The Difference is What They Steal From You

I did a short post on this for the "Abolish the PLCB -- Rewrite the Code!" Facebook group. If you missed it there (and you really should join), this is the full version.

I'm about to go out shopping for my Labor Day get-together (planning ahead, as the PLCB minions always nag about). Phone in hand, I'm checking prices, just on the rare case that the PLCB put something I want on clearance. Because that's the only way they ever beat Total Wine's pricing. No surprises: no clearance deals, and nothing I wanted was on sale, or the difference might have been greater.

I usually go to New Jersey, but the Total Wine in Towson, Maryland was closer, and even with the so-called "Free State" (what bitter irony) charging a 9% sales tax on alcohol it worked out to about the same total cost as New Jersey, but with less driving time. This is a big store at 30,000 sq.ft. A true Superstore unlike anything in Pennsylvania. They also sell beer — like any real liquor store would — and as a bonus (for me, at least), they sell cigars, too. If Total Wine has a variable pricing scheme, it at least appears to favor the consumer with lower prices, and not just the owners. Competition will do that.

Here's the Pennsylvania version of variable pricing at work. Jack Daniel's is the largest selling American whiskey nationwide, and in both Pennsylvania and Maryland. If you compare the prices on big brands like that, keep this in mind: every dollar difference is what the PLCB is stealing from you with variable pricing. You know that Total Wine isn't losing money. They're set to overtake the PLCB in total sales shortly, so they must be doing something right, even though they have to deal with competition and not the easy ride of a police enforced monopoly.

Dare to compare:

Kendall Jackson Chardonnay Vintner's Reserve California PLCB $15.99, Total $9.97 - $6.02

Maker's Mark Straight Bourbon Whisky 1.75L PLCB $59.99, Total $44.99 - $15.00

Kim Crawford Sauvignon Blanc Marlborough PLCB $11.89, Total $10.97 - $0.92

Apothic Red PLCB $12.99, Total $7.97 - $5.02!

Tito's Handmade Vodka 80 Proof 1.75L PLCB $34.99, Total $28.99 - $6.00

Jack Daniel's Old No 7 Black Label 1.75L PLCB $46.99, Total $39.99 - $7.00

These are common choices, big sellers. Nothing out of the ordinary or esoteric to skew the results. It does show how badly we are being treated, how badly the PLCB is managed, how badly variable pricing is being abused...and how much the PLCB lied to get it. We told you this would happen. And here it is, in black and white.

End the charade. Privatize.

Chalmers Selection Event Wine, For all your PLCB events!

HARRISBURG, Pa., April 14, 2019 /PRNewswireless/  

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Fine Wine and Good Spirits State-Owned Monopoly Retail Stores Of Distinction is proud to announce exclusive Pennsylvania rights to the new Chalmers Reserve Event Wine. Presenting a bottle of Chalmers Reserve Event Wine to Chairman Tim Holden (represented for the event by a cardboard cut-out figure), Director of Wines (Other) Sue Broomhall stated, "Everybody at the PLCB knows that the better the commercial, the better the wine. One bottle of Chalmers and your party will certainly get started."

"So true!" shouted a group of non-certified wine specialists from the PLCB's luxurious tasting room. 

"And Pennsylvania consumers won't even have to pay the $1 a bottle cost mentioned in the commercial" Ms. Broomhall continued. "With the flexible pricing authorization of Act 39 allowing us to negotiate prices and markup, we are proud to bring this to Pennsylvania for only $14.99 a bottle!"

For further information on this and other exciting items soon to be seen at the State Store System of Stores, or maybe at the return of the Wine Kiosks®, please contact your local store. They'll be glad to provide whatever they decide you need. 

Proof the PLCB is screwing us - in their own words.

Please see the "We regret the error" post of April 30 for clarification.

The last post showed how even the most basic of business math escapes the political appointees that run our anti-consumer, police-enforced, cronyistic, unqualified, graft-tainted, incompetent (I can keep going) monopoly liquor control system. But even basic math — like you learned in 2nd grade — escapes them. Check this out: they can't even count!

No fair! You said there wouldn't be any more math!

This is taken straight from the law that made recent substantial changes to The Almighty Liquor Code, including "flexible pricing" (the law is commonly referred to as ACT 39):

"The board may price its best-selling items and limited purchase items in a manner that maximizes the return on the sale of those items."  

This is the flexible screwing pricing we have been talking about. We added the emphasis, and you'll see why shortly. ACT 39 then further defines what "best selling" means.

"Best-selling items" shall mean the one hundred fifty (150) most sold product identification numbers of wine and the one hundred fifty (150) most sold product identification numbers of liquor as measured by the total number of units sold on a six month basis calculated every January 1 and July 1." (Again, emphasis added.)

So using what you learned in 2nd grade, there are a total of 300 items that can change price, 150 wine and 150 liquor. Everything else is still under the 30% markup rules as before; that hasn't changed. If the price to the PLCB goes up, your price on the shelf goes up; and if a price goes down your price goes down. Pretty simple: 150 wines + 150 spirits = 300 items affected by "flexible pricing...plus the "limited purchase items."

Now let's look at testimony given by the board at a joint legislative hearing about how Act 39 is working out...because the legislators had a lot of questions about "flexible pricing." (You can read the transcript here)

"This rigid markup structure was inefficient, resulting in missed opportunities for the commonwealth to realize additional revenue and for licensees and retail customers of the PLCB to share in cost savings."  

Share in cost savings, eh? That's important. We'll get back to that.

Reading further in the testimony of the board we find this:

"...pricing flexibility has resulted in a reduction of product acquisition costs for almost seven hundred products, retail prices decreases for more than one hundred and twenty products and retail price increases of a hundred twenty-five products." 

Okay. The law states clearly that there the PLCB could change the standard markup on 300 of the best-selling products. Of that 300, prices went up on 125 of them, leaving a maximum of 175 prices that could be reduced or unchanged. Of that 175, approximately 120 went down, leaving about 55 unchanged, or at least in an unknown status. That's all that are allowed to be changed under the law. However, the board said that costs went down for 700 items: 700 minus the 120 items that were lowered in price...means 580 items didn't get reduced.

The Chairman said "Immediately after the effective date of Act 39, we began using the flexibility we were afforded in pricing our limited purchase items, including luxury products sold in our Premium Collection stores, Chairman's Selection, and Chairman's Advantage products, Wine Club items, and products in our e-commerce portfolio. We have always been able to negotiate with our suppliers to obtain great values on these products, but with Act 39, we  have been able to price each item as appropriately based on our supply and anticipated demand and current marketplace conditions."

Math - The PLCB way

Those 580 items that didn't get reduced couldn't be any of the things the Chairman mentioned here, because he said they already had negotiating power over their costs, and ACT 39 didn't change that. What it did change was the mark-up, the price they could charge us on the shelf. Did they charge more? No, only 125 items went up in price. Did they charge less? Not according to their testimony.

Figure it out. By process of elimination, the 580 items that they are now paying less for aren't in the top 150 wine or spirits, and aren't in the group of items that the board said they could already negotiate on. That means they have to be regular items that should fall under the 30% markup rule, which means one of two things. Either the price for the consumer had to go down, which didn't happen according to the testimony, or the Chairman is lying about something. Of course, there is the third option: he has no idea what he's talking about, or he's inflating the numbers to make the system look good in general (which is probably just habitual at the PLCB). Not really all that reassuring either.

Will we ever know? Probably not, since no one on the legislative side of the table seems to want to ask the right questions. Why do we put up with this continued malfeasance that is being perpetrated on the citizens and consumers?

Privatize and end this BS.

The PLCB doesn't know business; just ask them

The PLCB plays at being a business, but they really don't know what they're doing. We've told you that many times. If you don't believe us, you can just listen to them. They'll make it pretty clear.

The PLCB -- the actual three member board, plus the so-called "executive director" Charles "Not a CEO, Nope, No Sir" Mooney -- testified in front of a joint meeting of the House Of Representatives Liquor Control Committee and Senate Law and Justice Committee about the effects of Act 39...especially about flexible pricing (you can read the whole transcript here). It's a big deal, these meetings and the change Act 39 brings, and the Board has to be ready for the legislators' questions.

And of course...they weren't. Apparently, they weren't really ready for flexible pricing, either, despite having asked for it for years. 

Let's start with the Chairman. Here's what he told the legislators when they started drilling him about why they hadn't simply negotiated lower prices to begin with; you know, with the huge "buying power" we always heard about. As we told you all along, the "buying power" bullshit was just that: bullshit. They never used it.

Holden: "If we would have sought lower product costs from suppliers, it would have resulted in reduced Commonwealth revenue due to the required application of a flat percentage markup and taxes." On face value, that would seem to make sense. Lower wholesale prices, run to a set mark-up formula to the shelf, means "reduced Commonwealth revenue," sure. Of course, it also means lower prices for us. You know, the citizens. But if it means the revenues are maximized, well, okay. After all, you can't make more money by lowering prices. 

But there ARE real businesses that make a profit doing exactly that. You may have heard of them: Walmart. Target. Aldi. Total Wine & Spirits. All of these real businesses, run by real business people, regularly make tons of money by cutting prices. It's established practice: lower your gross margin, so you make less money on each item; but at the same time the lower prices mean more sales, so you make more money overall. The PLCB doesn't get it; guess it's too much work. ("So many boxes to lift!")

They didn't need "flexible pricing," they could have been doing this all along. It's simple. For every item on the shelf, there is a price that will result in the maximum revenue. Higher, and sales decrease; lower, and total profit decreases. That price point is affected by things like competition, or price-matching, or sales, but the PLCB doesn't do any of those; they certainly don't have any significant legal competition. (And no, the PLCB does not have sales, at least, not in the usual sense: if the producers drop a price, the PLCB passes it through as is, and their slice of the pie remains exactly the same. They never cut prices, except on their ill-advised "clearance sales." Thanks, guys.)

Of course I'm lying. I don't know any of this math stuff.

But here's the thing that boggles the mind. Even under "flexible pricing," where they have to negotiate each price of the top 150 wine and spirits items, they STILL aren't using this business tool. So while they are screwing the suppliers and consumers, it certainly isn't as satisfying as it should be for either of us. 

No, the PLCB wants to really ream us. "...brands that are not within the statutory definition of best selling wines and spirits continue to be governed by the proportional pricing requirement of the liquor code. For a future legislative consideration, we respectfully recommend that the same pricing flexibility be extended on all products sold by the PLCB." 

And there it is. It's not enough that they raise prices on the majority of the best-selling items, they want to do that to everything. Keep in mind that there is no institutional pricing oversight by the legislature (only these hearings where the legislators gets to chide the Board about prices, and the Board gets to say 'oh, yeah, guess so, whatever') and as always, nobody with any experience in the industry is leading this parade of monkeys down the path.

More bumbling ensued as the hearing went on. The Chairman: "We made some mistakes at the initial supplier meetings. We asked suppliers for significant reductions to their product costs to increase our margin. But we failed to take a few things into consideration. We miscalculated the reaction of some of the largest suppliers of our best selling brands, who refused to come to the table at all." Imagine that. You said, 'Hey, we want to pay less for these brands everyone wants,' and companies that deal with sharpened pencils every day said 'That's nice. No.' After all, they sell the same products in neighboring states...that don't have the PLCB.

And once again, we suffer for the mistakes of ignorance, just as we have done for the past 83 years. While the Chairman was being the mouthpiece for this failure, it fully lies on Charlie Mooney. After 40 years in the PLCB, Mooney might know about graft, nepotism, bribes: it's apparently the way the PLCB runs. But it looks like he had no idea how the actual liquor industry (or any industry for that matter) worked.

So after blundering around for nine months, and hiring two specialists to help them figure out how to do this, and -- once again! -- paying an outside consulting firm to gather data, that all eventually led to this statement: "... pricing flexibility has resulted in a reduction of product acquisition costs for almost seven hundred products, retail prices decreases for more than one hundred and twenty products and retail price increases of a hundred twenty-five products."

Let me put that in English for you - they saved money on 580 products and you didn't see a dime of it. They raised prices on more items than they reduced prices, and of the top 10 selling liquor or wine items you saw a reduction on only one: a pint bottle of cheap vodka. Remember those top 10 items are the ones they should have the most leverage on, due to sales volume. They screwed us again. Of course they did.

SENATOR MCILHINNEY: "... the state citizens own this system, and they should be able to get some, any benefit by having a good deal when they go to the liquor store."
MR. HOLDEN: "Absolutely",
Except they aren't. We aren't. Weren't the legislators paying attention? We got NO benefit on 81% of the products that the PLCB paid a lower price for. They said so themselves.

Charlie Mooney also came up with: "Senator, we -- I am confident, without all the data in front of me, that, overall, consumer prices have decreased." Well Charlie, without having all the data in front of me, I call BULLSHIT. Especially after you raised prices on 422 items just because you had crap negotiating skills and didn't get what you wanted.

Maybe they should rename it the PLCB principle.

Remember that the PLCB has over $1.7 BILLION in liabilities, they are a drag on the economy of the state and stifle a free market where large and small businesses do not exist because of their continued presence in the marketplace. They do nothing for the citizens, unless you happen to be one that works there. Even Russia has free market liquor stores. Pennsylvania doesn't.

Don't Let Them Fool You

The PLCB just put out their latest Retail Year In Review, patting themselves on the back — again — about how great the State Stores are doing! Yahoo! It's all here! Just don't look too closely at the numbers!

Because if you do look closely, peek under the gloss and sparkles, you can see just how crappy a job they are doing. Let's start with the record sales. Let's see: police controlled monopoly, citizens can't go anywhere else, rising prices, increased population... It would probably take a real marketing genius to have record sales under those conditions. And take a look at those record sales in the hottest market category - American Whiskey: the PLCB's growth there is less than the national average increase in sales. Not just a little less, it is about 30% less. Imagine how much more in taxes would be collected if Pennsylvania was able to match the strongest national trend in booze sales for just that one category.

The PLCB is over $1 BILLION in debt

Of course, our old friend Jack Daniel's isn't forgotten; after years of us saying that it isn't a bourbon, the PLCB in their normal bout of incompetency gets it half right. On page 32, table 19 of the report there is Jack Daniel's Gentleman Jack sitting in the number 10 spot for "bourbon." At least they didn't have JD #7 listed 3 times like they did last year (page 30, Table 19). It is hard to say if they left it out because it isn't bourbon or they just screwed the table up.

To prove they are keeping up with the "modern lifestyle," a whole one tenth of one percent (0.11%) of sales came from the Internet, which is really pathetic in this day and age for a retail company. Pathetic is the key word when talking about the PLCB's technology track record. Can you say "wine kiosk"?

Then there is the problem of saying things to make yourself look good, even when the numbers that you provide don't always match up with reality.  For most of us this is called lying, for the PLCB it's called "how we do business." Let's look at those "increased sales".  First we have the sales for 2015-2016 from the Retail Year In Review.  On page 4 it lists total sales of $2,303,405,801. On page 5 it lists sales by month and transaction; it doesn't total them up, but have no fear, I did it for you.

Notice that the total is about $23.5 million different. The PLCB doesn't say why, and apparently we don't deserve an explanation.

The next table is for the year 2016-17. Again, the monthly sales in total don't match the total listed by the PLCB on page 4 of the current Retail Year In Review ($2,443,725,791). Only this time, it is $76.5 million that has disappeared. Remember, as the owners of this mess this is our money, and I'd like to know where that $76.5 million is.

Here you'll see that the number of transactions was fairly flat, increasing only by 0.91%, while sales dollars went up 3.8%. What this tells us is that the citizens bought 1% more often, but it cost them 3.8% more each time, well above the inflation rate of 2.1%

Retail alcohol is one of the few major sales items where the individual product is elastic (in economic terms, this means that a small change in price can mean a large change in sales), because there are so many suitable substitutes. If your favorite vodka goes up, you can easily find another at a price you are more comfortable paying. The industry as a whole, though, is inelastic, meaning that people are going to pay for some form of the product no matter what the price changes to. The PLCB knows this (probably because they hired somebody to explain it to them), so they will increase prices and not have it affect overall sales that much, if at all. They are doing that right now, through the old variable pricing trick they foisted upon the public (and the gullible Legislature).

So now that you have real numbers in front of you, you have to ask where the PLCB came up with an "average statewide increase of 6.10%", when the numbers they give us don't match? What numbers are we supposed to believe Table 4 or Table 5? And why should be believe anything the PLCB tells us, given their history of anti-consumer behavior, their predisposition to screwing us? Why aren't they capable of making the sales numbers match on their own damn report? As far as that goes, why, in this age of almost instant information access does it take them six months to put this report out? Find another $2 billion business that takes that long...go ahead, I'll wait.

Face it, the PLCB does NOTHING for the citizens except cost them more in the long run. Remember: they are a BILLION dollars in debt and it isn't getting any smaller.

Privatize.

Lies My Liquor Control Board Told Me

A nowhere near complete list of the bullshit the PLCB has fed and is still feeding the public.

1. Prior to Act 39, we couldn't negotiate prices.

There was and is nothing in the liquor code that prevented negotiating prices. In fact, all the Chairman's Selections prices are negotiated and have been since inception. In April of 2016, Elizabeth  Brassell, the Board's director of communications said as much: "You are correct that the Liquor Code does not indicate that prices can’t be negotiated or that the PLCB has any obligation to use manufacturers’ suggested retail prices. In fact, as you suggest, the PLCB’s buying power, as well as its discretion to list and delist products, allows for some price negotiation with vendors." Yet we've been told that this is a new power, granted by Act 39.

2. "And, as we’ve said all along, prices will increase for some items, when the supplier and PLCB agree that the market can bear the increase." Chairman Tim Holden.

And as we've said all along, "flexible pricing" means "higher pricing." Today will see the increase of prices on 422 items; prices that are going up because the PLCB alone wants them to go up.

3. "Because of cooperative and collaborative negotiations, we hope to reduce prices on dozens of items in the near future." Chairman Holden again, on October 28, 2016

Here it is over 10 months later and of the top ten selling spirits and top ten selling wines the only thing that has gone down in price are pints of Nikolai vodka....by 30 cents.  This can only mean one of two things. Either the PLCB failed to get any price decrease on the items they have the most leverage on; or the PLCB kept all the reductions in purchase price they did negotiate and put the screws to us, the consumers. The truth is, we don't know, because the PLCB refuses to release this information. So much for us being the "shareholders" in this state-owned "business."

4. The PLCB and the vendors view pricing information as proprietary. At least that is the reason given for no longer showing purchase and shelf prices on the board meeting minutes and why the PLCB refuses to let consumers know what 422 items are that went up in price.

Yet the PLCB listed pricing information for decades. Act 39 and 166 did not make that same information proprietary nor did they say that the public should no longer have access to that information.

5. Wine Kiosks - "This was not a faulty fiscal decision," PLCB Chairman Aug 17, 2011

Yes it was and so was trying to cover it up.

6. Under oath in front of the House Appropriations Committee in April this year, Board Member Micheal Negra said that the loss of 'the shackles' that had been on the PLCB with regard to product pricing "would deliver better revenues for the commonwealth and better product prices and availability for consumers."

Raising prices on 422 items does not provide better availability or prices for consumers. That's a no-brainer. Higher prices are not better prices. And availability? With under 620 stores in a state this size? Don't even talk about availability.

7. The PLCB operates at no cost to the citizens

We pay for everything with higher prices, less selection, inconvenience, pension debt, few stores, inept management at all levels, nepotism, graft, incompetence, anti-consumer practices and unqualified Boards just to name a few. You might as well try to tell us that the Legislature operates at no cost to the citizens.

8. In 1934 the PLCB said that stores would be located at "convenient places to serve the public."

Wow, that's a whopper that they've never gotten over. From a high of 756 stores, we now have shrunk to 604. To reach the national average -- the average -- the total would have to be 1,800. Having 200% less stores than average is not convenient.

9. We are going to run like a business.

A business is successful when it is run by people with experience in the industry, innovates, provides goods at a better price than it's competitors. Provides better service or other services than its competitors do and is convenient for the consumer. The PLCB does none of these well or at all.

"The PLCB is a cash cow!"

10. The PLCB is a cash cow.

The PLCB is $240 million in debt, had negative assets for three of the last seven fiscal years, and by their own admission saved $110 million every year for the past 4 years (through The Wonder Of Bailment!) but has nothing to show for it, limits jobs and job creation due to monopoly practices, spends more on advertising than education, and still only contributes about 0.3 percent of the total state budget.




Tell me again why we need the PLCB? We don't and never have, they do nothing for the state and only exist as a poorly run jobs program. Privatize.

So I Went to the Pretty New State Store...

I went to one of the new State Stores. You know the ones, with a new color palette that supposedly offers a warm, welcoming atmosphere for consumers to browse the limited selection. I wandered over to what they call the focal point of the store; a new table, where customers can find staff to answer questions or provide recommendations. Just what I was looking for. 

I waited for somebody to come over to the table.
And waited for somebody to come over to the table.
And waited for somebody to come over to the table.

Did I mention that the table was the focal point of the store?

Looks kinda empty

Ah, a wine person! They wandered over and asked if they could help.
I said, I don't know. I have some questions.
"So what are you looking for?"

Answers.
"I'll do my best, what's the first thing on your list?"

Can you name one thing that has decreased in price in the past few months?
"Sure, pints of Nikolai vodka. We have a guy that comes in everyday, well, actually we have a few,  and is so pleased that happened.  Probably our happiest customer."

Anything go up that you noticed?
"A few here and there but when the wave of 400+ hits next month I'm sure I'll see a bunch of them"

Since this store was remodeled in the same location, did any increase in products on the shelf come with the remodel?
"Oh no, with the wider aisles, this table stuck in the middle and the plants and all there are less things in the store now then there was before."
Style over substance eh?
"I can't say."
So how long were you closed for the remodel?
"About 3 months."
Doesn't that seem like a long time to be closed? Didn't the Dollar Store close for like 16 days when they remodeled?
"The Dollar Store isn't run by the PLCB."

So is this 'modernization' thing working out, or should the Legislature have gone for more privatization?
"We aren't allowed to talk about privatization"
You aren't allowed to have an opinion?
"We can have an opinion, we just aren't allowed to talk about it."
So, the powers that be in Harrisburg don't have enough faith in you workers to offer a reasonable explanation why State Stores should still exist.
"Could be but I can't talk about it."

Can I ask if you belong to the union or just pay fair share?
"I just pay fair share, most of the people in this store just pay fair share. We have too, not like there is a choice."
So how long have you been here?
"I started as a Seasonal 6 years ago, worked part time while I was in school."
Do you think of this as a career after all that time?
"No way, I'm going to an online school for my Masters. Once I have that and a job lined up where I don't have to wear an apron, I'll let somebody else take this spot."
Maybe then you can talk to me about privatization.
"Yeah, maybe then, ha ha."

I can't talk about Privatization, the PLCB doesn't trust me.

What do you say when people tell you they bought ...whatever for less in Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Florida or wherever?
"I'm sure it is true sometimes but those chain stores or Mom & Pops don't have to have a store in Nowheresville, PA like we do. We have to support that somehow"
Why? Don't you think a grocery store would carry the basics if they could?
"You're talking about privatization again, so I can't comment."

The conversation above is semi-fictional. It didn't happen with just one clerk, but every question and answer did happen with multiple clerks over the past six months. I wish I could get managers to answer as truthfully as some of their workers, but they drink the Kool-Aid every day, and won't stand for it.

PLCB Math

So here we are, about to be screwed again by the PLCB. What is it this time? More nepotism? More corruption? No, this time it's just plain monopoly gorilla tactics (yeah, gorilla, not guerrilla). They wanted to force a private business to lower their margin so the PLCB could raise theirs.

Once again, they're just playing at being a business. A real business increases profits when it reduces costs through innovation or consolidation, they change benefits, they leverage productivity, they control operating costs. The PLCB does none of that; well or even at all.

For every dollar the PLCB spends buying booze, they make just over $1.45 selling it. (PLCB Financial Report 2015-16), but that isn't enough apparently. How can that be? Back in 2013 when Bailment was put in place -- that "nifty little system" that was going to make such a big difference -- the PLCB saved enough to no longer need a tax and interest free loan of $110 million from the state to start up their operation every year.  So where did that $110 million saved per year for the past 4 years go?  It isn't zero sum as some PLCB supporters suggest. 

For instance, if you start the year in debt by $100 million, and over the course of the year you make $500 million, your net is $400 million for the year. If you have no debt to begin with, then your net is the full $500 million. The PLCB no longer has that debt every year and so should be making $110 million more every year. Are they? Not according to their own financial reports.

In 2012, the PLCB contribution to the general fund was $80 million. In 2014, with bailment in full swing...it was $80 million. Maybe they spent it on improving the stores? Nope, store operations only went up $25 million over the two year period - still missing over $195 million. ($110 million times 2 years minus $25 million) Maybe they paid down some of the non-reported (at the time) pension debt. Hard to say, but if they did then they didn't continue it in 2015-16 when they had to report pension debt. That only went down just over half a million on almost $240 million of debt - a 400+ year payback plan.

Now we have "flexible pricing," which is of course all about "our need inside this building." Since none of the top 10 sellers of wine or spirits went down in price (except pints of Nikolai Vodka, which decreased a whopping 30 cents, and let's not talk about what a whopping display of hypocrisy it is for the PA Liquor Control Board to lower the price on The Drunkard's Friend), one can only assume that the PLCB kept all the negotiated differences of the most popular items. Now the question arises: how much more do they have to squeeze us by the balls to make the projected income increase of $165 million (or $137 million, depending on who you believe)? Raising the prices on 424 items isn't going to do that. Keeping all the $2.1 million in Jack Daniel's profit — as I'm sure they are doing or anticipating doing — still leaves a long way to go. 

By the PLCB's own admission of saving $110 million a year from bailment, and $165 million from price gouging the consumer, my math says that even with paying $195 million to the general fund, the pension debt should decrease by at least $50 million, and if you count that $110 million from the 4 previous years, there shouldn't be any pension debt.

Of course, that would assume the PLCB is an efficient, well run business organization with knowledgeable leadership and people who take initiative. None of which is true. It is a political pig sty stocked with innumerable incompetents that have no real business experience and run like a old boys club, hoovering up the hard-earned dollars of the citizens while giving almost nothing worthwhile in return.

So much for the Chairman's statement of:"...we can both generate additional revenue and achieve more competitive retail prices through cost reductions, rather than broad price increases." As a businessman, let me clue you in, Tim. You NEVER achieve more competitive prices by raising the price for consumers. The idea is to gain competitive advantage over other places selling the same or suitable substitute items. I'm betting you don't have a friggin' clue what that means.

Speaking of the Chairman, he was so proud saying that the PLCB didn't initiate any price increases during the period of 02/14 to 10/16. Well, guess what? They don't have to. ANY price increase gives the PLCB more money no matter who initiates it. I bet the suppliers never initiated 424 price increases all at once, though, did they, Tim? If you listen to the fearmongers at the UFCW and their lapdog bureaucrats in Harrisburg, we are told that there are 20,000 products available from the PLCB!! Yet Ol' Chairman Timmy is complaining that suppliers tried to increase prices on about 4% of them over two and a half years! Da noive o' dose guys!

You gotta ask why the $110 million from bailment PLUS the $137-165 million from screwing the public with "variable pricing" PLUS the $80-100 million or so they have been contributing the last 7 years or so doesn't total up to at least $337 Million being turned into the state ABOVE the taxes collected. Just what black hole of incompetence is it disappearing into? The answer is that it is all a lie. While they might make something more than before, the state, the General Fund, we the citizens are never going to see it. The PLCB needs it to keep their ship of mismanagement and incompetence afloat. They always have said that the PLCB will make more, not that the state or the consumer or the citizens would ever benefit from it.

It's OUR money; not yours.

What we need now is another border bleed study next year to see what damage has been done by these idiots. My money is that real border bleed is over $500 million by then, if it isn't there already.

Now more than ever we need to be rid of the PLCB.

Privatize, now.

"Given our need inside this building..."

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board member Mike Negra may have inadvertently told the truth (he'll probably be fined for that). Quoted in a story about the PLCB's recently announced price hikes that ran in several state newspapers, Negra let it slip that the PLCB's main mission is the survival of the PLCB, its jobs, stores, and cushy bureaucratic positions. How else are you supposed to interpret this quote?

"Given our need inside this building and throughout our agency due to rising costs of employee benefits and so forth, a lot of that is out of our hands, we felt it was something we needed to do," said board member Mike Negra. "That's what is behind it."

Any PLCB bureaucrat

You see that, right? "Given our need inside this building..." None of the usual window dressing and self-sacrificing bullshit about how the PLCB does so much for the state. Nothing about the General Fund, nothing about the state's financial crisis, nothing about the State Police, nothing about actual alcoholism prevention (what about the children???), and certainly nothing about you, you poor shlub. No, the prices are going up because the bureaucracy needs to fund their ever-increasing operating costs. 

We told you, over and over, that "flexible pricing" would mean "higher pricing." We take no joy in being right, we just wish someone would have listened.

Now can you finally call your rep and tell them it's time to privatize this mess? All of it?

Big PLCB Price Hike May Be Coming!

The PLCB is playing hardball with their suppliers, and it looks like part of the process is threats in the media. Check this out from a recent story at KDKA's CBS Pittsburgh site titled "Prices Of Best-Selling Wines & Spirits To Rise."

The PLCB’s Elizabeth Brassell says the suppliers have been told the price for their product is going to go up on the shelf, “unless our suppliers of those products offer us lower acquisition cost to avoid the retail price increases.”
Brassell says the price increases affect “the best-selling 150 brands of spirits and best-selling 150 brands of wine.” In other words, probably your favorites.

You know what we have to say about that, right? Welcome to Flexible Pricing...we told you so! You know why it's going to affect the 150 best sellers? Because those are the only PLCB products covered by Flexible Pricing! Everything else is still under the mandated markup. 

Here's what the PLCB thinks is going to happen. The PLCB is going to hammer the producers in negotiations! They'll balk at lowering prices, because they know the PLCB isn't going to lower the price on the shelf (because they promised to make a LOT off of this), the PLCB will make this childish "don't make us raise prices!" bid in the press, figuring the producers will lower prices, and then they can say "look, your prices stayed the same, we are HEROES!!" while sucking off all the difference to cover their spiraling operating costs and hold off privatization for another legislative cycle...and the producers will call their bluff, and give 'em nothing.

And the PLCB will just have to raise prices and look like the inexperienced amateurs they are, we'll get screwed, border bleed will explode, and maybe, maybe we'll finally tell our representatives to get rid of this moldy old piece of Prohibitionist crap.

The PLCB Act .39 Special, only one made.

And here's the beauty of it all. If I were the producers... I'd be saying "Screw them. Jack the prices, blame it on them, and maybe Pennsylvania will finally wake up and get rid of these idiots. This is our chance!" Run the long game, booze folks, run the long game, and help us dump these rubes.

Because you know what I'm going to do when the prices go up at the end of August? Hop in the car and go buy booze in Delaware. Why not come along? Let's dump these rubes!

Pay no attention to the man behind the flexible pricing...

Back in October of last year, PLCB Chairman Tim Holden (a political appointee, with no major business experience)  put out this piece of propaganda, trying to fool us into believing that the PLCB's new "Flexible Pricing" was good for them. (We've been telling you for years it's a bad deal for consumers, but the Legislature handed it to the PLCB.)

Holden gets off to a bad start by using an example of Pennsylvania's "top selling Bourbon," Jack Daniel's. It isn't Pennsylvania's top selling Bourbon...it's Tennessee Whiskey, says so right on the label. A small strike, but the kind of product ignorance that's typical at the PLCB.

But it's what he has to say about Jack that's interesting. "In February 2016, Virginia’s price per bottle from the supplier of this product was $12.14, while Pennsylvania’s was $14.46. The retail shelf price on June 1 in both states was the same: $24.99." This just shows that the PLCB was too incompetent or lazy to negotiate better pricing for 82 years, and despite what they might claim about their new flexible pricing powers, there was nothing in the liquor code that prevented them from doing deals on pricing.

Now he gets to the flexible pricing shim-sham. "If Pennsylvania had been able to obtain Virginia’s lower price – $2.32 less per bottle – we would have achieved an additional $2.1 million in profit on that one product, based on the volume of sales in Pennsylvania. Or we could have reduced the retail price, or even a combination of the two." (emphasis added...for emphasis)

And here it is, nine months later...and Pennsylvania's #1 selling "Bourbon" hasn't changed price at all. They are keeping every penny of every negotiated price to the top ten selling wine and liquor brands, all but one: Nikolai vodka pints (the alcoholic's favorite), which have gone down 30 cents. Hey, thanks. Really appreciate it, PLCB.

It's all too clear: the PLCB (owned by YOU, they say) is screwing the citizens on a daily basis, over-charging on numerous items, especially their lottery items. A prime example is the 60% average price increase they charged for this year's Van Winkle releases, and the extra $570 they charged for the 3 bottle 'package' and the extra $860 for the 5 bottle 'package' on top of that. Or maybe the extra $100 they charged for the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection? Make no mistake, you as a consumer come in last in the PLCB's quest for survival. The Chairman even admits it "As we’ve said all along, prices will increase for some items, when the supplier and PLCB agree that the market can bear the increase."

"Charge what the market will bear" is a cornerstone principle of the free market, especially on "luxury items" like booze. You can see it in the beer market, for example, where craft beer prices continue to rise mainly because customers continue to pay them (so far). But those prices are kept in check by the knowledge that another retailer may sell for less and get the sale.

As a police-enforced monopoly, though, the PLCB can raise prices and the market - meaning you and me - has no other choice: we can't go to another retailer (or another state...), we have to bear it. Bet you didn't know that it was fine for a government agency to gouge you. Imagine if the Turnpike Commission had "flexible tolling." When did things change so that the government would treat you fairly and justly IF they made enough money from you?

So how will you know if the PLCB is cheating you?  You won't, because they don't have to tell you their secret pricing decisions. While they don't have any problem outing Virginia, the PLCB no longer lists the price they paid for their products. The official PLCB excuse is:

"Act 39 of 2016, which became effective in August 2016, granted the PLCB authority to negotiate product acquisition costs with suppliers for the most popular wines and spirits carried in Fine Wine & Good Spirits stores. The goal of these negotiations is twofold: to maximize revenue the PLCB generates for the commonwealth and to offer consumers fair and competitive prices. Subsequently, the PLCB removed product cost and retail price information from Board agendas and minutes in the interest of optimizing supplier negotiations. Additionally, now that the PLCB can act more like a traditional retailer with regard to pricing, it is not in our financial interest to give other alcohol retailers advance notice of our prices and sales."

But a traditional retailer has competition, not a police enforced monopoly! I'd like to know what other alcohol retailers are they talking about. Do you really think that Mondavi doesn't know what Gallo is charging, or Buffalo Trace doesn't know what Beam wholesales their bourbon for? If the PLCB knows what Virginia is paying, don't you think the distillers have a pretty good idea of what their competition is doing? I know that competition is a foreign idea to those at the top of the PLCB, but that is what keeps prices down for everything else you buy, not allowing some entity to charge whatever they want and then MAKE you pay for it.

Being the Chairman of the PLCB is the bizarro version of being Harry Truman, without the ethics or personal responsibility. "The buck passes here," is that right, Tim? Nothing is ever their fault no matter how idiotic (wine kiosks), misogynistic (date rape ads), anti-PA  business (Tableleaf et al), anti-consumer (any monopoly is anti-consumer) or just plain stupid (whatever happened to the PLCB Savor magazine, and the drink recipes that need things the PLCB doesn't sell?) Any Chairman claiming any responsibility for any of those things?  Didn't think so, and Mr. Holden is certainly not going to be the first.  

Stop being fooled.  The PLCB does not exist for the benefit of the citizens, it exists for the benefit of the PLCB. Anything to keep the pigs at the trough is what they are for and anything that resembles real business with real competition is what they are against. Starting at the top with the Chairman..

Are Your Prices Variable Enough?

Just how much is the PLCB screwing us with "variable pricing"?

A good question, and one that the PLCB doesn't really want to answer. There is no sunshine at PLCB HQ; their mission is to hide as much as possible, keeping as much information away from the citizens as they can. And why? It's not like they have any competition to worry about, no business secrets to keep: no one else is in their business, they've made sure of that. They do it for one reason: to keep the owners — that's you, and I, and the Legislature — ignorant of what they're really doing; of how they're desperately shuffling prices and margins around to try to look "profitable."

Would the wine kiosks have passed if the citizens, if the press, knew about them, knew that the PLCB had been advised against implementing them...by their own people? Would Joe "Da CEO" Conti been brought back after having been found to have committed ethics violations if the citizens knew, and could do something about it?*(Correction: please see below.)  Maybe anti-competitive branding and placement wouldn't have taken place with citizen involvement. But that all did happen, mainly because the PLCB kept it all hidden away and secret, to the point of having records destroyed, to the point of appearing to have had secretive off-book meetings to make decisions that are supposed to be discussed in public.

Now they don't want you to know how much of a shaft you are getting on variable pricing, the one thing they wanted more than anything else from "modernization." Remember, the PLCB said that they couldn't negotiate prices for 82 years, even though there was nothing in the Almighty Liquor Code that prevented it, and then they said that they did negotiate on some things, but not most. ACT 39 changed that, and supposedly allowed the PLCB to do something they could have been doing all along...only now the game is rigged to benefit the PLCB and not the consumer. That sounds fair.

In the PLCB meeting minutes, you used to be able to see what new products were going to show up, and the cost for those products. Not anymore. The PLCB doesn't want you to know what they are paying and what they are going to charge,  because it will raise questions about why the consumer isn't seeing benefit from "variable pricing." They don't want you to know that they are making an extra $1.16 for every bottle of Jack Daniel's sold while you see no change** on the shelf.

Now, a real retailer wouldn't tell you this either. But the PLCB isn't a real business; they have a police-enforced monopoly to ensure their market share! A real business doesn't tell you this stuff, but their competition keeps them honest, and you can be sure that they're passing along savings to you; if they don't the competition will.

But the State Store System has no reason to benefit the consumer by lowering prices in order to increase market share or maintain their customer base. They don't have to worry about that, and there's nothing in the Almighty Liquor Code that says they do. Remember the founding principle of the PLCB, as stated by Governor Gifford Pinchot himself: “to discourage the purchase of alcoholic beverages by making it as inconvenient and expensive as possible.”

So what does the PLCB tell us about the effects of variable pricing? The Chairman said that they will not raise prices across the board, but with having to dip into reserves to pay more into the general fund, and trying to prevent privatization by making it look like they contribute more than a piddling amount to the state (not including the taxes, which would still be collected in a private system!), and having to pay off $260 million in pension debt...what do you think they are going to do? Keep their sinking ship afloat in any way they can, or benefit the consumer?

Last year the PLCB charged an average of 45.36% above cost for every product sold.  For the first eight months of this year it has risen to 45.46%, and I guarantee that will continue to climb as time goes on. If you remember, the Democrat's modernization plans said that the PLCB will make an extra $75-100 million because of this alone. That would mean they'll have to raise the charge above cost to over 60% — such a deal!

The choice comes down to this. Do we want to continue to have limited selection, limited convenience, Harrisburg bureaucrats selecting the booze for the entire state, and anti-consumer pricing? Or do we want the freedom of choice that the private market brings?

Privatize - all of it. Retail and wholesale. Why wait one variably-priced month longer?



*Correction: Conti was ruled to have violated the state's ethics code about a year after he was brought back as an 'emergency consultant' and paid about $67,000 more of your booze dollars. Our error, which we own up to...unlike Joe The Ethics Violator, who is currently on the faculty of the Fels Institute of Government, and a lobbyist with Triad Strategies. Great places for a known ethics violator.

** Since the PLCB hides all of their purchase information now, the $1.16 is just my best guess, but it is an educated guess...and it is most likely more.

Let's Sum Up: the last nine years

It's not exactly nine years since I started this blog, but it's close enough, considering where we are. Seemed like a good time to take stock.

There was a lot of sturm und drang in the first seven years, "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." The idiots in this case, of course, were the Republican members of the Pennsylvania Senate, led by the surprisingly obstructionist Senator Chuck McIlhinney (R-10), who managed to consistently thwart a clear majority for liquor privatization in the House, led by Speaker Mike Turzai.

Me and King Dork

Whatever the reason, McIlhinney worked with the Democrats (de facto, if not actual hand-in-glove) to keep a solid privatization bill from being laid on Governor Tom Corbett's desk. Corbett would most definitely have signed it, too. McIlhinney knew that, so he never gave him the chance. Could Corbett have been re-elected if he'd been able to deliver liquor privatization? Maybe, and then we'd be in the middle of four more years of King Log, instead of the current ham-handed reign of King Dork, but it's impossible to know.

Then came the election in 2014, and things changed, in a strange way. The GOP increased their legislative majority, but the party's abandonment of Tom "One Term Tommy" Corbett made that less useful by giving us Tom "One Term Tommy" Wolf (I really want "One Term Tommy" to become a Pennsylvania colloquialism for any Governor who fails to win a second term, no matter what their first name actually is). That upset the balance, but once the long budget logjam finally broke (a nasty defeat for King Dork), suddenly things happened.

Lurking in the background; why is
he still allowed to drink in PA?

Bang! We got takeout wine sales at licensees (right, not at groceries or convenience stores, just ones with tavern licenses, and with the stupid "cafe" requirement, and a limit of four bottles, and it's gotta cost the same or more as the State Stores, and the PLCB is still the wholesaler, and of course no spirits sales), we got direct wine shipment (only from wineries, no out of state retailers or importers, and again limits), more stores open on Sundays...whoopee...and we got a surprising little grab bag of other kind of neat stuff like looser cider and mead regulation...none of which really affected the state's retail/wholesale monopoly. And of course, we also got flexible pricing, the gleaming hook inside all the colorful lure of the rest of it.

They were, unfortunately, almost all things that McIlhinney wanted. Why does this man, this second-rate hack from Bucks County who's in a variety of pockets, get to rule over the liquor reform we've wanted for decades? The GOP put him there, and continues to leave him there, despite the way he thumbs his nose at the House majority and the Speaker on these issues.

Yep: you can get the whole thing, or just one bottle.

Ye gods and little fishes. Of course, we also, finally, cross it off the list, saw an end to the much-hated Case Law. Which was awesome, and great, and all that...except of course that the Case Law's evil twin, the Two Sixpack Law that afflicts bars, restaurants, and grocery stores is still firmly in place. And I have to admit, I'm not sure if it applies across types; if I went into the State College Wegmans, could I get two sixpacks and four bottles of wine? Mind blown.

The sad thing is how excited we all are about this. We're whooping it up -- the Case Law is dead! We kin buy us wine at the Giant Eagle! -- so much that we don't even notice how sad it still is.

1. We still aren't even up to "normal," let alone "world class." New Hampshire is still better off: lower prices, better State Store System (much much better), and wine in stores all over the place; New Jersey is much better off, Maryland, Delaware...we're finally a step ahead of Utah, and that's cause for celebration? 
2. Spirits haven't changed a bit, except for the flexible pricing that will soon be costing us more.
3. And worst of all: the half-assed way that we finally were allowed to buy beer and wine at grocery stores -- by letting them buy one of the restricted number of tavern/restaurant licenses -- is causing the price of those licenses to skyrocket, as I warned here (I've warned about this for years). Over $500,000 for a liquor license, just for the piece of paper, so a Giant Market can sell sixpacks? That's putting small independent grocers out of the game (and likely out of business), and making it too expensive for restaurants to have a bar. Hope you like BYOB.

The Case Law is dead, and that's definitely progress. The changes for off-site and cross-license sales for Pennsylvania breweries/distilleries/wineries/cideries/meaderies are a tremendous opportunity (one the State Stores surely weren't delivering). And the 'zombie license' auction, even though it transparently benefits chain stores and the PLCB over everyone else, does, at least, free up some more licenses.

But we still have a long, long way to go.
We're not done till there's whiskey in private stores.
We're not done till they don't need a "cafe" to sell booze.
We're not done till the state's out of the retail and wholesale booze business.
We're not done till this whole thing gets sorted out.

And when we're done...what happens to the guys who got us through this stupid period? The GREAT sixpack shop owners and managers, the GREAT owners and managers of the exceptional beer distributors? You know, the folks who will now own a largely worthless business, as supermarkets and convenience stores undercut them relentlessly on prices, while inevitably shrinking selection (not completely, maybe, but it's never going to be their focus)?

What happens to all those State Store System employees, a significant number of which do a decent job at the register, and some of whom honestly do have a passion for what they're doing? Do they find new jobs? Do they open liquor stores?

What happens when the Legislature finally gets its gumption up and puts a real stake through the heart of this zombie relic of Repeal?

What then? WHAT THEN?

Gun it! The Finish Line is in sight!

I don't know. But specialist booze emporiums do survive and thrive in states where supermarkets sell booze. So they can work here, once we get to that point.

So let's get going, let's keep going, and get this done. Don't slow down, don't listen to the last ditchers who will tell you "We have to give these changes a chance to work out!" No, actually, we don't. We can admit that they were a compromise that didn't need to be made. The time to change this is now, before we have another entrenched set of entitlements.

We've got the momentum. Let's finish this.

This will only hurt a little bit, we're just flexible pricing.

On January 1st, the PLCB raised the price of 341 bottles of Booker's Bourbon from $59 to $99.99, a 66% increase. Bottles that they already had in stock on the shelves across the state. Bottles that they had already bought and paid for at a lower price. This was in anticipation of the published March or April price increase by Jim Beam on NEW product.

However, Beam didn't increase the price to $99.99 due to consumer pressure and outrage, They decided that an increase to $69.99 would be enough at the moment, and changed their minds before the actual price increase took effect. So how come the PLCB price went to $99.99 anyway? (Update: the PLCB has belatedly lowered the price to $69.99...but you are still paying more for bottles they bought at a lower price.)

The PLCB excuse was that they raised the price for Booker’s to $99.99 on January 1 “at the request of the vendor,” according to PLCB spokesman Shawn Kelly. I'd like to see that in writing. Remember: Beam gets no benefit from an immediate price increase, so what the PLCB is saying is that Beam told them, 'Hey, fine. Screw your citizens by raising the price across the board, limiting sales and competitive pricing of our product so you can make more money in your little monopoly.'

There are two factors at work here, a desperate desire to maximize 'profit,' and lack of any consumer protection and overwatch. The PLCB used to brag about how they controlled price increases, saying that industry instituted more increases then they had, but now increases are seen as a way to make more money for the state by gouging the consumer.

How does that work? Say Bottle "A" sold on the shelf for $25 before "Flexible Pricing;" the PLCB paid about $14.50 for it before all the taxes, fees, markups and rounding they add. Now, with "flexible pricing," the bureaucrats decide to negotiate to try and save themselves some of that money. (Negotiating is something they could have been doing all along when it would have benefited the consumer, but they chose not to. But now it benefits the PLCB, so full speed ahead, boys!)

Back to the example. The PLCB knows that another state's monopoly system only pays around $12.30 for the same bottle. They've known for decades that other states pay less, and decided not to do anything about it. There was a conscious decision that having a lower price yet selling more product to increase overall sales was not something the PLCB wanted to do. Too much work selling that extra amount of product for that sales increase, apparently. Yet, keeping the same price, selling the same amount, and gouging the consumer by not passing any savings along when producers offered deals was decided to be perfectly acceptable.

The PLCB now manages to get $1.50 shaved off of the wholesale price. To make sure that the same amount of taxes are collected, they increase the markup from what used to be a standard 30% to nearly 47% to reach the same point to apply the 18% Johnstown Flood Tax. The consumer sees NONE of the price reduction from the agency's "buying power." The state doesn't collect any more taxes, but the PLCB gets to say they are making more money, and they cover their ballooning operating expenses for another few years. Remember: the amount the state gets by having the PLCB in the middle is less than they would get if taxes were raised by the same amount. The cost to the consumer is the same. In other words, we get to pay more to keep the PLCB jobs program afloat.

Here's another example of the "benefit" of flexible pricing: sale items. The PLCB itself doesn't put anything on sale, other than closeouts (of items they can't be bothered to sell), and out of season items ,like the Christmas gift packs that are on sale now. Everything else that you see a sale tag on is a reduction from the producer. Formerly, the PLCB had to pass on those reductions to the consumer; that was the law (and a good law to keep a monopoly in check). What they can do now is "recapture" some of that savings that was supposed to go to you, the consumer, through the magic of "flexible pricing."

Here's how that works. Suppose a distillery offers a $5.00 off special to the PLCB. Used to be that the PLCB approved the sale, printed up sale tags, and the citizens got to pay closer to what some other places charge. But under the new "modernization" law, "flexible pricing" allows the PLCB to decide that they don't want the citizens to have $5.00 off, that $3.00 off is good enough ("Good enough" should be their agency-wide motto), so they take the full $5.00 discount from the producer, print up sale tags for $3.00 off, and they keep the other $2.00 - such a deal! Doesn't that make you feel good about "modernization"? Don't you wonder what rat hole your two bucks is going down?

PLCB apologists will point out that private business can and does do the same thing. Sure, they can, but there is one thing that keeps that in check: competition from other businesses. If you decide to keep that extra $2.00, but your competition down the street (remember, private liquor sales means a "alcohol on every street corner") doesn't, and guess who will have more sales? But pass on some of that wholesale price reduction to your customers, and who will have more repeat business?

This is the heart of it. The total lack of competition in Pennsylvania is why we pay more, why we have less convenience, why we have less selection, and why we don't have the same protection from price gouging the free market provides. Don't like what the State Store System has, at the price they charge? Screw you, you have no choice. But if you're in a free state, and you don't like what Bob's Liquor has at the price they charge? You can just go somewhere else where the selection or prices are better.

This lack of choice will always make the citizens serve the needs of the PLCB  instead of them serving the needs of the citizens.

Why the PLCB will never be anything but 2nd class

Business, not some funny-money state-owned monopoly business but real business, is driven by being able to supply consumer wants and needs before your competition. Being first to market with innovative marketing and products, seeing a demand and then filling it before somebody else does. That's how business succeeds.

Here in Pennsylvania, we get none of that from the PLCB; we get wine kiosks. They were innovative only in the sense that some bizzaro administrator convinced a board of political donor lawyers with no business acumen, that people really want to blow into a tube and pirouette in front of a camera just to get a bottle of Barefoot. Lesson learned: not all innovation is good.

The PLCB, by its very nature, can only follow. The board, with no experience in the industry, follows the recommendations of the PLCB directors...who in turn also have no real experience in the industry. It's a classic case of the blind leading the blind.

Buy more Baaaaaarefoot!

They can't lead on new trends, because nobody has told them what those trends are yet. They have to be offered products; they do not have the ability or knowledge to search out new things. Even once they are told, there are months of delay while products are submitted and maybe (or maybe not) approved. Does that sound like striving to fulfill consumer wants? Or being a sheep and following the herd?

The PLCB got an award from the control state "business association" (it is to laugh!) this year for being the second first place awardee for the licensee online order system; somebody beat them to it last year. Since there are only seventeen control states left to choose from, and the PLCB got skunked on every major award last year, well, it was their turn this year. But it isn't innovation when you're doing something after it has already been done.

The PLCB only has one goal; to keep the PLCB open. That's what "flexible pricing" is all about. It will allow the agency to keep the lion's share of any price reduction from producers, just to keep its bloated carcass afloat, and "prove" it is good for the state; a "cash cow" as the defenders say. In real business, cost reduction is usually applied to the item for sale to gain an advantage over competitors. No reason to do that here, because in Pennsylvania, there are no competitors. The PLCB says they won't take advantage of this but since there is NO oversight, NO required item reporting, and NO indication to the consumer in the board minutes...How will we know? Wait a year and see that the gross margin went up from 45.46% to 50% or 55%, and realize that every point of that came out of our pockets? What recourse does that give us?

A monopoly with no competition, no need to advertise, with a workforce over 40% part time, and it can't survive on a 45% markup? Walmart's gross margin is 38.2% and Target is 36.1% and they seem to make money just fine. And they have to compete not only with each other but with all the other stores out there. Sounds like the American way of shopping: multiple retailers offering the consumer a choice, trying to get their business by offering lower prices or added value or both. Does that even remotely sound like the State Store System?

Remember: the only way the State Stores can make that extra $50-70 million is if they take it from your pockets, by raising prices, and by not giving you what every other real business does — a choice.

When something doesn't work, or work that well, you replace it.  Pretty simple, really.

Privatize.