Booker's MSRP and allocation?

[mbroo5880i]

I had the opportunity to visit a few Indy area chain stores prior to Christmas and neither had Booker's on the shelf anymore.  I know for a fact that both of these stores are heavily frequented by bourbon aficionados including a few members of this forum.  One was the chain that sent the e-mail posted above. Bottles available at the $49.99 price were gone within 24-hours.  The other store is one of the highest traffic stores in the Indy area.  I am fairly certain that I can find some in the mid- to upper-$50s tomorrow, if I look around a little.  However, the bottles that have sat on the shelves for awhile are starting to disappear.

[Nm0369]

41 minutes ago, mbroo5880i said:

I had the opportunity to visit a few Indy area chain stores prior to Christmas and neither had Booker's on the shelf anymore.  I know for a fact that both of these stores are heavily frequented by bourbon aficionados including a few members of this forum.  One was the chain that sent the e-mail posted above. Bottles available at the $49.99 price were gone within 24-hours.  The other store is one of the highest traffic stores in the Indy area.  I am fairly certain that I can find some in the mid- to upper-$50s tomorrow, if I look around a little.  However, the bottles that have sat on the shelves for awhile are starting to disappear.

I've done a lot of hunting all across northern Indy this week.  Most of the Big Red's are out because of $49.99 sale price.  I did get a Toogie's at 116th/Cumberland store late in the week and they had a few more.  Payless Liquors are stocked up on dusty 2015 or older because of $65 price tag.  I did see the four bottle box circa 2015 at Payless 79th/Michigan for $229.  

[Whiskey Dick]

20 hours ago, Limegoldconvertible68 said:

If true it will Upset everybody that just went out and loaded up the bunker. Nothing like clearing the shelfs of a slow mover. 

 

 

 

nah.

 

regardless, it will never again be the $45/bottle I paid for the 10 I just bought.

 

either way, I'm officially not a Booker's buyer anymore.

[Spade]

Stopped in a few difference places over the last few days while doing some holiday shopping. Some had already bumped Booker's up to $100. One of the places had batches from 2015... if it's been sitting on the shelf for a year at $55, wonder how long it will sit there at $100. 

 

In terms of the bump being to $70 rather than $100 — that seems much more reasonable to me. At $55 (or less), Booker's is a deal. At $70, it's no longer the value it was, but it's still a decent price for a readily available and very good barrel proof bourbon. At $100, it's a hilariously bad deal.

[Limegoldconvertible68]

If it was such a deal at $55 there wouldn't have been 2015 batches sitting on the shelf for two years. 

[Madhatter]

In many non-control states, Booker's has sold for far less than msrp.  In the past year I've seen it on-line for ~2/3 of msrp.  If the new msrp is $100, it is going to sell for much less in some locations.  The retail price is more influenced by cost to the distributor and cost to the retailer.  I'm waiting until after the first of the year and the first of the 4-releases-per-year batches before I start fretting or cussing.  MOO.

M.

[lukehalee]

To me, a marginal buy at $60.

 

like many, when I heard about this I thought better stock up. Then came to my senses and realized, I don't really value it at present price.

 

I have not read all these pages, but I think FR and BT (HH to a degree) can do what they do because the market really likes their  juice. Also they didn't jack the price like the wanna be's. The market did this because of the product, not a manipulation.

[t-ball]

Sad Day for me !  Just checked 3 ls's on my way home and all 3 had their Booker's priced at $99.99.  Funny thing is, they all had at least 4 on the shelf.  I love some Booker's but know way I'll pay $99.99 for it.  SC sucks for bourbons !!  NO Weller's anywhere, ever, and now a c-note for Booker's.  HAD to grab a couple of Blanton's so I could drown my sorrows tonight with part of one. 

[Thig]

Beam announced they are not going to increase the price on Booker's to 99.99 but will begin to increase it gradually.

[Thig]

"As we’ve previously shared, Booker’s Bourbon will experience supply constraints starting next year. As a result, we must reduce our batch releases to four per year. We apologize to anyone who is unable to locate the product in the future. Because of the rarity and high quality of this liquid, and our need to maintain our supply without sacrificing any production standards, we have decided to increase the price of Booker’s. We’ll be implementing the previously announced price increase over time, and in 2017 you can expect to see Booker’s on shelf for $69.99-$74.99.”

[garbanzobean]

The real question here is: is this correcting a marketing gaffe based on consumer feedback, or the intended outcome all along?  The other guys haven't gotten much chaff about raising prices gradually (or in the case of OFBB, $20-$30 per year), so I don't really see the point in doing this, if it is intentional.  Either way, I'm glad beam products aren't really in my wheelhouse anyway.

 

Edit: Supposing this was intended to clear shelves out of old product, it certainly was not effective in my area.  Shelves are still thick with it.

Edited January 2, 2017 by garbanzobean

[Old Dusty]

1 minute ago, garbanzobean said:

The real question here is: is this correcting a marketing gaffe based on consumer feedback, or the intended outcome all along?  The other guys haven't gotten much chaff about raising prices gradually (or in the case of OFBB, $20-$30 per year), so I don't really see the point in doing this, if it is intentional.  Either way, I'm glad beam products aren't really in my wheelhouse anyway.

I'm a cynical bastard these days, but I'm choosing the "let's announce a huge price increase to bump current sales and then after we realize all of that momentum we will backtrack and announce an incremental increase reflective of the quality of our product and also score points with those customers who were put off by the news" Win, win and win. 

[garbanzobean]

11 minutes ago, Old Dusty said:

I'm a cynical bastard these days, but I'm choosing the "let's announce a huge price increase to bump current sales and then after we realize all of that momentum we will backtrack and announce an incremental increase reflective of the quality of our product and also score points with those customers who were put off by the news" Win, win and win. 

I certainly am willing to concede the point, I just think it was unnecessarily complicated in its dumb@$$ery.

Edited January 2, 2017 by garbanzobean

[Old Dusty]

29 minutes ago, garbanzobean said:

I certainly am willing to concede the point, I just think it was unnecessarily complicated in its dumb@$$ery.

It's cynical as hell but really marketing genius. The $100 announcement generated tons of free publicity AND created an avalanche of current sales. Then they look more reasonable by back tracking and announcing incremental increases rather than an immediate jump to the Benjamin. That will let everyone get nice and comfy with the "new normal" $70-75 for a year and then another $10 bump and another and another and bingo $100 Booker's. Then there will be fond threads on here about the good old days of  Booker's as far as the eye could see at $50. 

[Paddy]

I declare victory, because I bought a decades worth of Booker's for $39.99 at Costco. 

 

No way Beam won this round (no matter how you view it)! 

[garbanzobean]

25 minutes ago, Old Dusty said:

It's cynical as hell but really marketing genius. The $100 announcement generated tons of free publicity AND created an avalanche of current sales. Then they look more reasonable by back tracking and announcing incremental increases rather than an immediate jump to the Benjamin. That will let everyone get nice and comfy with the "new normal" $70-75 for a year and then another $10 bump and another and another and bingo $100 Booker's. Then there will be fond threads on here about the good old days of  Booker's as far as the eye could see at $50. 

What I meant was that I understood the mechanics of what they are doing, but it's too cute/too much effort.  It's as likely to generate even more backlash as it is make them look reasonable.  Honestly, is any bourbon drinker out there actually naive enough at this point to be grateful to B-S for this?  It seems to me that they could have simply raised the price incrementally, gotten product cleared out, and only gotten random accepting grumbles vs a bunch of POed bourbon nerds.  Depending on increased price tolerance seems a lot better bet than this whole goat rope, but I guess that is why I'm not a product strategist.

[Whiskey Dick]

35 minutes ago, Paddy said:

I declare victory, because I bought a decades worth of Booker's for $39.99 at Costco. 

 

No way Beam won this round (no matter how you view it)! 

 

 

I second that.......

[Spade]

12 minutes ago, garbanzobean said:

What I meant was that I understood the mechanics of what they are doing, but it's too cute/too much effort.  It's as likely to generate even more backlash as it is make them look reasonable.  Honestly, is any bourbon drinker out there actually naive enough at this point to be grateful to B-S for this?  It seems to me that they could have simply raised the price incrementally, gotten product cleared out, and only gotten random accepting grumbles vs a bunch of POed bourbon nerds.  Depending on increased price tolerance seems a lot better bet than this whole goat rope, but I guess that is why I'm not a product strategist.

 

Agreed totally. 

 

One benefit is I was able to see which stores were scummy enough to raise the price on current stock rather than waiting for the new batches.

[Old Dusty]

40 minutes ago, garbanzobean said:

What I meant was that I understood the mechanics of what they are doing, but it's too cute/too much effort.  It's as likely to generate even more backlash as it is make them look reasonable.  Honestly, is any bourbon drinker out there actually naive enough at this point to be grateful to B-S for this?  It seems to me that they could have simply raised the price incrementally, gotten product cleared out, and only gotten random accepting grumbles vs a bunch of POed bourbon nerds.  Depending on increased price tolerance seems a lot better bet than this whole goat rope, but I guess that is why I'm not a product strategist.

Understood. But the unanswered question is what would have happened to the brand if they had just bumped the price $10-15 in early '17 and not said anything. They had tons of product moving slowly at $50-60. Would a price bump hurt, help or have no effect? My guess is that it would have only slowed sales. Doing it this way created an artificial rush of demand  for the $50 version clearing inventory and opening orders for the $100....whoops we mean $70 Booker's and voila we get to $70 and they have demand and they also placate folks who balked at the jump to $100. 

 

Maybe im giving them too much credit for running the long game. But you can see where the dots connect. But keep in mind this isn't the first time B-S created a backlash with a product change and got a lot of mileage out of the decision to backtrack. 

[garbanzobean]

6 minutes ago, Old Dusty said:

Understood. But the unanswered question is what would have happened to the brand if they had just bumped the price $10-15 in early '17 and not said anything. They had tons of product moving slowly at $50-60. Would a price bump hurt, help or have no effect? My guess is that it would have only slowed sales. Doing it this way created an artificial rush of demand  for the $50 version clearing inventory and opening orders for the $100....whoops we mean $70 Booker's and voila we get to $70 and they have demand and they also placate folks who balked at the jump to $100. 

 

Maybe im giving them too much credit for running the long game. But you can see where the dots connect. But keep in mind this isn't the first time B-S created a backlash with a product change and got a lot of mileage out of the decision to backtrack. 

Fair points, particularly regarding the clearing of shelves.  Honestly the hardest part of avoiding B-S products isn't their bourbon.  I enjoy OBs of Hakushu, Bowmore, older Laphroaig, Ardmore, and Tyrconnell is about the only Irish whiskey I like.  Oh well.

[Old Dusty]

4 minutes ago, garbanzobean said:

Fair points, particularly regarding the clearing of shelves.  Honestly the hardest part of avoiding B-S products isn't their bourbon.  I enjoy OBs of Hakushu, Bowmore, older Laphroaig, Ardmore, and Tyrconnell is about the only Irish whiskey I like.  Oh well.

I'm not going to avoid Beam due to this. I already did for the most part out of preference. Right now I have a bottle of OGD114 and a 375 of MMCS that I dipped at the gift shop. Out of more bottles than one man needs that it for Beam in my stash. Of your world whisky list I do enjoy Laphroaig but only have IBs at this point. 

[Limegoldconvertible68]

As a recent Beam hater, this only reinforces my opinion of BS. I'm glad to be done with them. In my opinion their actions are no different then some of the Liquor stores out there that gouge us on the limited releases and other hard to find bottles. I don't need them and they don't get my business. It's all about showing their true colors. 

[Harry in WashDC]

2 hours ago, Old Dusty said:

It's cynical as hell but really marketing genius. The $100 announcement generated tons of free publicity AND created an avalanche of current sales. Then they look more reasonable by back tracking and announcing incremental increases rather than an immediate jump to the Benjamin. That will let everyone get nice and comfy with the "new normal" $70-75 for a year and then another $10 bump and another and another and bingo $100 Booker's. Then there will be fond threads on here about the good old days of  Booker's as far as the eye could see at $50. 

IIRC, this tactic worked for MM and the proof change. 

 

And, as Whiskey Dick, Paddy, and Eric pointed out, even with all the hype about the price increase AND the discounting to under $50 (well, in the WashDC area, just under $50 was the best I could find), Booker's was easier to find than ER or VOB BIB or ETL or . . .

 

Which reminds me: my NY Resolution was to start opening those "special" bottles in my bunker I was saving for some unidentified special occasion.   ER "star neckband" store pick is up, followed by an ER "10 YR" neckband.  The Booker's will have to wait their turn.

[fishnbowljoe]

4 hours ago, Whiskey Dick said:

 

 

I second that.......

 

I third it. 

[mosugoji64]

6 hours ago, Old Dusty said:

It's cynical as hell but really marketing genius. The $100 announcement generated tons of free publicity AND created an avalanche of current sales. Then they look more reasonable by back tracking and announcing incremental increases rather than an immediate jump to the Benjamin. That will let everyone get nice and comfy with the "new normal" $70-75 for a year and then another $10 bump and another and another and bingo $100 Booker's. Then there will be fond threads on here about the good old days of  Booker's as far as the eye could see at $50. 

 

Good points, and likely true, Eric (and I tend toward cynical as well) but I think the better move for them would have been to emphasize the reduction in batches and tighter allocation with a small price hike tacked on. That would likely have had a similar effect without the negative backlash. But, I'm not a marketing expert. I do think it will be interesting to see if this has any effect on Bookers' availability.