- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Forcing Breweries to Use a Distributor
Posted on 3/13/14 at 4:59 pm to Tigah in the ATL
Posted on 3/13/14 at 4:59 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
The people passing these laws
Obamacare says hey.
..and it's infinitely more important than beer distributorship rights.
0
Posted on 3/13/14 at 5:09 pm to Jax-Tiger
Jax-Tiger, you and HubbaBubba get it.
Posted on 3/13/14 at 7:05 pm to Porky
Posted on 7/31/14 at 11:59 am to ragincajun03
I meant to post in this thread, but i was banned at the time.
I believe small breweries should be allowed to self distribute up to a point. Once you become large enough i believe distributors are preferred, and warranted.
I've read up on articles on it. The problem with allowing all breweries to self distribute is that the larger breweries, can again, corner the market. Right now, the big 3 own most distributors, so they get preference of store placement. If you take away that distributor, the big 3 then own the supermarkets. You think the shelfing for craft beer is overlooked now, just wait, when the Big 3 can sell their beer to the supermarkets for dirt cheap, and provide incentives.
There should be a cap, kind of like the definition of craft vs. macro brewery, to determine who is allowed to self distribute.
All in all, once a craft brewer gets large enough, they will prefer a distributor. But for small upcoming breweries, require a distributor is more damaging. Being able to ship a few kegs in the back of your pickup around town is ideal for the smaller brewer. But once you get to shipping statewide, using a distributor outweighs shipping costs and logistics.
I believe small breweries should be allowed to self distribute up to a point. Once you become large enough i believe distributors are preferred, and warranted.
I've read up on articles on it. The problem with allowing all breweries to self distribute is that the larger breweries, can again, corner the market. Right now, the big 3 own most distributors, so they get preference of store placement. If you take away that distributor, the big 3 then own the supermarkets. You think the shelfing for craft beer is overlooked now, just wait, when the Big 3 can sell their beer to the supermarkets for dirt cheap, and provide incentives.
There should be a cap, kind of like the definition of craft vs. macro brewery, to determine who is allowed to self distribute.
All in all, once a craft brewer gets large enough, they will prefer a distributor. But for small upcoming breweries, require a distributor is more damaging. Being able to ship a few kegs in the back of your pickup around town is ideal for the smaller brewer. But once you get to shipping statewide, using a distributor outweighs shipping costs and logistics.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 12:01 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
Why shouldn't they be allowed to sell 100 percent straight out of their own taproom or store if they wish?
They should. There is no good argument against breweries selling products directly. These laws are awful.
/thread
Posted on 7/31/14 at 12:04 pm to BugAC
quote:
I believe small breweries should be allowed to self distribute up to a point. Once you become large enough i believe distributors are preferred, and warranted.
Agreed, but that needs to be left up to the brewery. If they are big enough to warrant it, then use a distributor. If not, they shouldn't have to.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 12:06 pm to ragincajun03
Car dealerships are doing the same thing to Tesla Motors....Tesla sells direct but the dealerships in a number of states have sued or had the states block direct Tesla sales....it's crony capitalism.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 12:09 pm to CherryGarciaMan
quote:
With the facilitation of information via the internet, I think we are reaching a point of a global awakening to the evils and universal corruption and cronyism of governments.
eh
it's also facilitating information just in general that has lowered transactions costs and the value of expert knowledge
Posted on 7/31/14 at 12:13 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
How does chewing gum and canned corn get into stores?
Through delivery trucks owned and/operated by food brokers (distributors).
Posted on 7/31/14 at 12:35 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
quote:
follow the money
this applies to pretty much every law.
exactly. and people think capitalism is dying at the hands of regulation.
When the regulation exists to protect an established business yes, it is.
Crony capitalism is responsible for a lot of laws and regulations on the books that exist solely to act as barriers to entry for competition.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 12:38 pm to AUin02
Yea, I don't get his argument.
Wouldn't following the money that applies to pretty much every law prove that capitalism is dying due to regulations (laws)?
Wouldn't following the money that applies to pretty much every law prove that capitalism is dying due to regulations (laws)?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 12:46 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
To protect tax revenue is why distributor s are required. By placing a layer between producer and consumers the gov. gets a easier to verify tax system that does not rely on the honesty of one person (the producer) to verify taxes owed. This would be my only guess.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 12:48 pm to cave canem
How would having a distributor be any different?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 12:54 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:Before I even saw this reply, I was going to use it. Same old shite that's the cause of our chronic rankings at the bottom of the ladders. Queue the "5 best cities to live in" crowd.
It's the good ole boy network.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 1:00 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Because a distributor has to keep track of purchases and sales and can be audited on this basis. Performing an audit on a brewery/sole distributor would be next to impossible. I am not advocating this just responding to the op
Posted on 7/31/14 at 1:08 pm to cave canem
quote:
. I am not advocating this just responding to the op
I realize this. Just trying to understand the argument.
quote:
Because a distributor has to keep track of purchases and sales and can be audited on this basis
Would the brewery not have to do this? What about who they sell to?
quote:
Performing an audit on a brewery/sole distributor would be next to impossible
Why?
This may be coming out of my lack of knowledge on this matter, but would the brewery still not have to be help to the same standards as the distributor, seeing as they are acting as the distributor?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 1:17 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
In Oregon, there are a number of breweries that sell only to the consumers. There are some that self-distribute to bottle shops and bars, and their are others that follow use the traditional distributors.
I think they could repeal the law and not much would change. You might see an uptick in small, local brewpubs that make the beer that they sell on the premise, but most brewers using the distributors now will probably continue to do so.
It really isn't very economical to self distribute. I know Ale Apothecary and Block 15 (two of my favorite breweries) self-distribute, but I can't imagine that they would continue to do so if they expand their production at all...
its the same in Colorado. The local beers will self distribute to both bars and liquor stores. Most of them don't have the capacity to service more than 1 or 2 bars, and a handful of liquor stores.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 1:24 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
Can someone give a legit argument why a brewery should not be allowed to sell all of their product directly to the consumer if they so please. I believe right now in LA, they can sell up to 10 percent direct.
I would guess a state could more easily tax a distributor and not a brewery; but I don't know that for sure. Maybe it would be easier now, but back in the day it could be a lot tougher.
But I can see a reason why a brewery would want to have distributors. It would keep them from building warehouses, buying trucks, hiring drivers/salesmen, etc.
The current system also enables distributors to sell multiple brands and not just one brand. That enables one truck and one driver/salesman to bring product for a number of beers and not just the beers from their primary brewery. They can also bring wine and hard liquor.
If each brewery had to delivery beer to a grocery store then the loading docks might be full of beer trucks. You would have Abita, Bud, Miller, Coors, Amstel, Heineken, Bass, Newcastle, etc.
I looked on Mockler's(they are the Bud distributor) website here in BR and they offer 429 brands of beer, 284 wine brands and 40 spirit brands. The also have over a 100 non alcoholic products.
So obviously each of these breweries can not just cater to every store, and a distributor fills a key role here.
Now whether govt. should mandate that a distributor be involved is another matter.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 1:29 pm to ragincajun03
Didn't see the bump.
This post was edited on 7/31/14 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 7/31/14 at 1:38 pm to doubleb
It really is ridiculous how many hoops you must jump through because of the laws. A small brewery should be able to self distribute if he so desires. Economics will dictate whether or not that brewery decides to keep self-distributing, or decides to use a distributor. It's asinine for a brewery that opens a brewpub, must pay a distributor to stock it's own brewpub. If a brewery is large enough, and wants to start a brewpub (in this case Abita) they should be able to sell their beer on site, if they so choose. And brewpubs should be able to sell their beers outside of the brewpub if they so desire.
The market will correct everything if any of it is cost prohibitive. The only time the government should step in, is to keep the big breweries from stopping competition, much like they are doing today. If your product is superior, let it stand on it's merits, not on the merits of a lobbyist who's getting his palms greased.
ETA: FWIW, I am no Abita fan. I find they are just as inept in creativity as the big 3.
The market will correct everything if any of it is cost prohibitive. The only time the government should step in, is to keep the big breweries from stopping competition, much like they are doing today. If your product is superior, let it stand on it's merits, not on the merits of a lobbyist who's getting his palms greased.
ETA: FWIW, I am no Abita fan. I find they are just as inept in creativity as the big 3.
This post was edited on 7/31/14 at 1:40 pm
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News