To deliver the ice bars need, we first need to listen to the people working in them. Inspired by our conversations with Kazuhiko Kuramoto, this BAR TIMES survey received 230 responses from 39 prefectures across Japan.
Of respondents,97.4%said ice is important.
Ice is an important part ofwhat makes a bar’s quality.
Yet respondents also identified challenges with ice.
Preparation work and time
32.2%identified this as a challenge
Insufficient storage space
28.3%identified this as a challenge
Inconsistent quality (clarity and hardness)
35.2%identified this as a challenge
Other concerns included high prices and costs (37.0%), unreliable delivery or supply (14.8%), and the effort involved in ordering (4.3%).
↓
Bringing bars the ice that matters, in the form they need.
To address these challenges, BAR TIMES STORE is launching a new ice delivery service for bars in Japan, together with Kuramoto Ice.
Results by Question
Open each section to see the detailed results.
The Importance of IceAll positive, neutral, and negative responses
Respondents’ views on the statement: “Ice is one of the most important factors in improving the overall quality of an establishment.”
97.4%
Combined share of “Strongly agree” and “Agree” 173 + 51 = 224 out of 230 responses
Single response · n=230 · Bar length represents the percentage of responses
Strongly agree173responses / 75.2%
Agree51responses / 22.2%
Neither agree nor disagree5responses / 2.2%
Disagree0responses / 0.0%
Strongly disagree1responses / 0.4%
The introduction to the question explained the importance of ice before asking respondents for their views.
Challenges with Ice11 items
What difficulties do you have with ice?
Multiple responses allowed · n=230Bar length: percentage of respondents, 0–100%
High prices and costs85responses 37.0%
Inconsistent quality (clarity and hardness)81responses 35.2%
Preparation work and time74responses 32.2%
Insufficient storage space65responses 28.3%
Inconsistent sizes34responses 14.8%
Unreliable delivery or supply34responses 14.8%
Ordering is cumbersome10responses 4.3%
Melts easily9responses 3.9%
Lack of suitable tools, such as ice picks and knives9responses 3.9%
Breaks easily5responses 2.2%
Other29responses 12.6%
There was no “None” option. Responses indicating no applicable difficulty are included under “Other.”
Suppliers and Purchased ShapesMultiple responses allowed
Main sources of ice
Multiple responses allowed · n=230Bar length: percentage of respondents, 0–100%
Local ice suppliers165responses 71.7%
Supermarkets, convenience stores, and other general retailers36responses 15.7%
Liquor retailers27responses 11.7%
Made in-house with an ice machine24responses 10.4%
Other14responses 6.1%
Shapes of commercially produced clear ice purchased
Multiple responses allowed · n=230Bar length: percentage of respondents, 0–100%
Blocks186responses 80.9%
Cracked ice47responses 20.4%
Sticks32responses 13.9%
Diamond-shaped ice17responses 7.4%
Other33responses 14.3%
Do not use commercially produced clear ice20responses 8.7%
The results include 6 responses that selected both “Do not use commercially produced clear ice” and one or more shapes.
Monthly Costs and Preparation TimeSingle response
Monthly expenditure on ice
Single response · n=230Bar length: percentage of respondents, 0–100%
Up to JPY 10,00072responses 31.3%
JPY 10,000–30,000103responses 44.8%
JPY 30,000–50,00031responses 13.5%
JPY 50,000–70,00015responses 6.5%
JPY 70,000–100,0004responses 1.7%
JPY 100,000 or more5responses 2.2%
No specific expense categories were defined, and respondents were not asked for a breakdown of costs.
Total weekly ice preparation time (person-hours)
Single response · n=230Bar length: percentage of respondents, 0–100%
No ice preparation16responses 7.0%
Less than 1 hour42responses 18.3%
Less than 3 hours75responses 32.6%
Less than 5 hours49responses 21.3%
Less than 10 hours27responses 11.7%
10 hours or more19responses 8.3%
Other2responses 0.9%
Time includes the number of people involved. For example, 2 sessions per week × 1 hour × 2 people = 4 person-hours.
Cost and time category labels are retained as they appeared in the questionnaire.
Open-Ended ResponsesSummaries across 6 themes
Selected open-ended responses have been summarized without identifying individuals or establishments.
How much preparation to delegate
Some wanted ice sized to fit their glasses, with the edges already beveled. Others preferred to bevel it themselves, provided it arrived in a form that was easy to split.
Glass fit and price
Some wanted to choose ice and matching glassware together. Others felt that specifying sizes would broaden their options, but preferred their current arrangement if it meant a substantial price change.
Delivery quantities and storage capacity
Some could store large quantities despite having no nearby supplier. Others wanted to order remotely but lacked storage space. Some also asked for deliveries in small quantities.
What bars can spend on preparation
Some would pay more for stamped ice to reduce labor costs. Others found custom sizes convenient but would not use them if an additional charge applied.
Information on tools, techniques, and quality
Respondents also wanted opportunities to learn about preparation tools and techniques, other bars’ methods, and ice factories, water quality, and quality management.
Wanting current ice suppliers to stay in business
Some expressed gratitude for good ice delivered at affordable prices. Recognizing their suppliers’ support for bars, they hoped those relationships and supplies would continue for many years.
Respondent Profiles: Business Type, Seating, and LocationIncluding regional and prefectural results
Business types represented
Single response · n=230Bar length: percentage of respondents, 0–100%
Classic cocktail bar (“authentic bar”)121responses 52.6%
Drinks-by-the-glass bar (“shot bar”)53responses 23.0%
Hotel bar22responses 9.6%
Restaurant5responses 2.2%
Other29responses 12.6%
Number of seats
Single response · n=230Bar length: percentage of respondents, 0–100%
Up to 10 seats50responses 21.7%
11–20 seats111responses 48.3%
21–30 seats35responses 15.2%
31–50 seats21responses 9.1%
50 seats or more12responses 5.2%
Number of seats unknown1responses 0.4%
Free-text answers of “6 seats” and “200 seats” were assigned to the corresponding categories; “home” was classified as “Number of seats unknown.”
Responses by Region and Prefecture
Responses by region
Single response · n=230Bar length: percentage of respondents, 0–100%
Hokkaido11responses 4.8%
Tohoku8responses 3.5%
Kanto97responses 42.2%
Chubu21responses 9.1%
Kinki51responses 22.2%
Chugoku12responses 5.2%
Shikoku5responses 2.2%
Kyushu and Okinawa25responses 10.9%
Kinki includes Mie Prefecture; Kyushu and Okinawa includes Okinawa Prefecture.
Prefecture n=230
Category
responses
%
Hokkaido
11
4.8
Aomori
0
0.0
Iwate
0
0.0
Miyagi
3
1.3
Akita
3
1.3
Yamagata
1
0.4
Fukushima
1
0.4
Ibaraki
4
1.7
Tochigi
2
0.9
Gunma
4
1.7
Saitama
3
1.3
Chiba
4
1.7
Tokyo
67
29.1
Kanagawa
13
5.7
Niigata
1
0.4
Toyama
0
0.0
Ishikawa
5
2.2
Fukui
0
0.0
Yamanashi
0
0.0
Nagano
2
0.9
Gifu
2
0.9
Shizuoka
3
1.3
Aichi
8
3.5
Mie
4
1.7
Shiga
0
0.0
Kyoto
5
2.2
Osaka
25
10.9
Hyogo
9
3.9
Nara
6
2.6
Wakayama
2
0.9
Tottori
1
0.4
Shimane
1
0.4
Okayama
3
1.3
Hiroshima
6
2.6
Yamaguchi
1
0.4
Tokushima
1
0.4
Kagawa
3
1.3
Ehime
0
0.0
Kochi
1
0.4
Fukuoka
10
4.3
Saga
1
0.4
Nagasaki
0
0.0
Kumamoto
5
2.2
Oita
1
0.4
Miyazaki
2
0.9
Kagoshima
2
0.9
Okinawa
4
1.7
A count of 0 indicates that no responses were received from that prefecture in this survey.
View All Results in TablesResponse counts and percentages
Prefecture n=230
Category
Responses
Percentage (%)
Hokkaido
11
4.8
Aomori
0
0.0
Iwate
0
0.0
Miyagi
3
1.3
Akita
3
1.3
Yamagata
1
0.4
Fukushima
1
0.4
Ibaraki
4
1.7
Tochigi
2
0.9
Gunma
4
1.7
Saitama
3
1.3
Chiba
4
1.7
Tokyo
67
29.1
Kanagawa
13
5.7
Niigata
1
0.4
Toyama
0
0.0
Ishikawa
5
2.2
Fukui
0
0.0
Yamanashi
0
0.0
Nagano
2
0.9
Gifu
2
0.9
Shizuoka
3
1.3
Aichi
8
3.5
Mie
4
1.7
Shiga
0
0.0
Kyoto
5
2.2
Osaka
25
10.9
Hyogo
9
3.9
Nara
6
2.6
Wakayama
2
0.9
Tottori
1
0.4
Shimane
1
0.4
Okayama
3
1.3
Hiroshima
6
2.6
Yamaguchi
1
0.4
Tokushima
1
0.4
Kagawa
3
1.3
Ehime
0
0.0
Kochi
1
0.4
Fukuoka
10
4.3
Saga
1
0.4
Nagasaki
0
0.0
Kumamoto
5
2.2
Oita
1
0.4
Miyazaki
2
0.9
Kagoshima
2
0.9
Okinawa
4
1.7
Region (grouped from prefectures) n=230
Category
Responses
Percentage (%)
Hokkaido
11
4.8
Tohoku
8
3.5
Kanto
97
42.2
Chubu
21
9.1
Kinki
51
22.2
Chugoku
12
5.2
Shikoku
5
2.2
Kyushu and Okinawa
25
10.9
Business type n=230
Category
Responses
Percentage (%)
Classic cocktail bar (“authentic bar”)
121
52.6
Drinks-by-the-glass bar (“shot bar”)
53
23.0
Hotel bar
22
9.6
Restaurant
5
2.2
Other
29
12.6
Seats n=230
Category
Responses
Percentage (%)
Up to 10 seats
50
21.7
11–20 seats
111
48.3
21–30 seats
35
15.2
31–50 seats
21
9.1
50 seats or more
12
5.2
Number of seats unknown
1
0.4
Suppliers Multiple responses allowed · n=230
Category
Responses
Percentage (%)
Local ice suppliers
165
71.7
Supermarkets, convenience stores, and other general retailers
