«
»

Enough is Enough: a pricing rant

16 Mar 2009

I was working on how to write this properly, then realised I have yet to try to use video more effectively (and it was faster!), so I recorded some thoughts (woefully unprepared) on Seesmic instead.

Here is the video. I think you need to register to leave a video comment (please do, I’d love to get some) but you can also leave me your written thoughts on this post.

If you want to join the OLN “Enough is Enough” campaign, text ‘Enough’ to 82055 (in the UK)

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Monday, March 16th, 2009 at 10:25 am and is filed under wine culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • I pretty much agree with you on everything, but there is one point that I thought I should make. As long as the price is set by the government, but no money goes to the government, it could benefit the UK wine trade and consumers who can only afford sub £5 wine. It could also particularly benefit independent merchants and other wine shops (so I obviously have a vested interest!)

    Suppose a supermarket has a terrible £2.99 bottle of wine. If they are forced to charge £4.50 for that, it means that the supermarket makes a shed load of profit. However, if the independent wine shops of the UK, and the likes of Oddbins and the Threshers group, then make a big deal about the quality of their £4.50 wines being better than this over inflated £2.99 plonk from Supermarket, consumers may then switch from buying in supermarkets and go to a wine shop. Supermarkets in turn will then be forced to provide better quality wines at £4.50, so their customers will, in time, benefit as well.

    I believe that Italy has a standard price for bread, so bakers producing a good, tasty loaf of bread get the custom, whereas a baker producing high profit but poor quality bread don't get any sales. The result is that bread quality has improved as people move to the better baker. This could happen with minimum pricing in the UK assuming that the government doesn't take all the cash.

    I accept your point that there are people, pensioners etc, who buy £2.99 because that is all they can afford, and they may have to reduce the amount of wine they buy, so I’m not saying minimum pricing is without serious flaws, but as long as the government didn’t harvest in the cash from the minimum pricing and therefore didn’t bump up all price points, the quality of cheaper wine in the UK could go up and people could drink better wine.
  • The smoke was almost pouring from your nostrils! Wine in the same bracket as cigarettes. Mm.
  • Donaldson's views on passive drinking were in the Times this weekend, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style...
    what a crock! Trying to equate second hand smoke, which you may have no control over inhaling, with alcohol over which you do have control is ridiculous. Another example of the nanny state...grrrr....
  • I liked your video, Denise, I think you're rightt. But I think you're wrong about passive drinking. I think the expression is misleading, but Sir Liam's point is actually a very good one. See my vid.
  • thanks for letting me do my little rant, Rob! Totally agree with you! And don' t even get me started on Donaldson's theory of "passive drinking", gimme a break!
  • wonderful, thanks for your support.

    what have you seen on "passive drinking"? links?
  • This Seesmic thing is rather fun! Totally agree with your points, Robert. Perfectly sensible responsible people are punished by this tax just to pay for a minority of people who abuse drink, who could be dissuaded or helped in other ways.
  • thank you so much for your text and video comments.

    good points!

    also wanted to point out that in practice the minimum bottle price would be over £5 as VERY few bottles are made at 12% alc (for example 15% ABV = £5.62 minimum)
blog comments powered by Disqus