Why Is The PLCB Lowering Spirits Instead of Selling Them?

Philadelphia

The PLCB shut down the State Store System of Stores because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are the ONLY control state to do so (other than Utah, temporarily, because of an earthquake that happened concurrently). Liquor stores remain open in other states (because a lot of them sell booze in grocery stores, you know, like normal people do); beer distributors were literally classified as "life essential" by Governor Wolf in yesterday's shut-down-the-state order; and of course, as we pointed out recently, we were told by the state that we didn't need the State Store System of Stores because "Individuals can still buy wine and beer at grocery stores with PLCB licenses."

Wilkes-Barre

We have encouraged the State to leave the stores closed. The Distilled Spirits Council of the US and American Distilled Spirits Association has pointed out that the current instruction leaves the citizens unable to buy spirits (a completely legal product in Pennsylvania and the United States), and suggested the state at least temporarily allow the sale of spirits at the grocery stores and beer distributors that remain open...somewhat heroically, and I'm not kidding about that.

Allentown (the sawdust is a nice touch)

I've been talking to wine and spirits wholesalers who work with the PLCB to supply their warehouses. They're ready, willing, and able to supply spirits to the grocery stores, convenience stores, and beer distributors that are already open and selling. What's more, they're also ready to supply the restaurants and bars who are eager to do take-out beer and wine and spirits sales, just to keep their people employed, to literally keep their businesses from failing. Not closing temporarily: failing. The wholesalers know that they can find drivers to do the work. The PLCB has said they could do this (click the link, and scroll down to the 7th paragraph), but have never shown a bit of initiative toward action on it.

Williamsport

Has there been any indication that the PLCB is even considering any of this? At least the legislature has decided to come back to work remotely and get something done, but you have to believe this isn't going to be high on their list -- and I'm not suggesting it should be. But as we saw when the Board decided that it could simply "interpret" the hated Case Law right out of existence by declaring a six-pack to equal a case, the courts give the PLCB very broad latitude indeed on "interpretation" of The Almighty Liquor Code (had we mentioned that the PLCB has its own courts?). They could easily rule on all of this stuff, and let the Legislature catch up.

Also Philly

No. The Board, the Governor, the Department of Community and Economic Development have done nothing about this, none of the really easy steps that would take some of the stress off businesses, and extend some fairness to the folks in the spirits production chain (who also need gainful employment), and let those of us who might want a whiskey sour or Bloody Mary (or quarantini, which is apparently a thing) buy a bottle or two.

What are they doing?

Harrisburg

They're boarding up State Stores as a precaution against looting. 

In a state where the last large scale riots were over fifty years ago, the PLCB decided to raise public morale with this amazing display of optimistic trust. Because nothing says "it may be rough, but we're going to get through this together" like boarding up your store...in Williamsport. 

This lack of leadership, lack of understanding, lack of common good sense is just another example of what an awful mistake having this all-too-independent state agency in charge of retail stores has been. The Legislature should, in the spare ten minutes it would take, use this opportunity to say, 'Okay, that's enough. You had your chance, more than enough chances, and that's it. Game over, PLCB. You're done.'

Even better? It really would only take ten minutes. The Legislature actually drew up plans back in 1987 to end the State Store System of Stores and those plans, never enacted, are still available online in the Pennsylvania Code...ready to roll.

Here's the plan; your predecessors already did the work for you. Literally all you should have to do is change the dates and vote.

Because all the PLCB is going to do in this crisis is protect themselves. Apparently they think Pennsylvania is France. We deserve a lot better than this.

Paris

How Long Does It Take?

Two weeks ago I posted about how the PLCB inventory accuracy rate is getting worse. As I mentioned then, I wrote them an email with the link to the story, explained what their mistakes were, and gave them the official government regulations that explain how to determine what spirits should be called. If I gave them any more help, I would have to fix the inventory myself.

Anyone with moderate typing skills could make these corrections in about three minutes. Two weeks should surely be enough time, even with supervisory oversight. Let's see how that worked out.

PLCB - third-rate data entry.

1. 510608 Berkshire Mountain Distillers Bourbon Whiskey - This one is pretty easy. If it's a bourbon, it's not a blend: it's a bourbon.
NOT FIXED: The PLCB still calls it a bourbon, but still categorizes it as a blend.

2. 153 Brixton Bourbon Whiskey Mash Destroyer - I could almost forgive this one, because it's a 'blend' of bourbon and rum; where do you put that? But they couldn't even get the name right! It isn't Brixton Bourbon Mash Destroyer, it's Brixton Mash Destroyer. Why do they constantly add words that aren't there? Put this in SPECIALTIES, but it's not BLENDED WHISKEY.
FIXED: While still in the Blended whiskey section they did fix the name and changed the description enough to show that at least an effort was made.

3. 31328 Clyde May's Bourbon Mash Whiskey - There is no Clyde May's "Bourbon Mash Whiskey." The Clyde May brand has a Straight Bourbon -- which is a bourbon -- and a "Alabama-style Whiskey" -- which is bourbon with apple added, which makes it SPECIALTIES -US, or WHISKEY...
FIXED: Amazingly, the PLCB not only corrected the description but put it in the correct category too.

4. 608012 Crater Lake Rye Reserve- Again, not blended. It's RYE. Pretty simple. Who's making mistakes this simple and stupid? Sorry/not sorry: there's no other way to describe that.
NOT FIXED: The PLCB didn't do anything.

5. 559141 George Dickel Whiskey Single Barrel - Reading comprehension and product knowledge required; no wonder the PLCB got it wrong.  If it is single barrel, what are you blending it with? Imagination? There should be a TENNESSEE WHISKEY category. Most other Tennessees are in WHISKEY, which is such a catch-all it's all but worthless.
TOSS UP: They didn't fix it...but they didn't keep the listing either. The item has disappeared.

6. 528555 Hooker's House Organic Rye Whiskey - There is no record of a "Hooker's House Organic Rye Whiskey" on the Internet...except connected to this mistaken PLCB record. Again, why are you adding words that aren't even there? In any case: RYE, not a blend. Okay?
NOT FIXED. Is two weeks just not enough time? This was one of the easy ones!

7. 34278 Jack Daniel's Sinatra Select Tennessee Whiskey 90 Proof - Given their track record, is anyone really surprised that there's a Jack Daniel's bottling on this list? I've been mentioning this particular one for a few years now. Jack Daniel doesn't make blended whiskey, but that doesn't stop the PLCB from getting it wrong for the past 3 years.
NOT FIXED: Was there any doubt the PLCB would continue to screw up this entry? It is part of their DNA to have at least one Jack Daniel's product wrong.

8. 504228 Jim Beam Eight Star Kentucky Whiskey 8 Year Old - They almost got this one right: it is a blend! But as I mentioned over a year ago...it is not 8 years old. Where is that on this very simple label? Nowhere that I can see.
FIXED! I wonder who had to read the label and make the command decision that it doesn't say 8 years old.

9. 446 Wigle Phil's Shadow Rye Whiskey Finished in Maple Syrup Barrels - Not a blend. Again, at the very least, a RYE.
NOT FIXED: Not one of the three ryes on the list were fixed. Does Rye confuse the PLCB?

It's ONLY been two weeks!

Pretty weak track record. Two weeks, ten whole work days, and only three entries fixed, four if you want to be generous. I guess none of the managers are the "hands on" type, and not very good motivators. Typical PLCB.

There are undoubtedly THOUSANDS of bad entries in the PLCB inventory; I haven't even looked at the wines. If they can't fix even half of a small sub-group when given all the information...imagine how badly they are doing when they have to find out and correct these things through their own means.

This access to 'all the wine and spirits in the entire system' is supposedly one of the advantages of the State Store System of Stores. You don't have to chase supply and price through hundreds of individual stores, like in those terribly disorganized "free" states. If the database is so badly disorganized that you can't find what you're looking for...where's the advantage?

There is none. Privatize now.

They only fix it if you poke them with a stick

Eighteen months ago I wrote in "PLCB Stupid Inventory Part 100" how five out of only 53 items in the "Blended Whiskey" category of their product database were...in the wrong category, about a 10% error rate. If you got 10% of your job wrong every day, would you still have that job? Would your boss who accepted that rate of failure have his job?

That's when I wrote that post; I started poking them with a stick.


So 18 months later...the PLCB error rate in Blended Whiskey is now over 13.8%. Way to go, guys. The PLCB has two ways to look up things. The so-called flat file inventory that I use here, which has everything in one place, or the slower, seemingly less accurate one on the FWAGS website, which is just as bad, in its own way. The flat file inventory also allows you to look up things by type, which is what I'm doing below.

Tell you what. I'm feeling generous today, so I'm going to list a few items that they can't seem to figure out and tell them why they're marked wrong. I'll even send them the list. But you know...I'm pretty sure the next time I check, they'll still be wrong, and there will be new things wrong too. But maybe they'll learn. Maybe.

All the federal regulations that pertain to whiskey classification can be found online in the Electronic Code OF Federal Regulations. That's how you know what kind of whiskey you have, and how it's going to be labeled. Maybe somebody in the PLCB has read it, but I have my doubts.

Most of these won't even require a reading of the regs. They're pretty simple. Let's have a look at what's wrong with these entries in the Blended Whiskey category.

Now this is bourbon!

1. 510608 Berkshire Mountain Distillers Bourbon Whiskey - This one is pretty easy. If it's a bourbon, it's not a blend: it's a bourbon.

2. 153 Brixton Bourbon Whiskey Mash Destroyer - I could almost forgive this one, because it's a 'blend' of bourbon and rum; where do you put that? 
But they couldn't even get the name right! It isn't Brixton Bourbon Mash Destroyer, it's Brixton Mash Destroyer. Why do they constantly add words that aren't there? Put this in SPECIALTIES, but it's not BLENDED WHISKEY.

3. 31328 Clyde May's Bourbon Mash Whiskey - There is no Clyde May's "Bourbon Mash Whiskey." The Clyde May brand has a Straight Bourbon -- which is a bourbon -- and a "Alabama-style Whiskey" -- which is bourbon with apple added, which makes it SPECIALTIES -US, or WHISKEY...
Which leads you to ask: why does this database have a LIGHT WHISKEY category that has no entries, but no WHISKEY (FLAVORED) category...in 2019? 

4. 608012 Crater Lake Rye Reserve- Again, not blended. It's RYE. Pretty simple. Who's making mistakes this simple and stupid? Sorry/not sorry: there's no other way to describe that.

5. 559141 George Dickel Whiskey Single Barrel - Reading comprehension and product knowledge required; no wonder the PLCB got it wrong.  If it is single barrel, what are you blending it with? Imagination? There should be a TENNESSEE WHISKEY category. Most other Tennessees are in WHISKEY, which is such a catch-all it's all but worthless. 

6. 528555 Hooker's House Organic Rye Whiskey - There is no record of a "Hooker's House Organic Rye Whiskey" on the Internet...except connected to this mistaken PLCB record. Again, why are you adding words that aren't even there? In any case: RYE, not a blend. Okay?

7. 34278 Jack Daniel's Sinatra Select Tennessee Whiskey 90 Proof - Given their track record, is anyone really surprised that there's a Jack Daniel's bottling on this list? I've been mentioning this particular one for a few years now. JD doesn't make blended whiskey, but that doesn't stop the PLCB from getting it wrong for the past 3 years.

8. 504228 Jim Beam Eight Star Kentucky Whiskey 8 Year Old - They almost got this one right: it is a blend! But as I mentioned over a year ago...it is not 8 years old. Where is that on this very simple label? Nowhere that I can see.

9. 446 Wigle Phil's Shadow Rye Whiskey Finished in Maple Syrup Barrels - Not a blend. Again, at the very least, a RYE. 

I bet the answer is down here - I've looked nowhere else!

So there you have it, PLCB. The gauntlet is tossed. Clean 'em up. Oh, and don't fall back on the old excuse that you are told by your suppliers what these are. Just read the freakin' label, and copy it into the database without editorial additions. Easy-peasy. Get it done, or I'll have to get that stick out again. 

UFCW gives up

After getting some real blowback by killing off a representative family in a series of cringe-inducing commercials, the State Store clerks' union, the UFCW, has decided that they no longer need to try and protect us with half-baked lies on their UFCW PA Wine and Spirits Council website. Not willing to openly admit defeat, they quietly let the sun set on their "proof" of the evils of privatization, and scuttled away into night.

So what does this mean for privatization?  Not much, since almost everything on the website had already been disproven. The UFCW still tells the clerks (I mean, surely no one else is bothering to look, right?) to "Learn more on UFCW PA's Wine and Spirits Council Website." I guess now that they can't squeeze dollars out of people who don't want to be involved with the union through "fair share," they must be trying to save their pennies like this.

Meanwhile, in another example of normal operating incompetence, the PLCBoard admitted under oath at the House Appropriations Committee hearing in February that they didn't have a clue about the costs of CRM (Customer Relationship Management) when they were pitching it to the legislature. That pretty much means that they read about it somewhere, thought it was a great idea, and never did even the minimal amount of research into it. At least this time they didn't hire some consultants to tell them it was expensive to do correctly. We'll be seeing the typical PLCB half-assed slow roll-out as they try to figure it out. Sounds like a plan....a PLCB plan to me.

Lastly, the PLCB hasn't gotten back to us about the number of industry-recognized wine specialists they have. It has only been three weeks, so we weren't expecting much...and that is exactly what we got.

Privatize.

100 Days and Counting -- Oh, Will You Look At That!

As I write this, former PLCB member Michael Newsome has been off the PLCB board for 100 days. But...his resumé is still on the PLCB website. It must be so hard having to find a page (on your own site) and push the Delete button. Until they delete it, you can see it here. If they finally got to it, here is a snip showing it was still up as of 12:37 March 18, 2019.

I got tired of waiting, so I sent them an email, just a little nudge (sent it this afternoon, March 18). I wonder if they realize that Mr. Newsome isn't coming back. When you can't even keep track of one of the top three guys running your agency, how well do you think they are doing with inventory, product choice, or other personnel?

It's said that if you take care of the little things. the big things take care of themselves. If you can't take care of either...you can always work for the PLCB.

Well, it turns out that poking them with a stick works. After posting about this on our Facebook page and sending them an email, they finally decided to remove the information — without any explanation about why it took so long. They did say that the "hidden page" had been removed, but guys...it wasn't hidden, you'd just removed the link. Pretty much the same way it went the last time I poked them about a Web screw-up. I should be getting some of that Joe Conti emergency consultant money!

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.

At the PLCB, ALL money is TAX money

Well, the good 'ol PLCB got their annual report out, and proudly lists the following as "Contributions to state and local governments" totaling $749.6 million for last fiscal year:

• $371.5 million in liquor tax
• $146 million in state sales tax
• $185.1 million in cash transfers

Of course, the first number is the Johnstown Flood Tax, which was raised twice since the flood in question, the second time about 30 years after the flood. Still, at least they call it a tax. Same with sales tax. That's what passes for honesty in Harrisburg.

It is the last one that the whole PLCB rides on, the reason they still exist: $185 million in "cash transfers," or what they like to call "profit." They don't want to call it tax revenue, but that is exactly what it is, a tax. Webster's defines a tax as: A charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes. Don't like that one?  This is even more specific: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government.

When a government entity -- the PLCB -- is levying a compulsory charge -- which is anything above break-even on their monopoly retail operations -- to increase revenue - it is a tax.

They do that so the codified taxes -- the Johnstown and the sales taxes -- pretty much remain the same. And as we've pointed out many times, they have a police-enforced monopoly and their own pet judiciary system that allows them to do pretty much whatever they want anyway.

No matter what they say, this is not a service to the citizens, nor is it a business. Successful businesses do not have record sales and still go further in debt. The PLCB is well over $1 BILLION in the red...and it isn't going down, it is going up. Businesses do not lie to their shareholders (and they keep saying...that's us!) about plans that have no hope in reaching the levels they promise.

Remember all the money bailment was supposed to save: $100 million. And opening more Sunday stores: $22 million! Opening.remodeled/new stores faster: $25 million. Variable pricing: $75 million. That all totals up to an "extra" $222 million, ON TOP of what they were turning in previously. Wow, dolla dolla bills, y'all!

Have any of these things happened?  Maybe bailment? Probably not since after the first time the PLCB didn't have to take out a $110 million loan that money was never seen again.  No increase in capital spending, no increase in pension contributions, no increase in "profit," and no explanation where it might have gone. Uhhhh...gee, guys, what happened to all that extra money?

The only thing that has consistently gone up is how much red ink the PLCB uses. For real businesses, record sales does not equal record debt for too many years in a row, but the PLCB keeps on with lies to the public about how much of a benefit they are. That's right, lies because if you read the underage drinking report, look at alcohol related DUI and fatalities both underage and legal age. Look at consumption which according to the National Institute of Health spirts consumption - the thing the PLCB is directly responsible for - went up 56% in the past 20 years. We're barely in the middle nationwide. Look at binge drinking and we are 43rd best out of 51; dropping eight places in the past four years. Worse than all the surrounding states, worse than all the free states on our borders, worse than most of the entire United States. "Control" isn't really effective. All it is.... is annoying and expensive.

The PLCB does not control anything, they still exist only to provide a jobs program for the people that work at the PLCB. They aren't even good at what they do. At the last reporting -- well over a year ago, since the PLCB not only doesn't have to report these numbers, they make it a point not to -- 81% of the items they "negotiated" lower costs on had ZERO benefit for the consumer. As a betting man, I'll take every dime you have saying that percentage has gone up and they are screwing the citizens even more.

What they supposedly contribute is meaningless when compared to what they owe, the limited selection and poor service compared to other billion dollar stores, the universally bad reputation they have had over 80 years and the outright proven malfeasance of the leadership are just some of the ways you can see what we have to put up with in Pennsylvania compared to free states.

Maybe this has really been the plan since privatization efforts started in earnest. Run things so poorly, manage so ineptly, lead so incompetently and be so financially inadequate that it will cost far more for the state to bail them out to be able to rid ourselves of this outdated jobs program than to keep them. 

Naw...they ain't that smart...are they?

PLCB buying power is a joke.

Well, it it that time of year again when the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection (BTAC) goes up for lottery. So how does PA fare as one of the largest buyers in the country? Worse than most control states and certainly worst than Total Wine.  Need proof?

Last year PA got an allotment of 165 bottles of George T Stagg, the most popular of bourbons in the BTAC, out of a release of 9.120 This year the total bottling of GTS is almost 29,000 more bottles and PA is getting.....you guessed it, 165 again. Maybe that is just an outlier you say. OK, let's looks at Thomas Handy Rye. PA got 408 bottles for the entire state out of a run of 11,944. This year they are getting 407 from a run of  14,021.

2017 BTAC, although the PLCB says it it 2016, but they are idiots.

Want to try another? Sazerac Rye stayed the same too even though production went up and W.L Weller also stayed the same even though production was up 42% over last year. Yeah I've got the numbers for them too if you really need them. 

So even if the allotments were just divided up by states and foreign sales PA got the short end of the stick by A LOT, It is even worse if you looked at it by a population allocation and we owe it all to the glorious leaders at the PLCB. They should hire some North Koreans, at least they have experience in allocating resources while screwing the public.


Now if you are like me you're thinking that this is what they get for trying to play hardball over purchase prices. We, the citizens and consumers, not only have to pay above list price to the ass-backward PLCB but their newly increased "buying power" gets us LESS of the products we want. Name another business that works like that? You can't - and if one did exist they wouldn't be in business because their competition would make sure they didn't survive.

So just let me say that you guys are doing a bang up job. The more stupid and incompetent things you keep dreaming up to do means the sooner we can be rid of you for good.

PRIVATIZE.

PLCB Stupid Inventory part 100

After five years of saying and showing the PLCB that they were screwing up the listings for their #1 selling "bourbon" — as Chairman Tim Holden likes to call it — the PLCB has almost managed to get their listings for Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey correct. Although in typical fashion they have managed to get the most expensive hard to get JD wrong.

A bit hard to read but NO Jack Daniel's products are a blended whiskey as defined by the US Government.

The 2016 Laphroaig Cairdeas bottling confused them enough that they don't know what specific type of spirit it is, so they left it blank. Guys, it says "single malt Stotch" right there!

Then there is Jim Beam's Eight Star Blended Whiskey (#504228) which the PLCB thinks is also eight years old for some reason - maybe their lack of product knowledge?  And what about Kinahans Irish Whiskey Blended 10 Year Old  (#559929) which is stuck in with the blended whiskies. Now I know you are going to say that the bottle says "blended whiskey" right on it, but foreign whiskey does not follow same the rules as American blended whiskey. Jameson's and Bushmills are blended whiskey too, unless you get one of the Single Malt versions. It should be under the Irish Whiskey section along with all the other Irish. Again, anybody who had any real knowledge of liquor would know this.

Of course, the PLCB has the normal (for them) inability to read product labels. It is just so much trouble to get things right and hey, you can't go anywhere else so what does it matter.

If you don't like using the FWAGS website never fear they screwed it up on the flat file webpage too, calling this a blended whiskey and getting the proof wrong.

And for the last one today there is Whistle Pig 12 year old Old World Whiskey (#559250) which says "Straight Rye Whiskey" right on the label but that doesn't stop the incompetents in Harrisburg from putting it in the blended whiskey section. Here's a tip for you, "Straight" in whiskey means it is a distinctly different product from blended whiskey in US law. But if you are wandering around making up your own interpretations, I guess it can mean anything you want.

There are only 53 records in the WHISKEY (BLENDED) section and I found 5 that were wrong just by looking without really checking into them all so there may be more. So if we apply that ~ 10% error rate across the PLCB catalog there are over 1,000 wrong entries. Way to run like a business guys!  If we could we'd fire the lot of you for incompetence.

Privatize.

April Inventory Idiocy

I'm a Scotch guy, and I know a fair amount about it. Although they have a statewide monopoly on selling it, the PLCB doesn't...and I'm going to pick on them for that.  How incompetent/stupid/'we don't care' are they this month? Let's take a look.

I'll start off with Glenmorangie single malt Scotch whisky. The PLCB lists 25 bottlings of Glenmo on their website between on-line, in-store, SLO, and of course, "out of stock." So how many do you think you could actually get?

Well, there are nine out of stock, some of which we will never ever see again; inventory padding, really, just like the Jack Daniel's examples I pointed out here. So that leaves sixteen...right? Not exactly. The PLCB likes to double count the exact same item that they have on the shelf...and what they can supposedly only get by SLO.

Here are two examples. First, the Quinta Ruban:

It would seem that cutting and pasting the picture is beyond the ability of the people who do the inventory, and why is the price different? And before you even ask; no, there's only one expression of Quinta Ruban.
 
Next! The Nectar D'Or [a favorite of Lew's ...but not bought from the PLCB!]:

They still can't figure out how to post the exact same picture in two different places, but at least the price is the same this time!

So now we are down to fourteen. Whoops! One is supposedly "Coming Soon," so we're down to thirteen. Now how many do you think you can actually get?

Well, two are listed as "On-Line Exclusive," which may or may not mean you can find one or two in a store. (The PLCB has made that mistake more than a few times.) Are they really there? Looking at the inventory listed in the current Product Catalog, they aren't listed at all, but other out of stock online exclusives are — like the Glenmorangie Signet which the Product Catalog says is available,  but SLO and the FWAGS website says it isn't. So which is it?

Then there is the 18 year old New World which FWAGS says is out of stock but the Catalog says is available. Do these people have any idea what they're doing?

We really don't know HOW many of these are actually available. Who can say, since the inventory, like the rest of the PLCB, is entirely screwed up.

Why do we continue to put up with this incompetently-run "business" which can only make a "profit" with a police-enforced monopoly and by gouging the people they are supposed to serve with artificially high costs and variable pricing?

End the insanity, Tell your Representative to support HB 1075 and get the state out of this mess and back to what is considered normal by the vast majority of the states.

After 80+ Years...There are Some Things You Should Know

Looking at the PLCB's inventory sometimes gives the impression that they never learned to read the simple information on a liquor label. If you call them on it, they are usually pretty quick to blame the vendors, saying they are supposed to provide this information. But passing that buck just proves they don't really care if the information the public gets is correct or not.

Let's see how stupid they were this week.

I can't even begin to come up with any excuse why this isn't filled out correctly; maybe they can't read and type in the same day.

This one is a little trickier because, uh, you know, it's a long way from the 1st to 4th line.

This one is simple if you've been in the liquor business long enough to get your first paycheck: Scotch can only be made in Scotland. Period. The Scotch Whisky Association, the EU, and the US government all agree. In fact, there are a number of these types of spirit; I'll list the others as a service to the PLCB, in case they get confused again.*

• Bourbon can only be made in the U.S. - so that means it is all domestic.
  
• Cognac can only be made in the Cognac region of France - that means they are all imported.
• Armagnac and Calvados can only be made in France -  also all imported.
• Irish Whiskey can only be made in, yup, Ireland - again, imported.
• Brandy de Jerez can only be made in Spain -  so they'd be imported.
• Tennessee Whiskey can only be made in Tennessee - that means it is all domestic.

Now I know it will take some time to fix this (although a real business could probably do it in a week, or less). So I'll keep posting examples just so they don't forget or ignore it, like they have been for the last 20 or 30 years. You know..."in the public interest."

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 NOW.


*If you have any questions about this you should have asked them decades ago but just in case - here is the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Trade Agreements Negotiations and Compliance letter on the subject.

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!

Tracking the Trackers

Real business knows that tracking inventory is important, but the PLCB doesn't.

The faster, better, easier Product Search Page online inventory was recently down for almost four days.

FOUR DAYS! 

What kind of business has their inventory unavailable for four days?  A poorly run and managed one. They could use the excuse that their "other" inventory page (the "Fine Wine and Good Spirits!" page) was available. But look here: if they can't even get the category numbers to jibe on the same page, why should you trust that inventory?

I was looking at Cognac on the Product Search Page when it went down, so I had to use the "Fine Wine and Good Spirits!" website instead, which led me to this page. You'll note that the full number of items at the top is shown as 214; but the total of the available items shown at the left...is 189. Huh?

In the real world of my business, the total items available should match the total in inventory. Listing products you don't have or can't get serves no real purpose except to inflate your numbers when you lie to the citizens (or the Legislature...again) about how many products are available. Something that both the UFCW and the PLCB are prone to do, and we've told you that for years.

Not being able to match numbers on a single page begs the question of where these inventory numbers came from, and why don't they match across online product searches. Take a look what happened when I tried the same search on the Product Search Page once it came back up:

This total, 174, doesn't match 189 or 214, so which is it, PLCB? What random number is closest to what you actually have? I'd bet that none of them are correct, given the history of incompetence at the agency. For over five years they haven't been able to get Jack Daniel's (spelled "Jack Daniel's", see the label to the left!) listed correctly. They have Jack listed in both Whiskey, Bourbon (Straight) and Whiskey (Blended) and use a few different spellings. If they can screw up their #1 seller that much imagine how badly they screw up the rest.You can find your own examples if you think I'm cherry picking. I mean, I am, but believe me, I could pick the whole damn tree for you.

While inventory numbers are important, so is knowing what you are selling. If you look at the above picture again, you'll see it says COGNAC (IMPORTED). Guess what, PLCB: it's all (IMPORTED), because Cognac can only be made in Cognac, France! There is no such thing as COGNAC (DOMESTIC). Ya dopes.

It's just another example of the poor quality customer service that inevitably comes from a monopoly, because they know they don't have to do anything better, since the consumer can't go anywhere else. A real business depends on current, correct and factual information being provided to the customer, because they know they wouldn't be in business if they ran things like the PLCB does.

End the fiasco of fake business and PLCB incompetence - PRIVATIZE.

More PLCB convenience

On  April 16th, 2011 the PLCB increased convenience, affecting the 4,200 residents of Renovo and the immediate surrounding area, by closing the State Store in town. They decided it was much more convenient — for the PLCB, apparently — to have the residents drive a minimum of 55 miles round trip to the State Store in Loch Haven: the only State Store in all 900 square miles of Clinton County, the only State Store for all 40,000+ residents of that county. 

Of course, the PLCB has said they are "actively looking" for a replacement spot in Renovo. I'm pretty sure that after five years some lard-assed PLCB real estate drone could have walked to every building in Renovo and the surrounding area. So I have to question on how "actively" they are "looking," or if they are just "actively" running their mouth trying to obfuscate the fact they aren't really doing anything. Last year I suggested the empty store at 112 St. Clair Street and Third St. in Renovo, which has parking and a loading dock, but no one "actively" did anything, and now it isn't available.

So how fair is this? Let's look at it the PLCB Way. The Almighty Liquor Code favors quotas: so many bar and restaurant licenses for so many residents, so many beer distributors and importing distributors per so many citizens...that sort of thing. Once it was one "R" license (a 'bar license,' roughly) for every 1,000 citizens, now it is 1 for every 3000. Apparently we don't need as many restaurants with beer and wine anymore; when did that change? What about State Stores? 45 years ago, there was one store for every 15,608 citizens. As of today, there is one store for every 21,225 citizens. Population went up, number of stores went down a lot, almost 25% down. That makes it more convenient for the PLCB and their ever-increasing operating costs, but what about you?

Based on that current ratio, Clinton County should have two State Stores, but they don't, and after five years they still don't (and of course, they're still screwing around with where they're going to have that one store!). I have to give the citizens credit for being so patient. Looking at the U.S. average, Clinton County should have seven liquor/wine stores, and they probably would under privatization, despite what the PLCB and its lockstep lackeys in the Legislature keep saying about a vast booze desert in upstate if privatization takes place.

It's a simple proposition. Renovo has two area grocery stores, one area beer distributor, and three area drug stores. Do you think any of those would have liquor and wine if allowed? You bet they would, because they know how to run a business already. Would the selection be better than the State Store? I guarantee it, in writing, and I'll eat my computer if I'm wrong! I'm not worried, it's an easy bet. Any selection is better than what the PLCB is providing now in Renovo: zilch, squat, zero, nada, nothing.

As long as we have the police-enforced monopoly State Store System, there will be less service in rural areas, because only the with the featherbedding incompetence of an institutionally corrupt and directionless agency like the PLCB can a state-backed complete monopoly not break even with the only liquor store in town. Privatization will at least allow somebody to provide what the PLCB won't, or can't. Privatization will bring small stores, large stores, specialty stores, and CONVENIENT stores. Will they carry everything? Of course not, but they will carry more than a closed store or a store that currently doesn't exist. A win for Clinton County! 

You have to wonder why Clinton County's representative in the House, Michael "Mike" K. Hanna, consistently votes against privatization. Is it because of the tiny handful of votes represented by the employees of the State Store in Lock Haven and their families? (Er...in Lock Haven for now, that is.) Or is it because he doesn't think his constituents can handle more than one liquor store? Or is it because he likes inconveniencing the thousands of tourists, hunters, and fishers that visit Clinton County every year, the hundreds of people who are working in the gas fields in Clinton, and the students (of legal age) and faculty at Lock Haven University? Because he does vote consistently against privatization (of course he does, he's the Democratic whip). If you live in Clinton County, why don't you ask him why he keeps voting against your convenience?

The PLCB vs. Real Business

Retail exists for the benefit of the consumer. The PLCB exists for the benefit of the people working at the PLCB. The consumer doesn't even enter into it, as admitted by the PLCB when they said they don't try to get the best pricing, they just pay whatever the producers ask. Now they say they want to "negotiate" as part of "modernization"; they aim to keep the difference between what they now pay and the lower price to maintain their bloated structure, not to lower prices for you and me. As if!

We deserve better. The State Store System had 82 years to prove their case, and the court of the public has said they failed. Just ask the people of Clinton County how well they are doing their job.

END IT, DON'T MEND IT. 

How PLCB buying power incompetence has cost you and me Billions

In my last post, PLCB "Buying Power" A Myth, (which you really should read first), I told you how for the past eighty-plus years the PLCB's incompetence in not negotiating or even trying to negotiate the best prices for Pennsylvania liquor prisoners should damn them for all eternity to the lowest circle of Hell, the one Dante reserved for people who betray those whom they should serve.

As always, we are going to provide some numbers to show what they've cost you. I'm going to use the largest selling whiskey in the state as an example, the standard 750 ml Jack Daniel's Old Number 7. (I thought I would use that because when the PLCB reads this (and they do), it might reinforce how to spell Jack Daniel's correctly, since they seem to have a problem with that.)

We are going to compare Pennsylvania prices with the state that has the 2nd highest liquor taxes in the country — Oregon, also a control state with uniform prices — and see who at least attempts to take care of their customers: the PLCB or the OLCC.

From the PLCB we know that (non-negotiated) cost +30% markup (required by law) + handling fee  (arbitrary) + 18% Johnstown Flood Tax (levied on the price) + rounding up (always up!) to nearest .49 or .99 (just because) = Retail Price. In this case, our bottle of JD has an initial cost of  $14.46. so putting that into our formula we come up with $14.46 + 30% ($4.34) + Handling fee ($1.20) + Flood Tax ($3.60) + Roundup ($.39) = Retail Price of $23.99.

Oregon doesn't give us their unit price so we have to work backwards from the retail price to figure out approximately what their cost price is. Oregon works on cost + 79.8% markup + $1.40 Handling fee + $.50 per bottle surcharge + roundup (to nearest .05). Oregon's shelf price for a 750 ml bottle of Jack Daniel's Number 7 is $24.95 or about $1 more than PA. Taking that $24.95 and working the formula backwards we subtract the roundup (which we'll call zero, because the price is already at $X.95, and we don't really know, except that it's not much). Next we subtract the surcharge of $.50, which gives us $24.45. Then we take out the handling fee of $1.40 to leave us with $23.05.  Taking out the 79.8% markup ($23.05/1.798) ends up with a cost price of $12.82 at most (it's unsure because of the unknown roundup, but it's less than a dime difference). Remember: PA is paying $14.46.

Hey, but Oregonians still pay more on the shelf, so Ha-ha! Only...how much is the PLCB's "non-negotiable" system of costing and pricing costing you, when you compare it to the unit price the OLCC is getting? Easy enough to find out. Put Oregon's cost into the PA formula. $12.82 +30% = $16.67; adding $1.20 gives you $17.87; drown it in the 18% Flood Tax, and that brings it to $21.08, then add the roundup…and you end up with $21.49, a $2.50 savings ON EACH BOTTLE, if only the PLCB did their job. PLCB incompetence in business cost PA consumers over $6.1 Million extra on Jack Daniel's alone last year.

You're getting screwed out of $2.50 every time you buy a bottle of Jack — remember, that's only one example — because the PLCB can't be bothered (or doesn't know how) to use their "massive volume leverage" to get the same price little Oregon does. Multiply that by how many millions of bottles they've sold since 1934, and that is how much they have cost the consumers of the state. An amount you have been paying extra for all these years because of PLCB ineptitude, laziness, and their "we don't give a shit, we're a monopoly" attitude. Far more than any so-called "profits" they have ever turned in.

Remember: this isn't a tax that's being levied on you that's going to benefit the Commonwealth, it's not a fee you're paying to the PLCB to pay for alcohol enforcement, it's not "profit" that gets sent to the general fund whether it's real or just hidden pension funds...it's money the PLCB doesn't know how to get from distillers, vintners, and importers. It's gone to line their pockets, exactly the people who the PLCB apologists rant and rave that privatization will somehow steal all your money to pay. Too late: they've already got it, had it for decades, thanks to the PLCB.

Is this the system you want to keep or do you want them to "modernize"? Because "modernization" and "flexible pricing" will just cost you more by statute instead of by PLCB incompetence; the only difference will be that the PLCB will waste the money on Increased Operating Costs to fuel the Boondoggle Machine. I say we privatize and let business people run businesses and end the PLCB screwing of the public.