The Bar Towel

Belgian wrote:

JeffPorter wrote:

Belgian wrote: It's milking the cow at a loss rather than innovating for more profits which the LC doesn't really care about.

I'm not sure how they operate at a loss when net income was 1.56 billion in 2010, and has been increasing steadily for 17 years. Unless there's something I'm not getting.

I mean they don't care about making MORE money than they already do by being far more efficient and consumer-oriented. They ARE wasteful and discard the opportunity to make still-greater profits which would fund the province. This is because they can afford to, and there's no competiton.

'Milking the Cow' is entirely accurate & the stategy of weak 'play it safe' business that resists innovation.

That makes sense.

Belgian wrote:

JeffPorter wrote:

Belgian wrote: It's milking the cow at a loss rather than innovating for more profits which the LC doesn't really care about.

I'm not sure how they operate at a loss when net income was 1.56 billion in 2010, and has been increasing steadily for 17 years. Unless there's something I'm not getting.

I mean they don't care about making MORE money than they already do by being far more efficient and consumer-oriented. They ARE wasteful and discard the opportunity to make still-greater profits which would fund the province. This is because they can afford to, and there's no competiton.

'Milking the Cow' is entirely accurate & the stategy of weak 'play it safe' business that resists innovation.

I'm pretty sure you didn't need to rephrase your entire thesis 'in clear english', JP was specifically questioning the bit about 'at a loss', which was factually incorrect.

As an aside, to 'milk the cow' is to squeeze as much profit out of something as possible. Which is sort of what you've argued they are not doing, no? I can think of a few other bovine themed idioms that could be used to appropriately depict the scenario that you've (mostly) accurately described here.

dale cannon wrote:

Belgian wrote:

JeffPorter wrote: I'm not sure how they operate at a loss when net income was 1.56 billion in 2010, and has been increasing steadily for 17 years. Unless there's something I'm not getting.

I mean they don't care about making MORE money than they already do by being far more efficient and consumer-oriented. They ARE wasteful and discard the opportunity to make still-greater profits which would fund the province. This is because they can afford to, and there's no competiton.

'Milking the Cow' is entirely accurate & the stategy of weak 'play it safe' business that resists innovation.

I'm pretty sure you didn't need to rephrase your entire thesis 'in clear english', JP was specifically questioning the bit about 'at a loss', which was factually incorrect.

As an aside, to 'milk the cow' is to squeeze as much profit out of something as possible. Which is sort of what you've argued they are not doing, no? I can think of a few other bovine themed idioms that could be used to appropriately depict the scenario that you've (mostly) accurately described here.

That also makes sense. I dunno, guys. I'm really sleeeepy right now.

JeffPorter wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote: Except I totally get the feeling that if they start selling Vodka at 7-11 people are going to freak out.

Yeah, and "social responsibility" in and of itself doesn't have to be a bad thing. There's a difference between thinking a skull bottle is too offensive or explosive beer packaging, and making sure 13 year olds or drunk guys in cars don't buy booze.

Private owners have far more incentive to enforce age restrictions than the LCBO or Beer Store.

Ale's What Cures Ya wrote:

JeffPorter wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote: Except I totally get the feeling that if they start selling Vodka at 7-11 people are going to freak out.

Yeah, and "social responsibility" in and of itself doesn't have to be a bad thing. There's a difference between thinking a skull bottle is too offensive or explosive beer packaging, and making sure 13 year olds or drunk guys in cars don't buy booze.

Private owners have far more incentive to enforce age restrictions than the LCBO or Beer Store.

How do you figure that? A private owner makes more money by selling to underage kids. A LCBO employee makes no extra money selling to underage kids.

Baulz wrote:

Ale's What Cures Ya wrote:Private owners have far more incentive to enforce age restrictions than the LCBO or Beer Store.

How do you figure that? A private owner makes more money by selling to underage kids. A LCBO employee makes no extra money selling to underage kids.

A bar owner - and the hypothetical private store owner - can lose their license and be put out of business if they're caught serving underage patrons.

What would happen to an LCBO employee? A reprimand? Maybe a short suspension? I suspect the union would ensure nothing worse in terms of punishment. And the store wouldn't be shut down.

GregClow wrote:

Baulz wrote:

Ale's What Cures Ya wrote:Private owners have far more incentive to enforce age restrictions than the LCBO or Beer Store.

How do you figure that? A private owner makes more money by selling to underage kids. A LCBO employee makes no extra money selling to underage kids.

A bar owner - and the hypothetical private store owner - can lose their license and be put out of business if they're caught serving underage patrons.

What would happen to an LCBO employee? A reprimand? Maybe a short suspension? I suspect the union would ensure nothing worse in terms of punishment. And the store wouldn't be shut down.

Funny enough one of the employees at my local lcbo got fired recently for this very reason. Im curious to find out if it was a first offense or thirty first.

Regarding freshness: ive been burned buying ipa from some the beat rated privately owned stores in the states that have long been past their best days.

I like the idea of the lcbo handling hard liquor and still bringing in seasonal beer releases and keeping vintages while opening up the beer sales to corner stores provided that molson or whomever doesnt try to monopolize that distribution method. too. I would imagine the big macros have a good bit of lobbying clout.

GregClow wrote:

Baulz wrote:

Ale's What Cures Ya wrote:Private owners have far more incentive to enforce age restrictions than the LCBO or Beer Store.

How do you figure that? A private owner makes more money by selling to underage kids. A LCBO employee makes no extra money selling to underage kids.

A bar owner - and the hypothetical private store owner - can lose their license and be put out of business if they're caught serving underage patrons.

What would happen to an LCBO employee? A reprimand? Maybe a short suspension? I suspect the union would ensure nothing worse in terms of punishment. And the store wouldn't be shut down.

That is true but it doesn't seem to stop store owners from selling tobacco to underage customers.

A while back in his e-newsletter, George of C'est What suggested a compromise. If I recall correctly, he proposed allowing bars/taverns to sell beer to take home. The reasoning is that you already have staff and owners accustomed to checking age, and they are very motivated to do so.

I wondered if this would be an imposition on the staff so I went to my local spot and asked the world's finest bartender. He didn't think it would be. He likened it to selling wings to take home.

I imagine it would be wise to shop before drinking so that regulations against selling alcohol to impaired customers don't come into play.

BigBob wrote:A while back in his e-newsletter, George of C'est What suggested a compromise. If I recall correctly, he proposed allowing bars/taverns to sell beer to take home. The reasoning is that you already have staff and owners accustomed to checking age, and they are very motivated to do so.

I wondered if this would be an imposition on the staff so I went to my local spot and asked the world's finest bartender. He didn't think it would be. He likened it to selling wings to take home.

I imagine it would be wise to shop before drinking so that regulations against selling alcohol to impaired customers don't come into play.

I have always thought that would be the way to go. I mean it is already legal to order a bottle of wine, drink one glass and then have it recorked and take it home. Plus bartenders already have to have smart serve, and bars already need liquor licences. Plus people who already freak out about underaged drinking and social responsibility wouldn't really have anything to get freaked out about since selling beer at bars to go isn't that much different than what is already going on.

They do off sales in BC and yest it is more expensive than an store, but it is less expensive then ordering a drink at the bar. Of course once you have that system it is not much of a step to go to privately owned beer stores attached to bars.

BigBob wrote:A while back in his e-newsletter, George of C'est What suggested a compromise. If I recall correctly, he proposed allowing bars/taverns to sell beer to take home. The reasoning is that you already have staff and owners accustomed to checking age, and they are very motivated to do so.

I wondered if this would be an imposition on the staff so I went to my local spot and asked the world's finest bartender. He didn't think it would be. He likened it to selling wings to take home.

I imagine it would be wise to shop before drinking so that regulations against selling alcohol to impaired customers don't come into play.

Pennsylvania as a model of reform?

Off sales are allowed in Manitoba as well I think.

When they do these sales, do they sell them at the same "bar" rate, so 200-300% mark-up?

JeffPorter wrote:When they do these sales, do they sell them at the same "bar" rate, so 200-300% mark-up?

If I remember it was actually a bit less, since if you take the beer home with you there is a lot less overhead for the bar (you aren't taking up a seat, no cost for a waitress to serve you or a glass to clean after you are done).

Kel Varnsen wrote:

JeffPorter wrote:When they do these sales, do they sell them at the same "bar" rate, so 200-300% mark-up?

If I remember it was actually a bit less, since if you take the beer home with you there is a lot less overhead for the bar (you aren't taking up a seat, no cost for a waitress to serve you or a glass to clean after you are done).

While in NYC earlier this year we stumbled upon a place called Top Hops across from the Tenement museum. At the front there was a bar with 15-20 taps. You could order some food, mostly small stuff that a full sized kitchen isn't required for. In the back there were the beer fridges full of bottles. They had typical retail prices if you were taking them to go. If you got a bottle to drink there then there was a small additional charge, something like $2-$3.

The husband and wife owners were quite friendly. I told them a place like theirs can't exist back in Ontario.