By all accounts, the PLCB had a good sales year. Well, hurray. It's nothing to brag about -- though they will, and have -- since they are
the only game in town. The population grows (slowly, but it grows), the economy gets better, and people spend more money on booze. It isn't because the PLCB is doing a good job; it is because the citizens
have no other choice.
 |
| PLCB touts "record sales": report shows net income down |
That doesn't stop the PLCB from presenting their annual report as if they had something to do with the growth in sales. Here are some things they crow about in
the report:
1.
License fees returned to local municipalities $ 4,521,545 -- If the PLCB didn't get in the middle, local communities would get this revenue as a regular stream when businesses paid for their licenses TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES.
2. Philadelphia and Allegheny counties received $8,269,803 in
returned local sales taxes. -- Again, if the PLCB wasn't in the middle, the taxes would be collected and distributed anyway. It must be nice to crow about
following the law...except, of course, when it comes to
trips and gifts for senior level PLCB employees.
3.
Paid Total Annual Rent of $42,034,434 for 606 stores. -- This begs the question of how much rent would be paid if there were
2400 or so private stores? 2400 stores is about what the
national average is for a population of almost 13 million.
4.
Tweets sent: 723. -- Now this is pretty funny. A $2 billion enterprise managed to send out fewer tweets than my 16 year old niece does in a month. And then they go on to say that the PLCB was mentioned 2,516 times. This post counts as one of those mentions, just as an example, and so does this:
"Hey @WolfForPA, can you do something about the PA Liquor Control Board, like get rid of it? #priorities #wine #freedom" (tweeted by @mainlinehousewife on Nov. 4)
5.
Updated the Fine Wine and Good Spirits eCommerce site with
'complete and accurate product names,' product descriptions and standardized acronyms. -- Really? From the people who
completely cocked up the beer registration list just a few years ago? Let's look at just a couple easily-found examples.
George Dickel Tennessee Whiskey. The No. 8 brand is listed in the bourbon section and the No. 12 brand is listed in the Whiskey section
Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey has one listed in the bourbon section
"Jack Daniel's 1St Edition Straight Bourbon Master Distiller Collection" Which only exists in the mind of some PLCB employee since Jack Daniel doesn't label ANY of its whiskeys as "bourbon." Not one. All the others are listed in the Whiskey section as they should be, except for one that is in the Blended Whiskey section; but Jack doesn't do blended whiskey either. I will give them credit though: it only took them 80 years to finally learn how to spell "Jack Daniel's" correctly. I pointed out mistakes on that as recently as this past spring.
6. Also restructured the website search engine to allow searches using misspelled words, abbreviations, and synonyms producing much improved search results for customers. -- Let's see how that works. Sticking with Jack Daniel's type in Jack Danial's into the search box. You only misspelled it by one letter putting an "a" instead of an "e" in Danial's. The result.....a page and a half of Calico Jack rum first, but JD does show up on page 2.
How about we just forget the "'s" and put in Jack Daniel into the search box. Again a page and a half of Calico Jack rum and then the JD on page 2. An improvement! ...until you realize that if you spell Jack Daniel's correctly and search for it, you still get a page and a half of Calico Jack rum first! The trick, apparently, is to just put in Daniel's, and you'll get all the JD listings. Just don't misspell it or forget the "s" or the apostrophe, because then you get nothing contrary to what the PLCB says. Not quite ready for prime time and certainly not a product a $2 billion company should be proud of.
I can find a lot more but let's look at some money.
Sales on the captive Pennsylvania population did go up 3.2%, which is to be expected, given that the state has a monopoly and overall spirits and wine sales were up nationally. But Gross Profit only went up 3%...and Net Income (which in a 'real' business would be called 'Profit') went down by 3.6%! Wondering why? Here's a clue: operating expenses went up 5.2% (which is a lot, considering what it bought them, as we'll see in a bit). Operating income went down, even though the much-ballyhooed 'bailment' is in effect (where the PLCB doesn't pay for a product until it leaves the warehouse). Contributions to the BLCE went up 4.1 %, but BLCE enforcement of border bleed is at the lowest it has ever been. Oddly, during this record alcohol sales year, the amount that went to Drug and Alcohol programs went down 3.6%, which seems a little contradictory, given the 'control' mission of the PLCB.
Don't overlook another big one: Return on Assets (usually called Return on Investment) went down 14.8%! ROA gives an idea as to how efficient management is at using its assets to generate earnings. Also, even though
there was only 1 more store than last year, wages as a percent of sales
increased an astounding 18.3%, which is not a good indicator of efficiency either.
Of course, a
real business has to list
all their debts on their reports to shareholders...and I don't see the
over $600 million that is the
PLCB share of the pension debt listed
anywhere. Maybe it doesn't count since the
taxpayers and not the PLCB have to cover it.
Like any business with a PR department, the PLCB tries to put on its happy face when reporting on what a super duper job they are doing, but the end result is still less selection, less convenience, higher prices, no real increase in safety, and certainly more aggravation for the consumer than in states with a privately-run liquor retail and wholesale industry. One only has to travel to see that for yourself.
