quote:

Criticizing them is hypocritical if you claim to be law-abiding

Ditto!

OK, I'm not law abiding, because the laws are stupid and I refuse to obey them. Therefore I can clearly state WINE.COM SUCKS. I will never purchase anything from them even if the can get there wish to be the only internet retailer. They are hurting the consumer and their competition. If you can't see how wrong, even evil this kind of tactic is I feel sorry for you, as you are clearly somebody who only thinks of themself. There are many states that wine.com does not ship to. How is scaring off others who will possible going to increase their profits?

quote:

If you don't like it, change the law.

It's not that simple and you know that. You fortunately live in a state that permits inter- and intra-state shipments of wine and has a competitive distribution system. Multiple distributors can sell the same wine - ie. a competitive marketplace. Some of us schmucks live in places where the distributors control the legislation that protects their monopoly.

The distributor lobby contributed over $3 million to Maryland legislators in 2006. There's not a consumer lobby out there (wine, food, education, health-care, etc...) that can spread that kind of dough around and change the law. Lobbyists protecting a monopoly will always have more influence over government than the average Joe.

What wine.com should do, along with every other internet retailer that wishes to expand their marketplace, is use their financial clout to change the law. Instead, wine.com is expending energy snitching out retailers on transactions they can't compete for anyway.

As such, wine.com still sucks *ss. Dirty *ss.

I never get wine shipped to Canada from the states or elsewhere which is declared as an "antique" or as a "collectors bottles" If I were to get this wine sent to me, it most certainly would not be sent as a "gift" valued at 0$ to avoid custom costs. WINE.COM SUCKS BALLSAGNA!!

Free Trade????? I think not!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
I'm sure they're crying over losing your business.

You are quite naive if you don't think they are pretty much doing exactly that. Like most e-tailers, they are probably operating at a very thin profit margin (if they are operating in the black at all). They needed a new influx of VC dollars as recently as mid-2006.

Whether you agree with their practices or not, this will be a pretty substantial PR mess for them and will undoubtedly result in the near-term loss of a substantial number of customers. That is something worth crying about in the business world.

In case you didn't read the comments below the Vinography post on this, Wine.com's CEO Rick Bergsund claimed:

"Lobbying efforts by these same retailers to open up interstate shipping have been ineffective."

Uh, not exactly true for one and certainly a display of a nonsensical defeatist attitude.

"We're just as frustrated with state laws as you are."

Really? Then why don't they belong to and support the Specialty Wine Retailers Association?

quote:

Originally posted by jfoobar:

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
I'm sure they're crying over losing your business.

You are quite naive

Board-O... naive.

Now that is indeed rich!

quote:

Originally posted by VT2IT:
OK, I'm not law abiding, because the laws are stupid and I refuse to obey them.

You're sounding very New Hampshire(ish) there VT2IT

quote:

Originally posted by wine+art:

quote:

Originally posted by jfoobar:

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
I'm sure they're crying over losing your business.

You are quite naive

Board-O... naive.
Now that is indeed rich!

Board-O can be described with several nouns, but 'naive' is not one of them. To get you're point effectively across, jfoobar, you'll need to pull another from the hat.

quote:

What wine.com should do, along with every other internet retailer that wishes to expand their marketplace, is use their financial clout to change the law. Instead, wine.com is expending energy snitching out retailers on transactions they can't compete for anyway.

quote:

They needed a new influx of VC dollars as recently as mid-2006.

Festiva, first, if jfoobar is correct, sounds like they don't have the financial clout to change the law. Instead they have gone a more inexpensive route to protect the model that they have set up.

Second, That model was setup within the framework of the existing laws. They obviously thought there was a better return working within the framework vs. throwing money at candidates hoping that 5-10 years down the road to see the benefits. They bought retailers in states they want to do business, opened warehouses, and gotten licensed in states that allow shipping from other states.

Thirdly, what is your beef? You can't have wine shipped in from anyone legally anyway, so their tactics don't effect you one bit. It could be time to think about moving

All you need to know about this is that wine.com is not a member of SWRA, and when asked to join said no. They do not want the stupid laws changed, they like it how it is. There are those on the side of the consumer, and there are the enemies. Wine.com is clearly in the later group, along with the distributors. Never buy from them and tell everyone you know not to. The fight to have sane wine shipping laws has taken a massive hit by their actions, and I can only pray that the bad publicity they are receiving severly impacts those scumbag's bottom line.

quote:

Originally posted by VT2IT:
All you need to know about this is that wine.com is not a member of SWRA, and when asked to join said no. They do not want the stupid laws changed, they like it how it is. There are those on the side of the consumer, and there are the enemies. Wine.com is clearly in the later group, along with the distributors. Never buy from them and tell everyone you know not to. The fight to have sane wine shipping laws has taken a massive hit by their actions, and I can only pray that the bad publicity they are receiving severly impacts those scumbag's bottom line.

I can't say I know of any For-Profit business that is truly on the side of the consumer. They may claim to do so, but they aren't sacrificing profit margins just to give you a good deal. Maybe you work for/own/manage a company that likes to lose money so the consumer benefits, but all this whining about wine.com's tactics is laughable.

My problem with wine.com has always been that they aren't competitive and they've never gotten my business. Luckily, I have retailers locally that are and they get my business. I also am on a number of mailing lists for wines that I can't get through the distribution channel, including wine.com.

You are right, they don't care to change the system because they chose to build their business within the system.

Guess what? If the system ever changes, then they would need to adapt or fail. I just can't fault them, since they'd probably love (because of their size) to buy direct from the winery and eliminate the distributors' profit...but alas they can't.

quote:

Originally posted by Chilepepper:

quote:

Originally posted by JavaMonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by Chilepepper:
Would you be outraged if Microsoft went after little guys that were selling counterfeited copies of Office shipped in from China?

There are lots of issues here, but that's a bad example. Microsoft is protecting themselves from people who are selling Microsoft's property without buying that property from Microsoft. That's not the case here. Wine.com is just going after competitors.

Yes, competitors that are breaking various state laws that wine.com has spent tremendous amounts of money to ensure they comply with.

Again, I'm just saying from a business perspective, what they are doing is right. They aren't bad for the consumer, the structure in which they are forced to operate is (i.e. state by state 3-tier systems)

JavaMonkey is right - stupid analogy (no surprise there).

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
If you don't like it, change the law. Criticizing them is hypocritical if you claim to be law-abiding.

Criticizing a law or the actions of others is not hypocritical except in your distorted version of democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:
Board-O can be described with several nouns, but 'naive' is not one of them.

You are correct. Naive is not one of them. It is an adjective.

quote:

Originally posted by jfoobar:

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:
Board-O can be described with several nouns, but 'naive' is not one of them.

You are correct. Naive is not one of them. It is an adjective.

Actually, correct you are. Thanks for the correction.

Now, please dip into the hat and pull out a correct ADJECTIVE

quote:

Originally posted by jfoobar:

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:
Board-O can be described with several nouns, but 'naive' is not one of them.

You are correct. Naive is not one of them. It is an adjective.

He's got you there

quote:

All you need to know about this is that wine.com is not a member of SWRA, and when asked to join said no. They do not want the stupid laws changed, they like it how it is. There are those on the side of the consumer, and there are the enemies. Wine.com is clearly in the later group, along with the distributors. Never buy from them and tell everyone you know not to. The fight to have sane wine shipping laws has taken a massive hit by their actions, and I can only pray that the bad publicity they are receiving severly impacts those scumbag's bottom line.

Well said VT2IT!

Chilepepper, my 'beef' with wine.com is that although this tactic is perfectly legal, I think it's ruthless, immature, and lacks integrity. It's akin to Tonya Harding legally busting the kneecaps of Nancy Kerrigan - destroy the competition rather than honestly compete with it.

In the end, wine.com's actions will do more harm than good for their reputation as a corporate citizen and for me as a consumer. I wish them the same fate as Pets.com.

wine.com will continue to suck dirty, fetid *ss...

quote:

Originally posted by GreenDrazi:
JavaMonkey is right - stupid analogy (no surprise there).

If you can't see that both are going after lawbreakers, then you are beyond help!

One just happens to be a law many here don't agree with, including myself. I'm just not going to criticize a business for being concerned and taking actions against "illegal" competition.

quote:

Originally posted by Festiva:


Chilepepper, my 'beef' with wine.com is that although this tactic is perfectly legal, I think it's ruthless, immature, and lacks integrity. I wouldn't do anything like that to the companies I compete with. In the end, wine.com's actions will do more harm than good for their reputation as a corporate citizen and for me as a consumer.

wine.com will continue to suck dirty, fetid *ss...

So, if your competition was breaking the law to reach your customers, who in turn didn't purchase from you, you would merely turn the other cheek?

quote:

Originally posted by Chilepepper:
then you are beyond help!

Understatement of the year!

quote:

Originally posted by Chilepepper:

quote:

Originally posted by JavaMonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by Chilepepper:
Would you be outraged if Microsoft went after little guys that were selling counterfeited copies of Office shipped in from China?

There are lots of issues here, but that's a bad example. Microsoft is protecting themselves from people who are selling Microsoft's property without buying that property from Microsoft. That's not the case here. Wine.com is just going after competitors.

Yes, competitors that are breaking various state laws that wine.com has spent tremendous amounts of money to ensure they comply with.

Again, I'm just saying from a business perspective, what they are doing is right. They aren't bad for the consumer, the structure in which they are forced to operate is (i.e. state by state 3-tier systems)

You're confusing two separate issues. Yes, what their competitors are doing is LEGALLY wrong. I'm not disputing that.

What wine.com is doing is MORALLY wrong, and it IS bad for consumers. Yes, the ridiculous laws are bad for consumers, but some retailers are actually trying to help their customers, at their own risk. Wine.com is trying to prevent those retailers from helping the consumer. And in the end they are taking action that limits the options of consumers in order to protect their own income. That is BAD for consumers. Is it legal, yes. Is it moral? No.