Jack Daniel's is what's wrong with the PLCB's "catalog"

I've been writing about this for years, and still the PLCB can't quite get the listings for their #1 selling whiskey correct. Just imagine the lack of effort they put into less important items! Or, more likely, probably nothing is considered important and they screw up everything equally.

I like writing about the PLCB's historic inability to get their inventory correct. If I ever need an illustrative example of how incompetent they are, I know I can rely on good old Jack. He never fails me.

And talk about non-responsive! After eight years of pointing out how incredibly stupid the PLCB is with just this one product, you would think they would tire of being beaten up and fix the situation. How many clerks, managers, directors and senior executives have passed through the PLCB in eight years?  All of them learning how to do things wrong, from the people before them who did it wrong, because that is how they learned it from generations of iron-assed bureaucrats, passed on like a broken piece of PLCB DNA.

I work for the PLCB!

Why do I bring this up? Because there are more Jack Daniel's mistakes.

This time we have one listing in the "bourbon" section. Hey, plenty of people argue that Jack can be considered a bourbon, so that isn't bad right off. Only the company doesn't think so, and labels it as "Tennessee whiskey." More importantly -- when you're searching for it -- all the other correct PLCB entries list it as "whiskey." There is the continuing error (going on a couple of years now) of one item listed as a "blended whiskey"  but Jack Daniel doesn't make a "blended whiskey." The confusion Jack Daniel's new rye creates in the PLCB is comical. One entry is correctly under "straight rye," and the other is not.

As they say, this ain't rocket surgery. The sad thing is, an error rate of almost 7% on just one brand family is pretty good when compared to how they've been doing...until you compare it to the inventory accuracy of all but the most poorly run of businesses. People would be fired for years of error rates that high; hell, they'd be shown the door for a few months of it. This is the poster child for "You had one job..."

But that is what you get when they don't have to care. Hang around, get seniority, get a 2% raise, salt away that pension, and wait for your 30.  Confucius said: "It matters not how slowly you go, as long as you do not stop" and it seems the PLCB has taken it to heart.  They certainly aren't moving very fast and they aren't stopping to fix the problem.

I suppose they may finally get this right, and I'll have to find another go to subject. I'll miss it, though. There are dozens of errors in the bourbon and rye categories, but nothing so consistent, so reliable, as how the PLCB manages to screw up JD.

Sounds like the PLCB to me.

Led, managed and staffed by incompetents

Pretty rough title isn't it? Sure, I'll admit it is...unless you can prove it.

Let's keep looking at the "improved product search feature of the Fine Wine & Good Spirits online store," as Chairman Holden called it 2 years ago!. To me, it is still so bad I can't think of anything they actually improved. Just reference the last blog post, where I talked about the PLCB not being able to get the product totals matching across the inventories available to the public; they couldn't even get them to agree on the same page.

The reason for that may be the thousands of dead listings for products no longer carried that the PLCB doesn't clean out of the system. I'm guessing it's because that would be THOUSANDS of products that they could no longer claim when they make their boasts to the public about how many thousands of products they carry. Do you really think that the 2011 Jack Daniel's Holiday Select is coming back?  It's been five fricking years since it was in stock, but it's still listed in the system. Maybe they're still waiting to get that picture before they delete it.

Am I cherry picking? Yep, and here is the 2012 cherry...

And the 2013 cherry too!

You do see the "Out of Stock" on each one, right?

How incompetent to you have to be to keep something on inventory for five years when it is NEVER EVER going to return? Maybe it's because they're using a search system that was probably designed during the punch card era. You want to see how bad the search engine is? Let's look for some Old Forester.

It's going to be hard for the PLCB to admit it, but there aren't 1074 matches to Old Forester, and I guarantee none are Ardbeg, Aberfeldy, or Glenfarclas single malt Scotch whisky. Pretty worthless, isn't it? To add even more intelligence-insulting idiocy, if you look at the "Brand" listing on the left you won't even find Old Forester listed. Should I be more specific in my search?  Go ahead and put in Old Forester Bourbon and see what that gets you. Narrowing it down takes the number of hits from 1074 to 1355, now that's an improvement. No, that isn't a typo: being more specific increases the number of wrong choices to pick from.

Think that's bad? How about the 5,044 choices — of which 5,036 are wrong — for Four Roses:

How do real businesses handle this? You know, the ones that depend on customer satisfaction (because they don't have a police-enforced monopoly)? Let's have a look. Of course none of these are as big as the PLCB or have as many employees, or a $66 million computer system.

Binny's IL

Hi Time Wine CA

France 44 MN

State Line Liquor MD  (you'll have to enter "Old Forester")

This isn't rocket science...unless you work in Harrisburg. Free states have liquor stores with a real inventory of real products you can actually search for and find, and go to the shelf and touch. Not every store, of course, but Wawa ain't Wegmans, either. The PLCB claims to be "world class," so their online inventory system should be world class. It isn't.

The PLCB doesn't really give a damn about you, the consumer. It is easier to put plants in the stores and aprons on the clerks than it is to fix the systemic and inherent flaws in the leadership, management, and operational systems.

Went to see the chairman, strangest I could find,
Laid my proposition down, laid it on the line.
I won't slave for beggar's pay, likewise gold and jewels,
But I would slave to learn the way to sink your ship of fools.

We deserve better - PRIVATIZE!

More fun with math and myths

"Modernization"  math

The Math:
Is there something in the water or air in this state that causes people to not be able to read and do simple arithmetic when it comes to talking about PLCB numbers? How many times have I proven Wendell W. "Haircut 100" Young IV wrong, or the PA Whine and Spiteful Council wrong, or the notoriously un-mathematical state store supporters wrong? Even Representatives like DiGirolamo and Ferlo couldn't escape. Representative Sonney, now it's your turn.

The "Save the PLCB" universe was all atwitter when a Republican (actually two, counting DiGirolamo) announced a direct shipping bill or supported the idea of a direct shipping bill. Here was the proof that modernization was what the people wanted (provided you were one of the people who got campaign contributions) and a great way to show that the PLCB was at the forefront of almost — but not quite — being consumer oriented. 

Now Rep. DiGirolamo said that his version of direct shipping would bring in an additional $25 million in use taxes (called 'profit' by the PLCB) based on additional sales of  $361 million at a 6.92% margin. These are his numbers, I just do the math.(1).

However, Rep. Sonney has a fiscal note attached to his bill with a chart right on top that shows the state will lose $13,750.000. The interesting thing is that if you read the fiscal note on page 2, Fiscal Impact, it says: "The PLCB projects that the reduction in the mark-up from 30% to 10% could reduce revenue by approximately $16,500,000 annually..."  It goes on to use completely different numbers from the chart on page one. I'm guessing that he doesn't even know this, but the point being made is that if nothing else changed but the reduction in mark-up, the state will make less.

The Myth:
But HB 189 does change other things.  Instead of 55 wineries signed up for the current system supposedly at least 300 more will join the party, which sounds like a lot...but is only about 5% of U.S. wineries. How much more direct-shipped wine will Pennsylvania citizens and businesses buy when there are 400 choices instead of 55? Rep. DiGirolamo says 5.4 times as much (2), he isn't saying where he came up with the figure.

Will the state still lose money if sales increase by over 5 times and the mark-up is only 10% on SLO's? This is the PLCB we are talking about, so nothing they do should surprise you. They shouldn't lose money, in my opinion, but never underestimate their incompetence.

So this is good for the state and the citizens, right?  Not really. It still places the PLCB as the roadblock for which items can be ordered. If the PLCB can get it, you have to order from them. As I pointed out, those 400 wineries that signed up only represent 5% of U.S. wineries. But will there really be 400 wineries that sign up? More importantly, don't expect to direct ship anything from outside the country — that isn't allowed.

HB 189:

1. Wants the wineries to pay $100 license fee.
2. Wants a list of all wines shipped to PA residents
3. Wants permission to audit the direct wine shippers' books.
4. Wants submission to the jurisdiction of the board, any other State agency and the courts of this Commonwealth for purposes of enforcement.
5. Wants to require proof of age of the recipient, in a manner or format approved by the board.
6. Wants all boxes labeled with the words "CONTAINS ALCOHOL:SIGNATURE OF PERSON 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER REQUIRED FOR DELIVERY." (no other state requires this)

And it goes on. How many wineries will make special boxes just for PA? How many will submit to jurisdiction? How many residents want the government to know what and how much they ordered?  Is this really what you think of when you say direct shipment?

Will this bill change the tax code to determine what  the state uses as the definition of a nexus for tax purposes? Some companies will have no physical presence in the state and no third parties who act as agents or representatives of the remote seller who have a physical presence within the Commonwealth. This point was brought up to me by a lawyer who is sympathetic to privatization; it carries no legal weight, but is interesting to think about..

All in all, it's looking like another failed attempt to improve the consumer satisfaction when buying wine and spirits in the Commonwealth. Band-aids like Rep Sonney's HB 189 do little to fix the problem of a broken system that most think is insufficient to their needs and wants, and does nothing significant to  move the state forward to the free market system that all normal states use.


END IT - DON'T MEND IT



1.) $25 million divided by .0692 is $361,271,676.30
2.) Current SLO wine orders are $67 million, $361 million is 5.4 times as much

Selling Allocated Van Winkle Whiskeys Online is the "Most Fair" Method. Really?

Stacey Kreideman, the PLCB's spokesperson, told us that the most "fair" way for the agency to sell their allotment of relatively rare and highly desired Pappy Van Winkle whiskeys was to put them up for sale all at once, online, with no warning but an email to say "We got 'em, time to buy!" So let's look at how much, if any, thought was put into that statement. After all the PLCB has to serve ALL the population: we can't legally go anywhere else.

Pennsylvania's population is about 12.9 million.  Of that about 3 million are under 21, leaving 9.9 million adults who can legally buy liquor. About 800,000 people work in non-management manufacturing, mining, and construction, mostly during the day, so they aren't  -- can't be! -- looking to get twitter blasts in the middle of the work day.  That takes our number down to 9.1 million who may have the time, internet connection, and desire to buy a bottle on line.

Service jobs make up the largest part of PA workers, almost 4.5 million of them.  Even after you take out the IT folks, real estate and "professional business services" that still leaves 3.4 million working in retail, warehouses, restaurants, utilities, and all other manner of service jobs. Most of those people aren't responding to every tweet and email in the middle of work either. Down to 5.7 million

Health Services is another large employer with about 1.2 million employees. Take out the night shift, and the administrators and other desk jockeys, and that is near 800,000 who are actually at work doing something when the PLCB sends out it's email blast. Down to 4.9 million now: half of the population that will never get a shot at the PLCB's rigged Van Winkle race.

Drop another 500,000 for Leisure and Hospitality workers - wait staff, cooks, busboys, hostesses, hotel workers etc., etc. Another 200,000 for government workers like road crews, maintenance, military, police, firemen, state store clerks (they're certainly not checking Twitter; they're too busy shoveling coal into their 1930s-era POS system) and what have you, and at least another 100,000 for non-traditional services, the number drops to 4.1 million or less.

So how fair is it when over 60% of your buying population can't buy what you are selling? Putting it all on sale at 5 AM would be far more "fair" to the majority of buyers, since most could actually try to get on the crashing PLCB website. Ahh, but then the PLCB workers in Harrisburg would have to get up early and actually try to do something for the people they work for. Can't have that, now can we?

I originally made the following up, as a joke, but it turns out to be more true than I thought. "It's the most fair to everyone that works behind a desk" said the PLCB. "If you have one of those laboring jobs we really don't care about you and you shouldn't be buying $100 bottles of whiskey. Our clerks will tell you so." 

The PLCB's online 'store' needs a new motto. Here's a proposal: "We don't deal with the public, we make the public deal with us!"







All the numbers come from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry website minus an estimated 10% for management