Irritation respecing 2002 Seppelt St. Peters.

[Murray]

Agreed Brian,

The ACCC does watch this one closely, as highlighted by the a numbver of successful prosecutions. The Tip Top Bread one was a biggie the other penalties aren't to be sneezed at, either for companies or individuals.

[radioactiveman]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I have read this and other threads with some amusement particularly when it comes to pricing and pricing policies of retailers and cellar doors.

A release such as St Peters 2002 allows retailers to reward some loyalty shown by customers, the retailers I know have no time for potential customers ringing around 27 outlets trying to get bragging rights about how much they procured.

Brian is spot on regarding the Seppelt Club which does just this. All they are doing is rewarding loyalty. I ask all of you out there - how much would you retail a wine everyone wants that cost you $40 per bottle?

The source of much amusement is the continuous quoting of pricing on both this and other sites linked to here. Like the $35 Christo speaks of from Dan Murphy. This is clearly an error. Did anyone actually buy at $35? Perhaps a case or two slipped through. Whether people want to take advantage of retailer errors is a different issue, not one I will comment on, but I certainly wouldnÂ’t blink at a Woolies or Coles chain store. However, it is still an error. You will find that DMÂ’s was over $40 for the main. A price of $20 was recently quoted on Jamiesons Winemakers Reserve - another error. I am not suggesting people did not benefit at that price, but be mindful of quoting these prices at large when some of us go to the stores only to be told of these mistakes!

At the other end of the equation is screams of greed when a higher price is seen. Many of the better retailers mentioned in this thread buy secondary market just to keep customers happy. I ask the question again - how much would you retail a wine everyone wants that cost you $50 or $55 per bottle?

The notion of doing price comparisons is fraught with danger because it is not as simple as one price compared to the other.

• Is the price accurate?
• Is the case price for 6 or 8 or 12? Does it include VAT?
• Do they accept my credit card or is it a cash price?
• Do they actually have stock?
• Does price included delivery?
• Insurance?
• What if I have an issue with the goods - will they refund/exchange?
• Is the vintage correct?
• Will they answer my email inside a week?
• Will the wine be sound and will they ship in cooler weather?

Whilst price fixing is illegal, we often ask retailers to respect a price point to avoid a brand being bastardized. Not coincidentally, these retailers seem to find the allocations they desire as opposed to the cowboys whom more and more are finding themselves on the outer. The cowboys then respond by selling their one dozen allocation at $19 when aforementioned retailer has 500 cases and a price of $21 (which incidentally includes all of the above). ItÂ’s all fun and games. Further, I wouldnÂ’t call you greedy if I didnÂ’t know your circumstances.

I don't know how to do the quote thingy but the post by Davo is one of the best posts I have read on a wine forum! To true Davo

Thanks for reading.

Andy,

For the quote thingy just hit the quote button on the upper right hand corner of the post you want to quote, and then start typing your comments at the end.


As far as the following goes,

The source of much amusement is the continuous quoting of pricing on both this and other sites linked to here. Like the $35 Christo speaks of from Dan Murphy. This is clearly an error. Did anyone actually buy at $35? Perhaps a case or two slipped through. Whether people want to take advantage of retailer errors is a different issue, not one I will comment on, but I certainly wouldnÂ’t blink at a Woolies or Coles chain store. However, it is still an error. You will find that DMÂ’s was over $40 for the main. A price of $20 was recently quoted on Jamiesons Winemakers Reserve - another error. I am not suggesting people did not benefit at that price, but be mindful of quoting these prices at large when some of us go to the stores only to be told of these mistakes!

I'm not sure you can be entirely correct in your assumptions. The $20 price for Jamiesons Winemakers Reserve is incorrect.......it was actually $18.99! It wasn't an error or a mistake that I took advantage of. That was the price on the bottle, the stand, and the signs on the stand. All backed up by the senior staff member who I was chatting with for 10 minutes before I bought it. If another store chooses not to sell at this price, it doesn't make it an error.

At the other end of the equation is screams of greed when a higher price is seen. Many of the better retailers mentioned in this thread buy secondary market just to keep customers happy. I ask the question again - how much would you retail a wine everyone wants that cost you $50 or $55 per bottle?

Retailers are quite entitled to charge, either what they have to (to stay in business) or what they want to. Consumers are quite entitled to either buy or not buy based on what they feel the wine is worth or whether they can afford it.

The notion of doing price comparisons is fraught with danger because it is not as simple as one price compared to the other.

• Is the price accurate?
• Is the case price for 6 or 8 or 12? Does it include VAT?
• Do they accept my credit card or is it a cash price?
• Do they actually have stock?
• Does price included delivery?
• Insurance?
• What if I have an issue with the goods - will they refund/exchange?
• Is the vintage correct?
• Will they answer my email inside a week?
• Will the wine be sound and will they ship in cooler weather?

Fraught with danger for who? An informed consumer, with access to sites like RB's, can find the best price from a reputable retailer. I think people are prepared to pay a few dollars a bottle more for better service and with consideration of all the points you mention above. It sounds as if you're a bit ticked off with 'price matching' from other retailers whom you refer to as "cowboys". If we see a cheaper price from a "cowboy", we ask our regular retailer to match it, which often occurs, but not always. The consumer wins, the retailer may not win as much as they would have wanted to (profit wise) but they have made a sale and kept a regular customer happy. Who loses? Maybe the brand manager who sees the wine they placed at a $50 price point, being discounted to $40. This may alter the 'perception' of the wines quality, using the "You get what you pay for" philosophy, potentally damaging the wines reputation and therefore potentially damaging the sales (and potential profits) up the chain. Now from your point of view, I can understand it's not what you want to see, but from my point of view as a consumer, I don't really care. In fact, I like it because I'm aware of the competition (luckily we still have some in our marketplace) and as a consumer it can work to my advantage. That's the sort of thing the ACCC is about - promoting competition and avoiding monopolies where consumers are disadvantaged.

Whilst price fixing is illegal, we often ask retailers to respect a price point to avoid a brand being bastardized. Not coincidentally, these retailers seem to find the allocations they desire as opposed to the cowboys whom more and more are finding themselves on the outer. The cowboys then respond by selling their one dozen allocation at $19 when aforementioned retailer has 500 cases and a price of $21 (which incidentally includes all of the above). ItÂ’s all fun and games.

Call me a simpleton, but it sounds a bit like blackmail, doesn't it? The posts from RB and Murray regarding the TPA are right on the money.

Further, I wouldnÂ’t call you greedy if I didnÂ’t know your circumstances.

I'm not sure I understand what you've said here. Are you saying you know our circumstances or are you not calling us greedy?



Jamie