TOPIC:

The supermarkets are entitled to sell anything they like at whatever price they like. Why should alcohol be any different?

The logic that it encourages irresponsible alcohol consumption just doesn't add up. Alcohol is cheaper than it was 20 years ago but alcohol consumption is going down. Price promotions on beer are seen as a problem but beer sales have been on a steady decline for the past two decades. Price is not a factor in how much alcohol people buy, only what they buy and where they buy it.

Even with below cost selling banned there is no way that an independent off licence will ever compete with supermarkets on price. Even if you ban promotions altogether and they will simply have a regular price that is cheaper than the off licence can afford to offer. If we ban below cost selling will you be able to compete with their cost or just above cost price?

This sort of stuff will not do the consumer or the independent off licence any good. But as different sections of the alcohol industry accuse each other of endangering the nations health with irresponsible sales practices all they end up doing is reinforcing the neo-prohibitionist view of alcohol as something to be controlled, vilified and discouraged.

Want to see more tax on alcohol and more restrictions on how [b:kxx0tj0b]your[/b:kxx0tj0b] business operates? That will be the end result of attacking other alcohol retailers with the rhetoric of the anti alcohol pressure groups.

"TheBeerNut":r0899bi5 wrote: [I don't see where the line between "cynical" and "smart business" is drawn. Surely all business is cynical to some extent: every business wants customers' money.[/quote:r0899bi5]
Cynical in the sense that alcohol is an intoxicating substance, which IMO should be sold and consumed responsibly and IMO not below the intrinsic value it costs to produce and certainly not below the cost of any state duty or tax that has been applied to it. IE.. peddle the drug cheap to get in the punters who don't care what we charge for most other stuff.

"TheBeerNut":r0899bi5 wrote: Things getting cheaper is a good thing.
Consumers don't like it when things get more expensive.[/quote:r0899bi5]
'Things' in general, have got and do get more expensive through the natural course of inflation. Beer the 'bargaining chip' by which all other groceries seem to be measured has not. Alcohol always seems to be the product which is most sensitive to price competition and by which people compare or perceive value. It just seems strange or maybe wrong that it should always have that focus.

"TheBeerNut":r0899bi5 wrote: Introducing legislation which hits all consumers in order help craft brewers compete is cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. And to claim a public health justification for doing so, as some in the drinks industry are doing, is very cynical. IMO.[/quote:r0899bi5]
I don't necessarily agree with the proposed legislation as it stands and I think there should be room for some sort of reasonable and responsible promotional activity. I would not proclaim that it should be brought in as a means of supporting craft beer producers. I would merely suggest that promotion and discounting by the macros both breweries and supermarkets, on the scale of what has emerged over the last while makes it increasingly difficult for micros and independents to survive with the consumer becoming accustomed to paying below the cost of production for there average can of yellow fizz, and that this is unsustainable and does long term not help the cause of the craft beer enthusiast. I think promotion at the level where beer(an intoxicating product)has been discounted to the extent that it is now cheaper then any soft drink or indeed bottled water, is wrong or at least irresponsible in my mind.

"TheBeerNut":r0899bi5 wrote: We have more or less (slightly more, I think) the same number of breweries in the Republic today as we did five years ago when the Groceries Order was abolished.[/quote:r0899bi5]
Great!! I think there is a tide behind craft beer at the moment, I would like to see that protected to some degree. The more the macros flex their muscle the more difficult it will become for the small guys.

"TheBeerNut":r0899bi5 wrote: So stop trying. Offer things that supermarkets can't offer. Bring in trade that supermarkets won't get.[/quote:r0899bi5]
I don't think I could be accused of trying to compete with the supermarkets on their level <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->. Or indeed lack of diversification into a product range that they don't sell, but still the backbone of any off licence business in this country is generally the macro beer.

&amp;quot;TheBeerNut&amp;quot;:r0899bi5 wrote: It's the same deal with the pubs and the off licences: if the former stopped seeing the latter as a price competitor and concentrated instead on offering things that off licences can't, and charged accordingly for them, everyone would win.
The idea that supermarkets, independent off licences and pubs are all in the same business is just nuts, IMO.[/quote:r0899bi5]

I completely agree I do not see myself operating in the same business as any pub, I do however operate in the same business as any supermarket with an off-licence, we both sell alcohol based products for home consumption.

&amp;quot;drinkstore Stoneybatter&amp;quot;:2c2i2a7r wrote: peddle the drug cheap to get in the punters who don't care what we charge for most other stuff.[/quote:2c2i2a7r]That's a pretty grim view of the customers. I guess my point is: when low prices aren't causing alcohol consumption to rise, why should responsible drinkers be punished?

&amp;quot;drinkstore Stoneybatter&amp;quot;:2c2i2a7r wrote: this is unsustainable and does long term not help the cause of the craft beer enthusiast[/quote:2c2i2a7r]So where do you think it ends, if it's not sustainable? What do you see as the chain of events that leads to microbreweries closing?

&amp;quot;drinkstore Stoneybatter&amp;quot;:2c2i2a7r wrote: I think promotion at the level where beer(an intoxicating product)has been discounted to the extent that it is now cheaper then any soft drink or indeed bottled water, is wrong or at least irresponsible in my mind.[/quote:2c2i2a7r]There sure are a [i:2c2i2a7r]lot[/i:2c2i2a7r] of irresponsible countries in Europe then.

Edited to add: The less flippant point here is that the only reason cheap drink is seen as irresponsible retailing is because of the unhealthy drinking habits of some Irish people. Raising prices will not change the habits of irresponsible drinkers. No legislation will.

&amp;quot;drinkstore Stoneybatter&amp;quot;:2c2i2a7r wrote: I don't think I could be accused of trying to compete with the supermarkets on their level <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->. Or indeed lack of diversification into a product range that they don't sell[/quote:2c2i2a7r]Sorry, that wasn't directed at you you, but hypothetical you <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->

&amp;quot;drinkstore Stoneybatter&amp;quot;:2c2i2a7r wrote: but still the backbone of any off licence business in this country is generally the macro beer.[/quote:2c2i2a7r]Once upon a time the backbone of any bakery was the white pan loaf. Look what happened. I predict beer will go the same way: an increasing gulf between the mass market product and the niche provider. The niche provider will survive by agility and quality and customer service. And yes, there will be an awful lot less of them. Accept that.

&amp;quot;drinkstore Stoneybatter&amp;quot;:2c2i2a7r wrote: I do however operate in the same business as any supermarket with an off-licence, we both sell alcohol based products for home consumption.[/quote:2c2i2a7r]If it were me -- and I'm very aware that it's not <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> -- I'd be trying to distance myself as quickly as possible from the alcoholic equivalents of the white pan loaf, to not have my business depending on them.

Thebeernut and Sean seem to be suggesting that price competition is good, end of story. However, abusing a dominant position to engage in predatory pricing is generally recognised by free marketeers as being bad for competition in the long run.

Take the example of the Dublin cork air route. Aer arann used to provide a decent regular service several times a day at a reasonable price. Ryanair decided to move in on the route and was operating 6 or 7 flights each way per day at incredibly low, unprofitable fares. Ryanair could afford to engage in predatory pricing due to its size as unprofitable routes can be subsidised by profitable routes elsewhere. Eventually aer arann was forced to pull its Dublin cork route. You'd think ryanair would maintain or increase its frequency on the route to serve the aer arann passengers but No! There is now only only flight per day on the route meaning that day trips for business are no longer practical between our two largest cities. In this case, the customer loses.

Surely if there was demand for another service on the route someone would open one.

Ultimately, competition and a free market are mutually exclusive positions: people enter competitions intending to win and sometimes they do: you'd don't have to look far in the Irish beer market to see that.

There is, in my view, much more to this story than price competition.

Alan Shatter got Justice. I'd like to see him/the Dept. outlawing Arthur's Day before eliminating the 5 Porterhouse beers for a tener et al.

As I said earlier there's a lot of lobbying for businesses to get a digout from govt. Dungarvan was featured on Nationwide earlier and I think it's going to be on a George Lee documentary on small businesses.