Lots of good possibilities above. Here’s another: Maybe it’s simpler for some wineries to deal with a smaller number of large orders than a large number of small orders. My guess is in most cases the winery wants the wine to go to people who want it. No way to really know the motivation behind each winery’s policy, but it’s their wine, so their rules.
Vee haff our ways of making zem talk
Let’s say a winery sells 80% direct to consumer. That number is high, but not unheard of for the sought-after mailing list wines. That means the other 20% likely goes to mostly the same restaurants, each of which takes pretty much the same amount each year. They want to keep the people on their mailing list happy, so they try to adjust allocations so that people are getting the amount they want. If you buy less than your full allocation, it’s generally safe to assume that you will want to buy less in the future, so they may reduce your allocation. If you take your full allocation, it’s possible that you want more, so they may use some of the excess from reduced allocations elsewhere and offer you more wine the next time around. Ideally they are selling the projected amount to their membership each year with no significant amount of that 80% left over. They also don’t want to have to bring more people in to give allocations one year only to tell those people they get nothing the following year, when longer-standing members decide to buy more. It all seems extremely fair to me, and I actually have no understanding of why anyone would complain about such a system. As others have pointed out, things happen, and you might have a year where you can’t or don’t want to spend much on wine. Most wineries are very understanding of that kind of thing if you contact them to let them know. If you buy less or nothing and say nothing, all they can do is assume. If you only want to buy larger quantity in “better” vintages, then what is the winery supposed to do every other year? It’s better that they cut you back to the amount you actually want to buy every year so they don’t get stuck with wine left over.
You can cut that 80% number back to, say 50%, and include some out-of-state distribution, and the principles still stand. If they’re selling much less than that DTC, then their wine probably isn’t hard to get anyway and you can just go buy it if you don’t like their system. Otherwise, by expecting allocations larger than you’re willing to purchase, you’re expecting them to make their business model dysfunctional just to please you. Even if distribution can be increased, that portion gets sold at much lower prices, so it could easily mess up the winery’s projected finances for that year if done out of necessity.
Posting to complain about someone without mentioning that person (in this case, about a winery).
Learn something every day. Thx
I think it is great when you finally come up on a waiting list and you get a full allocation. You don’t have to buy it all, but at least you get a shot at the ones that you really want. I don’t like the systems like Cayuse where you have to buy what you’re offered just to stay on the list to get what you really want - sometimes years down the road. If you don’t buy your whole allocation (and I have never bought a full allocation), how can you complain about the wine being offered to someone else???
Is the OP really based on fact or based on what one poster said in another thread?
It is not that you’re being penalized, it is that other buyers are being rewarded for taking full allocations. That seems fair to me. The problem I have is when I have shown loyalty, and the winery adds new customers in a hot vintage, instead of offering long term customers more wine.
That is just more wine for everyone else, no? New customers for the brand, no?
Are you saying those new people should be dropped, once the previous customers wants to, or is ready to buy again?
I think I am on 3 lists at this point, and that works for my buying habits. Wineries make wine every year, they want customers that will buy every year. I get that. But it does no work for me as I prefer to buy what I want, when I want. However, that business model works for a lot of customers and wineries.
I’m not the OP, and I don’t agree with his characterization that this is a penalty, but at least one winery does this and is very up front about it. The last few years, Kosta Browne has been clear in their release announcements that your next allocation is based on your current purchase. For example, if you’re allocated 6 bottles of a particular wine and purchase 3, you should expect your next allocation to be closer to 3 and not 6 bottles. I suspect this is due to …
At least with KB, even if you only buy one bottle, and it is 1 bottle of X-Vineyard, you’ll at least get offered that. Others, if you don’t buy a lot, you slip in the tiers, and you’re unable to buy a wine that you’ve bought many times in the past.
This is very simple Business 101. If I have 10,000 bottles to sell and I allocate 10 bottles each to 1,000 people, I hope that I will sell all 10,000 bottles and be able to move on to something else. If you only but 2 bottles, I have 8 bottles left over and I have to figure out a good way to unload them to someone else. Thus, I will adjust your allocation based on purchase history in the hope that I will match allocations with actual orders. If I offered you 10 bottles last year and you only bought two, why should I think that you will but 10 this year. I will allocate 2 bottles to you and 8 bottles to someone else in the hope that I can sell through everything on the first round.
Myth. I have been on the Cayuse list for 10 years and sometimes I buy all and sometimes I do not, but I have been offered plenty of wine over the years.
My guess is that in many, many situations the reason someone takes less than a full allocation is not because money is tight or because they have a full cellar or whatever. It is because the vintage is not that great. Wineries are going to support the guys who bought in a 2011 type year when the demand is less and not the guy who only takes his full allocation in a year like 2013 when everyone wants the wine. True all over the world and not just with mailing lists.
Right, and by allowing individual appeals the winery can separate out the people who are not taking their full allocation for a reason other than simply not wanting that vintage.
KB is really the one that is pretty hard core on this point. If you are allocated 15 bottles, and you buy 3 RRV and 2 SC, your allocation next year is probably going to be 3 RRV and 2 SC.
I think it’s not really as draconian as it sounds, because if you wish list more bottles in that example they’ll probably give them to you, but their system does put some pressure on you to buy more to keep your allocation up. I don’t love it, but they’re completely up front about it, and you can play along or not as you wish.
Jawohl - Like making sie trinken deir favorite Slushy VERY fast so sie getz de brain freeze.
It’s a myth regarding Saxum as well.
That’s what I thought.
I remember once when I accidentally forgot to change a drop down box and left some Saxum on the table, but that was a LOOOOONG time ago.
I had two Saxum accounts for a while - mistakenly joined the waiting list twice using different e-mails. I only used one, but didn’t think much about cancelling the 2nd because I assumed if I didn’t buy, they’d cancel it for me. After a few releases with no purchases and continuing to get an allocation, I e-mailed Sierra and asked her to cancel it.