Reason No. 43 liquor stores will be fine

Listen to people talk about liquor stores. They say things like, “I stopped by my liquor store last night, and they recommended…” or “I was in my liquor store…”

The key word is my. People have a strong affinity with their liquor stores. That strong affinity means customer will continue to shop in liquor stores even when food stores are allowed to sell wine.

In fact, liquor stores have a head start of some 70 years in building relationships with their customers. That counts for a lot.


8 Responses to “Reason No. 43 liquor stores will be fine”

  1. anonymous Says:


    Another know-it-all post from Red, White and Food. Another generalization that fails to show any concern for results, such as the predictable shrink in local and state GDP that alcohol liberalization would bring.

    What is BEST is that Tennesseans buy ALL their wine and liquor in local businesses, so ALL the profit stays here, and not sent to out of state banks.

    So liquor stores will be “fine”? Fact is some will only be able to pay their leases, that the people who own the stores personnally gaurantee, often by mortgaging thier house. Your plans may not bankrupt all liscensees immeadiately, but just leave many bussinesses floundering along, barely able to pay rent as they desperatley try to avoid bankruptcy. Is this what you would call “fine”. Would you really care?

    No, you wouldn’t. You would move on to “Why Not Liquor?” Because that is why you get paid.

    • Alex Cavnar Says:

      Can you please post some statistics indicating this “predictable” shrink in GDP you mentioned? And perhaps sign your posts?

      Also, wine in grocery stores means LOCAL grocery stores could sell it, too. Where’s the problem?

      …And no, I’m not a shill for RW&F. I’m just sick of the backwards laws in my state.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    Any numbers Red White and Food have presented to the legislators predict a 33% increase in the consumption of wine within one year. This number is based on data supposedly gathered from Iowa in the year 1984 (please, please, please “correct” me if I’m wrong). 1984 because that was the last year any state fell for this type of corporate lobbying junk. (Again, I think this was the year – post the correct year it I got it wrong, won’t you?)

    The 33% increase in consumption might be cheap bum wines that will be put on the shelves of gas stations. The big wine companies would be better able to answer that question as they have the EXACT numbers from Iowa.

    As far as GDP shrink, just go to the library and see if you can rent a copy of Economics 101.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    Thank you.

    And just so we have the rest of the story straight, the number of distributor’s for the entire state of Iowa is now two.

    That’s right, the entire state is served by just two. Which, if my degree from UT in Economics taught me correctly, is the classic definition of oligopoly – they have no real reason to compete on price or service.
    Does anyone remember the lessons of the two-company cell phone market – when a 90 minute plan cost $60 a month?

    Check back later and I’ll let you know what happened to prices and selection for wine lovers in the state of Iowa – just so the readers here can’t say “I didn’t know”.

    Of course, the data might not be here for long, as information that doesn’t jive with the Lord of the Astro-turf has a tendency to disappear.

    • redwhiteandfood Says:

      First, you’re comments are welcome as long as you debate the issues. Using derogatory terms like “Lords of Astro-turf” and other demeaning comments are not appropriate and can be edited/deleted at our discretion.

      Second, how are the number of distributors and the sale of wine in food stores related?

  4. Anonymous Says:

    Price. You guys need to do your homework. This is what happens when you chose to revert to an oligopoly model for liquor/wine distribution in a state. People don’t know this unless they have made a real study of it. Price is the real reason the local system works best in mid-american states with a significant population of non-drinkers and a high number of churces per capita.

    One notable example:

    09/23/10 KJ Chard

    Knoxville Discount Wine Store $13.99
    Iowa Discount Wine Store $14.99
    Iowa Hy-vee Grocery Wine $15.24

    There are more examples if you feel like picking up the phone. Tennessee is actually in the “sweet spot” – competitive, controlled, responsive to consumers and revenue generating for both the public and private sectors in each individual city and for the state as a whole. It is the best long-term plan for our state, any state really.

    (Sidenote: It seems like selection in the local wine stores in Iowa is quite good, but the prices are higher than the discount stores in Tennessee.)

    You are telling people that the locally-controlled, locally-owned wine stores are engaging in “rent-seeking behaviour”, enjoying “monopoly profits” – i.e. ripping people off but Iowa’s prices disprove this.

    Sorry if you’re offended, but this issue is important to many people, and the economic facts are being distorted or ommited completely.

  5. Says:

    “Reason No. 43 liquor stores will be fine ”
    was indeed a beneficial post. If only there was even more web blogs like this excellent one on
    the internet. Anyways, thank you for ur time, Basil

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: