Oh I forgot you can pay a one penny an egg surcharge on a dozen so the chickens can have health insurance. And did I mention two cents per beer so Budweiser can pay for the Super Bowl ads? When money is involved there’s no end to human creativity.
Anyway, just thought I’d add my “two cents” to this discussion about two cents.
If you saw the itemized list of things that take into account the final purchase price of every product or service you pay for, you’d never buy anything. Albertson’s still exists?!!!
I was a cost estimator in the defense industry for many years so I’m aware. However there’s a huge difference between building it into the price and putting it as a sneaky surcharge. Especially since the small producer mostly DTC will be paying a higher percentage of total sales than the large producer who is mostly wholesale. It’s designed to fatten the wallets of the already wealthy pure and simple.
Hi Karen. There are 300+/- wineries in SB County. Only about 110+/- belong and pay dues to the SB Vintners. The SB Vintners did raise its dues last year and a number of wineries did not renew their membership. Since the SB Vintners has been unsuccessful in increasing its membership they are using the Wine BID to force wineries to financially support it who have chosen not to do so voluntarily.
From the Santa Ynez Valley News:
The [BID] plan, developed for the association by Sacramento-based legal consultants Civitas Advisors who will also manage the accounting if the assessment is passed, is among the first of its kind and could spur large-scale growth in the region’s industry, said Santa Barbara Vintners CEO Alison Laslett.
That’s the article I referenced earlier. Lisa is supposedly interviewing Allison again this week for a follow-up that should include lots of juicy quotes from moi.
I’ve mulled over this for a couple of days and my reaction is still “I hate it.”
I understand why the Santa Barbara vintners want the assessment. However, as a consumer, I don’t want to pay an extra fee. My wine is not going to be 2% better if I buy DTC. I can simply dip down in to Los Angeles and buy at retail for cheaper.
As a consumer, I’m tired of being nickel and dimed. As much as I enjoy Santa Barbara wines, quite frankly, there are plenty of wineries in SLO, Monterey, and Sonoma that would love to sell me their $50-$80 Pinots and Rhônes and not charge me an extra fee. Furthermore, those regions have developed tourism infrastructure that Santa Barbara simply lacks. It doesn’t cost that much more to spend a weekend in Paso or Healdsburg than Santa Barbara or Los Olivos.
Ultimately, if there is a DTC fee, I will hesitate to buy DTC from Santa Barbara vintners and probably won’t visit as much. It’s not so much the money, as a dollar here and there won’t kill me. It’s that the extra fee makes me unhappy. Why buy a luxury good that makes me unhappy when I can buy something else that makes me happy. It’s purely an emotional response. When I’m on vacation or when I’m visiting a tasting room or buying from a winery, I’m doing so because it makes me happy. Being presented with an extra fee makes me unhappy, and I think that many consumers would agree. From your most diehard berserker to your most casual of bachelorette partier—no one wants to hear “and there’s a 2% fee on top of your tasting and bottles” as they’re handing over their credit cards.
You are mucho wise Danny L. That’s exactly how I feel. I buy about 365 bottles a year (can anyone guess why) and about 300 or so are SBC. Stolpman, Lucas & Lewellen and Refugio Ranch get the bulk of my dollars. I love drinking local just as I am home from Solvang Farmers Market buying local produce. But this tax is so very distasteful. I will quit all wine clubs that support out of principle, but keep Andrew Murray because he opposes. That’s my decision. As Confucius once might have said, “He who puts hand down another man’s pocket should say goodbye to fingers.”
BTW if you want to buy retail, don’t go to LA with their 9% sales tax. Ventura County is only 7.5%. Or you can just buy at the grocery often same local wines as the wineries but usually cheaper, especially if you hit Albertsons once a month when they do 20% off for six bottles or more. Make the supporters of the BID feel the pain maybe they will reconsider on the side of common sense.
Thanks Stephen - that’s really too bad.
Agreed. I am already doing the winery a favor by buying direct.
That’s my point. If it’s an expense that benefits the winery, there’s no reason they shouldn’t just eat the cost. Why be obnoxious to your customers?
And, of course, the actual costs you can attribute to the sales of individual bottles varies quite a bit. You might spend as much time attending to a tasting room customer who ends up buying one bottle as one who buys a case. You might charge a simplified subsidized shipping charge, varying that expense. A case discount is an incentive that recognizes the lower per bottle sales cost.
So, the question is will this tax mandate imposed on the wineries be a net benefit to them? Are they too greedy to pay their fair share? Are they too stupid to recognize what’s in their best interest? Will this just benefit a minority of the wineries? Is their a condescending attitude that’s garnered a resentment and lack of trust? The whole thing does stink of that. On paper, what the money is supposed to do sounds good. Perhaps the problem is poor leadership that can’t inspire membership or trust that the money will be well spent.