The "gouging" paradox.

Interdasting...

Under the three tier system it does seem a little odd that that suppliers like Russian River can tell their distributors to not sell to certain stores. i.e. the example in the other thread of the $45 PTY.

 

I think you're onto something here.

However, I find instances like this interesting: Goose Island Bourbon County Rare. There were stores that were "gouging" on the price, and the result is that it sat on the shelves for months while other stores sold out in literally minutes. However, the gouged price was still less than the eBay price. So another factor to consider: availability.

Personally, I just don't care. I hardly have the money for a beer that costs $10 a six pack, let alone a single 22 ounce bottle with a $20+ price tag. And if I did, I'd be mature enough to know that if I don't like a price on a non-essential good, I can simply choose not to purchase it. It boggles my mind that people can get this worked up about a beverage.

 

California (like more than half the states*) allows breweries to self-distribute.

see Russian River Brewing Co's distributors - Bay Area

* tho' sometimes it's limited to breweries under a certain size​

 

People seem to not understand that not wanting to pay a certain price for something is not equal to the seller price gouging.

Taking the situation out of the beer world, if I were to go to a store and see a TV for $199, and then I went to another store and saw the same TV for $249 would you think they are price gouging? Hell no. I would think they are overpriced and I would decide to shop elsewhere.

If these TVs were in really high demand and ran out everywhere except the expensive store would you then say they were price gouging? If you were the one who came in and bought that TV it would be completely your choice. Would you wish that you could have spent $50 less on the TV? Of course, but that doesn't mean that they are doing anything wrong.

Now take this situation and replace TV with beer and people get pissed off?

If a hardware store were to jack up the price of salt and shovels right after a huge snow storm is predicted or if a supermarket were to jack up the prices of food in the same situation, that could be considered gouging, immoral, illegal, etc. etc.

 

Couldn't have said it better! Not part of the solution, your part of the problem.

 

aha, I did not know. The spirits industry get's shafted compared to the less taxed and regulated beer and wine group. I can't complain because I get liquor for free and my secret craft beer hobby is not gouged as bad by the local, state and fed...

 

I think some people don't understand that the legal definition of price gouging isn't the only definition. If retailers are limited, and a retailer decides to charge exorbitant prices because of that, that can be considered price gouging. A lot of people agree with that. Also, what most people are considering price gouging on beer, at least from what I've seen, is much more than a 25% increase from one place to another. I'm not sure your TV example is a good one.

I think people keep saying to themselves, "it's just beer." Well it's not just beer. It's a business. It's peoples' livelihoods. Companies set prices for their retailers all the time. Patagonia comes to mind. If you sell it much above or much below their desired price, you lose the right to carry their product. If Vinnie and Natalie Cilurzo decide that $2 and some change per oz of PtY is too much, that should be respected. The reason being that in business, maybe even more so in the beer business, perception is reality. If someone continues to sell their product in a manner that is against their wishes, I would call that immoral. And perception being reality applies to "price gouging" too. Whether or not it's illegal price gouging.

 

Referring to one retailer charging X% more for a bottle of beer than another retailer as "price gouging" implies that you are entitled to that bottle of beer at a certain price point, and you're not. If you don't like the price, then don't pay it, and if the price is truly out of line with the products perceived value then the retailer will be forced to lower the price. If people pay the price anyway then they're accepting the offered price and reinforcing the pricing scheme.

 

I do understand that there are different definitions of price gouging, but I also understand that every one of them is pejorative. If retailers are limited and they charge higher prices for a completely unnecessary good because of that, what is the offense here that merits the negative connotations that the word gouging carries? You either want the good for that price or you don't.

And if you read my example and nitpick the specific numbers you are completely missing the point. Whether I said the second TV was $249 or $999 is completely irrelevant. If it was $999 I would still say that they are overpricing the TV and I wouldn't buy it, but I would not ascribe any sort of moral or ethical judgement and I think it is misguided to do so.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with companies trying to keep prices in line with some sort of expectation. Everything reflects on that company and if you see bottles sitting around or extremely high prices that tells you something about the company or the good. However, the vast majority of people bitching about prices would bitch whether the brewery made any sort of statement or not. This is clearly demonstrated by the hundreds of posts on the topic related to breweries that have made no such statement.

But honestly it is a nonsense issue. People got used to lower prices, and when the popularity of craft soared so did the prices. That is generally how things work. When the MSRP is so much lower than the market price that certain beers sell out before the beer is even bottled (i.e. CBS) I don't really see it as an issue when these releases are priced higher so that they maybe stick around for a minute or two.

 

I disagree, and I know people share your viewpoint. I don't think that entitlement to a product or price point is necessary for defining price gouging. You can follow up with any statement you feel, but I think we'll just disagree.

 

I think the difference in our viewpoint is what you feel are people complaining about minor or moderate differences between stores (price check threads?) and what I'm seeing as legitimate complaints on huge asking prices on limited beers. i.e. the e-bay phenomenon and PtY type situations.

 

As you all probably know, Surdyk's in Minneapolis was selling Darkness for 38 dollars this past year. It sold out, to no one's surprise. That doesn't make it any more admirable. Unfortunately, the prices of certain specialty beers on the secondary market justify exploitation to an extent on the retailer's end.

 

How is coming onto this forum and saying "Store Y is charging $X for beer Z, that's not fair they're price gouging me" not displaying a sense of entitlement? It's beer, they can charge whatever they want for it, it's not fair or unfair, and you can buy it or not buy it.

 

I have to disagree. How is tripling the MSRP fair for anyone involved? It's completely unfair.

 

How is it unfair? It would only be unfair if you were entitiled to buy that beer at MSRP, but you're not. How is a retailer tripling the MSRP unfair to you exactly?

 

Is there no such thing as a "fair price" in any market? Prices are prices and that's it?

 

Are you serious or just argumentative? I'm leaning the latter

 

For luxury goods no, there is no such thing as a "fair" price. Who determines what price is fair? You? Me? Who? The retailer asks a price based on the supply and demand of the product, you either pay it or you don't, it's neither fair nor unfair.

So answer my question, how is a retailer tripling the MSRP unfair to you exactly?

 

I'm serious, so maybe you can answer my question, how is a retailer tripling the MSRP on a bottle of beer unfair to you exactly?

 

I just think this gouging happens with any specialty product. The retailers know how rare/limited these beers can be. They know they can probably sell it for 2-3x a suggested price. They know that the market for expensive beer has lots of people with high income. It sucks but it's just the way it works. It's not against the law and will probably only get worse with the growing interest in these beers. The only thing you can really do is spread the word or just stop supporting those establishments.