State and national beer wholesaler PACs have donated $2 million to the NO campaign against liquor privatization initiatives 1100 and 1105. The beer lobby is now funding most of the campaign trying to convince us that it's too dangerous to sell (other) alcoholic beverages in grocery stores.
That's about as silly as the M&M people asking us to ban Gummi Bears from grocery stores in order to protect our children from obesity and tooth decay.
Even weirder, the single largest source of the state beer wholesaler's donation to the NO on 1105 campaign is Young's Market, which also put up half the money to get 1105 on the ballot. That's about as silly as the M&M people asking us to ban Snickers bars from grocery stores.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 26, 2010 02:44 PM | Email ThisIt's prudent to be skeptical of the opinions expressed by anonymous writers, just as I'm skeptical about the opinions posted in my comments by some unknown person who calls him or herself "Doug".
But verifiable facts even when posted by an unidentified source are still verifiable facts.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 26, 2010 09:46 PMVote to get government out of our lives and reduce unions and pensions.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 27, 2010 06:20 AMHence, my trust of 'anonymous' bloggers is zero. I would be willing to bet that that particular blogger is a paid employee of one of the large businesses that is supporting 1100, one that would be financially harmed by 1105. I would also guess that the paid employee was advised by paid superiors to do an anonymous blog to ensure that there was no connection back to the company.
Posted by: Doug on August 27, 2010 08:32 AMThere is quite a racket on how product is placed in grocery stores. When the state is opened up to more external distillers then the smaller guys will get pushed out of distribution because the in state distributors will be adding spirits and more out of state product. Or could be. There will also be less shelf space available. Since shelf space is actually sold to distributors it makes it likely that more out of state product (by deep pocket distillers) will be placed pushing out local and smaller distillers. This would be the I-1100 approach.
I'm still for 1100 but there are many repercussions that none of the pro group are arguing or even talking about.
Posted by: Mr. RcGuy on August 27, 2010 01:15 PMThe "repercussions" that you mention are what happens whenever an industry that is "protected" with anti-competitive economic regulations is liberated and brought into the modern competitive marketplace that every other industry operates in. The alcohol beverage industry has protectionist regulations that exist for no other consumer product industry, yet have no benefits in reducing the health and safety concerns about alcohol consumption.
These regulations benefit only a few while disadvantaging consumers and consumer-focused businesses.
The "repercussions" are a feature not a bug and will be a boon both to customers and to entrepreneurs who have the best combination of products, service and value.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 27, 2010 02:12 PMNo, actually. I just heard about 1105 when the post went up here a few days ago. I knew there was a movement for an initiative to privitize liquor sales and I did sign it - not sure which one it was or if it was both.
However, now that I've seen both of them, I am very much surprised at how much the government is still going to be involved in 1100. I'm also expecting that long-term result of 1100 will be less selection - and for someone who doesn't like the popular boozes - that is an issue.
It will also likely result in higher profit margins for the large stores that are supporting this move, than the govt. itself had. Those profit margins will be had at the cost to the suppliers who will be pitted against each other in a challenge to see which product can give the Costco's the biggest profit margin. The result being that citizen favored suppliers won't be able to get their product profitably into this state.
The alternative, which I've come to appreciate over the years, is having power in the middleman. Those distributors, when they have the power, aren't capable of monopolizing to the extent that they disclude suppliers. Those distributors are also the great EQUALIZER. It is the Costco's of the world that have the power to set prices and the distributors (who Costco hates no matter what the product) act as a cushion that protects the suppliers and consumers from the recent monopolistic powers of the retail section.
Posted by: Doug on August 27, 2010 02:22 PMIs the competition good? Sure. For the very large out of state companies that now have an easier door to WA state sales. But that same door will be hitting the small in state brewers in the ass on their way out of business.
Also; What has been protected is liquor sales. The opening of out of state distribution isn't limited to liquor. It does force out of staters to use an in state distribution source, again, protecting distributors.
So while the "boon" you talk about will benefit out of state spirits distributors, and people who want to buy spirits at a possibly cheaper price in grocery stores, it will be hurting local beer and wine brewers. ??Out of state jobs vs. in state business??
Posted by: Mr. RcGuy on August 27, 2010 03:07 PMBy your own reasoning, we should assume that you are being paid by these wholesalers.
Mr. RcGuy @12: (a) I-1100 is not the initiative that "protect"s distributors; that would be I-1105. (b) the only products that will be "pushed out" of grocery stores are the ones that customers choose not to buy, just like any other food or beverage.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 27, 2010 04:01 PMI've been in many, many states where they sell alcohol in convenience stores, liquor stores and places like Costo. There are still local brewers and their products can be found on the schelves right next to the other bottles and cans. The protection of small brewers in this state is not worth the cost of all those government pensions that the liquor store employees get. The state needs to be out of this business.
If you're too afraid too compete in the real world, go back to school and get your certificate to teach in the public schools.
Posted by: johnny on August 27, 2010 04:12 PMWhen will the folks who write the software for these comment sections come up with the same spell check we've had on MSWord for 25 years now?
Posted by: johnny on August 27, 2010 04:15 PMThe result ends up being that at the supplier level there is so much price pressure that many go out of business. Sure, there is a reasonable arguement that this is good for the consumer - lower prices - but there is also the problem of lack of choice.
It is absolutely false that the only ones that will be pushed out are the ones people aren't willing to buy. Costco, Walmart, Safeway, etc. have used their power to force brand names to supply them with store-brand items - usually end up intentionally supplanting other brand name items on the shelf. It isn't that people weren't buying them, it was that the stores made more money with their own brand and so the store took their shelf space away. Basically, the people would have bought the brands but the lose the opportunity - the only winner is the bullies that own the shelf space that are requiring the brand names to fill their own labels.
johnny, your comment implies that the protection of the distributors would be hand in hand with the continuing of the liquor stores. It is my understanding, and maybe I'm wrong, that the state run liquor stores would be gone with 1105. So you don't have to worry about the government pensions.
Seems like 1100 and 1105 both would be better than what we have now, I just think 1105 seems to be the better of the two options.
Posted by: Doug on August 27, 2010 07:08 PM"hose profit margins will be had at the cost to the suppliers who will be pitted against each other in a challenge to see which product can give the Costco's the biggest profit margin. The result being that citizen favored suppliers won't be able to get their product profitably into this state."
Oh you mean like uh CAPITALISM and FREE MARKETS. Those suppliers that are inefficient and bloated will not be able to compete, that is true. That is the marketplace. And if a supplier is favored by the citizenery, then the retailer will provide it. That is also part of a free market place.
Now Doug, for full disclosure, why don't you come clean with us and tell us exactly how defeat of 1101 will benefit YOUR company. I suspect you are in the liquor supplying business or supply chain. Please do tell.
And for full disclosure, I am in no way connected with any liquor supplier or retailer.
Posted by: pbj on August 29, 2010 09:08 AM