Booker's MSRP and allocation?

[Charlutz]

I agree with garbanzo that those who are saying "I'll just buy Stagg Jr. or KCSB or ECBP" may be in for a.surprise. It's a simple decision now but who's to say the prices on those won't change?

 

secondly, I don't think Booker's sits on the shelf as much as some think. Sure, you may find an old bottle here and there but I see the new batches rotating all the time. There are always multiple bottles on the shelf but I think that misleads people into thinking they aren't selling, at least to some extent. I think they sell them and replace them weekly as the supply until now seemed to be never ending. 

 

If if you like Booker's buy some and bunker it. Don't buy so much that if the price crashes you'll regret it but if it holds at $100 and the other BP's follow suit you'll be glad you have a few. I never had more than one unopened bookers in the house. Today I bought 4. It's in my wheelhouse and I don't want to be without. With the passage of OGD114, the loss of the KC age statement and the Booker's price increase, I am waiting for the shoe to drop on KCSB. Signs point to it heading for a younger age or a price increase. We get it on sale around here for $32. It will be a shame when that ends. 

[smokinjoe]

2 hours ago, lcpfratn said:

There is a huge difference in the best Scotch and Bourbon lead times and the associated costs of that time. In regards to Booker's, it's been argued in this thread that 6 to 8 years of age is perfect for it with some arguing that maybe 8 to 10 years might be achievable now. Good 12 year scotches are available in the $60 to $70 range and many cask strength scotches can be had for around the $100 price point, but with substantially more age than Booker's. I'm sorry, but I don't see the price justification for regularly released younger good quality Bourbon being priced equivalent to older good quality single malt Scotch...all other things being equal.
 

 

So, what you're saying is that we should accept and pay more for Scotch producers inefficiencies in aging their products to acceptable standards in a timely fashion?  And, since Booker's bourbon achieves high standards (as read here on SB and many other outlets) in half the time (1/3 the time...1/4 the time), they should not be rewarded with the option to test higher tier pricing for quality?  

 

 

[garbanzobean]

2 hours ago, lcpfratn said:

History teaches us that all booms/bubbles eventually correct themselves...usually with a crash. And those that are deeply into it never see it coming and refuse to observe the tell-take signs that indicate that the boom/bubble may be about to burst. I've made a couple of comments on various threads that I think the bourbon boom/bubble may burst sooner than later and most have pretty much poo-poo'd that thought. Of course no one can predict these things, and I'll probably be proven wrong, but these types of actions are the kinds of tell-tale signs that make me wonder whether the end of the boom is near. Feel free to disagree because...what the hell do I know? Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that the profit taking stage can either establish higher price floors, or it can be a precursor to market deflation.  Unfortunately I don't agree that this is the latter.  Maybe if all distilleries follow suit and start jacking up prices with no time to study market impact or some other irresponsible nonsense, but I don't think that is likely to happen.  I think this is more likely to be the former, and the fact that it has taken so long for them to adjust prices is a direct reflection of how bad the last bust really was.  They have been gun shy about it for years.  

 

If we adjust for inflation, bourbon today is much cheaper than it was during the last boom.  There are many factors involved in this that might make profitability as good or better than it has been in the past, but it isn't unrealistic to expect some radical price adjustments in the near future to increase profits yet again.  And the market will bear it until marginal utility of the luxury product that is bourbon no longer sits at equilibrium with price.  Given how much faster it is to renew the supply of well aged good quality bourbon relative to say, 25-50+ year old scotch, there is even a sound argument for a longer, more sustainable boom.  The high barriers to entry into the market and few competitors don't help much, either, while we are at it.  That means we partially lose the pressure bleed off valve of increased competition to constrain pricing.  We're pretty much left with decreased demand as the major price constraint for now.

 

Personally, I think B-S is slapping consumers right in the face by doubling the price of Booker's.  They are.  But it's their product so they can do what they please with it, and their strategy is probably going to work.  My personal hurt feelings don't change the reality of the situation.

[JoeTerp]

Well I've waited a while to respond here since I generally check the board on my phone now (and post shorter responses), but this was a real bummer to me.  I really enjoy Booker's.  I don't buy it all that frequently and don't have a bottle open right now (although I do have two in my bunker).  It is often the bourbon of choice for me when I end up at a bar with a relatively poor bourbon selection as they usually have Booker's around and I know that I'll like it a lot more than Maker's.  I do like the idea of having this one around as I really find it a quality poor, but I already find that I enjoy Stagg Jr. and ECBP better regardless of price ( and they go for $52.99 and $49.99 in VA respectively).  And this is with me living in a state with no FRPS.  I've had some that I thought were just ok, but a few FRPS have been exceptional and I would largely prefer them over Booker's if they were easier for me to come by.

 

I think cutting down the batches is a smart move as I've traveled to areas and still run across lettered batches that are now at least two years old.  I just don't think this sells at a lot of smaller shops and this will put some pressure on that, but it's also one of the biggest things going for Booker's today is that it's always available.  I can't imagine that Booker's would be as popular / recommended if the other BP'ers were as readily available.

 

Lastly and this is probably nit-picking, but they're not really doubling or increasing SRP by 100% as almost everyone has suggested.  The current SRP on the product is $59.99 and they're moving it up to $99.99 which is only a 67% increase (still quite the one-time price increase).  I know that most of you have access to it at prices below the $59.99 SRP, but that's what state controlled Virginia ABC's sell the product for (if it's not on sale and even then it's only up to $5 lower).

 

In the short-term this move will get me to pick up a couple of more Booker's this year as I'd like to have it around for a while, but I can't imagine that it's a bottle that I'd pay $100 for (unless previously mentioned competitor brands go up similarly).

[Darwin]

I think the Booker batches are good bourbon, but at $70+ I am not that impressed.  Bevmo has it on sale for $57 right now and the other store has 5 or 6 of the batches still on the shelf. So I can see reducing availability might be required to up the price.  At $100+ I won't be a little bit interested in Bookers bourbon.

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by Darwin
Spellin

[lcpfratn]

 
So, what you're saying is that we should accept and pay more for Scotch producers inefficiencies in aging their products to acceptable standards in a timely fashion?  And, since Booker's bourbon achieves high standards (as read here on SB and many other outlets) in half the time (1/3 the time...1/4 the time), they should not be rewarded with the option to test higher tier pricing for quality?    

No, that's not what I said at all, and to imply that Scotch producers are inefficient is being less than honest about the differences between the two products and their related production and aging times. What I am saying is that if I can buy a good Scotch that does cost more to produce, ship and import into the U.S. for between $60 and $100, why would I be willing to pay $100 for Bookers's. I like good Scotch and Bourbon, but everything to me is relative. I know that it costs more to make most good Scotch and to get it over here than a comparably good bourbon. Accordingly, I will always expect to pay a bit more for Scotch. Bourbon costs a lot more in Scotland than it does here also just because of shipping, import costs and rarity over there.

Booker's can clearly try to charge whatever they think the market will bear. I'm not disagreeing with that, but the consumer market, including myself, may take issue with that. I'm stating my argument for why I think that Booker's is already fairly priced as is. I can think of many other Bourbon's that are underpriced for the quality that they bring, but I personally don't think Booker's is one of them since it generally sells for $55-$70 in my area already (when it's not just collecting dust). If I have a choice between ECBP at $60-$70, a FRSB SP for $50 or Booker's at $100, I know what I'm not going to choose. Likewise, if I can buy a Laphroaig 10 cask strength for $70, a Macallan 12 or Balvenie 12 Doublewood for $60, etc., etc. or a Booker's at $100, I again know what I'm not going to choose, and that's Booker's.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[garbanzobean]

I think this drastic price increase is especially jarring to the community because Beam's prices and availability seemingly haven't been as impacted by the boom as others.  To see them--old reliable--making tons of rapid changes to their lineup all at once really reinjures a wound we thought was maybe finally healing.  We took OGD114, KC9, Booker's, probably eventually Baker's, even beam double black for granted, and now we are getting kicked right in the family jewels.  

 

B-S is likely well aware that they have a bunch of P.O.ed bourbon nerds right now.  They seem more worried about the people who get into bourbon 6 months from now and ARE willing to drop $100 on a bottle of bourbon that was $40-$60 a few months ago, because there are likely going to be quite a lot of them, and a lot of people after them, too.  And they are probably also worried about having enough aging stock for lots of one off LEs.

[BigRich]

Comparing ages between scotch and bourbon is pure folly.  The age process conditions are just too different.  And historically, 6-7 years aging is well aged, and honestly right in Beam's sweet spot IMO.  Point is, whether or not yours, mine, or anyone else's opinions lead to purchasing or not, $100 is nothing in today's whiskey market.

Oh but it is comparable my friend when you consider how both are taxed on a annual basis and that tax is a significant portion of the cost. I think Spade's point and mine is more on the egregiousness of the margin Beam is going for rather than what does and doesn't taste like crap at six years of age.

[smokinjoe]

In all of the comments until now, no one mentioned taxes, transportation, production costs, etc.  It was simply age.  As if, a lesser aged bourbon should be cheaper than a higher aged scotch...just because.  The implication was clearly (as it usually us in these discussions) that a 12 yr scotch has to be better than a 7 yrbourbon , therefore more worthy and justifiable at the higher price.  I don't agree.  As I stated up thread, and you quote, you can't compare them 1:1.  It is, as someone pointed out, apples and oranges.  

Listen, I don't want to continue into a bourbon/scotch debate.  I enjoy both and think neither is inherently superior to the other.  They are both non-essential luxury items that are worth what any individual  wants to place on them and what their producers feel they are worth in the marketplace.  In Beam's case, they feel Booker's should be worth $100 of someone's money.  The marketplace will tell them if they are correct.  I buy little Booker 's to begin with , and a $100 price tag will give me even further pause in increasing that number, but I would think it illogical for me to carry any personal animosity towards the brand, distillery, or ownership, simply because they're making a business move trying to make more money.

[smokinjoe]

In all of the comments until now, no one mentioned taxes, transportation, production costs, etc.  It was simply age.  As if, a lesser aged bourbon should be cheaper than a higher aged scotch...just because.  The implication was clearly (as it usually us in these discussions) that a 12 yr scotch has to be better than a 7 yrbourbon , therefore more worthy and justifiable at the higher price.  I don't agree.  As I stated up thread, and you quote, you can't compare them 1:1.  It is, as someone pointed out, apples and oranges.  

Listen, I don't want to continue into a bourbon/scotch debate.  I enjoy both and think neither is inherently superior to the other.  They are both non-essential luxury items that are worth what any individual  wants to place on them and what their producers feel they are worth in the marketplace.  In Beam's case, they feel Booker's should be worth $100 of someone's money.  The marketplace will tell them if they are correct.  I buy little Booker 's to begin with , and a $100 price tag will give me even further pause in increasing that number, but I would think it illogical for me to carry any personal animosity towards the brand, distillery, or ownership, simply because they're making a business move trying to make more money.

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by smokinjoe
Apparently, felt so strongly about it I must nave felt it needed repeating...

[Auracom]

All I can say is that Beam isn't getting a dime from me for the foreseeable future. I've read and can see the various business angles but their new position in the market does nothing for me.

[Spade]

smokinjoe: If you're referring to my earlier comments about age, I made it clear in a follow-up that I didn't mean to imply that age equals quality. Rather, that age (and quality and scarcity, and there's other things as well of course) are things people pay for. I didn't realize to I needed to spell out why that was the case for age, I'll be more explicit in the future. Again, sorry if I wasn't as clear as I could have been on that point.

 

Similarly, I think the whole they "are both non-essential luxury items that are worth what any individual  wants to place on them" is, to be perfectly honest, disingenuous. That not the argument that's being put forth here by anyone. I think folks have been pretty clear that THEY don't think that Booker's is worth $100 not that all of humanity is prohibited from that view or that Beam shouldn't be allowed to charge what they want.

If you want to have a discussion about this, you have to engage with what people are actually saying, not your perception if it.

 

And I agree with others, Beam (and Suntory more generally — Laphroaig 10 year CS will be missed) won't get my business. And I'll be sure to steer my less engaged whiskey friends away from their brands as well.

[Kepler]

I predict they will increase the age of the new higher priced Booker's.  They just aren't going to announce it yet.  Because if they did, a lot people that now plan to rush out and hoard it because they think they are "buying a $100 bourbon for $50" wouldn't do that now if Beam announced that the "New, Improved!" Booker's would be 8-10 years old.  And Beam would still have old bottles sitting on their shelf collecting dust and competing with the new incoming product.

 

Best to announce only the price increase and reduced number of releases now, create a rush which will clear out old inventory, bear the brunt of the inevitable media storm, then introduce a superior product  later (accompanied by rave reviews in the media) which will attract new customers and also win back a portion of us angry bourbon geeks, once we calm down.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Kepler

[Kepler]

On 12/9/2016 at 3:05 PM, Spade said:

My first instinct was to pick up three or four and stash them away. Instead I think I'll spend the equivalent amount of money on stuff from other distilleries...

What he said.  This is probably what all of us should be doing.

[flahute]

7 hours ago, garbanzobean said:

B-S is likely well aware that they have a bunch of P.O.ed bourbon nerds right now.  They seem more worried about the people who get into bourbon 6 months from now and ARE willing to drop $100 on a bottle of bourbon that was $40-$60 a few months ago, because there are likely going to be quite a lot of them, and a lot of people after them, too. 

Totally agree. I said basically the same thing in the other thread before seeing that you had said this here.

[garbanzobean]

50 minutes ago, Kepler said:

What he said.  This is probably what all of us should be doing.

I'll probably pick a couple bottles of this and Baker's up for posterity in case things get really stupid in a few years, but that'll be about it for me.  I'm already not a huge Beam guy, so I think it is easier for me to be detached about this situation than how I would react to a doubling of the cost of my favorite HH or FR whiskies.  But I'll certainly not be contributing to Beam's inventory problems in the future . . . 

 

I still remember a couple years back when foureyedfox was buying up all the Booker's he could at $40 or less.  Man he's probably having a good laugh about that now.

[Tennessee Dave]

1 hour ago, garbanzobean said:

I'll probably pick a couple bottles of this and Baker's up for posterity in case things get really stupid in a few years, but that'll be about it for me.  I'm already not a huge Beam guy, so I think it is easier for me to be detached about this situation than how I would react to a doubling of the cost of my favorite HH or FR whiskies.  But I'll certainly not be contributing to Beam's inventory problems in the future . . . 

 

I still remember a couple years back when foureyedfox was buying up all the Booker's he could at $40 or less.  Man he's probably having a good laugh about that now.

 

I'd get ready to react as I think this is only the beginning.

[Louisiana]

Went to church this morning & ate some Outback for lunch. The boys wanted to see Doctor Strange at the theatre this evening, so the wife gave me a free pass to ride around town while she took them. The only Booker's I had were two older ones with the codes (Both close to 8 years) & Booker's Rye (Just over 13 years). I just picked up a "Dot's Batch" at just over 7 years & a "Toogie's Invitation" at 6 years 4 months. It was just under a $100 for both bottles. At the rate I drink Booker's the 5 I have should last me 10 years.

[Thig]

 
I still remember a couple years back when foureyedfox was buying up all the Booker's he could at $40 or less.  Man he's probably having a good laugh about that now.

I have 19 bottles purchased at 39.99. Not exactly laughing about the current situation but since it is one of my favorites I am glad I did.

[Kepler]

3 minutes ago, Thig said:

 

I have 19 bottles purchased at 39.99. Not exactly laughing about the current situation but since it is one of my favorites I am glad I did.

 

19 ?!?   Good God, man.  That's a lot of Booker's.

[Thig]

19 ?!?   Good God, man.  That's a lot of Booker's.

Well I already had 13 over the last couple of years and with the recent price announcement I purchased 6 more, like I said it's probably my favorite.

[Kepler]

Just now, Thig said:

 

Well I already had 13 over the last couple of years and with the recent price announcement I purchased 6 more, like I said it's probably my favorite.

 

Well after I replied, I realized that I have 1 and half cases of EC12 that I acquired when it went NAS.  That's 18 bottles of EC12, so I am the proverbial pot calling the kettle.  I'm right there with you.  Wow, I need help.  Lol

[Thig]

Well after I replied, I realized that I have 1 and half cases of EC12 that I acquired when it went NAS.  That's 18 bottles of EC12, so I am the proverbial pot calling the kettle.  I'm right there with you.  Wow, I need help.  Lol

Well we like what we like and you can never have too much of what you like.

[Thig]

 
If this happens, you "saved" $1,140, plus extra tax.
 

That's definitely one way of looking at it, but then at $100 a bottle my inventory would be much lower.

[smokinjoe]

5 hours ago, Spade said:

 

If you want to have a discussion about this, you have to engage with what people are actually saying, not your perception if it.

 

 

Spade, you can save the snide preachiness for somebody else.  

 

Yes, I have wanted to participate in a "discussion" about it, and have engaged evenly, honestly, and with an accurate understanding of others opinions.  My arguments are in no way disingenuous, and have simply been counter to what other enthusiast consumers apparently think.  I am comfortable and confident with this position and how I have articulated it.  I don't apologize that I am

not going to join the crowd standing in their front yards yelling and shaking their fists at Booker's, Beam, and Suntory.