Bottle shop's right?

It's their choice as owners to buy it up and do with it as they please. Just because they are able to get something that is limited doesn't mean they have to turn around and sell it.

 

I wouldn't support this store again, but yes it's the owners right to do whatever he wants with the beer.

 

I'm with you 100%

 

I think ethical is a perfect word for the shop owner who's going to drink his entire stock of KBS. Sure, it's his right, but the very reason he has access to that KBS is because he's ostensibly in the business of being a beer retailer. That means theoretically passing/selling his stock to consumers. Sometimes, your role as a business own we trumps personal desires.

All that said, the shop owner is technically a consumer as well. So he should certainly be allowed to "buy" some of said limited release. Based on that, I would pose this question to the hypothetical shop owner: if you got another limited, highly sought after release that wasn't your "favorite" beer, would you sell the entire case to a single consumer?

If the answer is 'no', then I would suggest it's probably not right to keep the entire thing for himself. If the answer is 'yes', then I suppose I would commend the consistency but question the business intelligence of that hypothetical shop owner.

 

As others mentioned, the unethical/dick part of this is the owner telling people about him sitting on a case of KBS at his house. That is just a person gloating IMO. It's his business decision and if his store is now one that won't be providing KBS to the top beer advocates in South Korea, the beer advocates will simply have to go and try their luck at the other couple of stores that might be carrying it. It's a business decision on the owners part.

 

...one point though that could really cross the line (perhaps legally as well as ethically) is if the shop owner decided to sell those KBS's not in his own store but online for an even higher premium/profit markup than he could move those bottles for in his store (evading taxes and such as well).

 

This. I know of a shop in the KC area that held their allotment of Parabola for employees. Then, if any left, they did a lottery with what was left. There was one bottle left after the employees took what they wanted.

 

I think most breweries would be unhappy to here about a bottle shop keeping beers that they expect will make it to their customers after they release them. I'm pretty sure most also dislike it when certain shops price gouge rare beers like KBS too. I read a lot of complaints on Founders twitter page shortly after this year's KBS release about price gouging and Founder's response was to ask people to email them and let them know when they seen this. I don't know what if anything they can do about these issues but maybe letting someone at Founders know would be your best bet. Perhaps they can work with their distributors to make sure shop owners are selling their beers to the customers who keep them in business.

 

I'd set up a Bloodsport/Hunger Games like tournament and split a bottle with the winner.

 

Whatever employee told customers this information should be fired. What's wrong with, "Sorry Sold out."

Saying that the owner of the store sounds like someone I wouldn't support.

I have a very simple rule when it comes to limited releases. Any store that uses a system that results in me getting the beer is doing it the right way. If I get shut out, that store is being completely unreasonable.

 

In the bottle shop i run the owners never touch Whales they allow me to take 20% of the what we get if i am so inclined. [no discount] I then call my regulars and set aside what they want and the rest is first come first serve.

 

I'm a bit confused why people think that this is unethical. It may not be to your liking, but that that has no impact on the ethics of the behaviour.

Being ethical is about being truthful, honest, fair, and just. From what I can tell, the owner is definitely being truthful and honest, they are treating all customers equally and without favouritism, and their behaviour is definitely legal and above board.

 

If I'm reading the OP correctly, the owner decided to keep all the KBS for himself, and store employee(s) have told customers about this? I'm guessing the employee(s) aren't too fond of the owner to spill the beans to customers about this.

 

If he wants to make a poor business decision by forgoing the chance to sell beers at premium prices, that certainly his right. Not smart or trustworthy, though. He should heed the drug dealers' saying, "don't get high on your own supply."

 

The practice of holding extremely allocated products for special customers and/or employees is common. You get a case of something that is extremely allocated and you sell to good customers and there is always going to be many customers that come up empty handed. Hands down, the beer guy who doesn't get his $18 barrel-aged wax sealed whatever is always infinitely more butthurt than the customers who missed out on the $3,000 allocated single malt or cab. The latter just smile and say next time. The beer guy, he shows his red ass all around the store and makes all kinds of accusations about everyone in the distribution chain. So, when a store is offered only a case of two of an allocated beer, it's no surprise to me that they either simply pass on it altogether or just keep it for their employees. I have no problem with that.

 

It's not cool that an owner would keep them, but imagine being him in a market like Korea. People in the US freak out for KBS. The fact that Founders exported any, let alone to a non-traditional beer market is surprising. In his eyes, this is probably a once in a lifetime chance.

 

Id find a new store to go to and let Founders know. Im sure they would prefer to distribute to stores that have more care for their customers.