Roger Marcus and Associates

10/07/2026

Las Vegas is a unique American success story — a city built in the middle of nowhere, designed entirely for visitors, and proud of its willingness to reinvent itself overnight. History isn’t something Vegas preserves; it’s something Vegas replaces.

One thing the city does preserve, though, is its ability to get things done. Allegiant Stadium, home of the Raiders, went from groundbreaking to completion in roughly two and a half years—on time and on budget. For those of us in Bears Country near Arlington Heights, it’s hard not to notice the contrast: the land deal for the proposed stadium happened more than three and a half years ago, and the dirt remains un-sullied by a shovel.

With gambling now legal in most states, Vegas had to evolve. The city leaned hard into world‑class dining, big‑name residencies, high‑energy clubs, and curated “only in Vegas” experiences. For decades, it also catered to a wide range of visitors. Sure, the ultra‑rich whales betting $10,000 a hand were pampered with absurd luxury, but middle‑income travelers could still enjoy the glamor without feeling squeezed.

That balance has shifted.

Today, most Strip properties are controlled by two giants—Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts. Both have aggressively chased upscale customers, and the average visitor increasingly feels like an afterthought.

Hotel rooms that once ran under $100 now regularly exceed $200, plus $50‑a‑night resort fees. Free parking is gone. Valet? Bring a bill with President Grant’s face prominently displayed.

Table minimums hover around $25 or more, and the odds have tilted even further toward the house. A blackjack win that used to pay 3:2 now pays 6:5, siphoning $30 from every $100 winning hand. Triple‑zero roulette—something that would be laughed out of a county fair—has become disturbingly common.

Food prices have followed suit. Yes, the culinary scene is better than ever, but the gouging is real. A burger, fries, and cocktail at Guy Fieri’s Strip restaurant can hit $70 after tax and tip. A far cry from the 99‑cent shrimp cocktails of old.

Post‑COVID pent‑up demand and soaring visitor volume likely encouraged this pricing spree, but the peak appears to have passed. Visitor spending dropped 8% in 2025 compared to 2024, driven by more than three million fewer visitors. Average spend per person stayed roughly the same—there were simply fewer people willing to come.

Some of the newest mega‑resorts, like Fontainebleau and Resorts World, are reportedly losing millions per day due to low foot traffic and heavy debt loads.

The downward trend has continued into 2026.

The pendulum does seem to be swinging back—at least a little.

Several operators have begun offering solid value packages. MGM is advertising $330 all‑inclusive deals at Excalibur and Luxor: room, resort fees, parking, three meals a day, and show tickets. Caesars’ Flamingo and LINQ are pushing similar offers around $200 per night.

Money talks, and Vegas listens. But even with these deals, the gaming floor remains filled with 6:5 blackjack and triple‑zero roulette—games that should come with a warning label.

Like Orlando / Disney World—another tourist‑only empire built in the middle of nowhere—Vegas has increasingly pivoted toward affluent visitors. A tiered experience based on spending power is fair enough; VIP treatment should go to those paying VIP prices. But the ultra‑wealthy being comped to Guy Savoy meals are not lining up for $75 burgers, and once a regular visitor feels ripped off, repeat business evaporates.

Lifetime value still matters. Squeezing every dollar out of the middle class isn’t a sustainable strategy, even in a city built on the idea that the house always wins.

05/27/2026

Back when I was on the "speaking circuit" in the direct response biz, I taught a class for a couple associations on "Direct Marketing Math and Measurement". And while this page is meant to stay very separate from partisan politics, I did catch a very misleading use of math when it comes to the increase in gas prices.

The current governor of California accurately claimed that, per the Persian Gulf conflict, gas prices in California have risen 32%, compared to, among other states, Indiana where prices have gone up around 69%.

One of the basic concepts I emphasized in my class was the difference between absolute (numeric) and relative (percentage) measurement. (Not so helpful illustration below!)

The current average price of a gallon of gas in California is $6.15. The same gallon is $4.09 in Indiana. An "absolute" difference of $2.06.

Meaning, before the rise, California's gas was an average of $4.66, compared to Indiana's $2.43. An absolute difference of $2.23.

So - Indiana's gas has risen 17 cents more than California since the start of the conflict. Which sounds a little less dramatic than the 70% vs. 32% rise promoted by the California governor.

A cautionary tale when you see claims touting percentage differences where the start / end real numbers are more hidden.

Taking it one more step, if you have a car with a 15-gallon tank and fill it up once a week in California for a year at today's prices, that will cost you almost $4,800. In Indiana, that same amount of gas will cost you almost $3,200.

For that $1,600 dollars, maybe the Indiana folks can take a trip to California. Or maybe Florida. Or even Vegas, but then that's a whole other discussion on odds, percentages and real numbers. Perhaps a subject for the next post....

03/20/2026

An observation on a recent visit to Cracker Barrel. Never my favorite venue, but it is a preference of my better half Yolanda's during road trips that venture south of Chicago.

The shopping section, clean bathroom and "good enough" comfort food at reasonable prices, along with the Southern US ambience were pretty consistent across the various locations.

We have not visited since the "re-rebranding" - the attempt to remove grandpa from the logo, toning down of the rustic feel, changing the lighting, revamping the store layout, "modernizing" the menu, etc. By the time we went, grandpa had reemerged.

While Mr. Cracker is back on the signage, the "feel" and quality of the place were certainly off. Yolanda was disappointed in the changes of the layout and selection in the store - wider aisles and less "homespun" merchandise detracted from the old appeal.

And while the following observation may only apply to this location (Orlando, in this case), the service was slow, less friendly than usual and the food quality was quite poor. I went with breakfast, and the eggs were cold and undercooked, the sausage patties were dried out from the heat lamp, etc. Yolanda's fried chicken was inedible. She got comped for the meal, but there was nothing compelling about the experience to draw us back in the future.

And the results have shown up on the bottom line. Sales down 8% since the rebrand.

Along with the Bud Light disaster, this is a lesson for marketers. You really can't hold your target audience in disdain. You can't change your basic marketing approach in the hope the characteristics of your brand's core audience will change to something "younger and hipper". You are just going to alienate your customer base and lose money. Your customer's self-image and identity matters.

Borrowing from a study by Rutgers University, "leadership (at Bud and Cracker Barrel) claimed “the research supported the change.” But research, when taken out of context, can be dangerous. Taste tests cannot measure cultural identity. Surveys cannot fully capture the emotional weight of tradition. And focus groups often flatter innovation while missing the quiet power of continuity."

"Brand strategy is not simply about reading data-it is about interpreting meaning. It requires not only asking what people say but understanding why they feel it. When brands fail, it is rarely because of change itself. It is because change ignored the brand’s soul."

Of note, our next Orlando meal was at Waffle House, which is not as consistent in terms of venue-to-venue cleanliness, but you never forget where you are. The brand and dining experience is always very consistent. And this location was clean! Waffle House will be on our next road trip, for sure.

Cracker Barrel reports another revenue decline following last summer's rebranding controversy, but CEO Julie Masino sees early turnaround signs emerging.

12/05/2025

Visited Steak 'n Shake for the first time in at least a year with my wife, daughter and granddaughter in tow. If you haven't been in a while, the place has definitely transformed.

No more table service. No side dish pots of beans that I could find, although chili was on the much simpler menu. Kiosk ordering only. And the prices were down on almost every item. Much cheaper than a Shake Shack which has a similar menu and ordering process.

They are also harder to find. Over 200 stores have closed nationwide.

I was on a business trip several years ago to Springfield, Missouri. I flew into St. Louis and took the old Route 66 path instead of Interstate 44 for a good portion of the trip. It was notable just how many Steak 'n Shakes were on that path, and most seemed like the original buildings and old diner experience dating from pre-1970 at least.

While the vibe of the place has changed, it is interesting to learn how the chain survived a major downturn.

The promotion of "beef tallow" to make their fries is an interesting promotional feature. As I pointed out to my wife, any place named "Steak 'n Shake" is not targeting vegetarians or vegans, so I am assuming both taste and brand testing were extensively performed prior to roll out.

Anyway, I ordered up a storm and spent less than $30 for 4 people - a comparable order would have been around $50 at Shake Shack.

As for the food, a lot was the same - although no jars of the sport peppers immersed in mystery liquid that I remember. The thin beef tallow fries were pretty good.

In particular, they make a darned good cookies and cream milk shake - although most of it was absconded by my daughter and granddaughter.

Steak ’n Shake, the 90-year-old burger chain, has closed over 200 restaurants, ended table service, and adopted a new franchise model, but the brand is showing signs of a comeback.