Do you support 1 bottle (12oz) limits?

I'm torn. On one hand, I think that if I ever found a rare beer I was looking for that I'd like to be able to buy more than 1. On the other hand, most of the reason I can't find any rare beers in my area is that, if the only bottle shop gets it in at all, it's usually an absurdly tiny amount, so at least a 1 bottle limit might help me at least try it.

 

Oracle has been mentioned many times in this thread yet where I'm at in Mid-Mich we don't even have Oracle yet.
But was it does come in you can be damn sure I will set a bottle limit.

 

My biggest issue isn't really that people buy too much at once it's that I'm working when they release it. I usually can't chase the truck because I work 9-5. There's a shop that is "local" to me but too far to go to after work that waits until 5:00 to release rare beers for that reason. That seems fair to me but to the guy that works 4-midnight it isn't so there isn't a perfect solution. That's why I've taken to finding the good diamond in the rough store with a great beer guy that knows me and saves me a bottle or to (not a case however, I refuse to hoard!).

 

I support whatever the brewery/ or liquor store wants to do. Its their business, their right to decide. but if I were the owner I would want to do whatever I could to make sure more of it goes around.

 

I don't know exactly where you are, but I hope that Oracle is available to you. Like I said earlier, I was only able to get 1 bottle. I would hate to think that there are cases of the stuff sitting in London that no one wants to buy. Just so that Bell's can "become a presence" in the international market. From what I can gather, there is not much respect at this point for American ales internationally. I would hate to get short changed just for the effort to change that point of view.

 

Six happy buyers might.
People running in for one bottle may not pick up anything else.

As I said, you have 24 buyers, not customers. Customers are anyone who walks in the store. They need not buy a single bottle of a relatively rare beer--if they are disappointed about not scoring that beer, they might buy something else. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it's just as valid to assume that people who have been limited to a single small bottle may well decide they don't want to support this store--especially TW. And people who strike out may just see it as being shit out of luck and get something else.

You can only speak for your own buying habits, not anyone else's--unless you happen to have conducted a market study, which I doubt. My point is that there are a lot of suppositions and opinions in these arguments, not one being backed by any kind of evidence. And the logic is deeply flawed, largely relying on personal, subjective interpretations of customer behavior.

 

So what you're saying is that extending your own personal buying behavior to other customers is not "pure speculation". Right. ... NEXT!

 

I don't really understand the argument. You're right, I have 24 people that pay cash for something (a buyer) not 24 customers (potential buyers with possibly no beer). Aren't buyer's > potential buyers(customer)? I do not have evidence that pissed off customers won't walk out with nothing but I know that I've got 24 buyers and customers when I sell 1 bottle to 24 people. If I sell 4 bottles to 6 people then I have 6 buyers and an unknown number of customers. Nobody here has conducted a large market study but there are a few that have studied marketing and know that foot traffic is king. I know there are flaws in that approach and loyalty matters. I got to places that are expensive because I'm treated right but if I owned a chain of dozens of stores which varied inventory that catered to beer guys, wine snobs and spirit folks I would want as many people in the door as possible and I'd probably split four packs.

Noooow, if i owned my dream store that only got in good beer and sold to nerds exclusively I'd sell good shit to a small number of nerds only in abundant quantities and make them loyal forever. I'd also probably go broke.

EDIT-internets are hard

 

I think most breweries would be happy if more people got a shot at buying their beer.

 

People who come to the store and don't get any rare beer because it's sold out may still buy more stuff (it's absolutely irrelevant if they buy beer) and people who come to get that one rare bottle may buy nothing. What I'm saying is that we have absolutely no idea of customer behavior in either case, but you and others are offering a lot of suppositions on customer behavior without evidence. As for stores feeling that bottle limits improve their bottle line, are you suggesting that sellers don't make dumb decisions based on their own twisted logic?

Suppose the same 24 people walk into the store in search of the rare bottle. 6 will get their 4-paks, the rest will not find any. What evidence do you--or anyone--have regarding differences in their buying behavior? I would argue that it is just as logical for a disappointed customer to buy something as a replacement for what he thought he might get as it is to argue that a "happy" customer might be grateful enough to get something else. I don't see a necessary difference in behavior that in any way benefits the store.

That's the logic behind loss leader. You know, those giant numbers on the front page of shopping circular (well, supermarkets have them on the front page--department stores usually bury them toward the end pages). The idea is that if you get enough cheap things to attract customers, even at a loss (hence "loss leader"), they will buy enough other things at high markup to make up for that. The main idea is that by bringing in more customers, you're increasing the probability of them spending money. The difference, however, is that lost leader assumes thousands of customers, not 24. That few customers just don't give you sufficiently randomized behavior to produce any difference on the balance sheet.

 

I think it is safe to assume that you are right that there is a logic to things stores do, your second point. Which means the first point is untrue. Stores do things such as loss leaders, and bottle limits because they have a logic that is proven in a general way by overall industry experience. And this means that there is a logical expectation of the buying/customer potential in pretty much every situation.

Or your second point is wrong, and your first point is right, and stores do things without any logic, because customer behavior is impossible to know.

My money is on your second point, there is a logic to understanding customer behavior. You lose it a little claiming large numbers of customers act differently than small numbers, but overall I agree that there is a logic to it for retailers.

 

What I'm saying is. A limit of one 12 ounce bottle has never helped me get some rare beer. It hasn't even helped in the case of bombers, and If I want to try a beer that I've been waiting to try...I'm going to be a pretty unhappy costumer when you tell me I can only have one twelve ounce bottle.

 

since when did we get to determine the bottle limits ?

 

Maybe I'm being too subtle here. What's missing in you connecting "the first point" and the "second point" is that both behaviors must be stochastically measured (i.e., both involve probability). The second point holds up because it is measured over thousands of people--perhaps even more zeroes than three (tens or hundreds of thousands). The first point is being evaluated over the behavior of two dozen people. For loss leader we have some measure of predictive validity because the base is so large. For the first one, we have none. The bottom line is that marketing constructs do not work for small samples. And because we are talking about product that is rare these are small samples indeed. Behavioral logic simply does not scale down. What works for thousands of people does not necessarily work for tens.

We also have clear empirical evidence that customers may be turned off by the limiting scheme and decide not to shop at the store that has 1-bottle limits. Given the odds of obtaining the goods and the quantity of the goods they consider worth obtaining, they don't seem to get positive value for participation in the scheme. Quite aside from the fact that the evaluation does not scale down, there is also a distinct possibility that the logic does not translate at all--loss leader quantity limits are based on the fact that lower price makes the goods more desirable than they would be at the regular price. In the rare beer case, we have goods that are already desirable, but the lower quantity may make them less so.

 

Who's "we". The shop owners are giving you the illusion that "it's for your own good" so they can increase their bottom line. I'm telling you, I am the customer. I spend a lot of money on beer...12 ounce bottle limits doesn't make me happy.

 

Booo!!!

 

Really? I assume you can cite those figures. And that you can somehow juxtapose that info with this earlier statement of yours:
"People who come to the store and don't get any rare beer because it's sold out may still buy more stuff (it's absolutely irrelevant if they buy beer) and people who come to get that one rare bottle may buy nothing. What I'm saying is that we have absolutely no idea of customer behavior in either case"

While I don't doubt anything you say about customers is true in the general sense, it seems you give reason for us to pay no attention to any of the numbers, due to the impossibility of qualifying the customers?

One cannot speak in favor of one scheme while at the same time denying the usefulness of all schemes. Perhaps I am just not smart enough to grab a point really useful to this discussion from the variety of points you offer.

 

Luckily my Local Swill Merchant does not do this or need too and for this I am Grateful.

 

Let's take others out of the picture then - isn't the fact that I went in and bought some extra prove something ? Had they only sold 6 4-packs, I would have called before I went in, and if 6 people had made it to the store before me, I would have not went in, thus not buying the extra bomber.

 

I was referring to testimonials of people who explicitly state that they would not drive to the store to get that 1 bottle. Note that I said "may be turned off"--I was not implying a quantitative relationship. The point is, however, no such parallel exists with loss leader--people are not going to eschew a potential purchase because there are quantity limits (besides, how many microwave ovens or popcorn makers do you really need?). There may be other reasons for people to avoid spectacular quantity-limited sales--ever seen Black Friday Walmart rush?--but those are completely unrelated to this issue.

This is not a black-and-white issue and opinions on it are not likely to change, but I see little empirical support for the claims made by defenders of 1-bottle limits. Mostly wishful thinking and appeals to fairness. I am not saying they are necessarily wrong, but they are far more confident in the scheme than actual evidence suggests.