Amazon: No Online Offering Likely

Posted by Richard Beaudin on Oct 27, 2009 in Wine Shipping & Distribution | 0 comments

There was quite a bit of excitement (or concern) when Amazon indicated intentions of adding wine sales to its already large offering last year. Seen as a step in the right direction for small and medium wineries, it seemed to be an opportunity to identify and serve a new set of customers that otherwise could not easily be reached, not to mention finally allowing wine enthusiasts access to wines that otherwise they could find or purchase.

Why? Because the three tiered distribution system in the United States doesn’t work very well for smaller wineries whose output and/or reputation cannot compete very well against large, high demand brands. If a winery finds itself on the outside of the system, there are few options to selling their product except locally, which may not be feasible or profitable.

In an article today by Wine & Spirits Daily entitled “Why Amazon Quit: Is it Wholesalers?  it  got me thinking about why it is so very difficult to change the wine shipment laws in this country. Is it the wholesalers? Well … yes.. there is a monopoly established in which they benefit greatly. But it isn’t just the wholesalers.

As suggested in the article, there really are now many entrenched interests in keeping the status quo:

• state regulators
• control state executives
• public health advocates
• industry policy wonks
• anti alcohol organizations
• …to name a few

The reasoning: ”vested interests in  preserving a system they contend has worked well for 75 years”

To some this statement is true. But to many others the system works well only to a point: It does not support freedom of choice for law abiding wine enthusiasts, it harms an industry with thousands of smaller brands that could otherwise employ more people, and it often hinders interstate commerce.

Progress continues to be made, but the battle for freeing the grapes will not be short term.

Guns safer than wine?

Posted by Richard Beaudin on Sep 21, 2009 in Wine Shipping & Distribution | 2 comments

It never seems to amaze me that when we are still feeling the effects of the worst recession since the Depression of 1933 and someone in government comes up with a good idea (something we need more of !) that will promote local industry and increase local revenues, that the naysayers come jumping out of the closet only to use the same tired excuse for not  changing Prohibition Era laws that are either unnecessary, add cost,  or simply hinder business today.

Case in point, a change suggested to Massachusetts law by Sen. Jamie Eldridge D-Action that would allow Massachusetts wineries to sell and offer a tasting of their wines at farmers’ markets in the state.

What’s the problem?

According to a report from WBZ News:

“The bill is strongly opposed by liquor store owners, who also led the resistance to a 2006 ballot question that would have expanded the sale of wine in supermarkets in Massachusetts. Voters defeated that measure by a 56-44 margin.

Frank Anzalotti, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of Package Stores, said Eldridge’s bill is “fraught with peril” because there would be no guarantees that workers at farmers’ markets are properly trained to weed out minors.”

Now one would think this “concern” can be easily rectified and/or soothed:

1. Assuming the wineries are using the same employees that pour at the winery itself, there is no issue as these people are trained – and just as competent to pour as those in a liquor store (in some cases they are family members that have a lot more to lose than a hired employee at a retail store).
2. Assuming the wineries decide to hire new employees  and/or contract for a particular event, the bill could stipulate that anyone selling or pouring must be trained.

I can’t think of any small winery in Massachusetts that would put their license in jeopardy in order to move some bottles at a farmers’ market. I also doubt there would be a huge drop off in sales at liquor stores around the state as many do not carry or only minimally carry locally produced wine.

Let’s be honest: allowing the tasting and sales of locally produced wines at farmers’ markets of an by itseld will not drastically increase sales. I would think that most people would buy one or two bottles, not walk away with several cases. However, what it will do is allow more people in Massachusetts to become familiar with and hopefully interested in locally produced wines.

What is the benefit?

• Massachusetts wineries would have the opportunity to get their wines seen and tasted by those who may be totally unfamiliar with their wines.This could mean immediate incremental sales at the farmers’ market or equally as important, new repeat customers of the winery direct through a wine club or similar, or perhaps by purchasing these wines where available at a local retail liqour store, resulting in increased sales for the store(s) and the wineries.
• As stated, local retail outlets could now find a local interest in purchasing Massachusetts wines. They would have the ability to stock more of these wines and increase their sales.
• The State of Massachusetts would benefit by helping to grow a nascent industry that based on growth would now be paying more taxes and perhaps hiring additional personnel (who will pay more taxes).

Bottom line: if we can allow guns to be bartered and/or sold at events without requiring the normal waiting period or background check, I think having a small taste of wine, and then subsequent sales to adults is not only quite reasonable, it makes good business sense.

Distribution (sales or bartering) of automatic weapons to unknown individuals makes me “fraught with peril”, and is likely less deadly than a sip of wine.

Social Issues, Social Media, and Wine

Posted by Richard Beaudin on Aug 28, 2009 in Social Media | 0 comments

Since the birth of this Nation there has always been social disagreement regarding the purchase, production, and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Certainly in the early years the consumption of alcohol was safer than that of water, which carried multiple diseases.   What was consumed? Mostly distilled drinks were available as fine wine was not affordable and locally produced wine was of very poor quality often sweetened and fortified to over 20% abv.

So it is not surprising that opposing views were solidified – those whose life style included alcohol and those that strongly opposed it, all culminating in a failed  ”noble experiment” (Prohibition - 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act).

Although repealed in 1933, the results of Prohibition are clearly still felt today as these “Blue Laws” continue to regulate State by State, the purchase, distribution, and consumption of alcohol including wine.

Its with this backdrop that today’s social issues, social media and wine become interwined. How so? With regulations that often are State by State or even County by County, social media and networking bring these regulations to the fore, without which wine lovers might never be aware of the sometimes outlandlish patchwork of regulations that govern the industry.

For instance, laws that require sales of alcohol to not be within some particular distance from a church or school say in Texas, or laws that regulate the days and times of days alcohol can be sold, say somewhere in Alabama. One recently in the State of Maine allows  stores to offer a wine tasting, but requires that no children can be present.

Specifically, “An amendment to L.D. 498 by Rep. David Webster, D-Freeport, states, “Taste-testing activities must be conducted in a manner that precludes the possibility of observation by children.”

Dah, that’s about as logical as suggesting that if we refrain from all sex education in the schools as well as refrain from speaking about it in the home  that there will be no experimental sex before marriage. Yeah … right!

Well, if the sight of an adult tasting wine is detramental to our children, should it be that all restaurants need to have a special room for patrons to have their wine, beer, or mixed drinks.. from which they can run back and forth while eating. Or, maybe we ban all consumption in the home if a couple has children until the kids reach the age of 18 in fear that our children will become alcoholics as a result. (Funny that not all French,Italian and Spanish adults are alcoholics – after all, they grew up watching parents drink wine with dinner.)

Point of all of this: Social media brings social issues such as the purchase, distribution and shipping of wine  to the forefront as never before. It also highlights legislation that seems ignorant at best.

Beyond Google alerts, platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Wine2.0, as well as many others, provide insights into a constant barrage of wine related issues. Its not hard to stay informed today.

With the advent of online access and subsequent participation in various social media and networking platforms, I can only hope that the citizens of this Nation will educate themselves on the issues, and by doing so, focus more on laws that seek accountability for ones actions rather than trying to regulate behavior that of and by itself has no adverse consequence to others.