General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

This forum is for discussing current and upcoming LCBO, Beer Store and Grocery Store releases and policies.

Moderators: GregClow, Cass

User avatar
Blasphomet
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:07 am

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby Blasphomet » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:33 pm

MatttthewGeorge wrote:Or maybe we've reassessed our costs and realized the beer cost us more than we originally thought.

Also, many LCBOs at this time of year will put the beer on clearance. Guess who eats that clearance price? We do.

Happy to hear you drink our cans however I'm sad to hear you think we're purposely trying to rip our customers off. I get that it's expensive (out of my price range too, tbh) but ripping on us for false assumptions is uncalled for. Maybe next time just ask why?


Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion. You're not rookies. Jacking the price of a seasonal beer that has been on shelves for two months is ridiculous in my opinion, and is a panic move made in hindsight.
AugustusRex
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby AugustusRex » Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:07 am

Blasphomet wrote:
MatttthewGeorge wrote:Or maybe we've reassessed our costs and realized the beer cost us more than we originally thought.

Also, many LCBOs at this time of year will put the beer on clearance. Guess who eats that clearance price? We do.

Happy to hear you drink our cans however I'm sad to hear you think we're purposely trying to rip our customers off. I get that it's expensive (out of my price range too, tbh) but ripping on us for false assumptions is uncalled for. Maybe next time just ask why?


Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion. You're not rookies. Jacking the price of a seasonal beer that has been on shelves for two months is ridiculous in my opinion, and is a panic move made in hindsight.


I'll give you 55 cents if you give up.
User avatar
Blasphomet
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:07 am

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby Blasphomet » Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:45 am

AugustusRex wrote:
Blasphomet wrote:
MatttthewGeorge wrote:Or maybe we've reassessed our costs and realized the beer cost us more than we originally thought.

Also, many LCBOs at this time of year will put the beer on clearance. Guess who eats that clearance price? We do.

Happy to hear you drink our cans however I'm sad to hear you think we're purposely trying to rip our customers off. I get that it's expensive (out of my price range too, tbh) but ripping on us for false assumptions is uncalled for. Maybe next time just ask why?


Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion. You're not rookies. Jacking the price of a seasonal beer that has been on shelves for two months is ridiculous in my opinion, and is a panic move made in hindsight.


I'll give you 55 cents if you give up.


Give up what?
User avatar
MatttthewGeorge
Bar Fly
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:45 pm
Location: Woolwich, ON
Contact:

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby MatttthewGeorge » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:40 am

Blasphomet wrote:
MatttthewGeorge wrote:Or maybe we've reassessed our costs and realized the beer cost us more than we originally thought.

Also, many LCBOs at this time of year will put the beer on clearance. Guess who eats that clearance price? We do.

Happy to hear you drink our cans however I'm sad to hear you think we're purposely trying to rip our customers off. I get that it's expensive (out of my price range too, tbh) but ripping on us for false assumptions is uncalled for. Maybe next time just ask why?


Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion. You're not rookies. Jacking the price of a seasonal beer that has been on shelves for two months is ridiculous in my opinion, and is a panic move made in hindsight.


A CFO started at NB this fall and he's reevaluating all our costs. Before that it was done by the same people who have run the business for 15+ years. They've taken NB from a Mom&Pop to a large Ontario brewery and are just starting to hire people to keep them there. So if anything the price adjustment was the opposite of amateur hour.

I'm done talking about this. I've given more information and insight into brewery decision-making than any other brewery on this forum, and you can do with it as you please. To those that have accepted it, even if you don't like it, I say "thank you". To those that would rather throw insults, I say "good day to you".
untappd/tweetbox/facebitch/snapitychat/etc: @matttthewgeorge
User avatar
Belgian
Bar Towel Legend
Posts: 9742
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:15 pm
Location: Earth

NB Kentucky price increase after 2 mo's.

Postby Belgian » Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:16 pm

Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion...

I appreciate if Nickel Brook during this transition would rather risk under-pricing a beer / make adjustments later than over-price it / be too cautious.

We also kind of knew the four-pack-for-$9.95 deal they used to have on the regular Bolshie was unrealistically low, and we didn't complain about taking advantage of it.
In Beerum Veritas
User avatar
ErkLR
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:21 am
Location: London, ON

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby ErkLR » Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:54 pm

MatttthewGeorge wrote:We are looking at 500ml for next year, but I cannot say it that will indeed happen. But the general consensus around the brewery is that we need to be in a smaller format.


I hope NB (and everyone else) switches to smaller formats for these big beers. Though I also balked at the price the last couple years, I just looked and I have 2014 bottles of Kentucky and Winey Bastard in my "cellar", not so much because I wanted to age them this long, but because I keep passing them up for smaller bottles. Eg) last night I had a can of Ten Fiddy and a bottle of Kwak because it's so much easier for me to open a small bottle of a big beer.

Speaking of prices, at the end of Nov someone here was talking about adding a price/volume calculation to an existing LCBO checking website. Did anything ever come of that. I'd like to be able to compare equal sizes of beers to help decide if I think a particular beer is worth it to me.
Masterplan
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:00 am

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby Masterplan » Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:04 pm

Put me in the category that has no problem cracking a high ABV 750ml on a week night. What I don't understand is how a larger format equals less beer per dollar? Seems counter intuitive to any other consumable.
GtownRandy
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:17 am

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby GtownRandy » Sat Jan 21, 2017 5:40 pm

ErkLR wrote:Speaking of prices, at the end of Nov someone here was talking about adding a price/volume calculation to an existing LCBO checking website. Did anything ever come of that. I'd like to be able to compare equal sizes of beers to help decide if I think a particular beer is worth it to me.


Yes, i was working on that, and is a feature that is still on Vlad's upcoming features to-do list, at https://beersearch.on.somerandominternetsite.com/new-releases

Generally, bottles seem to be worse value cost/mL than cans e.g. would you rather have a 473ml can of Ransack for $3.25, or a 500ml bottle of Elora Borealis for $4.50?

The two main variables in my value formula are cost/standard serving ,and ratebeer rating. Does anyone have any feedback on the balance between the two to determine the quality/cost value ratio e.g. 75% rating/25% cost ?
User avatar
ErkLR
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:21 am
Location: London, ON

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby ErkLR » Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:10 pm

GtownRandy wrote:
ErkLR wrote:Speaking of prices, at the end of Nov someone here was talking about adding a price/volume calculation to an existing LCBO checking website. Did anything ever come of that. I'd like to be able to compare equal sizes of beers to help decide if I think a particular beer is worth it to me.


Yes, i was working on that, and is a feature that is still on Vlad's upcoming features to-do list, at https://beersearch.on.somerandominternetsite.com/new-releases

Generally, bottles seem to be worse value cost/mL than cans e.g. would you rather have a 473ml can of Ransack for $3.25, or a 500ml bottle of Elora Borealis for $4.50?

The two main variables in my value formula are cost/standard serving ,and ratebeer rating. Does anyone have any feedback on the balance between the two to determine the quality/cost value ratio e.g. 75% rating/25% cost ?


Ah great, I'd be interested to see it working. Are you going to do straight cost/mL or standardize everything to one volume? eg) cost/tall boy or cost/500 mL? I'm not surprised that bottles generally cost more at the register, as I understand it, the whole bottle life-cycle is more expensive outside of the industry standard 341 mL bottles.

As for cost per rating, I prefer my own rating of a beer over that of any site, so it wouldn't matter much to me.
A
Bar Fly
Posts: 591
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 7:00 pm

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby A » Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:11 pm

Blasphomet wrote:
MatttthewGeorge wrote:Or maybe we've reassessed our costs and realized the beer cost us more than we originally thought.

Also, many LCBOs at this time of year will put the beer on clearance. Guess who eats that clearance price? We do.

Happy to hear you drink our cans however I'm sad to hear you think we're purposely trying to rip our customers off. I get that it's expensive (out of my price range too, tbh) but ripping on us for false assumptions is uncalled for. Maybe next time just ask why?


Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion. You're not rookies. Jacking the price of a seasonal beer that has been on shelves for two months is ridiculous in my opinion, and is a panic move made in hindsight.


The brewery can charge whatever they want whenever they want, and you are free to buy it or not. That's it.
User avatar
Craig
Seasoned Drinker
Posts: 1665
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:23 am

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby Craig » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:55 pm

GtownRandy wrote:
ErkLR wrote:Speaking of prices, at the end of Nov someone here was talking about adding a price/volume calculation to an existing LCBO checking website. Did anything ever come of that. I'd like to be able to compare equal sizes of beers to help decide if I think a particular beer is worth it to me.


Yes, i was working on that, and is a feature that is still on Vlad's upcoming features to-do list, at https://beersearch.on.somerandominternetsite.com/new-releases

Generally, bottles seem to be worse value cost/mL than cans e.g. would you rather have a 473ml can of Ransack for $3.25, or a 500ml bottle of Elora Borealis for $4.50?

The two main variables in my value formula are cost/standard serving ,and ratebeer rating. Does anyone have any feedback on the balance between the two to determine the quality/cost value ratio e.g. 75% rating/25% cost ?


I'd just do cost (per ml) * rating (out of 100) and call it a day. But make the cost per ml very visible, since ratings are of limited value to many.
User avatar
Belgian
Bar Towel Legend
Posts: 9742
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:15 pm
Location: Earth

LCBO Checking Website

Postby Belgian » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:48 pm

Craig wrote:I'd just do cost (per ml) * rating (out of 100) and call it a day. But make the cost per ml very visible, since ratings are of limited value to many.

Yes we'd want a quality-price ratio, as many tangible factors affect intrinsic worth (which increases with extensive or rare use of hops, other special additions, higher gravity, extra-long maturation or use of spirit barrels etc.)

Some kind of universal QPR might also be useful if one could calculate that from the cost-per-ml VS the 'rated' score. It's also fairer to brewers: special added-worth treatments and additions usually translate to a better ratings score, at least if the resulting recipe actually works well for the beer - and if not the added cost works against the QPR of the beer.

In other words, price-per-100ml tells you that a Ontario Hefeweizen in a 750ml is a bit expensive, while the so-so QPR also tells you it's really not worth it. Something like Three Floyds 3D would have both a high price-per-100ml AND a high QPR, telling you it might be worth the splurge.


We can say a score divided by Price-per-100 ml can produce a number representing QPR.

Example 1:
A Doppelbock Dunkel costing $3.45 per 500ml is .69/100 ml.

Its score on RateBeer is 3.8

3.8 / .69 = QPR of 5.5

Example 2:
A Kölsch costing $2.85 per 341ml is .84/100 ml.

Its score on RateBeer is 2.3

2.3 / .84 = QPR of 2.7

^ we can see the Doppel is a better deal than the Kölsch on a higher-QPR basis, very much so & yet the relationship would be almost reversed if the scores were swapped (QPRs would in this case be 4.5 Kölsch / 3.3 Doppel.)
In Beerum Veritas
GtownRandy
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:17 am

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby GtownRandy » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:21 pm

thanks for the input guys, i forgot another factor is the ABV of the beer. for example 2 beers with the same price/mL and rating, but one is 10% ABV and the other is 7%, the 10% should be more value should it not?
Masterplan
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:00 am

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby Masterplan » Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:35 pm

GtownRandy wrote:thanks for the input guys, i forgot another factor is the ABV of the beer. for example 2 beers with the same price/mL and rating, but one is 10% ABV and the other is 7%, the 10% should be more value should it not?

IMO, unless you are buying beer just to get drunk, ABV should have no impact on the calculation of value.
S. St. Jeb
Bar Fly
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:44 pm
Location: Burlington, ON

Re: General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

Postby S. St. Jeb » Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:55 pm

My opinion.

Show cost/unit volume, beer rating, and alc/volume separately. If you want to do some math and combine the cost and rating somehow, do that in addition to the "raw data", not instead of it. Cost/unit is a hard value, and I can use that to compare beer costs and make my own decisions. A beer's rating is good additional info to have, but it is still a judgment and personal. If the only data you were going to give was a combination of cost and rating, it wouldn't be so valuable.....to me, anyway. :wink:

Return to “LCBO, Beer Store and Grocery Stores”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests