Originally posted by Board-O: Criticizing them is hypocritical if you claim to be law-abiding.
Not at all. I can be completely law-abiding, that doesn't mean I have to snitch out those that aren't. Choosing to conform to the law and choosing to take action against others are two different things, and doing the first doesn't imply that you have to do the second.
You are blinded by the fact that you don't agree with these particular sets of laws. I don't think you'd have a problem with people/businesses taking action to report those breaking laws that you do agree with. I could state examples, but they are more serious crimes than illegally shipping alcohol and would cloud the subject further.
It has nothing to do with the fact that I disagree with the laws. I agree with the speed limit law, that doesn't mean I think I should report everyone who exceeds the speed limit.
Originally posted by JavaMonkey: It has nothing to do with the fact that I disagree with the laws. I agree with the speed limit law, that doesn't mean I think I should report everyone who exceeds the speed limit.
As I pointed out over on Vinography, this is a poor analogy. Speeding endangers others, shipping wine to consumers does not.
The part of me that disagrees with wine.com's practices has everything to do with my disagreement with the laws. I see no shame whatsoever in admitting that.
The more pragmatic side of me agrees with chilepepper. However, that same side of me thinks that wine.com was inviting PR disaster by doing this and that is what they are getting. They probably deserve it.
Posts: 42 | Location: Maryland | Registered: Dec 28, 2007
You're sounding very New Hampshire(ish) there VT2IT
Hey! I resemble that remark.
Everything they are doing is by the books, why should they allow illegal competition to continue hurting their business. Businesses are not around to make things easier and cheaper for the consumer. They exist to make a profit, if they don't they will not be around very long. They owe it to their investors and stockholders (assuming they have some, I don't know a lot about the company profile) to do what they can to maximize profits. If you invested in the company wouldn't you want them to do everything legally possible to get a step ahead of their competition and give you the best return on your investment possible. If people decide to take their money and invest it elsewhere in more profitable businesses they're up the creek without the paddle needed to survive, especially if internet wine business profit margins are as thin as has been stated in previous posts.
Originally posted by JavaMonkey: 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.
Exactly!! Wine.com will never get any business from me.
---------------------- Pinot Noir: It builds strong bones.
Posts: 4410 | Location: San Ramon, California | Registered: May 07, 2002
I think what bothers many people about what wine.com did was that they set up a private sting operation. They didn't just report the violators to the authorities - they set out to entrap them.
Posts: 256 | Location: N.J. | Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Okay folks. Here is the gist of the problem as I see it. Quoted directly from Rick Bergstrund:
SO...we think it's time for answers on this topic by the state regulators to either: 1) enforce their laws uniformly and fairly OR 2) open up to interstate shipping
We're ok with either outcome, though the second would be the best for the health of the online wine market.
I actually sympathize with the conundrum facing Mr. Bergstrund. What I don't sympathize with is his approach to the conundrum. Apparently, he sees this as an either/or approach - rat out your competitors to create a level playing field, or contribute financially to the Specialty Wine Retailers Association thereby affecting a change in the law that will create a level playing field and that will in turn result in a benefit to all consumers.
He had the option to choose B, which he actually admits would be the best option, but ignored it and chose option A, in a particularly repugnant way, as his method of recourse.
This is hypocrisy of such monumental proportions as to require another word in the English language in order to describe it.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pterostyrax,
Posts: 17 | Location: Vicksburg, MS | Registered: May 14, 2004
This is hypocrisy of such monumental proportions as to require another word in the English language in order to describe it.
This is laughable. Of course they'd prefer open shipping. It would make things easier on them. Remember, they do it the legal way, which means a physical location or license in multiple states. If the laws change, they could consolidate and run their business similar to Amazon.com. Shy of that, they do want to ensure they aren't getting undercut by those cheating the system. Nothing hypocritical about that.
They don't have the resources to change the system and its a bad return on investment to try. If you care about P&L, you do what they did.
Originally posted by Chilepepper: They don't have the resources to change the system and its a bad return on investment to try. If you care about P&L, you do what they did.
Sure, no argument that they're 'supposedly' doing business the 'legal' way, and they're possibly losing some sales to other guys shortcutting the system.
BUT, performing 'sting operations' is your agreed upon 'best' course of action to address the competition issue? Come on Chile, you don't REALLY believe that do you?
Originally posted by Chilepepper: They don't have the resources to change the system and its a bad return on investment to try. If you care about P&L, you do what they did.
Sure, no argument that they're 'supposedly' doing business the 'legal' way, and they're possibly losing some sales to other guys shortcutting the system.
BUT, performing 'sting operations' is your agreed upon 'best' course of action to address the competition issue? Come on Chile, you don't REALLY believe that do you?
How else to prove it? Your preaching to the choir to say the laws are stupid. Sometimes the only way to catch lawbreakers is a "sting" operation. Its done on many other serious crimes. I just can't reprimand them for doing it related to wine shipping.
Just so you know, I'd love to see open shipping. It sucks that places like winebid and HDH won't ship to Florida. Heck, we have no law against it; it was thrown out with direct shipping from wineries since it was part of the same law. Some retailers ship to Florida since the law doesn't prohibit it, others refuse since there is no law to allow it either.
All this should motivate people to fight against the restrictive shipping laws that are being passed in several states. Other than petition my local reps I'm not sure what I can do.
I did have to check out a similar thread on ebob and I have to say I really giggled that Mark Squires is on the condemn wine.com side. The man that is so quick to threat legal action for most immaterial thing condemns their actions. What a tool!!!
What, you're surprised he would advocate breaking the law? An attorney? Why, it's good for business.
I see the thread over there is now locked. He mentions some "over the top" posts. I did not see them, but I assume they were posts that did not agree with him, non? By definition, it would be par for the course.
Originally posted by Board-O: And this is wrong because...
Let's see.
They actively set up others to be prosecuted under laws that, by their own admission, they believe to be wrong. Why? To make more money.
Does that sound like a righteous act to you? Hell, you can't even claim that it was an economically expedient act since they will almost certainly lose most, if not all, of the competitive advantage they might have otherwise gained thanks to this PR mess and the longterm tarnishing of their company's image in the eyes of thousands of customer and potential customers.
Posts: 42 | Location: Maryland | Registered: Dec 28, 2007
They actively set up others to be prosecuted under laws that, by their own admission, they believe to be wrong. Why? To make more money.
Does that sound like a righteous act to you? Hell, you can't even claim that it was an economically expedient act since they will almost certainly lose most, if not all, of the competitive advantage they might have otherwise gained thanks to this PR mess and the longterm tarnishing of their company's image in the eyes of thousands of customer and potential customers.
And the other retailers violate the law. Why? To make more money. Does that sound like a righteous act?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Spenser,
Posts: 1810 | Location: Kansas City, MO | Registered: Sep 19, 2003
It has been my experience in this business (over 25 years) that the government, at any level, does not need a complaint to run sting operations. They do it all the time when they feel it can generate a dollar windfall.
And the THREAT of the sting is what keeps everyone law abiding.
--****--****--****--**** I'm sorry, the winery says that's an allocated item!
Posts: 906 | Location: Nanuet, Rockland County, New York.... just north of NYC | Registered: Feb 04, 2002
They didn't just report the violators to the authorities - they set out to entrap them.
And this is wrong because...
I find it morally wrong, just my opinion. They crossed a line when they went out and ordered wine from their competitors for the purpose of luring them to break the shipping laws.
Posts: 256 | Location: N.J. | Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Originally posted by Pterostyrax: Okay folks. Here is the gist of the problem as I see it. Quoted directly from Rick Bergstrund:
SO...we think it's time for answers on this topic by the state regulators to either: 1) enforce their laws uniformly and fairly OR 2) open up to interstate shipping
We're ok with either outcome, though the second would be the best for the health of the online wine market.
I actually sympathize with the conundrum facing Mr. Bergstrund. What I don't sympathize with is his approach to the conundrum. Apparently, he sees this as an either/or approach - rat out your competitors to create a level playing field, or contribute financially to the Specialty Wine Retailers Association thereby affecting a change in the law that will create a level playing field and that will in turn result in a benefit to all consumers.
He had the option to choose B, which he actually admits would be the best option, but ignored it and chose option A, in a particularly repugnant way, as his method of recourse.
This is hypocrisy of such monumental proportions as to require another word in the English language in order to describe it.
It should be noted that Wine.com was invited to and asked to join with other retailers in the Specialty Wine Retailers Association. SWRA is the only organization litigating and lobbying to open up Direct To Consumer shipping by retailers.
On another note, one hopes that when Specialty Wine Retailers Association is successful in changing the laws to allow retailer to consumer shipments that Wine.Com will thank their fellow retailers who supported the effort with their hard earned money for providing the conditions for making their business more profitable.
