If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Seattle Times) Followup Costco has now spent $22 million on liquor. Drew Curtis: "Amateurs"   (seattletimes.nwsource.com) divider line 59
More: Followup, Costco, American Beverage Association, amateurs  
•       •       •

1250 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Oct 2011 at 7:49 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-19 05:10:59 PM
I can't wait until my state has the same dirty, run-down corner liquor stores that I remember fondly from my youth in NJ. It was so much fun waiting for Old Jack to go take a leak so we could sneak into his shop, lift a bottle of whiskey, run back outside and drink it till we puked.

/Ah, to be 13 again.
 
2011-10-19 05:20:24 PM
1183 is a really stupid idea. Costco and Walmart are the ONLY people in the state who would benefit from this. Everyone else would be worse off. If you live in Washington, please vote against this.
 
2011-10-19 06:45:21 PM
FloydA: 1183 is a really stupid idea. Costco and Walmart are the ONLY people in the state who would benefit from this. Everyone else would be worse off. If you live in Washington, please vote against this.


^DON'T LISTEN TO THIS GUY.

1183 would benefit consumers in Washington State......so vote yes. At the very least, vote yes just so you can piss off all those soccer moms on TV who are making over the top emotional appeals.


/Also, the anti-1183 banner ads on Fark really grind my gears.
 
2011-10-19 07:06:29 PM
The_Sponge: DON'T LISTEN TO THIS GUY

Well that tears it for me.

I'm listening to that guy.
 
2011-10-19 07:13:13 PM
TEAM THE_SPONGE
 
2011-10-19 07:39:17 PM
FloydA: 1183 is a really stupid idea. Costco and Walmart are the ONLY people in the state who would benefit from this. Everyone else would be worse off. If you live in Washington, please vote against this.

We know. That's the truly amusing part about I-1183 - it's obvious as hell that Costco's paid big money to steal the revenue stream that is the state liquor business. It's a rehash of I-1100 & I-1107, only with less altruism and more "c'mon, you want cheap Canadian Club - vote for cheap booze from Costco!"

It's the best legislation Costco can buy, apparently, and it's still going to fail because it's a dumb idea.
 
2011-10-19 07:49:21 PM
FormlessOne: FloydA: 1183 is a really stupid idea. Costco and Walmart are the ONLY people in the state who would benefit from this. Everyone else would be worse off. If you live in Washington, please vote against this.

We know. That's the truly amusing part about I-1183 - it's obvious as hell that Costco's paid big money to steal the revenue stream that is the state liquor business. It's a rehash of I-1100 & I-1107, only with less altruism and more "c'mon, you want cheap Canadian Club - vote for cheap booze from Costco!"

It's the best legislation Costco can buy, apparently, and it's still going to fail because it's a dumb idea.


That won't make booze any cheaper here. The state will no longer set the high prices, but the taxes will go up and the stores that pay huge licensing fees to sell liquor will pass the cost on at the cash register. Boo. Leave it like it is until there's a good proposal.
 
2011-10-19 08:19:28 PM
I live in Virginia where we have ABC stores that are small with high prices and crappy selection. I used to live in California where we had Bev'Mo. I know which I prefer.

Seriously, can anybody from either side of the political spectrum make a case for the state being in the liquor business? I can't think of a good liberal argument for restricting individual choice, and I can't think of a good conservative argument for the government running a business that the private sector can supply perfectly well.

And no, the "source of revenue" argument doesn't fly. First, it's absurd on its face: you could make exactly the same argument to justify the state running absolutely any commercial activity. Second, realize that the state is going to rake in exactly the same amount of revenue, regardless of the source. They might make money from liquor licenses or from taxing alcohol, like mature, civilized European countries do. Or they will just make up the difference -- around $425M out of total revenues of $35B, I believe -- in general taxes. But regardless, there won't be some catastrophic collapse in funding for education (think of the children!) or public safety.

Let's be honest with ourselves here: State-run liquor stores are nothing more than the vestigial puritanism of America.
 
2011-10-19 08:35:46 PM
I sure hope this passes, unlike the two failed initiatives last year.

Yeah, Costco is gonna benefit from it. They've been hating Washington's liquor laws forever. This bill also includes language to allow them to negotiate volume discounts from local wineries, which the state didn't let them do either.

Our liquor stores have crappy locations, crappy hours, and crappy prices. The argument that it will only fuel teen drinking is stupid considering you can buy 8~12% beer at most gas stations.
 
2011-10-19 08:44:01 PM
These states with strict alcohol sales are odd to me. I don't see any point whatsoever to liquor sale restriction. Is it all a religious thing? No booze Sunday and whatever else you guys gotta deal with.

/And here I thought no booze sales between 2 and 6 AM was a hassle
 
2011-10-19 08:58:02 PM
the ONLY people in the state who would benefit from this. Everyone else would be worse off. If you live in Washington, please vote against this.

No: the National Liquor Wholesalers Union has spent $11M to defeat it and that's who's running the defeat 1183 ads. Why? Their margins decline when they don't have a monopoly distributing all of the liquor in the state at fixed prices.

Washington residents will get broader choices, lower prices and fewer bullshiat restrictions on promotions. For example, until recently Washington state wouldn't even allow wine tastings at retailers. But the restrictions extend to promotion, discounts and co-promotions with other products. It's one reason that grocery stores can't offer gas-mileage points for the portion of your bill that goes for beer.

Free markets are a biatch.
 
2011-10-19 10:05:16 PM
D_Evans45: These states with strict alcohol sales are odd to me. I don't see any point whatsoever to liquor sale restriction. Is it all a religious thing? No booze Sunday and whatever else you guys gotta deal with.

/And here I thought no booze sales between 2 and 6 AM was a hassle


I can only speak for Texas ... but yes, it is a purely religious thing. I'm pretty sure the liquor stores aren't closed on Sundays, when everyone has the day off and sitting around watching football and having pool parties, because it makes good business sense for them.

Conservative nanny government at it's finest.
 
2011-10-19 10:06:08 PM
The_Sponge: FloydA: 1183 is a really stupid idea. Costco and Walmart are the ONLY people in the state who would benefit from this. Everyone else would be worse off. If you live in Washington, please vote against this.


^DON'T LISTEN TO THIS GUY.

1183 would benefit consumers in Washington State......so vote yes. At the very least, vote yes just so you can piss off all those soccer moms on TV who are making over the top emotional appeals.

/Also, the anti-1183 banner ads on Fark really grind my gears.


Right now, the money from liquor sales goes into the state treasury.

If 1183 passes, the same money goes into the bank accounts of Costco and Walmart.

Therefore, if 1183 passes, Washington state will either raise taxes or cut services to make up for the shortfall. The state cannot afford to lose any revenue right now- they are barely able to pay the bills as it is. If voters take away liquor sales as a revenue source, you can be certain that some new revenue source will take its place. Want to bet that whatever they replace liquor revenues with will cost you less?

The roads near my house are already full of potholes. Pass 1183 and that gets worse, and/or we end up with a state income tax, raised sales tax and/or more toll roads.

And booze will not be a single cent cheaper as a result. Seriously; I've lived in states without state-run liquor stores, and it's no cheaper.

I don't really like the people in the TV ads either, but I do like the people who work at my local liquor store and at my local corner convenience store. Maybe you know the people who work at your local stores too. Ask them how this bill would affect them.

The only people who would benefit from 1183 are Costco and Wal*Mart. If you actually work for, or own stock in, either of those businesses, I can understand your support for the initiative, but otherwise, I can assure you that it will make your life worse.

Vote your own self interests- 1183 will cost you.
 
2011-10-19 10:16:54 PM
FloydA:
Therefore, if 1183 passes, Washington state will either raise taxes or cut services to make up for the shortfall. The state cannot afford to lose any revenue right now- they are barely able to pay the bills as it is. If voters take away liquor sales as a revenue source, you can be certain that some new revenue source will take its place. Want to bet that whatever they replace liquor revenues with will cost you less?


How do I know you didn't read your voter's pamphlet?

From page 21, in the 'Fiscal Impact Statement'

"Using a range of assumptions, total State General Fund revenues increase an estimated $216 million to $253 million and total local revenues increase an estimated $186 million to $227 million ... over six years."
 
2011-10-19 10:19:37 PM
Good. I should be able to walk into ANY damn grocery store and buy alcohol. The state can get its money elsewhere, or by instituting a higher sin tax.
 
2011-10-19 10:31:35 PM
FloydA: Right now, the money from liquor sales goes into the state treasury.

If 1183 passes, the same money goes into the bank accounts of Costco and Walmart.


This is nonsense - see above. And even if it WERE true it's still no reason whatsoever for the state to be retailing anything. That's not their job. Why not state tobacco stores? Or grocery stores? Or sporting goods stores?

I know that under the initiative as written only large stores will be able to sell. That's still a hell of a lot more stores than are currently selling (the state-owned stores.) Hopefully this passes, the state gets out of the liquor business, the useless middlemen that state law currently mandates get farked, and in the next few years we can start selling in smaller stores and (heavenly signing) outfits like BevMo can open up.

Also this THINK OF THE CHILDREN routine is nonsense as well. States like California who have incredibly more liberal liquor laws than we do don't have higher rates of teen drinking or drunk driving.
 
2011-10-19 10:33:13 PM
I'm suffering from state controlled liquor. I hope costco helps to push similar legislation in my state too. Monopoly inflated prices, religious influenced store hours, and limited selection make for a shiatty consumer experience. The morons who proclaim that underage drinking will increase always seem to ignore the fact that beer is already sold in almost every gas station, restaurant, and shopping center.

FloydA, you're an idiot. State revenue increases due to lower overhead and increased taxable volume. Dropping the state controlled monopoly will ultimately lower sale prices. The lower prices and easier access will drive the higher sales volume.
 
2011-10-19 10:38:32 PM
adenosine: How do I know you didn't read your voter's pamphlet?

Thank you adenosine. Morans can't read but unfortunately they vote. The liars campaign run against 1183 in this state is shameful: "Your kids will be buying booze at 7-11's" -- even when it is expressly blocked by the initiative.

The state's markup on liquor is 15-25% at the distribution level and 40-50% for each store. You could DOUBLE the taxes on booze and the cost would still go down.
 
2011-10-19 10:41:43 PM
I don't drink. Which one will make other people pay more taxes so I don't have to?
 
2011-10-19 10:49:10 PM
Can somebody tell me why the government is in the retail business? Anyone?
 
2011-10-19 11:15:59 PM
FloydA: 1183 is a really stupid idea. Costco and Walmart are the ONLY people in the state who would benefit from this. Everyone else would be worse off. If you live in Washington, please vote against this.

Not sure I agree. Maybe you can convince me there's a good reason to keep paying a state pension to the clerks who run the register. I think that's such a horrible use of my tax money that I'll vote for any other plan. Not that I don't love pensions - pensions are great. Everyone should have them. But until that happens they are in the bottom quartile of my priority list.
 
2011-10-19 11:21:14 PM
Frank N Stein: Can somebody tell me why the government is in the retail business? Anyone?

That is a great question. I'm a flaming liberal myself but of all the things I think the government SHOULD be involved in, exclusively selling the frickin' liquor is not one of them. Consequences and alternatives be damned - it's absurd on its face.
 
2011-10-19 11:23:01 PM
czetie: State-run liquor stores are nothing more than the vestigial puritanism of America.

You ever been to the NH State Liquor Store?

It's f*cking heaven.
 
2011-10-19 11:36:22 PM
Costco has now spent $22 million on liquorFreedom. Drew Curtis: "Amateurs"

FTFS
 
2011-10-19 11:39:51 PM
Drew does enjoy a snifter of Port at Christmas.
 
2011-10-19 11:52:13 PM
Washington resident, not a union member, here.

How will the Costco initiative get me more choices? Right now, I get hundreds of whiskey and bourbon choices at the state store. Not as good as a truly deregulated state like California, Illinois or New York/New Jersey, but way more than rows and rows of Costco branded Canadian Club.

Will Costco handle niche brand bourbons and scotches? I don't think it will. It will sell its usual house brands, plus one or two mainstream brands like Crown Royal.

Will they be cheaper, I don't think so, that 27% tax increase.

But what about the volume discounts. Doesn't that put craft distillers and wineries under threat of either selling to Costco/Walmart in bulk, or losing sales and closing?

Sum it up: I am usually pro privitization, but this specific initiative as well as Costco's obscene amount of money poured into getting it passed make me distrust it and not like the risk to niche distillers and wineries. I'm voting NO.

Get a real privatization set up, like Illinois or California has, and we'll talk. But don't just require 10,000 square foot private distributors only. Thats a recipe for boring mass produced booze labels only, least common denominator alcohol, zero representation for niche brands or high end quality brands.

And the tax increase built into it (the bribe to get the firemens' union on board) is bullsh*t. A true privitization wouldnt have to raise taxes to do it, it would actually result in lower prices. Independent studies I read say this wont lower our prices, it will just raise taxes and prices along with it.

I'm hoping enough people won't be duped, but I don't know it seems to have more groundswell than the older, better privatization efforts had. Thanks to Costco's media carpet bombing.
 
2011-10-20 12:01:27 AM
The Stranger is against 1183. You'd think they'd be in favor, but they aren't.

Initiative Measure 1183

Vote No

If voters pass the measure, according to retail giant Costco (which poured $11.2 million into this campaign), state revenues will skyrocket from additional liquor taxes, liquor prices will drop, liquor consumption will not rise, and unicorns that shiat crushed ice and piss 7 and 7 will drop by your next house party.

I-1183 would close 166 state-run liquor stores and allow 1,400 grocery stores to start selling liquor next June. But liquor wouldn't be any cheaper under I-1183. In the best-case scenario, according to state estimates, liquor prices would stay the same. Worst case, the average price for liquor increases 20 percent.

And unlike I-1183's predecessor, Costco's failed liquor initiative I-1100 (which the SECB backed last year), this initiative transfers the state's liquor monopoly to a handful of large retail chains. Under I-1183, only stores with 10,000 square feet would be eligible to sell hard alcohol-that's stores like Costco, Safeway, QFC, and Trader Joe's. Your small local grocer won't be selling liquor if this thing passes. On top of that, I-1183 imposes a 10 percent tax on liquor distributors but creates a giant loophole that allows grocery chains-the big corporations who are bankrolling this thing-to bypass distributors and buy liquor tax-free. Once again: This is not what democracy blah blah farkin' blah.

Vote no.
 
2011-10-20 12:26:51 AM
Frank N Stein: Can somebody tell me why the government is in the retail business? Anyone?

Unioms... that's why
 
2011-10-20 12:30:04 AM
State Gov has no business in retail, they should focus on licensing and enforcement. Even if its not the corner store selling, the state has better things to worry about.
 
2011-10-20 12:43:10 AM
Why does anyone even speak of Drew in any headlines? When was the last time you even heard him address Fark? He just hit total paydirt and checks his bank account. There really is no need to felate him in headlines (well, I guess it as close to an insta-green as you can get). He doesn't read them. I wouldn't either if I was able to get people to pay me to post on a glorified message board.
 
2011-10-20 12:54:26 AM
Mixolydian Master: Why does anyone even speak of Drew in any headlines? When was the last time you even heard him address Fark? He just hit total paydirt and checks his bank account. There really is no need to felate him in headlines (well, I guess it as close to an insta-green as you can get). He doesn't read them. I wouldn't either if I was able to get people to pay me to post on a glorified message board.

He talks to the TFers pretty often for a forum like this, also the TFers submit a lot of headlines, also people who submit a lot of headlines also buy TF so they can get an idea on what is already being submitted. The reason I'm saying that is because hopefully it is obvious why you mights see a bunch of headlines that talk about him.

Also, this is a great website. I like it.
 
2011-10-20 02:22:19 AM
jaylectricity: Mixolydian Master: Why does anyone even speak of Drew in any headlines? When was the last time you even heard him address Fark? He just hit total paydirt and checks his bank account. There really is no need to felate him in headlines (well, I guess it as close to an insta-green as you can get). He doesn't read them. I wouldn't either if I was able to get people to pay me to post on a glorified message board.

He talks to the TFers pretty often for a forum like this, also the TFers submit a lot of headlines, also people who submit a lot of headlines also buy TF so they can get an idea on what is already being submitted. The reason I'm saying that is because hopefully it is obvious why you mights see a bunch of headlines that talk about him.

Also, this is a great website. I like it.


And he's genuinely a fun person to drink with
 
2011-10-20 02:23:01 AM
Generation_D: Get a real privatization set up, like Illinois or California has, and we'll talk. But don't just require 10,000 square foot private distributors only. Thats a recipe for boring mass produced booze labels only, least common denominator alcohol, zero representation for niche brands or high end quality brands.


You do realize that many grocery stores that aren't Costco are 10,000+ square feet, right?
 
2011-10-20 04:03:46 AM
Mixolydian Master: Why does anyone even speak of Drew in any headlines? When was the last time you even heard him address Fark? He just hit total paydirt and checks his bank account. There really is no need to felate him in headlines (well, I guess it as close to an insta-green as you can get). He doesn't read them. I wouldn't either if I was able to get people to pay me to post on a glorified message board.

Actually he'd probably respond to your derp if he was not so busy flooding facebook or twitter with all caps lock posts.

/never met the guy
 
2011-10-20 06:56:19 AM
Generation_D: Right now, I get hundreds of whiskey and bourbon choices at the state store.

I live in Seattle and I've been to pretty much every liquor store in the city. No you don't.

Generation_D: But what about the volume discounts. Doesn't that put craft distillers and wineries under threat of either selling to Costco/Walmart in bulk, or losing sales and closing?

They've managed to survive just fine in other states where the ridiculous 3-tier system isn't in place. Volume discounts = cheaper booze. Good.

Generation_D: Get a real privatization set up, like Illinois or California has, and we'll talk. But don't just require 10,000 square foot private distributors only. Thats a recipe for boring mass produced booze labels only, least common denominator alcohol, zero representation for niche brands or high end quality brands.

These hardly get any play at the state stores now. This initiative takes care of two big problems - getting the state out of the liquor business and torpedoing the useless middleman (the distributors who exist for no reason other than the state says they have to be there.) We can work on getting smaller stores the ability to sell next.

Generation_D: it seems to have more groundswell than the older, better privatization efforts had.

The older ones had the specter of OH NOES HARD LIQUOR AT 7-11!!!! WHAT ABOUT THE CHIIIILLLLLLLDREEEENNNNN?!?! problem, and that's why the 10,000 square foot part is in there - to remove that as a political liability. Not that it's stopped the anti's from continuing to push that now-fiction.

Generation_D: I-1183 imposes a 10 percent tax on liquor distributors but creates a giant loophole that allows grocery chains-the big corporations who are bankrolling this thing-to bypass distributors and buy liquor tax-free.

Good.
 
2011-10-20 07:53:51 AM

They've managed to survive just fine in other states where the ridiculous 3-tier system isn't in place. Volume discounts = cheaper booze. Good.


I'm a frequent buyer of high end scotch, I don't give a crap about "the children" or any other arguments pro or against. Neither sides explained what this thing is going to do to my access to bourbons and scotch. Til they do,voting no.

I don't trust "big box retailers" as distributors any more than I trust the state. Less, in some ways.
 
2011-10-20 08:36:21 AM
Frank N Stein: Can somebody tell me why the government is in the retail business? Anyone?

Because otherwise people would be drinking the devil's nectar on the sabbath.

Why let consumers make up their own minds (and retailers will adapt to what consumers want), when you can let politicians pandering to religious zealots make up your mind for you?
 
2011-10-20 09:42:06 AM
Generation D, if you don't make a case against BigJakes claims I think hes making the better points. Variety and getting the state out of it look like some major plusses.
 
2011-10-20 09:54:18 AM
Also, I know all corporations are "da man" and we got to rage against the machine and all of that, but I don't get the Costco hate. They're widely regarded as one of the most ethical companies in the country. They pay their employees an average of $17 an hour, practically 50% more than competitors, and provide phenomenal benefits to their employees. They don't shut out union members. Company policy is they can mark up no item more than 14% of cost. Most Supermarkets markup at least 25%, and Department stores mark up 50%.

If I'm choosing who I want influencing my purchasing decisions between Costco and politicians pandering to religious zealots, I'm going with Costco.
 
2011-10-20 09:59:55 AM
Generation_D: They've managed to survive just fine in other states where the ridiculous 3-tier system isn't in place. Volume discounts = cheaper booze. Good.

I'm a frequent buyer of high end scotch, I don't give a crap about "the children" or any other arguments pro or against. Neither sides explained what this thing is going to do to my access to bourbons and scotch. Til they do,voting no.

I don't trust "big box retailers" as distributors any more than I trust the state. Less, in some ways.



I don't understand the people that say selection will decrease. Costco isn't known for carrying a large variety, but they won't be the only ones selling. Any grocery store, Target, Wallmart or Fred Meyer will be able to sell as well. I've been to grocery stores in states that allow liquor sales there and the selection put our state stores to shame. Not to mention that dedicated non-state liquor stores and specialty shops would be able to open. Probably pretty quickly, too. There hasn't exactly been a shortage of empty retail locations in the last few years, including some large enough to meet the space requirements (which I agree are stupid).

As far as the price of liquor, the estimates I've seen are that prices will initially be the same or slightly lower. The 27% tax is charged to the distributors, but this does reduce over time. Furthermore, the state is currently marking everything up by huge amounts, making $0.39/dollar in profit on liquor sales. That's a huge increase over typical retail. Costco for example makes $0.0166/dollar in profit on sales.

It may not be a perfect measure, but it's a hell of a lot better than our current system. There is no reason to assume that selection will decrease, it gets the state out of the retail business where it doesn't belong and all estimates are saying that it will increase state revenues. Costco may be dumping a huge amount of money into the initiative, but it's the distributors and unions that are dumping all that money into the no campaign trying to maintain the current ridiculous system.
 
2011-10-20 10:06:06 AM
Here in Texas we have a chain of dedicated Generation_D: .

Get a real privatization set up, like Illinois or California has, and we'll talk. But don't just require 10,000 square foot private distributors only. Thats a recipe for boring mass produced booze labels only, least common denominator alcohol, zero representation for niche brands or high end quality brands.


In Texas (and I suspect in most states), we have dedicated liquor stores the size of supermarkets (well over 10,000 square feet) that carry every brand and price level of liquor imaginable.

I imagine it would only be a matter of time before something of that equivalent popped up in the major population areas of Washington.
 
2011-10-20 10:13:47 AM
InmanRoshi: Frank N Stein: Can somebody tell me why the government is in the retail business? Anyone?

Because otherwise people would be drinking the devil's nectar on the sabbath.

Why let consumers make up their own minds (and retailers will adapt to what consumers want), when you can let politicians pandering to religious zealots make up your mind for you?


Don't forget the money and nanny-state tendencies. Maryland (for example) is fairly liberal, especially in some counties, yet those counties have the most restrictive liquor laws (and a single, county-run distributor). It's a revenue stream mostly but there are also a lot of wealthy soccer moms who fear beer in grocery stores will lead to their snowflakes become alcoholics.
 
2011-10-20 10:41:46 AM
InmanRoshi: Also, I know all corporations are "da man" and we got to rage against the machine and all of that, but I don't get the Costco hate. They're widely regarded as one of the most ethical companies in the country. They pay their employees an average of $17 an hour, practically 50% more than competitors, and provide phenomenal benefits to their employees. They don't shut out union members. Company policy is they can mark up no item more than 14% of cost. Most Supermarkets markup at least 25%, and Department stores mark up 50%.

If I'm choosing who I want influencing my purchasing decisions between Costco and politicians pandering to religious zealots, I'm going with Costco.


The noise against these giants also includes the argument that stores like Costco that can easily sell goods at prices that local shops can't contend with, and causes the local shops to fold ultimately.

I'm neither here nor there, growing up in ubercrowded southern CA, I buy local liquor because they are on every corner. No amount of Wal Mart could close these places because of their convenience. Sure a 64 pack of Costco piss beer would be cheaper, Id still have to drive ten minutes and dillydally in a warehouse for 10 more. Corner store is round trip service in five minutes.

This liquor debate in other states interests me quite a bit. I see no reason why any grocery chain should be prohibited from selling it, or why the states should be controlling it. Aside, will they really be selling liquor at 7-11? 7-11 always seemed like a sorta family friendly version of the liquor store, no bookshelves of porn mags or Dvds, and just beer. It doesn't offend me or anything, just seems odd.
 
2011-10-20 10:59:26 AM
image.spreadshirt.com

Finally, something to be superior about!!! On Wisconsin!!
 
2011-10-20 11:07:50 AM
D_Evans45: I'm neither here nor there, growing up in ubercrowded southern CA, I buy local liquor because they are on every corner. No amount of Wal Mart could close these places because of their convenience. Sure a 64 pack of Costco piss beer would be cheaper, Id still have to drive ten minutes and dillydally in a warehouse for 10 more. Corner store is round trip service in five minutes.

I guess it depends. If I need a sixer in a pinch because I'm going to a house party or event, I'll go down to the local corner store. However, if I'm looking to "stock up", I go to Costco. Costco differentiates itself from WalMart/Sam's Club by selling high end products at wholesale/bulk prices. I've bought cases of Dogfish Head 60 minute IPA at Costco for $30 a case. At the local corner store it typically $10 a six pack. No store can match the convenience of having a stock of it already at the house.
 
2011-10-20 11:16:17 AM
Given a choice between the current 3 tier system, which is complete and utter garbage, and Costco, I'll go with Costco every time.

If that wasn't enough, I'd vote for it just to piss off the people that payed big bucks to put "No on 1187 think of the children" ads everywhere. At least Costco is being pretty honest about what they want and why, the think of the children ads are all payed for by the distributors trying to protect their monopoly.

Not that I don't love being forced to pay a 50% markup so that people I dislike can make my life more difficult. It's not you state run liquor stores, it's me, we're just too different.
 
2011-10-20 11:31:01 AM
drzrma: Given a choice between the current 3 tier system, which is complete and utter garbage, and Costco, I'll go with Costco every time.

If that wasn't enough, I'd vote for it just to piss off the people that payed big bucks to put "No on 1187 think of the children" ads everywhere. At least Costco is being pretty honest about what they want and why, the think of the children ads are all payed for by the distributors trying to protect their monopoly.

Not that I don't love being forced to pay a 50% markup so that people I dislike can make my life more difficult. It's not you state run liquor stores, it's me, we're just too different.



The amusing thing in all of this is how the anti-1183 crowd is trying to make Costco look like an "evil corporation". Really? You're going to hate on a company that is BASED IN WASHINGTON, and that treats its employees well?
 
2011-10-20 11:41:16 AM
Mixolydian Master: Why does anyone even speak of Drew in any headlines? When was the last time you even heard him address Fark? He just hit total paydirt and checks his bank account. There really is no need to felate him in headlines (well, I guess it as close to an insta-green as you can get). He doesn't read them. I wouldn't either if I was able to get people to pay me to post on a glorified message board.

Yeah, there was a time I kind of thought that. Then I met the guy. Have you met Drew? He's awesome.
 
2011-10-20 12:07:06 PM
Generation_D: How will the Costco initiative get me more choices?

In states that allow private sales of hard spirits, you'll find large specialty stores that deal with alcohol sales. They are well over the 10,000 sq-ft of required retail space as required by I-1183.

As I've said in other threads on the issue, you're going to see more than just the warehouse stores selling spirits. Selection is not going to go down. Here are photos are a retail chain we have here in Arizona:

www.sarasotamagazine.com

media.sacbee.com

cdn2-b.examiner.com

/images hot like my Flaming Homer
 
2011-10-20 12:20:35 PM
FloydA: 1183 is a really stupid idea. Costco and Walmart are the ONLY people in the state who would benefit from this. Everyone else would be worse off. If you live in Washington, please vote against this.

STFU troll. The only people who are going to lose are all the pathetic grumpy state liquor store employees that no one gives a shiat about.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »