cleaning; it does not pay b) clean anyway — remakes, product quality, and sanitation carry the rest of the argument c) clean monthly instead of biweekly to halve the cost d) raise beer prices to fund the contract

15. The most consequential unverified assumption in Bellwether's beverage plan is: a) the cost of a sixth barrel b) whether guests actually attach \$12.88 of beverage per dinner cover c) the price of lemons d) the loaded wage of a barback

16. A "beer-clean" glass is one that: a) has been rinsed in cold water only b) is free of fat, protein, and detergent film, so head forms and laces c) has been chilled below 32°F d) came out of a dish machine within the last ten minutes


Short answer

17. State the usage formula and explain in one sentence why a bar that reports pour cost from invoices alone will be wrong in a predictable direction at period ends.

18. Bellwether sells about 12,718 spirit-based drinks a year at a blended spirits cost of \$1.20 an ounce. Compute the annual cost of a quarter-ounce over-pour on every drink, in dollars, in pour-cost points against \$434,000 of beverage sales, and in 750 mL bottles.

19. Explain why splitting pour cost by category is not optional, using a month in which the mix shifts toward wine.

20. A premium well raises drink cost \$0.20 and supports a \$1.00 price increase. Pour cost gets worse and contribution gets better. Which do you follow, and what earlier chapter established the principle?

21. Name the three things you need in order to compute an ideal pour cost, and name the single dependency that makes a POS "theoretical cost" report meaningless if neglected.

22. Give three reasons a beverage transfer to the kitchen must be recorded, and state the two numbers it distorts.

23. Chapter 7 deferred Bellwether's under-counter glasswasher to year two: \$1,273 a year of extra labor against a 5.8-year payback. State two operational consequences that do not appear in that payback calculation.

24. Write the four-part structure of a responsible-service refusal protocol, and state why management backing the bartender's call is the most consequential part of it.


Answer key **1.** **b.** COGS, not purchases, and divided by *beverage* sales — not total sales. **2.** **b.** Usage = 9,400 + 2,150 − 9,720 = \$1,830. 1,830 ÷ 8,000 = **22.875% → 22.9%.** **3.** **c.** 0.72 × 30.0% + 0.28 × 22.0% = 21.60% + 6.16% = **27.76%.** The bar pulls the blend under the food-cost line. **4.** **b.** 750 ÷ 29.5735 = 25.36, conventionally 25.4 fl oz. **5.** **b.** 5.16 gal × 128 oz = **660.5 fl oz.** **6.** **b.** 660.5 ÷ 14 = 47.2 theoretical; less 12% (5.7) = **41.5 sellable.** **7.** **d.** Wine, typically 25–35%. Bellwether plans 28.0% on wine against 17.0% on spirits. **8.** **c.** Eyeball each open bottle to the nearest tenth; bottles on hand = full bottles + sum of tenths. **9.** **c.** Large variances are far more often measurement failures than losses. Recount, check the invoice file, check the keg log, check transfers. Only then is it a control question — and Chapter 34 owns what follows. **10.** **c.** Gross sales rise and a comp line takes it back out; net sales, COGS, and pour cost are identical. Recording buys **visibility**, not dollars — which is exactly why it is worth doing. **11.** **c.** CM goes from \$11.80 to \$6.80. 11.80 ÷ 6.80 = 1.735 → **+73.5%.** **12.** **c.** \$7,631 — 12,718 drinks × 0.5 oz × \$1.20. Roughly a sixteen-to-one return on the policy, and that is before you consider that it also makes the theoretical-cost report trustworthy. **13.** **d.** That is a measurement artifact, not a margin advantage. A bar that has never been counted always reports a better pour cost than it has. **14.** **b.** On yield alone the contract does not pay. Add remakes (roughly \$1,842 at two a service) and it returns about 1.9 to 1, and the guest who quietly stops ordering draft is larger than both. A control that fails its obvious payback may still be the cheapest thing you do. **15.** **b.** A four-point miss on attachment is \$46,624 of contribution — \$897 a week — which dwarfs every other uncertainty in the section. **16.** **b.** Film from kitchen detergent collapses head retention, which makes good draft look and taste flat. **17.** Usage = beginning inventory + purchases − ending inventory. Invoices-over-sales moves with *purchase timing* rather than consumption: a heavy delivery just before a period close inflates the reported cost and a run-down back bar deflates it, in both cases with no change in how anyone poured. **18.** 12,718 × 0.25 oz = 3,179.5 oz. × \$1.20 = **\$3,815 a year.** 3,815 ÷ 434,000 = **0.88 pour-cost points.** 3,179.5 ÷ 25.4 = **125 bottles of 750 mL** — more than two a week. **19.** Category pour costs differ enormously — spirits 17%, wine 28%, beer 24%, non-alcoholic 12%. A month that skews toward wine prints a worse aggregate pour cost with identical discipline, and an operator reading only the blend will investigate a bar that did nothing wrong. Split it and you can see immediately whether a *category* moved or the *mix* did. **20.** Follow the contribution dollars: \$10.22 versus \$9.42 is \$0.80 a drink, roughly \$3,052 a year on 3,815 well drinks, even though pour cost worsens from 5.8% to 7.1%. Chapter 12 established it — you bank dollars, not percentages. **21.** (1) A cost card for every drink you sell; (2) a POS that reports units sold by item; (3) somebody who re-costs when a price moves. The dependency: **the recipes loaded into the system**. A theoretical report built on last year's cards compares this month's reality to a fiction. **22.** Reasons: it keeps beverage COGS matched to beverage sales; it puts the cost where it was actually consumed; and it removes a recurring phantom variance that would otherwise be investigated as a control problem. It distorts **pour cost (overstated)** and **food cost (understated)** — you get to be wrong twice. At \$40 a week it is 0.48 points of Bellwether's pour cost. **23.** Any two of: deeper glassware par because glass in transit is glass you do not have (roughly eight extra dozen, about \$264); higher breakage from extra handling; a throughput ceiling on busy nights when the dish return gaps; and beer-clean glassware becoming a trained-and-audited protocol at the three-compartment bar sink rather than a machine setting. **24.** (1) Who makes the call — the bartender, with the manager's backing. (2) What is said — brief, calm, non-negotiable, no debate. (3) What is offered instead — water, food, a ride, a call to whoever is with them. (4) How it is documented — in the shift log, the same night, every time. Management backing is the most consequential part because a manager who reverses a cutoff to keep one guest happy has taught the entire staff never to make the call again — and the call is the building's principal defense against a dram-shop exposure that varies by state and must be verified locally.