The Columbian endorsed both of those measures. A similar measure — Initiative — appears on the Nov. No more than we would expect the state to distribute and sell cigarettes at exorbitantly marked-up prices, mind you , Washingtonians should not expect the state government to sell spirits. Voters who opposed liquor privatization last year should recognize at least two refinements that I brings to this issue. Taking effect in June of , privatization permitted the sale of hard liquor in over 1, stores and specialty shops, closing the roughly state-owned or state-contracted locations.
Initiative provided consumers the ability to purchase hard alcohol in grocery stores with virtually no time constraints on when it could be purchased. Although convenient, the addition of fees at the distribution and retail levels contributed to a substantial increase in the total cost to purchase, as opposed to the assumption of a price decrease commonly associated with the transition from a monopoly provider to a competitive market.
Some analysts believe Costco will set its sights on opening up the market in Oregon next, securing an entire West Coast supply chain. There was no immediate comment from Costco on the outcome of the race.
News Updated. Customers will come back.. Voting Yes on will make hundreds of small store owners lose their jobs. If this initiative passes, 4 members of my family will lose their job, because all of the bigger retail stores will be able to sell, running my family out of business. Our country already has a major unemployment rate, and voting yes on this initiative will raise that even more.
Sean, Thanks for keeping us on top of the intiative. I am in the same lines as Tom Hajduk and Dave E, but i would like to add something to the discussion We are a nation of convenience Put everything in one place and let the hordes of people come running!!! Why isn't anyone talking about corporate america and it's greed. Costco, Walmart, Sam's Club The question I have goes out to the small winemakers out there A corporation that knows nothing about your wine, nothing about your product and nothing about you?
You aren't going to get that from a Costco This idealogy and mindset will hurt the small wine shops and eventually run them out of business. It won't be sudden but it will eventually happen. Charlie and Neil, do you care about your product and what your label stands for or do you just want to try making the cheapest juice and sell it to people who don't know the difference?
Because that's what your going to have to do when dealing with costco and corporate america. This has truly stirred up a lot of controversy, but I think that it's great that people are taking the time to research and learn what this initiative is about. Although I agree with many points made from those above, including those from some dear friends of mine, I still can't vote in favor of this.
People have mentioned that if you produce a great product, that this won't hurt them. That can be both true and false. For some of these people, like my friends from Red Mountain, they have a large portion of their sales being generated through direct to consumer sales, which is great.
At that point, you are pretty correct: produce a great product and you don't necessarily have to worry, even though I have seen many of your wines in supermarkets before. But, for other friends of mine, and not just those in Washington they do rely on sales to Costco, Safeway, Fred Meyer, etc. As companies like Fred Meyer, Albertsons and Safeway continue to expand their services by hiring wine stewards and such, they are making valiant efforts in providing consumers with better products.
I have friends throughout the Northwest that sell wine to Costco. I have personally seen them at Costco signing bottles, trying to sell wine. So, to say that people don't rely on such outlets is false. If this initiative passes, many people will not only lose their jobs, but some could lose their businesses as well.
This not only hurts wineries, but also small, independent retailers. Nobody can deny the fact that consumers are looking for wines at better price points. This is the reason why people are creating second labels, or declassified brands.
In fact, most of my friends that own wineries have declassified labels or are planning on launching one soon, and that includes all of you that I know personally, who have commented on this thread. As long as people are looking for these types of wine, big businesses are going to keep working on satisfying the customer. These corporations are not stupid; they pay attention to details.
As much as you may not want to agree with that statement, it's still the truth. With that being said, the passing of this initiative would allow bigger businesses to buy larger percentages of these wines as wineries are looking for ways to generate the quickest return. Independent retailers can't rely on only selling premium wines; it's just not possible. As for a buyer's perspective, you would not believe how many times I have called the Costcos of the world to enquire about pricing on specific wines to see if it was a viable option to bring into shoppes that I have been a buyer for.
This type of business is not sustainable for independent businesses! My biggest thing is that people TRULY look at all of the details involved with this initiative before voting. It's more than just the privatization of liquor. First, Sean thanks for your research on I Love the discussion going on here. I know that many local wineries depend on that shelf space for income and for brand exposure it takes a great deal of effort to win that space in the first place.
While I love visiting wineries, most of the wines I purchase are at my local grocer. If I passes, how many of those bottles of Washington wine will be displaced by bottles of liquor and volume discounted wine? Having shopped at grocery stores in California, I suspect many. I started off as a fence sitter on I So as we look at other wine states, say California, has their lack of a Liquor Control Board and the presence of Costco driven all the small producers out of business?
Yes, prices going down will drive some out of business, and I hate to be cruel, but businesses have to have a sustainable business model that will allow them to compete and thrive. So I do buy wine at Costco. But I also buy at a number of other locations because Costco doesn't have what I want. This makes me believe that there will be a continuing place for distributors; one in which they continue to work in the interests of the smaller producers and work to get their product onto store shelves.
What won't continue is their existence because of an outdated three-tier model that is mandated by the state. In other words, they will have to provide real value. FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt. I feel that a lot of the concern about these changes cook down to 'we know the current system is bad, but we understand it'; 'the new system may be better, but we're scared because we don't know'.
It's time to get the fox out of the hen house. I refuse to sell wine to the WSLCB; they don't go thru Distributors, they have a central warehouse and they always want a special price, and them they undercut the rest of my customers.
They should do what Government agencies are supposed to do, enforce the regulations, and I as a producer should be able to do what every other producer in the state does, set my price and chose my customers.
That has worked well in the other state in which I sell wine. As a small wine shop owner, I totally understand the customer wanting to come into a store just for the wine and not the pint of Monarch vodka sitting in the aisle. I don't want that in my shop and frankly, I don't even want to see that focused in my grocery store. However, when there was discussion that this initiative was going to be brought up again, as a small wine shop owner my attitude was, "If you can't beat them, then I might as well join them," And with that thinking I thought if push comes to shove, I might take advantage and consider bringing into my shop, a very small and rather limited, high-end grape brandies.
Now, I do not qualify to sell exclusive spirits because I do not have 10, square feet of floor space of course to "protect the children". So not only am I screwed by Costco because I cannot compete with their wine prices, but I get screwed again because I cannot compete with them for floor space to sell spirits. I will be voting "no," however I will also take the same attitude as when Wal-mart came to town and everyone cried how Wal-mart will ruin the small mom and pop businesses.
Ah, Washington - as a Californian in the wine business who's also worked in Washington I can appreciate both sides of this discussion. I remember one of the first times I worked the WA market seeing a wine shipper from a California retailer outside of a WA store - it was cheaper to purchase the wine in CA and pay shipping to WA than it was to purchase it in WA!!!
Distributors in WA have it much easier because they're paid upon delivery - that is one of the explanations for the much larger number of distributors. As far as volume discounts, yes, the Safeways and QFCs and Costcos will have better pricing on "commercial" brands, but the hard-to-get wineries will still sell their wines for the same wholesale price - it's up to the individual store owners to determine the retail price, and that's where the game will get interesting.
One of the replies commented on the dearth of "good wine shops" in Berkeley - well, yes, there's Kermit Lynch, but I can agree that on a per-capita basis, there are signifiantly more "mom and pop" good wine shops in both WA and OR than there are in CA. As always, there are valid arguments for both sides - but I think the vast majority of Washington wine consumers will benefit from passage of this ballot proposition, and believe it or not, the wineries will continue to grow and prosper as word gets out about the great wines being produced in Washington.
Good luck! The small wineries will continue to sell primarily out of their tasting rooms where they realize the most profit per bottle. The small wineries are not in Costco now, so not being in Costco later is not an issue. The small wineries will continue to sell to restaurants as they currently do.
I think they will have a MUCH greater chance of expanding their sales at the new liquor stores, as those stores won't be beholden to the state for purchasing decisions. And as tax revenues will remain the same or increase, with the wider availability of products , it is also a win for the state. Sure, it's also a huge win for Costco. But since I and pretty much everyone I know shops at Costco and Costco is a massive employer in our state, paying fair wages and offering decent benefits to its employees,isn't that yet another win?
My sincere thanks to all who have contributed thus far to what has been a very interesting and hearteningly civil discussion! I am profoundly grateful. One question I would be interested in hearing winery owners' thoughts on is what your experience is at present selling wine to other state's where volume discounting is allowed, such as California.
While you can't legally do it here, there are obviously wineries in Washington working in other markets that allow volume discounting in other state's around the nation.
Have you found it to be a useful tool in your toolbox in those states or more of a hindrance? Therefore, price and market share are the two biggest factors for success. Yes, there are a lot of wineries in California. The small producers have either gone out of business, selling their vineyards to larger producers, or are still in business and also selling their work to larger producers.
One is NOT seeing an increase in small winery labels in California stores because of de-regulation. California may look successful, but quality has definitely taken a hit in terms of what is available without actually driving from winery driveway to driveway.
One of my favorite sources is a New York Times Article, which notes that in there were 2, bonded wineries in California. One of the larger companies, for example "The Wine Group," which makes Two Buck Chuck makes over 25 million cases a year.
Wineries that manage to diversify their offerings-especially with lower-cost wines or with wines grown in lower-cost areas—will be better positioned to maintain profit levels in the near term. But interestingly enough, the report makes a strong point that consumption has increased. The others will not. Producers from lower-cost, wine-growing areas of California have been able to increase retail market share during the recession and the initial recovery period.
They have also been able to capitalize on their pricing affordability in order to enter into new distribution channels—including national restaurant chains and airlines—that will increase their exposure to new wine drinkers.
Right now the small wineries are just making it. Folks, gas has gone up. Shipping charges have gone up. How much more pressure can we put on small businesses? How are they to get their product out there to consumers and still make enough money? Incredible dialogue here everyone. I truly appreciate all of the though and time most of you have put into this. I too am very on the fence about this though what I've been reading here is tipping me towards "No".
I realize that there is a lot of FUD being discussed. However, looking solely at the physical realities of this i. I believe that this particular initiative is NOT the right one to begin the deregulation process. Now the question becomes, how do we get the right one place? Is it something that the WA state brewers, wineries, and small distributors can collaboratively work on?
I'd love to see that happen and you'd have my full support! Here's the thing: The state shouldn't be in the retail business, but our legislature has been completely inept at getting out. That means it must be done through initiative. LAST year's initiative didn't have the 10K square foot limit that would hurt your mom 'n pop wine shops.
Distributors did two things: Put on a fear campaign of teens dying fiery drunken deaths and put their own confusing liquor privatization initiative on the ballot. The idea wasn't to get it to pass, it was to get Costco's to NOT pass. Vote YES on to get the ball rolling Unknown: voting for will not get things going in the "right" direction.
It will get things going permanently in the corporate direction, removing power from smaller organizations and businesses and giving it to a few if not one large one. Once we go down the road, it is one way and there is no coming back.
This is related to how citizens just bailed out the banks and the citizens paid for it. But the initiative is still not good for the state or the diversity of the wine industry. And voting for it will not be a baby step towards better things. It will be selling our state and wine industry to someone else. Only a refusal of will mean the right kind of change down the road is possible.
Any lawyers out there who want to have a go? Ryan - maybe the Commission is prohibited from taking a position, but I cannot see why you are prohibited from hosting an informed discussion.
To all the no-sayers on this board, please take a moment and look at the story in today's Seattle Times regarding the law - already passed - that will go into effect if fails. Most of your arguments fall apart in that scenario. It may be true that the devil you know is less scary than the devil you don't know, but I remain solidly in the yes camp. Open up the market. Costco will sell a tiny percentage of wine and booze cheaply.
The rest will have plenty of other places to go with their brands. And consumers will be able to find what they want, where they want, and when they want. With permission i have passed along a comment by Paul Portteus.. It goes into areas of importation and distribution that should not be subject to public vote and would be better addressed by our elected representatives.
0コメント