Is there a good reason for distributors to exist?

[sutton]

Agree with you there Eric. Find something that doesn't appear to make sense and tax revenue and political contributions are likely at the root.

[callmeox]

That made me laugh...pretty funny.

I saw that and noticed that a couple of other posts may have been inspired by SB.com And people say that SB.com is irrelevant...http://whiskyadvocate.com/whisky/2014/04/23/four-kings-collaboration-whiskey/#comment-90173

Thanks for posting that as I missed it. I avoid blog and news comment sections as they are the cesspool of internet thought.

Mr. Bryson tries to remain neutral in his comments, but I did notice that he called it whiskey in his description and not bourbon. Quite the tell, IMO.

I can be entertaining to read anonymous replies to blog posts that act as though the format is the height of intellectual discussion.

It also appears that Jim W. got his feelings hurt here at some point.

[TunnelTiger]

It also appears that Jim W. got his feelings hurt here at some point.

It reads more like he got his panties in a wad.

signed,

just another SB whiner

[callmeox]

Since Ohio has promised future liquor profits to fund a job creation organization for something like 20 years, the chances of private liquor sales here (which would be needed for any change in distribution to have an impact) are basically nil.

Making distributors optional would be an interesting experiment in free market states, though.

[MyOldKyDram]

I almost made mention over there the fact that Journeyman distills to 180, and that would be another strike against this being bourbon, but no one franking cares anyhow. They're good guys , DAMNIT!!!

Sorry, back to distributor talk...

[Quantum]

I would go one further - producers shouldn't be prohibited from selling to anyone if they chose to - skip around the entire chain including retailers and sell directly to customers if they feel it is in their economic interest to do so.

Smaller volume producers could benefit if they couldn't find distributors willing to take them on, as would small volume one-offs from large producers which might create a new market segment. Producers could still avail themselves of the economies of scale of distributors (or direct to big-box retailers if they wanted) for their large volume products.

Smaller volume producers could benefit if they couldn't find distributors willing to take them on, as would small volume one-offs from large producers which might create a new market segment. Producers could still avail themselves of the economies of scale of distributors (or direct to big-box retailers if they wanted) for their large volume products.

[sutton]

Yes, to the extent that distributors offer real value the market will find them. I do think they provide value in certain circumstances, but a "one size fits all" supply chain is going to create a problem somewhere. Kind of surprised how no one has mentioned how distributors prevent minors from buying alcohol on the Internet ... :stickpoke:

[cowdery]

I meant 'thread,' of course, but 'threat' kind of works.

If you're interested in this subject, the conversation over on my blog is pretty good.

We can talk about this stuff but we have to be realistic about how next to impossible it would be to change. If the fight in Pennsylvania is any indication, we'll all be called child murderers because, you know, it only takes a little greed to kill a child.

Edited May 9, 2014 by cowdery