Tom Glasgow
Thomas W Glasgow
Distributor
This winemaker
- Thread starter Guilhaume gerard
- Start date
Robert Dentice
Robert Dentice
Loading…
moorebrothers.com
Tonight (not tomorrow) in New York!
Good Morning Robert,
I’ve just learned of a regrettable, unavoidable change in my friend Pete Stolpman’s travel schedule: Pete will not be able to join us tomorrow as planned.
Instead, Pete Stolpman will visit Moore Brothers New York this evening, Thursday, February 28. Please join us any time between 5:30 8PM, for an open house tasting of some of the finest white and red Rhône varietal wines grown anywhere in California.
But if, understandably, you can’t make it tonight on such short notice, please keep the original date, and join me tomorrow, Friday, March 1, when I’ll be pouring the same range of wonderful Stolpman Vineyards wines myself (Pete’s taller and better looking than I am, but I promised him I’ll do my best).
This is a free open house tasting. No reservation is required.
All Stolpman Vineyard wines will be discounted 10% through Friday.
Wine Tasting with Pete Stolpman Tonight
Thursday, February 28, 2013
5:30 8PM
Moore Brothers Wine Company
33 East 20th Street
New York, NY 10003
866-986-6673
Pete Stolpman, Terry Moore, and Vineyard Manager Ruben Solorzano at Stolpman Vineyards
Pete Stolpman’s unique estate in the heart of Ballard Canyon has provided grapes to such extraordinary producers as Manfred Krankl at Sine Qua Non, and Adam Tolmach at Ojai Vineyards. In 2001, Tolmach’s protégé Sashi Moorman joined Stolpman as winemaker, and together with vineyard manager Ruben Solorzano, called “the vine whisperer” by the Santa Barbara Independent, Stolpman Vineyards is producing some of the most profoundly beautiful estate-bottled Rhône varietal wines in California.
We are pleased to welcome Pete Stolpman to Moore Brothers New York this evening, Thursday, February 28. I hope you can join us.
And as always, we thank you again for your continued support of sustainable family
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
Aw, and I'm stuck eating cassoulet tonight.
Robert Dentice
Robert Dentice
I just got word that the reason Pete can't do the tasting on Friday is because he is having dinner at Peking Duck with David Z.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
Bangin'!
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Jackpot!
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
For those who care, the end of the saga.
kirk wallace
kirk wallace
Foregive me as I don't sell wine or other hard goods, and nothing through the three-tier schnook system, but I am not following the race to the bottom and hurting retailers everywhere argument. Perhaps you ITB, or MBA folks can help me.
If the winery sets price X for it wines to the distributor, and the distributor adds margin Y, the retailer must choose some margin Z to sell the wine at, to pay its costs and earn some profit. Presumably Z has room built in to offer discounts from time to time on the hope of generating more overall sales. Holding operating costs constant -- a crazy, unrealistic assumption, but lets do it any way -- If Retailer 1 has a simple life-style s/he may decide that Z of, say, 5% is enough. This will drive Retailer 2 down the block crazy if s/he planned to retire early or has a bigger family or whatever and wants Z of 10 or 15%, but if R2 can convince enough customers that they get value from better selection ("curating"), better service or something else, R2 may yet stay in business (see, e.g., Italian Wine Merchant). In that dynamic, however, Winery and distributor would seem not to care, b/c their gross is the same. Is the idea that when R2 ( and his/her customers) sees R1's prices, R2 will complain to the distributor and demand that it lower its margin? And if D gives in, it will in turn squeeze the winery? And then, assuming D is fair -- presumably another crazy unrealistic assumption -- D will sell to R1 at the new lower price and R1 will again undercut R2? And so on until winery gives up and sells its land to a condo developer? However, if this dynamic doesn't go on, it seems like somebody is violating the antitrust laws. And moreover, if winery is small and in demand, presumably it will say no to D, and either D will eat the decreased margin, or simply sell more to R1 who seems to be able to run its business more cheaply and give customers what they want. Or, as it seems to work in the real world, some customers don't insist on the lowest price if they think they are getting something else of value, or just plain can't use wine-searcher. In those cases, R1 and R2 can both survive. I can see that it is easier for R2 if R1 doesn't lower its prices, but "premium" wine isn't like dish soap at Costo v. The corner mom and pop store, where Costo or Walmart can demand lower wholesale prices and the corner shop can't. Nor, in the physical retail environment like Amazon v. Three Lives --I.e., lower operating expenses and volume to demand lower price from publisher. What am I overlooking or thinking about wrong?
If the winery sets price X for it wines to the distributor, and the distributor adds margin Y, the retailer must choose some margin Z to sell the wine at, to pay its costs and earn some profit. Presumably Z has room built in to offer discounts from time to time on the hope of generating more overall sales. Holding operating costs constant -- a crazy, unrealistic assumption, but lets do it any way -- If Retailer 1 has a simple life-style s/he may decide that Z of, say, 5% is enough. This will drive Retailer 2 down the block crazy if s/he planned to retire early or has a bigger family or whatever and wants Z of 10 or 15%, but if R2 can convince enough customers that they get value from better selection ("curating"), better service or something else, R2 may yet stay in business (see, e.g., Italian Wine Merchant). In that dynamic, however, Winery and distributor would seem not to care, b/c their gross is the same. Is the idea that when R2 ( and his/her customers) sees R1's prices, R2 will complain to the distributor and demand that it lower its margin? And if D gives in, it will in turn squeeze the winery? And then, assuming D is fair -- presumably another crazy unrealistic assumption -- D will sell to R1 at the new lower price and R1 will again undercut R2? And so on until winery gives up and sells its land to a condo developer? However, if this dynamic doesn't go on, it seems like somebody is violating the antitrust laws. And moreover, if winery is small and in demand, presumably it will say no to D, and either D will eat the decreased margin, or simply sell more to R1 who seems to be able to run its business more cheaply and give customers what they want. Or, as it seems to work in the real world, some customers don't insist on the lowest price if they think they are getting something else of value, or just plain can't use wine-searcher. In those cases, R1 and R2 can both survive. I can see that it is easier for R2 if R1 doesn't lower its prices, but "premium" wine isn't like dish soap at Costo v. The corner mom and pop store, where Costo or Walmart can demand lower wholesale prices and the corner shop can't. Nor, in the physical retail environment like Amazon v. Three Lives --I.e., lower operating expenses and volume to demand lower price from publisher. What am I overlooking or thinking about wrong?
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
Pride and vanity. You're selling my wine for x? It's worth at least 3x you bastard!
kirk wallace
kirk wallace
But that can't be. Winery, in my simplistic example, decides if its price is x, 3x or any other number. Does M. Meo care if Morrell wants to sell his wine at no profit? (As if.)
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
You know, unless they're selling Domaine Leroys or DRCs at 20% less than their competitors, I doubt that there are more than 15 people who are going to divert themselves to the lower-priced place just to save a few dollars.
Now, of course, I'm sure that Stolpman would answer that his wines are every bit as good, and maybe better than, Domaine Leroy's or DRC's, but that would be missing the point.
Now, of course, I'm sure that Stolpman would answer that his wines are every bit as good, and maybe better than, Domaine Leroy's or DRC's, but that would be missing the point.
Oliver McCrum
Oliver McCrum
Sometimes a 'bomber' (retailer who sells wine at very low prices) will buy a case or two of something, then sell it for such a low price that no other retailer wants to sell it. So as the supplier, you get a two case sale and that's it. This is particularly tricky with the internet and Wine Searcher. Suppliers want someone who is willing to promote the brand, and people who feature rock-bottom prices don't tend to do as much brand-building. ( haven't looked at the pricing in this instance.)
My experience is that customers want very low prices and service too, but they'll migrate to the lowest price, as a rule.
My experience is that customers want very low prices and service too, but they'll migrate to the lowest price, as a rule.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Oliver -- I find this to be true for day-to-day prices of wines, but is it really the case for a retailer that puts a wine on sale over the weekend? How many people even know of that sale and are willing to alter any plans they've made to take advantage of the sale, especially if it's for a wine that is (presumably) a relatively obscure brand?
Bill Lundstrom
Bill Lundstrom
Actually, there's more to this story but as SF Joe said, TMI.
If you were lucky enough to live in Wilmington, you might find it all rather amusing.
If you were lucky enough to live in Wilmington, you might find it all rather amusing.
Oliver McCrum
Oliver McCrum
The whole thing appears to have been completely mismanaged by (at least) the winery, I'm not defending it at all. I'm just addressing why wineries try to keep prices at a certain level, even though that seems counter-intuitive. Sometimes the 'other retailer' complains, that may have something to do with it too.
Marc Hanes
Marc Hanes
One of the comments on this blog post resonates with me:
"It's a race to the bottom. The internet means that this race is far from over, and the wineries are right for protecting their image and brand amidst this craze. If even 'expensive' wine (choose your price range) becomes commoditized, then the specialty retailers will go the way of the independent bookstore and we'll all be left buying wine from big box stores. An exaggeration, maybe, but the clear trend in the US."
As someone who works in wine retail, this is pretty gosh darn close to how I'd put it and I have used the phrase "race to the bottom" to describe New Jersey wine retailing until I am blue in the face. The only part I would disagree with is the "exaggeration" part -- though we might not want to admit it, and certainly NYC is the exception to the rule in many regards, independent "boutique" brick and mortar wine retailing is dead and we simply are looking at the twitching corpse and thinking, ohh, he's just break dancing...
"It's a race to the bottom. The internet means that this race is far from over, and the wineries are right for protecting their image and brand amidst this craze. If even 'expensive' wine (choose your price range) becomes commoditized, then the specialty retailers will go the way of the independent bookstore and we'll all be left buying wine from big box stores. An exaggeration, maybe, but the clear trend in the US."
As someone who works in wine retail, this is pretty gosh darn close to how I'd put it and I have used the phrase "race to the bottom" to describe New Jersey wine retailing until I am blue in the face. The only part I would disagree with is the "exaggeration" part -- though we might not want to admit it, and certainly NYC is the exception to the rule in many regards, independent "boutique" brick and mortar wine retailing is dead and we simply are looking at the twitching corpse and thinking, ohh, he's just break dancing...