[Beetle01]

Franchise distributors vs. those that are granted certain regions? It's all the same thing you ding a ling!!!


Good Grief Beetle, Where do consistantly come up with all this garbage??? Where do you come up with this 25% more cost stuff? Distributors can generally distribute products at a lower cost than a manufacturer can. There are very few company owned routes in anything, compared to distributor ran routes. Manufacturers want to concentrate on manufacturing products, not to be in the DSD service business because it is one giant nightmare and pain in the butt. Bottom line, generally there are cost savings to the consumer!!!! Are you so dumb as to know that almost all distributors are subject of a dominion from the company that does the manufacturing when it comes to food products? They are ruled and controlled with a giant thumb when it comes to how their products are marketed and distributed. You do it their way. After all it's their reputations and their product's integrity that are being put on the lines. They are going to make dang sure they have qualified and reputable distributing companies marketing their products and servicing the accounts that have contracted. You cannot have 3 or 4 distributors of the same product running all over top of each other selling the exact same product. It is in a manufacturers best interest to make sure that whomever is distributing their products if financialy successful. What good does it do to have 3 or 4 different product perveyors under cutting each other? Soooner or later there would be none surviving.


As I have repeatedly said, and it's just like always, you DO NOT have the first clue as to what you are rattling on about. No, I'll just be more blunt and honest about it. You are just plain and simply a blooming idiot. Or when it comes to BGR, "the village idiot".

You are argueing with the wrong dog here pal. I'll eat your lunch every day of the week and twice on Sundays on this stuff.

Distributors aren't mandated by Federal law in the other industries. They are used for ease and costs savings. However, in the case we are discussing, AB uses federal law to monopolize the market.

If I wanted to create a food company and sell my products, I could use a local distributor, however, if a big mother food company decides to blackmail the distributor into not carrying my products, then I could bypass the distributor and still sell my product to the retailers. The companies have no power to wield over the retailers since those are the ones who sell to the customer.

If Kraft tried to tell Kroger's not to sell my product or they would not allow them to sell Kraft foods, Kroger's would tell them to shove off. If my produce/product was in demand enough. That move would only hurt Kraft. People usually use one or 2 grocery stores. If Kraft isn't available, people will then purchase whatever other product they can that is similar.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jumped on the bandwagon against the three tier system recently. In a report released last year, the FTC concluded that the three tier system limited consumer options and increased the price of alcoholic beverages. It noted that "wine and spirits have the most expensive distribution system of any packaged-goods industry by far, with margins more than twice those in the food business." The FTC reviewed the core regulatory concerns of tax collection and temperance and found that those purposes could be met by other means that had less impact on free trade. It concluded that most of the system was an "abuse of the regulatory process to protect concentrated economic interests" which hurts consumers by limiting the choices of wine and driving up consumer prices.


Here's a link for ya, with a nice article about the 3 tiered system and its effect on prices, and how much they spend on federal campaigns. They spend more than the AFLCIO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opini...e.htm?_r=1

I'm sure you'll have some more schoolyard insults to toss my way to show everyone how big of a man you are.