Does Washington State Craft Beer Have a Pay to Play issue?

Sweet avatar bro-hammer!

We both know that it happens, but I've not heard any anecdotal stories that P2P here is at the level that it is in some other places. Is giving away coasters, logo glasses, and T-shirts P2P? In an absolute world, yes. In a real world, those items buy a little goodwill, and that's about it. Have I heard of distributors giving away entire draft systems? No. Have I heard of a distributor helping install a couple new lines? Yes. Where do we draw the lines?

 

BTW John, next time you come up to Tha 'Ham, I'll introduce you to Scott (@BellinghamTapTrail ). He's a solid individual, despite the fact that he blames his shortcomings on his newborn child.

 

"Following Prohibition, tied-houses became illegal in the US for fear of creating monopolies where only the producers with the most money got on tap. The federal government made it illegal for alcohol producers to pay for shelf space, in order to keep large companies from dominating the market. As a solution, most states came up with a three-tier system to keep monopolies from developing."

So the reasoning for not allowing pay to play and establishing the 3-tier system appears to have completely and utterly failed to achieve the goal. Why is this still a thing? (I mean other than politician's getting paid off in addition to their short attention span that results in no review of the success of laws implemented for correction.)

 

I guess I'm missing why eliminating government run retail operations, for one type of alcohol, would increase P2P for another type of alcohol. I'm a little dense, but I don't see a connection.

@TheRealDBCooper , what would you like to see instead of 3-Tier?

 

A standard market. Just like any other product is sold. You can use a distributor or not and there is nothing tying you to that distributor if you chose to use them other than your contract that dictates rights, length of contract, and exit clauses.

 

In WA, breweries can self-distribute already. Since Inbev has a brew facility in WA (Red Hook, in Woodinville) would that make them eligible to self-distribute in WA? If you can't see how having Inbev self-distribute would lead back to tied houses, and undermine smaller breweries who self-distribute to grow, and don't know what to say. A lot of our breweries will self-distribute in their local area, and use distributors to reach other areas.

The best distributors that serve my area are contracted with Inbev(Sound Beverage, which carries a number of craft brands, including Fremont, SN, FW, SA, Ninkasi and a host of others) and Coors and Miller (Columbia, which has Deschutes, New Belgium and more). Right now, both do a great job repping the smaller breweries. But, what if the day comes where the big guys say "ya know, you're spending to much time and effort on those small beers. It's time to choose, us or them"? Where would that leave the small breweries, who would then be dependent on the smaller (and less well financed) distributors (Walton, Dickerson, Click, and a couple others, in my area)? You don't think Inbevs financial ability to provide walk-ins, draft systems, glassware, and various other kinds of support, unchecked, would hurt smaller distributors and breweries?

 

I have no problem with tied houses. I have no problem with Inbev self-distributing. I have no problem with breweries giving "free" goods to bars. (There is no such thing as "free". It is either coming out of the margin or being added to the cost of goods.) It isn't as though contractually committing to give a brewery exclusive rights to lines isn't without risk.

How do competitive practice policies and laws work in other industries? Why can't those same philosophies and policies be applied to booze? I find it curious that people think booze is different than any other product and must be regulated differently.

If there is money to be made selling non-Inbev beer someone will be there to service that market. (And based on the numbers, there is lots of money to be made.)