BYOB Part II

[JohnL]

Thanks Katie!

Your post was very informative.

You have a wonderful and informed perspective on these matters.

There are some people who are obsessed not so much with prices but rather

with profits. This IMOP is a two way street.

You cite Moore brothers from the link you provided.

Interestingly, Moore Brothers carries wines that are not found anywhere else--it is almost impossible for the consumer to compare prices at retail let alone figure out what profit Moore Brothers is making on these wines--even industry pros have a hard time here.

Moore Brothers is very successful and rightly so--why? They are offering wines that people enjoy at a wide range of price points--few would really care how much profit Moore Brothers is making--customers are happy with the wines they buy there and the atmosphere and sales process.

IMOP--the State liquor laws as they impact Philadelphia have created a somewhat unnatural atmosphere for the restaurant industry and consumers. as you note--it is expensive enough to open a restaurant (anywhere not just PA) and thrive and make a profit.

This is exacerbated by the PA laws. A good restaurant--an optimal situation--will be able to offer a diverse and interesting wine selection across a wide range of prices providing the consumer with lots of choices. it is also important to offer consumers a chance to order mixed drinks and after dinner drinks.

It is IMOP-too/very difficult/costly for a restaurant to do this in PA.

As a result too many people are obsessed with prices and worse-profits-- and consumers are overly suspicious that restaurants are "gouging" them on wine costs. This is unhealthy for the entire business climate.

It is a shame that Moore Brothers can not open a store in PA--or any other enterprising retailer. There is little/no competition at retail not just in terms of pricing but in terms of range of service and types of wines offered to consumers. For comparison sake take a shop like Chambers street Wines in NYC--they focus on the Loire and have an incredible selection of wines from small producers as well as a great deal of knowledge about these wines.

No state/government run operation/monopoly selling anything can offer consumers what a free and healthy market can encouraging enterprise and competition.

Consumers should be concerned--not with profits someone is making but rather having interesting choices at prices they can afford. having the opportunity to enjoy things well run restaurants can do best--a good full range beverage service--great mixed drinks and aperitifs, interesting wines selected to complement the food and after dinner drinks all served professionally.

There should be competition among full service restaurants--not just healthy for prices but also in quality. These restaurants should be challenged to gain consumer 's business.

Instead--much of the competition is with BYO's--for the local business--BYO's miss out on a lot of business and tourism customers.

Again, BYO's are fine--every city should have some--this is an option for consumers.

In the end--Philadelphia consumers (and restaurateurs) are being short changed--at the least even those proponents of BYO's lose out--they can't even stop in a Moore Brothers on a whim before dinner and pick up a great bottle......

[Capaneus]

For those griping about corkage fees, let me just remind you that just because there's no "law" preventing you from bringing your own, doesn't make it defensable.  If you were a doctor, let's say, you'd be incredibly insulted if someone brought their own tongue depressors and thermometer to their check-up and expected a discount on the cost of their appointment fee.  Likewise if you were an attorney and a client brought their wife (a paralegal at a competing firm) with them to do some of the research legwork on the case and expected a lesser fee.  If it's a very special occasion and you want to break out that bottle of Bordeaux you bought on your honeymoon in France for your 20th anniversary, then by all means ask.  I've never worked anywhere that wouldn't be reasonable about a request like that.  A restaurant with a liquor license is providing a service that presumably they've made an investment of time, money, space and personnel into. Bringing your own wine to a restaurant that has a well thought out beverage program is like bringing your own food into the restaurant.  How is it any different??  It's insulting and presumes the restaurant can't provide the services they're in business for.  It's like salting your food before tasting it.  If a consumer finds that incredibly limiting then they are free to take their business elsewhere or pay a corkage fee.

←

Well... we do. That's what the entire debate is about. And may I suggest that you review this and previous threads on BYOBs. I think you'll discover that the "griping" is largely being done by the faction that thinks the current system is unfair to restaurateurs when compared to other areas. Personally, I find myself quite content with things as they are. If a corkage is too high, I don't avail myself of it. I think the comments from the ownership at Gayle indicates others feel likewise, and that we are actually a noticeable consumer base. That's a bit of a surprise, but a pleasant one.

As to the comparison between booze and other merchandise or services on offer - including other restaurant offerings... the difference is the perception of added value: there is a large difference between what's on my plate and the materials the chef started out with and it is also, I expect (or at least hope), quite different from what I could achieve with them. That bottle of CdR the restaurant is charging me $30 for is precisely the same as the $9 bottle sitting on my wine rack at home. All the loving care you, as an outstanding sommeliere, have lavished on its selection is not visible to me. And its value is greatest for the uneducated wine drinker in any case.

As to the costs of carrying a wine inventory... I have heard often from folks in the hospitality industry in Philadelphia that the revenue from wine and liquor sales provide a margin of comfort in your revenue stream that is not there when you are looking at food revenue alone. That tells me that a) liquor licenses and sales are in fact not a financial burden in absolute terms, and b) that if my liquor tab is helping improve the restaurant's margins, then I am being charged a higher markup, even considering labor, breakage, storage and all of it, than food consumers. That's just plain math, and strikes me as unfair. But if it weren't the case, then licenses would be of no value to the restaurant.

But quite aside from all that, you are somewhat missing the point: it's not even that we are unwilling to pay these costs, it's that many of us are unable to pay these costs. The difference in my budget from paying the wine markup would turn me from a weekly patron to an occasional patron. It's that simple.

[JohnL]

Well... we do. That's what the entire debate is about. And may I suggest that you review this and previous threads on BYOBs. I think you'll discover that the "griping" is largely being done by the faction that thinks the current system is unfair to restaurateurs when compared to other areas. Personally, I find myself quite content with things as they are. If a corkage is too high, I don't avail myself of it. I think the comments from the ownership at Gayle indicates others feel likewise, and that we are actually a noticeable consumer base. That's a bit of a surprise, but a pleasant one.

As to the comparison between booze and other merchandise or services on offer - including other restaurant offerings... the difference is the perception of added value: there is a large difference between what's on my plate and the materials the chef started out with and it is also, I expect (or at least hope), quite different from what I could achieve with them. That bottle of CdR the restaurant is charging me $30 for is precisely the same as the $9 bottle sitting on my wine rack at home. All the loving care you, as an outstanding sommeliere, have lavished on its selection is not visible to me. And its value is greatest for the uneducated wine drinker in any case.

As to the costs of carrying a wine inventory... I have heard often from folks in the hospitality industry in Philadelphia that the revenue from wine and liquor sales provide a margin of comfort in your revenue stream that is not there when you are looking at food revenue alone. That tells me that a) liquor licenses and sales are in fact not a financial burden in absolute terms, and b) that if my liquor tab is helping improve the restaurant's margins, then I am being charged a higher markup, even considering labor, breakage, storage and all of it, than food consumers. That's just plain math, and strikes me as unfair. But if it weren't the case, then licenses would be of no value to the restaurant.

But quite aside from all that, you are somewhat missing the point: it's not even that we are unwilling to pay these costs, it's that many of us are unable to pay these costs. The difference in my budget from paying the wine markup would turn me from a weekly patron to an occasional patron. It's that simple.

←

Ahh capaneus--

There is no debate.

Certainly as far as I am concerned.

No one--not me--would argue that there should be no BYO's.

I see their good points and their negative side.

In fact--i have no problem if every neighborhood has one or two BYO's.

I am curious though--let's use your example.

You are willing to pay a corkage fee--right? I mean even you would accept that cost.

So that $9 dollar bottle plus a modest (say $10) corkage fee is now less a "bargain."

The reason that some of us bring up those other mark up situations--food (ok pasta) and clothing is simply to point out that life isn't so simple--maybe if you had more disposable income and things were less expensive across the board--if the state got out of the way-- you wouldn't be so concerned about saving money on wine.

You'd have a healthier business climate for restaurants--they's make more and be able to charge less--and you would have more options. (no one wants to take away your BYO's)--this is about a bigger picture.

That's really all--I am saying.

cheers!!!

[Capaneus]

Ahh capaneus--

There is no debate.

Certainly as far as I am concerned.

No one--not me--would argue that there should be no BYO's.

I see their good points and their negative side.

In fact--i have no problem if every neighborhood has one or two BYO's.

I am curious though--let's use your example.

You are willing to pay a corkage fee--right? I mean even you would accept that cost.

So that $9 dollar bottle plus a modest (say $10) corkage fee is now less a "bargain."

The reason that some of us bring up those other mark up situations--food (ok pasta) and clothing is simply to point out that life isn't so simple--maybe if you had more disposable income and things were less expensive across the board--if the state got out of the way-- you wouldn't be so concerned about saving money on wine.

You'd have a healthier business climate for restaurants--they's make more and be able to charge less--and you would have more options. (no one wants to take away your BYO's)--this is about a bigger picture.

That's really all--I am saying.

cheers!!!

←

But, as I have argued elsewhere, I think part of the success of BYOs owes to the distortion in the market created by the liquor laws. So while you are not arguing against them in theory, I believe the net effect of the changes you argue for would be just that. So no, I wouldn't have more options overall. I can look at other markets, the ones you hold up as examples (such as NY), and for someone like me the Philadelphia scene is more attractive.

Mind you, I know my position (and the PLCB regulations it defends) are "unfair" in the context of the prevailing regulatory environments across the US. On the other hand, I can in fact argue that there are many ways in which those are unfair from a true free-market perspective, but that would require a different forum. But in this specific case that imbalance works in my favor, those restaurateurs are still making a go of their businesses (and I do believe that a lot of the BYO ventures wouldn't be able to find the financing to open as full-service restaurants), and (most significant evidence in my book) we have a restaurant scene that's buzzing as is, even with the adverse regulations. There are alternative markets available to them elsewhere, but they choose to open in PLCB-Land.

Regarding the cost-of-bottle example - you're still missing the point: it's not about bargain-values as such. It's about cost in absolute terms. I will occasionally spend $20 retail on a bottle, very rarely $25. That brings me to the very bottom of virtually any list available, or to nursing each sip of a by-the-glass purchase with jealous attention. Both of those wouldn't be "choices" in any real sense, they'd be hard limits imposed by financial reality.

[KatieLoeb]

Bottom line. PLCB is not going anywhere and we as consumers are forced to deal with it. I, as a professional, am forced to deal with it. If the net effect is one that creates different choices in the marketplace then it's all good. The problems arise when we try to fit the square peg we've been dealt into the round hole of comparison with the rest of the planet. In the end, it doesn't matter what it might be like in NY or Chicago. We're in PA.

I'm just frustrated by the folks that try and tell the restaurateur how they should run their restaurant. That is, in fact what they're doing by insisting on bringing their own product into a licensed establishment. I'd love to see someone try to bring their own spring mix and a little jar of homemade vinaigrette into Le Bec Fin because they either don't like the salad choices on their menu or worse yet, begrudge the restaurant their markup on salad greens! It seems no one would dream of doing anything so blatantly rude with food, yet they think nothing of it to extend the same argument to wine. How does that work?

[JohnL]

Bottom line.  PLCB is not going anywhere and we as consumers are forced to deal with it.  I, as a professional, am forced to deal with it.  If the net effect is one that creates different choices in the marketplace then it's all good.  The problems arise when we try to fit the square peg we've been dealt into the round hole of comparison with the rest of the planet.  In the end, it doesn't matter what it might be like in NY or Chicago.  We're in PA.

I'm just frustrated by the folks that try and tell the restaurateur how they should run their restaurant.  That is, in fact what they're doing by insisting on bringing their own product into a licensed establishment.  I'd love to see someone try to bring their own spring mix and a little jar of homemade vinaigrette into Le Bec Fin because they either don't like the salad choices on their menu or worse yet, begrudge the restaurant their markup on salad greens!  It seems no one would dream of doing anything so blatantly rude with food, yet they think nothing of it to extend the same argument to wine.  How does that work?

←

Katie!

Though I do agree with you--the PLCB is not going anywhere for the foreseeable future--remember things can and do change--remember the Boston Tea Party!?

I am interested in the Philadelphia dining scene--because I eat in Philadelphia quite a bit. It is one of my favorite cities to visit. (yes--I could also see living there as well).

Being in the wine business I am also interested in the political situation re: alcohol control.

I think the danger is complacency. I believe Ms Green in her recent Philly magazine piece was also concerned.

As more people become aware of wine and desire wine with their meals (this trend in the US is real) restaurants will respond with better pricing and more interesting selections.

Some restaurants will take the lead.

Even in states like PA.

I can actually see some merit in an argument that makes the case that BYO's will actually encourage more wine drinking.

However, as Ms green noted, restaurants should not give up on the idea that everyone (restaurants and consumers) will be best served by the concept of a complete dining experience that includes alcoholic beverages. In the long run this is the best direction.

So too, consumers should not be lulled into a notion that a dining experience that includes the option of a wide range of alcoholic beverages at fair prices is impossible to achieve (even with the current situation).

BYO's have their benefits perceived and real--protection from restaurants gouging consumers on wine markups should never be an acceptable benefit--perceived or real.

Things in Philadelphia are not so bad--there is a vibrant restaurant scene--it could be even better.

I agree with Ms Green in her article--restaurants and consumers need to move toward a healthier situation (full service) working within the confines of the current state of affairs but at the same time working to change that state of affairs--a good start would be that Johnstown Flood Tax--if ever there was a tax whose time had passed!.....

(hey I know how difficult this stuff can be--we were sold on a toll for the George washington bridge--to be removed as soon as the bridge was paid for...yeah right!--our government literally did "sell us a bridge...")

One could see local restrictions and costs of operations lessened a bit--the argument is a healthier business/restaurant climate leads to more profits and more tax dollars. (politicians love money ).

[MarketStEl]

I agree with Ms Green in her article--restaurants and consumers need to move toward a healthier situation (full service) working within the confines of the current state of affairs but at the same time working to change that state of affairs--a good start would be that Johnstown Flood Tax--if ever there was a tax whose time had passed!.....

Well, let's see...there was that dam disaster that caused the famous flood of 1889, then there was the one in 1937 that was of purely natural origin. I think that Johnstown was spared major flooding from Hurricane Agnes in 1972, but I may be wrong.

The tax was to repair damage from the 1937 flood. Maybe they're banking the money for the next one. Yeah, right.

(hey I know how difficult this stuff can be--we were sold on a toll for the George washington bridge--to be removed as soon as the bridge was paid for...yeah right!--our government literally did "sell us a bridge...")

One could see local restrictions and costs of operations lessened a bit--the argument is a healthier business/restaurant climate leads to more profits and more tax dollars. (politicians love money ).

←

Indeed they do--I believe one wag called it "the mother's milk of politics."

But here I suspect the issue is not simply about money. It's about jobs and values too. The jobs part we already know about--eliminate the State Store system and you'll have a bunch of very upset employees on your hands. Yes, they'd probably have first whack at any new jobs in the private liquor stores that replaced them, but the pay and bennies would be worse--maybe even much worse.

Then there's the values part, which I alluded to earlier in this discussion.

Since this discussion is about Philadelphia dining, I'm not surprised to see hardly any participants from the rest of the state chiming in. But it's the rest of the state that matters when it comes to the question of altering or abolishing the state's liquor control system. This is one of those times when I wish Lancastermike weighed in on the subject, as I suspect he could offer a persepective not heard much in the Southeast.

Given that every Republican governor since Thornburgh has made an attempt to scrap the LCB, and that every one of these attempts failed, there must be something besides money and jobs keeping the system in place. (Or maybe those two are enough to keep the legislature from following the governors' lead.)