I know everyone is over in the BD thread… But couldn’t help but pull myself away to get a mixed case of Syrah, held out on the whits this round…found I prefer pink juice on a warm summer evening.
Grabbed my whole Syrah allocation and 2 of each whites. It will be hard to resist when I get them.
Cheers,
JF
Order my entire allocation… including all of the semillon. It’s a favorite of ours.
Just wondering if it always was a 6 bottle minimum
No in the past it has always been a 3 bottle minimum.
I can live with the 3-pack minimum, but I think the 6-pack minimum is out of line. If the winery were to offer all of their wine in one shot, no big deal since you could add various Cabs to easily make the 6 bottle minimum. However, I buy a limited number of bottles of Syrah and like to spread my dollars out over several wineries in California and Washington and sometimes a few French bottles. If the wine is good, it is going to sell out - I don’t see the need to force someone like me to load up on something they don’t want. I imagine this will result in dropping off the Syrah list.
I just noticed that Myriad has split up their cab releases too, so the 6 bottle minimum will probably apply to the Dr. Crane and the Reserve. Wow - that will be an expensive purchase that I’m not sure I’m prepared to deal with. I haven’t bitched about getting stuck with six bottles of Schrader though; however, two of those six are the LPV bottling which hasn’t gotten the scores the other wines have so far. Myriad probably won’t have any problems replacing my spot on the list.
I do agree that the minimums seem to be rising for a lot of lists. Some are being more creative and giving free or reduced shipping for orders of 6 or 12. I still ordered my Myriad as I really like the wine but have to admit that I thought about it a bit more than usual as I like to spread the dollars around. Also, their shipping costs are above average which hurts even more.
I also am not a fan of the minimum orders personally but I know there is some business logic behind it for sure. For me its not that I might not want to purchase 3-6 bottles of wine from xyz producer, but sometimes I like to spread the dollars around various producers if not then I guess I’ll skip an offer, if I get dropped ah well there is always secondary market and commerce corner here tons of people offering to share their allocations at no cost.
Took a case: 1/2 Sem & 1/2 Syrah.
It’s a matter of dollars and cents. The fulfillment cost for a 3 pack of wine home delivered to most of the country is about $30. The cost of a 6 pack is like $38. When the winery offers free shipping we all cheer. Now, take that 3pack at $30 and make it 3 $25 bottles of white wine. The winery is not making money on that sale.
So what do they do?
• Offer free shipping because we all know they make boatloads of money making wine?
• Raise prices to subsidize shipping costs? How much? $8, $10 a bottle. Would you still buy?
• Charge full boat for shipping? Every year a new thread starts about exorbitant shipping costs. Fulfillment isn’t cheap.
• Partially subsidize shipping and raise the minimum order to offset the overall shipping costs?
What would you be comfortable with? Every change a business makes that affects end user costs usually means a few people may stop purchasing. What is an acceptable number of losses vs the cost of making no changes? I hate losing any customers but at the same time I would rather lose a few than lose money selling to them. It IS a business.
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. We could always move the discussion to its own thread.
I would be shocked if anyone on this sight wants any wineries we follow to lose money. The news about Match sucks. That being said, everyone wants to THINK they are getting a reasonable deal even if we are fooled into thinking free shipping really means free shipping. I still prefer to be encouraged to buy more because it is slightly cheaper (going from 3 bottle minimum to 6 or 12) either in the per bottle price or discounted shipping. That winery can then make the decision if they want (let’s say) a 50% margin on 3 bottles or a 40% margin on 6 or 12. If they can sell through at the full margin, I say go for it but the 40% margin might be better than selling to distributors to get rid of excess inventory. The winery still maximizes profits and long-time buyers are still happy.
Great post Brian. A balancing act that smaller wineries have to consider constantly and still know that it will never make everyone happy. I think Myriad made the right choice of the 6 min given the alternatives. It would be rather difficult to raise prices on a $25 white to say $40 and for it sell through.
A wine maker should price with their costs plus profit built in. Personally, I think it’s more transparent to say our wine costs XYZ and shipping fee is based on actual cost. I’m not a fan of the “free shipping” or padding shipping fee with extra profit. A wine maker should be in the business of making money from selling good wine and not making money from shipping fees. I call that honest pricing. The free shipping is nonsense, reminds me of BMW offering free maintenance… We’re not stupid, nothing is free in life. Likewise, wine makers who spread profit margin across several line items (shipping, customer pick up days, etc) to me feels deceitful.
By the way, I also don’t get the “we’re a small family owned business” bit. To me either you’re running a profitably healthy business or you’re not. I get passion for fine wine but it’s a business. If you can’t figure out finances, bring in experts to help you.
I agree Brian, these are business decisions being made some by smaller and some by larger producers, Myriad being the example here. I would venture to guess you know more about intricacies, you purchase a wide range of wines from what I read on this forum and are a small business owner yourself.
Maybe this is an entirely off topic perspective/POV, but how much profit is enough? I’ve worked for 2 of the largest “family” owned wineries in the United States and I have seen COGS at both companies, I can assure you profit was made but I know this is not apples to apples. I don’t make wine, but I know it’s a passion for a lot of people who do and also for profit as well, but to make a flat out shitty perhaps stating the obvious-blanket statement I am sure there are a few producers are way over charging the consumer for wines produced to do whatever they do, probably the same in tons of other industries. Eventually its simple supply and demand I suppose.
This is a question more than a statement, when a producer thinks about losing that customer over a minimum quantity order, bottle price increase or shipping increase, do they think about the short or the long? I think there points to be made for the long and the short term loss of customers.
Are these the same prices as last year or did they go up a couple bucks?
To me it means, “We don’t have deep pocket investors who we can turn to if cashflow issues come up in the short term so we have to be sure we make all the correct decisions every time.”
I think the Esther was $38 in '09 & '10 and $40 in '11 & '12. $42 in '13 seems like a normal progression. The Whole Cluster stayed the same from 2012.
The way I see it, a small business can be managed well despite limited resources. You can have a small wine maker trying to price low and barely scraping by and to me that’s a failed strategy. I prefer transparency, “we make really good wine that you love” “therefore we price accordingly and transparently” that makes better sense to me than trying to hide margin in shipping fees and charging a fee at pick up days.
Minimal, thanks Brian.