Brewmasters Warehouse
Well-Known Member
If this is not settled beind closed doors, and I beleive that this will, then I will let everyone know the complete details of the story.
Brewmasters warehouse can't ship within Georgia?
- Thread starter stevea1210
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
If this is not settled beind closed doors, and I beleive that this will, then I will let everyone know the complete details of the story.
PvtSkippy
Well-Known Member
I too hope the situation is resolved quickly. What "The Man" doesn't realize is that while he is protecting the "other" LHBS, he's making it a severe PITA for folks who don't live within Metro Atlanta to get supplies. Yeah, I could order online elsewhere, but I'd rather support the local (relatively speaking) guys if possible. This leaves me with the option of ordering online from out of state or driving 66 miles to the LHBS.
Seems to me that if the person making the purchase doesn't have a 404, 770 or 678 area code you should be in the clear. The situation, as I see it now, is only serving to hurt you, the LHBS in question, and the sales rep for the distributor as I'll probably end up ordering from another online store outside of his sales territory.
>.<
Seems to me that if the person making the purchase doesn't have a 404, 770 or 678 area code you should be in the clear. The situation, as I see it now, is only serving to hurt you, the LHBS in question, and the sales rep for the distributor as I'll probably end up ordering from another online store outside of his sales territory.
>.<
TwoHeadsBrewing
Well-Known Member
My condolences for the legal hassle, it's truly a shame that open competition gets hampered by a distributor. I understand this type of thing for automobile dealers, but grain and hops are such low price items it just doesn't make sense to grant exclusive rights to an entire STATE! At the very most, they should perhaps prevent sales to zip codes in the city of Atlanta but even that seems like overkill. From a distributor's point of view, I understand they want to keep their retail outlet owners happy...but that needs to be balanced with the need to move their product.
If you can move more product than another store isn't it better for the distributor to sell product through you? If it turns out that distributor doesn't want to play ball, are there any others that can deliver a comparable product?
If you can move more product than another store isn't it better for the distributor to sell product through you? If it turns out that distributor doesn't want to play ball, are there any others that can deliver a comparable product?
Ryan_PA
Well-Known Member
I gave up on this debate at the top of page 4. Thanks for the great service Ed.
It is good to see, even at this point in internet history, that everyone online is an expert in all areas of law
I signed the petition as well.
It is good to see, even at this point in internet history, that everyone online is an expert in all areas of law
I signed the petition as well.
p4ck37p1mp
Well-Known Member
Well this is a bummer. I drive by every now and then to check and see if you're open for brick-and-mortar retail yet. Guess now I know why you're not. I hope its the distributor/wholesaler that's causing you so much grief and not "the other guy" because I've shopped there a few times (as recently as Friday) and talked to the owner who seems like a real nice guy. Hopefully, I'm not that bad of a judge of character.
Cheers mate, I hope everything works out in the end, and look forward to sending you some of my money here soon.
-Aubrey (Kennesaw/Acworth)
PS: If you need a new location, there's a nice brand-new retail strip-mall thing on Wade Green across from Home Depot offering 90 days free rent to new tenants... And its 1.5 miles from my house... ;-)
Google Maps on the south side of Cherokee, between the small building (fire station) and the U-shaped retail thing, those trees are now the place I'm talking about (you can see it in streetview while it was under construction). The big patch of dirt is now a Home Deopt. Less than .5 mile from exit 273 on I-75 (and did I mention 1.5 miles from my house?
+1 this is right by me too.
IowaHarry
Well-Known Member
Do you want to have a storefront? How much more business will you realize from that? Does the added headaches of sales tax, business hours, making change, paying employees to stand behind the counter when there is no one in the store make it worth while?
I understand the distributorship thing. You can't have a chevy dealership open up across the street form yours. That is why you get a territory. But if your sales exceed the competition the distributor might shine his beneficent light your way. Is your deal with the competition or with the distributor?
I'm not asking you to air your dirty laundry here, just food for thought. And in support you will be getting my order soon.
I understand the distributorship thing. You can't have a chevy dealership open up across the street form yours. That is why you get a territory. But if your sales exceed the competition the distributor might shine his beneficent light your way. Is your deal with the competition or with the distributor?
I'm not asking you to air your dirty laundry here, just food for thought. And in support you will be getting my order soon.
I signed the petition.
I live in Georgia and am waiting anxiously to shop at Brewmasters.
Till then, my business will go to one of the out of state online vendors.
I live in Georgia and am waiting anxiously to shop at Brewmasters.
Till then, my business will go to one of the out of state online vendors.
avaserfi
Well-Known Member
Signed just becasue this agreement sounds like it puts Brewmasters in a ridiculous spot. I also made an order a few days ago with BMW partially because of this and partially because I have heard the customer service is top notch.
MikeG
Well-Known Member
Heh, after meeting Ed, and not knowing he was owner of Brewmasters Warehouse and an awkward moment discussing "the other guy" who may not be the same one you're thinking of, I have not been back.
The guy (no names) I'm thinking of is a nice guy to his customers and all of their employees have been very helpful to me in the past but I'm unimpressed with their behavior related to Ed and choose to take my business elsewhere.
I have two co-workers who both live in the Marietta area who were excited about BMW when I told them about it opening a few months ago as all the others are too far and ordered online anyway.
1jumpchump
Member
I live in Acworth and was looking forward to BMW opening up as I HATE the drive to the other "local" HBS. There is nothing local about it unless you live way on the northside of town. I have stopped at a couple of the chain wine making stores for emergency items and always make a point to bring up BMW. It's fun to see the discomfort on their faces. To his credit, one of the guys I talked to said he did not have a problem with it and would have been glad to push beer business BMW's way if he would push wine business his way. I believe it too because he has next to nothing in beer brewing equipment.
I signed the petition. I will also send the link to everyone I know to try and get more signatures. In the mean time, I will order my stuff from Midwest online.
BTW Ed, I called and talked to you one day and you explained this to me on the phone. I look ofrward to coming into your store one day soon after all of this is rectified. Good luck to you Ed.
I signed the petition. I will also send the link to everyone I know to try and get more signatures. In the mean time, I will order my stuff from Midwest online.
BTW Ed, I called and talked to you one day and you explained this to me on the phone. I look ofrward to coming into your store one day soon after all of this is rectified. Good luck to you Ed.
Ed, are you allowed to "sell" to your employees? Maybe I can come work a few hours one day a week.
brown_dog_us
Well-Known Member
Ed-
What's your policy on shoplifters? Say somebody walked out with 15 lbs of grain, but accidentally dropped a $20?
What's your policy on shoplifters? Say somebody walked out with 15 lbs of grain, but accidentally dropped a $20?
Brewmasters Warehouse
Well-Known Member
Shoplifters are shot on site, those with not enough money to pay for what they tried to steal will be shot again.
Bob
Well-Known Member
This thing has me torn. I'm going to list my thoughts, in no particular order.
First, Ed, props to you for having the stones to start and expand a small business in today's market. It isn't easy.
Second, Ed, nuts to you for making no sense. "I'm not going to tell you guys the whole story, but I'll tell other people and you can ask them." If you're going to tell the story, tell the freakin' story. You already opened the Pandora's Box, so you might as well get it all out in the open. You're not legally protecting yourself or anyone by telling some people and not telling others; all you're doing is trying to limit how far it goes. Ain't gonna work.
Third, I'm guessing this is a distributor's agreement where they're trying to protect a customer who existed before you came along. I'm familiar with C&B and L D Carlson and all that. My own business (www.reconstructinghistory.com) has agreements both up the chain - for stuff we retail - and down the chain - for stuff we produce and wholesale. I perfectly understand the distributor's side of it, and support it. The distributor has an established customer base he wishes to protect. Moreover, if he did allow complete free-market capitalism to take effect, not only would that negatively impact his established customer, there's every chance that both retailers, old and new, would go out of business, burned out in the battle for market share. Distributors aren't willing ro risk that.
Does that sometimes suck? Hell, yeah. Does it make sense? Also hell, yeah. In fact, the agreement I think is in effect - because Ed will tell some people, but not make it completely public - makes sense for the distributor. The established customer has a brick-and-mortar store and doesn't want to fiddle with an online presence. The new customer proposes online only. That's a match made in heaven, because it exploits two niches simultaneously. But you do want to protect your long-established customer, so you write up some language that protects him.
In this market, if you want to retail you have to deal with wholesale agreements. One of my suppliers has a clause that says there's no minimum order amount. There's another clause that says I must order $3000 worth of stuff per year. We make our retailers pay a big order up front and minimums thereafter, and we don't offer net 30. We also pay attention to who sells where, because it always turns into a problem when two retailers sell the same stuff too close. It always devolves into a price war, and that's a war no one can win.
Look at petrol stations right across the road from one another: It becomes a spiral of lower prices and free stuff and free services until one of them folds and the 'winner' gets to jack the prices and nix the freebies. That's free-market economics, all right, but it doesn't do me any good, because I as a wholesaler just stopped making money - neither party, towards the end, can afford to buy my products. It gets worse! Now the market expects my products to be sold at a lower price point, driving down the retail price across the board; the original MSRP was $15, but they've been getting it so long for $10 that they're not going to pay $15 anymore. My retailers have to make money, so in order to move SKUs I have to reduce the wholesale prices, which cuts into my bottom line. Screw that! If that means I have to resort to territorial wholesale agreements, so what? It's good for me, it's good for business.
All this is to note that if the distributor says "no competition within 25 miles unless the population density exceeds XXX", there's a very good reason. It means that both competitors generally fail. That hurts the distributor as well as the consumer. Because the consumer goes from a surfeit of sources to no source at all for the distributor's goods. From the supply side, that's a complete no brainer.
Anyway, Ed, I wish you all the success in the world! Small business is the backbone upon which this economy runs, and your being successful means we're all successful!
Cheers,
Bob
First, Ed, props to you for having the stones to start and expand a small business in today's market. It isn't easy.
Second, Ed, nuts to you for making no sense. "I'm not going to tell you guys the whole story, but I'll tell other people and you can ask them." If you're going to tell the story, tell the freakin' story. You already opened the Pandora's Box, so you might as well get it all out in the open. You're not legally protecting yourself or anyone by telling some people and not telling others; all you're doing is trying to limit how far it goes. Ain't gonna work.
Third, I'm guessing this is a distributor's agreement where they're trying to protect a customer who existed before you came along. I'm familiar with C&B and L D Carlson and all that. My own business (www.reconstructinghistory.com) has agreements both up the chain - for stuff we retail - and down the chain - for stuff we produce and wholesale. I perfectly understand the distributor's side of it, and support it. The distributor has an established customer base he wishes to protect. Moreover, if he did allow complete free-market capitalism to take effect, not only would that negatively impact his established customer, there's every chance that both retailers, old and new, would go out of business, burned out in the battle for market share. Distributors aren't willing ro risk that.
Does that sometimes suck? Hell, yeah. Does it make sense? Also hell, yeah. In fact, the agreement I think is in effect - because Ed will tell some people, but not make it completely public - makes sense for the distributor. The established customer has a brick-and-mortar store and doesn't want to fiddle with an online presence. The new customer proposes online only. That's a match made in heaven, because it exploits two niches simultaneously. But you do want to protect your long-established customer, so you write up some language that protects him.
In this market, if you want to retail you have to deal with wholesale agreements. One of my suppliers has a clause that says there's no minimum order amount. There's another clause that says I must order $3000 worth of stuff per year. We make our retailers pay a big order up front and minimums thereafter, and we don't offer net 30. We also pay attention to who sells where, because it always turns into a problem when two retailers sell the same stuff too close. It always devolves into a price war, and that's a war no one can win.
Look at petrol stations right across the road from one another: It becomes a spiral of lower prices and free stuff and free services until one of them folds and the 'winner' gets to jack the prices and nix the freebies. That's free-market economics, all right, but it doesn't do me any good, because I as a wholesaler just stopped making money - neither party, towards the end, can afford to buy my products. It gets worse! Now the market expects my products to be sold at a lower price point, driving down the retail price across the board; the original MSRP was $15, but they've been getting it so long for $10 that they're not going to pay $15 anymore. My retailers have to make money, so in order to move SKUs I have to reduce the wholesale prices, which cuts into my bottom line. Screw that! If that means I have to resort to territorial wholesale agreements, so what? It's good for me, it's good for business.
All this is to note that if the distributor says "no competition within 25 miles unless the population density exceeds XXX", there's a very good reason. It means that both competitors generally fail. That hurts the distributor as well as the consumer. Because the consumer goes from a surfeit of sources to no source at all for the distributor's goods. From the supply side, that's a complete no brainer.
Anyway, Ed, I wish you all the success in the world! Small business is the backbone upon which this economy runs, and your being successful means we're all successful!
Cheers,
Bob
Brewmasters Warehouse
Well-Known Member
If there is one good thing that came out of this thread is that I have a much better understanding of the situation. It has really made me think about all of the parties involved and I have gotten past most of my anger that I had about the situation which was making it difficult to judge the situation.
If a wholesaler would like to protect territories then I totally understand and support them for it.
As a wholesaler how would you deal with a situation when you approve a new business and then after they have already started operating, someone brings to your attention that maybe this new store is going to cause a problem within the local market?
If a wholesaler would like to protect territories then I totally understand and support them for it.
As a wholesaler how would you deal with a situation when you approve a new business and then after they have already started operating, someone brings to your attention that maybe this new store is going to cause a problem within the local market?
Free market.
The new store is going to ensure fair prices are set.
If two businesses want to open up next to each other selling one wholesalers goods then so be it.
If the wholesaler was to restricting the sale of goods to one of the businesses or increased the cost of the goods to disadvantage them then that is anti competitive.
If something like that is happening then I'd say there's room to start up as an wholesaler.
There are franchise laws in the UK that allow that to happen but that is not the same as above.
The above situation disadvantages the customer because a monopoly is set up and competition not allowed.
If there are not enough customers then it's probably not a good Idea to set up unless you intend to shut the other store down or take the majority of the customers. If there are the customer base then both stores can survive and the competition keeps up the support levels ad the prices down.
The new store is going to ensure fair prices are set.
If two businesses want to open up next to each other selling one wholesalers goods then so be it.
If the wholesaler was to restricting the sale of goods to one of the businesses or increased the cost of the goods to disadvantage them then that is anti competitive.
If something like that is happening then I'd say there's room to start up as an wholesaler.
There are franchise laws in the UK that allow that to happen but that is not the same as above.
The above situation disadvantages the customer because a monopoly is set up and competition not allowed.
If there are not enough customers then it's probably not a good Idea to set up unless you intend to shut the other store down or take the majority of the customers. If there are the customer base then both stores can survive and the competition keeps up the support levels ad the prices down.
Jonnio
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,489
- Reaction score
- 10
Orfy - not to mention, in this day and age of the internet then it is bad for the distributor too. It is easy to think that if you don't let price competition in your area then your protecting the existing business, but if they are not providing what people are looking for what your doing is costing yourself money.
Anymore its not an option of pay guy A $50 for something or drive 30 minutes and have guy B sell it for $20 - its pay guy A or order on the internet and get it in 3-4 days.
Anymore its not an option of pay guy A $50 for something or drive 30 minutes and have guy B sell it for $20 - its pay guy A or order on the internet and get it in 3-4 days.
Bob
Well-Known Member
In a perfect world, the situation wouldn't come up.
If I approve a new wholesale account and another established account complains, it's only fair to point out that assuring their success is not really my concern. I'd love it if all my retailers thrive, but I recognize that some of them will not. It's easy for me to look at ordering data and arrive at a quick conclusion as to who's doing better with my product.
However, if I deliberately modified my policy to let two retailers within my specified 'no-no' radius exist, and one wanted to modify the existing agreement to compete directly against the outlet in perfect compliance with the original policy, I'd have a real dilemma on my hands. Not knowing the details of your situation, I can't speak even rhetorically about how I'd approach that.
I hope I've made at least some sense.
Bob
I support everything Ed is trying to do. On the same note, this thread if seen by the wrong people might lead to more issues. It's Ed's or a mods call, but it probably should be closed or relocated.
BTW, I'm glad you can ship to me because this is what my FEDEX tracking info says right now.
On FedEx vehicle for delivery
DUPONT, WA
BTW, I'm glad you can ship to me because this is what my FEDEX tracking info says right now.
On FedEx vehicle for delivery
DUPONT, WA
I agree with it being behind the google wall mut I'm one of many 1000's
Bob
Well-Known Member
Ed -
Please don't get me wrong. I support you in your endeavor, and wish you all possible success!
Bob
Please don't get me wrong. I support you in your endeavor, and wish you all possible success!
Bob
Brewmasters Warehouse
Well-Known Member
Orfy - If you would like to move it or close the thread down then I am fine with that. There really is not much more to debate about.
Bob,
Thanks for your support. Judging by your comments you can understand how strange this situation is, and that the simple solution is not all that simple.
Ed
Bob,
Thanks for your support. Judging by your comments you can understand how strange this situation is, and that the simple solution is not all that simple.
Ed
Nah.
it's not me it's relating to. I'm just saying It's not for me to say where it resides.
it's not me it's relating to. I'm just saying It's not for me to say where it resides.
I just found this thread.
This SUCKS! I know they're are quite a few Atlantians on this board.
I don't really have anything else to add. Hope you blow the other guys out of the water. You keep it up & I'm sure you will.
The locals will have to put the squeeze on other shops in GA.
If you support Ed, don't buy from anybody else in GA, I reckon eventually the others will dry up & go away.
What a crock of steaming elephant poo...
This SUCKS! I know they're are quite a few Atlantians on this board.
I don't really have anything else to add. Hope you blow the other guys out of the water. You keep it up & I'm sure you will.
The locals will have to put the squeeze on other shops in GA.
If you support Ed, don't buy from anybody else in GA, I reckon eventually the others will dry up & go away.
What a crock of steaming elephant poo...
dontman
Well-Known Member
The only person who has done anything unethical in this entire scenario is Ed. He is the one trying to back out of perfectly reasonable and understandable agreement. Plus he is implicitly participating in the libel against his competitor by not defending the man's honor since that guy is breaking no rule and is simply following agreements.
If anyone out there shops at a local Home Brew Shop then that retailer has signed an agreement just like Ed's competition in GA. Ed is the only one who got a special dispensation from the distributor to start an internet-only business in full awareness that this is against their standard policy.
If anyone out there shops at a local Home Brew Shop then that retailer has signed an agreement just like Ed's competition in GA. Ed is the only one who got a special dispensation from the distributor to start an internet-only business in full awareness that this is against their standard policy.
Donner
Well-Known Member
dontman, yes and no.
From what Ed has said, he was informed he would be internet-only after he was given the OK to open, etc. Really, what other option did he have other than to agree? "Gee, i know you've invested all this money into your store, but either agree to this or we wont send you any supplies". That really doesn't seem like much of an option. Plus, all he has put up on his site about the issue is a petition that people can choose to sign and show the distributor that he is doing good business and people in GA want the option of doing business with him. I think most people who have weighed in on this simply want the option to shop with him in the state and to let the free market decide who gets their business.
Plus, he really isn't participating in the libel of the other party. He hasn't said one bad thing about the other party from what i've read. He hasn't acted out of negligence towards any party. It appears he has only supplied us with the facts of the situation, and though admittedly vague, if they are true then there can be no libel.
From what Ed has said, he was informed he would be internet-only after he was given the OK to open, etc. Really, what other option did he have other than to agree? "Gee, i know you've invested all this money into your store, but either agree to this or we wont send you any supplies". That really doesn't seem like much of an option. Plus, all he has put up on his site about the issue is a petition that people can choose to sign and show the distributor that he is doing good business and people in GA want the option of doing business with him. I think most people who have weighed in on this simply want the option to shop with him in the state and to let the free market decide who gets their business.
Plus, he really isn't participating in the libel of the other party. He hasn't said one bad thing about the other party from what i've read. He hasn't acted out of negligence towards any party. It appears he has only supplied us with the facts of the situation, and though admittedly vague, if they are true then there can be no libel.
Chello
Well-Known Member
+1
From Ed's post on page 10 it sounds like he was initially under no sales stipulations and was under the impression he had the go ahead for a full retail location.
Jonnio
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,489
- Reaction score
- 10
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.
Good luck proving libel against Ed on this one. Libel/Slander is the first thing that business yell when they don't like what people are saying about them, but the KEY WORD is that it has to be a FALSE claim.
dontman
Well-Known Member
Way to miss the forest for the trees. I'm not trying to prove anything. The point is that Ed is profiting by a misunderstanding of the people reading this thread. His competitor did nothing wrong. He signed a contract with a distributor just like every other LHBS in this country stating in effect 'I agree to buy my supplies from you while you agree to give me a protected territory.'
Ed came in later and the distributor said 'well, we'll let you buy from us as long as you agree to honor the territory assignments we already had set up.' He did not have to sign the agreement.
It is Ed who is attempting to skirt the agreement that allowed him to set up his company in the first place. It is not Ed's competitor trying to skirt an agreement to keep Ed from doing business.
When people start calling for a boycott of Ed's competitor for being unscrupulous Ed should be clarifying that it is not the competitor but the distributor who is limiting his territory. He is committing a sin of omission in that regard and because of that I am calling his behaviour unethical. (By his silence it could feasibly be argued that he is "implying" that statements being made about his competitor in this thread are true.)
After all, Ed is perfectly free to open a huge Home Brew Superstore right across the street from his competitor and the guy could not say word one about it. The thing stopping him from doing so is that the distributor would no longer sell to him. Solution? Go to each manufacturer individually and set up a purchase agreement with them.
So if you want to rally in support of Ed and against the distribution system boycott the distributor who is limiting territories. Only buy product that has been sourced directly from the manufacturer bypassing the distributor.
Donner
Well-Known Member
Again, i don't remember Ed or anyone else saying anything about boycotts. I also don't remember him naming his competitor and/or blaming them. He has simply stated that this is what happened and the distributor is the one who decided the deal needed to be changed (after ed was given permission).
Also, i don't see how he is profiting from this thread. People who can order from him are probably doing so because of his reputation and the fact that he is a sponsor and active in this forum. I don't personally know of any other atlanta area brew stores on this site, so this thread can't possible be directing me away from them.
Second, the whole point of this thread is that people who might know which store Ed is competing against don't have the option of purchasing from Ed. Now, they can order from another online vendor, but that is their choice (since they don't have choices of LHBS in their area apparently).
Also, i don't see how he is profiting from this thread. People who can order from him are probably doing so because of his reputation and the fact that he is a sponsor and active in this forum. I don't personally know of any other atlanta area brew stores on this site, so this thread can't possible be directing me away from them.
Second, the whole point of this thread is that people who might know which store Ed is competing against don't have the option of purchasing from Ed. Now, they can order from another online vendor, but that is their choice (since they don't have choices of LHBS in their area apparently).
dontman, I think you have your timeline incorrect. I believe the agreement was changed and forced upon Ed after he had begun his business. If he hadn't accepted the terms (under duress) he would have no business. He had to accept to avoid losing everything. The other store(s) seem to have applied pressure to the distributor, and that is why many are choosing to avoid those stores altogether. Rightfully so IMHO.
Chello
Well-Known Member
dontman's point (i believe) is that the other business had a right to apply pressure to the distributer as they were promised a territory which they now feel is being compromised.
Donner
Well-Known Member
which is a good and fair point. The other business has the right to look out for itself.
That doesn't mean, though, that Ed wasn't given a raw deal. Given that it was the distributor that erred in the first place, why should Ed's business suffer? At this point he is only doing the same thing as his competitor; looking out for himself.
Jonnio
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,489
- Reaction score
- 10
You were the one that was calling him guilty of Libel - I simply defined it for you and said why he was not.
Actually its not a fair point - the other business has a right to lookout for itself in the respect they can make their business compete
Anyway - at this point Dontman your free to start a thread in the debate forum if you want to keep arguing the merits of antitrust cases, libel, slander etc... I will gladly go debate with you. As I have said before I am not an attorney and I don't pretend to understand the subtleties in the law, but some of these are clear cut. Protected territories tend to fall in the line of franchises of the same main chain, not retail stores unable to carry products to limit competition.
Brewmasters Warehouse
Well-Known Member
I have done nothing unethical in this situation at all. I do not operate like that and I never would. Here are a couple of facts so that you and everyone can have a better understanding of this situation, as their must be some confusion on your part.
When I signed the distributors agreement it was with the full intention of having a complete operating retail store. I know the name warehouse makes people think I run this business out of an industrial warehouse, but it is in a retail shopping center. If I had only wanted to run an internet only site then I would pay the much cheaper rent to have warehouse space instead of retail space. There was no special dispensation given or asked for.
Only after I had begun operations was I approached about this agreement. At that point not accepting the agreement would have meant the end of Brewmasters Warehouse, and a complete loss of all of the time, effort, and money I had put into it. Sourcing directly from manufacturs is not an option when you are a start up company with distribution chains already established.
I never called for anyone to boycott anything. I do not operate like that. I will acheive all of my goals the right way, by offering customers products they want, at reasonable prices, with top notch customer service.
Another fact is that it was the other parties in the agreement that wanted me to put the "We do not ship to Georgia" so that some of them can sleep better at night. I had many email and phone conversations with people about this before it was on the site. The reason I did not put it on the site once the agreement was made was that I prefered to give a proper explaination myself and not a blanket response that does not satisfy anyone.
The petition is purely my way to show them that customers were not thought about when this agreement was made. I wanted to give customers a voice in something that they would not of had any voice in without the petition.
The reason I have been vauge with this entire situation is that I simply do not conduct myself in such a manner. I could easily name all of the parties involved, but the names do not matter to me. I know that they do matter to you guys that would like know them, so that you can take some action against them, but that is not the point from my point of view.
I do not have to operate at that level. I can run my business the way a business should be ran, with customers as the first priority, the second priority, and the third priority, and be successful, with our store.
Ed
Brewmasters Warehouse
Well-Known Member
Of course while I was writing the book above, people are posting some of the things that I point out. Thanks for your help.
Ed
Ed
dontman
Well-Known Member
It was specifically this post which spurred my response.
I may be wrong and I don't feel like scrolling through 10 pages to find other examples but I remember many people saying similar things.
The gist of many posts placing all or some of the blame on the local competitors for the issue at hand.
If I am Ed reading those posts I would be making a public statement that they are acting reasonably and are not the villians.
dontman
Well-Known Member
I must of missed your post explaining this more thoroughly. I was speaking from my own experience with setting up a Distribution Agreement. They were very clear with me that they would be vetting me and my location for being a proper distance and population density from those who would be my competitors. You yourself told me that they said 25 miles. For me it was spoken about in population terms.
I am sorry about your turn of events but in my dealings I realized early enough (after a simple perusal of the contract paperwork) that I would have to get pre-approval for my site before I signed any lease or made any investments whatsoever.
In other words I am thoroughly confused, how is it that you signed a Distribution Agreement that did not discuss a territory and specify it in the details of the agreement? Or you saying that the distributor said 'sure, we'll sell to you, set up wherever you like' and only after you moved in did they tell you about the competitor proximity stipulation?
Brewmasters Warehouse
Well-Known Member
I sent locations in for approval after getting some general locations guidelines. My location was approved and then I signed my lease and moved in.
Only after I was up in running did this agreement come about.
As far as my competitors are concerned with regards to Brewmasters Warehouse, they acted in their best interests, and within the law, which is the same as any of us would have done.
Only after I was up in running did this agreement come about.
As far as my competitors are concerned with regards to Brewmasters Warehouse, they acted in their best interests, and within the law, which is the same as any of us would have done.
