It is, but most of my cases are where I consume the bottle onsite at a restaurant and then bring the empty bottle back, which is often in another country. I don’t think restaurants violated any rules here, but it’s hard to prove based on tracking info only, so I wondered if I should refrain from doing so.
Thanks for the info. Maybe it’s not an issue for a small number of irregular scans, but I’d probably refrain from scanning the tag outside of the country of purchase going forward, to avoid troubles for the restaurants and retailers.
This just blows my mind. If I buy something, it is mine to do what I please with- provided I do not break any laws in the process, obviously.
There are plenty of reasons why someone might sell a bottle at auction or to another reseller that have nothing to do with profiteering. Death (sold by the estate), divorce, change in tastes, unexpected financial need. But even then- how is it that a customer should ever have to be in the position of justifying a decision to sell an asset they do not intend to consume or keep?
Apologies to the OP for the thread drift- this is the first I am hearing of this technology and how it is being used, and I am really stunned by it.
PS- I quoted part of something Russell quoted- he is not the one saying what I have in quotes.
6 Likes
I agree Tom. It reeks of self-importance. I’ve heard all the arguments but I’m not buying them.
2 Likes
I have no (NO) horse in the race. But what comes to my mind is this. In a very technologically advanced (and advancing) world the concept of ownership is yet again made more complex. It seems that by employing WID technology the producer feels they retain some percentage of ownership. And to an extent the technology does enable this. So, perhaps, the base issue is not with the producer but with the technology which enables their ability to act on their belief structure. This is not going away.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to sell a wine at a reasonable markup (below market price) and expect the person to be buying to drink it, not just to flip it for a quick profit. And if they want to use technology to try to track these flippers, so they can choose to do business with other people, I don’t see anything wrong with that. Of course there are legitimate reasons one might sell some wine, but I don’t think those one off scenarios are what they are all that worried about.
2 Likes
The only ‘punishment’ proposed is that no more bottles would be sold to that individual.
I don’t see that being problematic in the event of their death, or the other examples mentioned.
3 Likes
Does anyone else have a privacy problem with these NFC based apps? I can’t speak to Selosse, but others on the WiD app have refused to give me any information about the wine unless I turn on high-accuracy GPS location. Now I don’t mind the producer knowing that the wine is in Hong Kong, but I am really, really not happy about them basically having my full address.
4 Likes
Privacy anybody? I’m chocked it’s even allowed, if it is.
I don’t know the laws in detail but the only cases in Europe where I reckon the technology is OK is for counterfeit.
I’m not sure some of the wineries that try to stop free movement of goods in Europe realize what mess they could get themselves into.
2 Likes
I agree there are lots of legitimate reasons to sell wine, but what this technology is trying to address (allegedly) are customers that get favorable pricing (i.e. under market) and flip the bottles to make a profit upon release. I think it’s reasonable for producers and stores to expect these bottles go to passionate customers who are excited to drink the wines, rather than people looking for a quick profit. The system is not perfect, but I appreciate the goals…
4 Likes
Theirs is no obligation to scan it….
A reasonable argument could be made that the secondary market buyer is more passionate about drinking the wine than the DTC purchaser who, because they are more passionate about the money than the wine, sells it. The secondary market sorts that out better than the winery can.
If a seller is thrown off a list, there’s no way for the winery to know what the next list member will do with the wine: age it, drink it, Pobega it, flip it, put ice cubes in it. The new member might even sell more of their allocation than the one that was removed. Many of those outcomes may not be what the winery wants them to do with it. But wineries need to let go. Once they release their progeny into the wild, they need to relinquish control.
We agree that the system is not perfect, and I suspect we agree that the highest purpose for wine is that it be drunk by people who are passionate about it. I disagree with the concept that the winery should play any part in trying to control that after the wine leaves the cellar door.
1 Like
I disagree, the winery should care about their customer base. I would take a loyal following any day over speculators willing to pay into the hype.
I think this is a very American vs European mindset issue The American way is the capitalistic “let the market decide” approach and wineries charge market rate at cellar doors. We can see in Napa that this doesn’t really work all that well.
The European way can perhaps be summarized overly romantic as “we charge what we need and want our wines be drunk by true wine lovers at a reasonable cost”. It results in the mess we’re discussing here…
2 Likes
They will know. Their next customer will also have btls with nfc in it. If they sell they are out too and on to the next customer. And so on.
That’s why only sought after places do this. Selosse. Clb. Etc. And domaine randospot isn’t putting nfc chips on their bottles.
This is true, but if you wish to know any details about the wine then you apparently have no choice.
But not until after the fact. My point was that they won’t know ahead of time if they’re trading for a “better” or “worse” customer.
From a philosophical standpoint my disagreement is fundamentally that I have spent a lot of money for an asset, and I have every right to enjoy that asset - or the proceeds from the later sale of that asset - in any way I see fit without worry of recrimination of some kind for me or the retailer who sold it to me.
How about this scenario- let us say that a collector is given 6 bottles of a rare Selosse wine every year. Let us also say that this collector has an Instagram account and one night posts a video of mixing the Selosse with a dash of orange juice to make the most luxurious mimosa imaginable and really does enjoy drinking the wine in that manner.
Let us then say the marketing director at Selosse sees the video on Instagram. Do you think it is okay or sensible for them to reach out to that customer and say they are banned from buying the wine in the future? What if that guy is a billionaire and spends $1M a year on wine? Is Selosse going to write a $400K check for lost profits to the retailer who is forced to ban his customer who is now going to shop elsewhere?
This leads to the practical problem with the approach - between Selosse and the to-be-banned customer is a whole chain of distribution going down to the retailer who are now going to be dragged into this.
I understand the intent here and agree with you on that- but the reality is that the investment buyer is, for now, a reality that cannot be easily overcome.
The only proper solution I see is for Selosse to sell everything direct and do all their own marketing, vetting and delivery to clients. If you want to control who gets your wines- I think it needs to be a self-funded and directed effort.
1 Like
I think you’re missing the fact that this is part of the appeal. You can’t take at face value their official pitch to the retailers. The main value to Selosse is that they can track their bottles also. This enables them to handle it efficiently when they see a large number of bottles that were sent to their Slovakian importer suddenly show up in the US, for example. These back channel deals happen at all levels and for someone who makes a product that they are proud of and want to see in consumers hands at a reasonable price, this is a tool that has merit.
5 Likes
But in this scenario, you didn’t just transfer money for assets! You got favorable treatment for being a good customer with an implicit or sometimes explicit agreement of what not to do with the assets. If you choose to ignore that, you’ll be cut off in the future. Simple.
3 Likes
I don’t think anything you could have around the home, or even an industrial strength permanent magnet will damage an NFC chip. I used to destroy credit cards all the time around MRI magnets, but that was before NFC came into routine use. Erasing the magnetic card strip is different from the NFC chip.