Change In Liquor Deal Rules For PGA?
April 29, 2009 by Susan Denny
Source: Street & Smith’s SportsBusinessJournal 27th April 2009
Executives at PGA Tour headquarters are taking their most serious look yet at loosening rules that prevent spirit companies from buying tournament title sponsorships or traditional endorsements with players, said multiple sources familiar with the talks. Industry sources estimated the category could be worth up to $50 million a year in new sponsorship dollars.
The PGA Tour has considered such a move before but didn’t take action because of the stigma attached to the category, said a tour source. The PGA Tour’s board of directors would have to approve any change in the rules, and there is no firm timetable for a decision.
Under current rules, distilled spirit companies are not allowed to title sponsor events on the PGA Tour, sign traditional shirt sponsorships with golfers or become an official sponsor of the PGA Tour. They can title sponsor one event on each of the Champions and Nationwide tours, though neither tour has a distilled spirits title sponsor. Spirits cannot title sponsor pro-ams, but are allowed to sponsor VIP areas at tournaments, as Diageo’s Ketel One and Bacardi’s Grey Goose have done in recent years.
If new rules are passed, spirits would probably be limited to title sponsorships of the dozen or so events with four-round coverage on Golf Channel because sponsorships include ad inventory in tournament telecasts. Broadcast networks still ban liquor advertising, likely precluding a deal for a tournament with coverage on one of the tour’s two broadcast partners.
Ketel One has deals with golfers Peter Jacobsen and Scott McCarron, though neither wears branding on his shirt during competition. Arnold Palmer, who is retired, has endorsed the brand since 2004.
The restrictions have pushed brands that want to associate with golf to other areas. Grey Goose has a multiplatform sponsorship with Golf Channel, and sponsors the Tiger Woods Foundation and an interactive golf site run by Sports Illustrated. Bacardi’s Dewar’s brand does some consumer promotions with Callaway.
New rules could also open up official marketing deals with the PGA Tour. Ketel One is already the preferred vodka of the PGA Tour’s Tournament Players Clubs, a supporter of tour charities and an official sponsor of the World Golf Hall of Fame.
Loosening the rules would open up a potentially lucrative category at a time when the future of other categories integral to the PGA Tour – financial, automotive and travel – are uncertain. Diageo and Bacardi now spend a combined $7 million to $10 million annually on golf in the U.S. , and brand consultants said the category could be worth $10 million to $50 million a year to the sport if rules are relaxed.
A rule change would have support among some of the largest distributors, including Bacardi and Diageo.
“We’re content with our mix, but we would definitely entertain any opportunities that come up because of rules changes,” said Emil Jattne, senior brand manager for Grey Goose.
The PGA Tour is one of the few remaining U.S.-based professional sports leagues to prohibit distilled spirit companies from buying some of the more prominent sponsorship inventory. The NFL will consider loosening its restrictions during owners meetings next month.
There could also be changes to the PGA Tour’s rules regarding casinos in the sport. Only the hotel associated with a casino can now title sponsor tournaments or endorse players, but a source with knowledge of the tour’s plans said that if a casino “were to come in at the right price for a tournament, then there would be some serious discussions.”
A Win To The Liquor Industy In Australia With The Government Overturning The ‘Alcopops’ Tax
March 19, 2009 by Susan Denny
From “The Australian” 19th March 2009
THE Rudd Government will be forced to hand back $300 million to distillers after the Senate voted down the 70 per cent tax increase on alcopops last night in the culmination of another chaotic performance from the Opposition.
After a Coalition senator failed to turn up for the vote, the controversial alcopops tax was defeated in a second ballot when Family First senator Steve Fielding sided with the Opposition.
The Government introduced the tax hike by regulation in April last year with 12 months to win approval from the parliament before having to refund the revenue raised. With the defeat of the Bill last night, the tax will have to be refunded.
The Opposition offered a way out by voting to validate the taxes already collected.
“The last thing we want to see is a bad outcome out of a tax grab that has gone terribly wrong,” Opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said.
To underline its political point, the Government has rejected the move, which will cost $1.6 billion in the budget forward estimates.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon said: “If the Liberal Party didn’t want to return this money, they should have supported this bill.
“We believed this was a sensible tax putting all spirits on to the same base, closing a loophole created by Mr Costello (former treasurer Peter Costello) that saw the consumption of these products skyrocket.”
Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard said last night that although the distillers had suggested the $300million in collected taxes be spent on alcohol rehabilitation programs, legally the Government did not have an option.
“The legal position is clear,” Ms Gillard said on ABC’s Lateline. “Our obligation is to return the tax dollars to the distillers.”
The Senate rejected the alcopops tax after a day of low farce and high drama. Senator Fielding voted with the Coalition after his ban on television alcohol advertising during sporting programs in children’s viewing time was rejected by the Government, giving opponents of the tax the numbers.
Senators were stunned when a count showed the Government had won the vote.
The Opposition leadership team and whip Stephen Parry went into a huddle.
Moments later a sheepish Country-Liberal Party senator Nigel Scullion got to his feet to beg the forgiveness of the Senate. He had missed the vote, he explained, because of “an inadvertent error”.
“I was caught in a stairwell having an impromptu meeting,” Senator Scullion said. “I didn’t hear the bells.”
To compound his error, he was not carrying his pager. Following convention, the vote was held again – but not before harsh words had been exchanged.
Senator Fielding blamed the Government for his decision. “We all know that alcohol is linked to sport and that needs to be broken,” the Family First senator said.
“The Rudd Government has missed an opportunity to break that link. It’s crazy.”
Senator Fielding claimed the concessions won by his fellow crossbenchers, $50 million of health funding measures to cut alcohol abuse and mandatory warning labels on bottles and cans, could still proceed.
Ms Roxon said these had been lost with the bill. She called the advertising demand “a decision for government, not Senator Fielding”.
“A decision to change advertising that affects the sporting industry, the broadcasting industry and many more should be one that is taken properly in a considered way,” the Health Minister said.
The Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia welcomed the vote.
“The senators who made the right decision in rejecting the Government’s tax grab on RTDs realised that a tax was not a solution to problem drinking,” the council’s research manager Stephen Riden said.
“Now is the time that all parties start working together to create a community-wide, comprehensive approach to the issue.”
Mr Riden said the Government should heed the Liberals’ call and keep the revenue raised to tackle alcohol abuse.
Should Alcohol Be Sold In Grocery Stores?
January 16, 2009 by Susan Denny
This is the question facing Vail Valley Colorado at the moment. Here’s an article from the Vail Valley Times discussing the pros and cons.
VAIL VALLEY, Colorado — Liquor store owners in Colorado’s Vail Valley are gearing up to fight what they see as a legislative assault on their business.
A pair of legislators — Sen. Jennifer Veiga of Denver and Rep. Buffie McFadyen of Pueblo, both Democrats — has introduced a bill that would allow grocery stores to sell full-strength beer. Grocery and convenience stores can now sell only beer that has 3.2 percent alcohol by volume.
Liquor store owners and their state trade association last year fought a similar proposal by the grocery industry by accepting a bill that allows liquor stores to stay open on Sunday.
Grocery stores came back to the legislature this year complaining that having liquor stores open on Sunday has crippled their beer sales.
Jim Schrock, the general manager of Village Market, which has stores in Edwards, Telluride and Snowmass Village, said Tuesday he hadn’t heard about the bill. But, he said, he thinks it could be a good idea.
“It’s come up several times before,” Schrock said. “But I think it could be good for tourists and other customers.”
Schrock said people from out of state aren’t often aware of how Colorado liquor laws work, and selling full-strength beer would be a convenience for them.
Village Market in Edwards doesn’t sell beer, but the stores in Telluride and Snowmass Village do, and Schrock said he’d be interested in selling the full-strength product.
But one man’s convenience is another man’s really bad idea.
Mickey Werner is the manager of Alpine Wine & Spirits in the Vail City Market store. Peter Struve owns Mac’s Liquors in Gypsum. Both think the idea to put full-strength beer in grocery stores would be bad for their business, of course. But both also said the idea could be bad for the community.
“Alcohol is, for all intents and purposes, a controlled substance,” Werner said. “And liquor stores are subject to extreme regulation by the state.”
Werner said he worries that grocery store beer sales could lead to more people stealing, and more minors illegally buying.
“Imagine spring break in Vail,” Werner said. “It would open the door to chaos.”
And, Werner added, if a grocery store is caught selling to minors, it can stay open and sell food even if the beer coolers are empty. If a liquor store sells to an underage buyer, the entire store gets shut down.
“I think we have a higher responsibility,” Werner said.
In Gypsum, Struve said he’s worried about the future of his business if grocery stores are allowed to sell full-strength beer. Beer makes up most of the sales at Mac’s, and providing someone with the convenience of buying a six-pack while shopping for dinner would hurt, he said.
If full-strength beer does end up in grocery stores, Struve said he’s going to have to really concentrate on providing different products, in different sizes, for people who want something that isn’t available at the supermarket.
And, he said, his store has a couple of things grocery stores don’t.
“I’ll need great parking out front, and multiple registers operating so someone can get in and get out,” Struve said. “And I’ve got that.”
But, he added, “It’s really tough to be a mom-and-pop store these days.”
If it was up to me I’d keep liquor sales in the liquor stores where they can be more vigilant about not selling alcohol to under-age drinkers. Grocery stores are for food items only and alcohol should not be on display so that children grow up thinking that it’s quite normal to go to the store and buy food as well as alcohol.
Let’s not tempt our kids anymore than they already are.
Emerging From A Dark Past
November 6, 2008 by Susan Denny
Spare a thought for those who don’t live in a democratic society and have to go to court to fight for their rights and hopefully win the court case.
Here’s an article from the Telegraph Calcutta 3rd November 2008.
High spirits after entry of bar girls
“They were eager to serve. Now, the bar has finally been raised.
Karnataka High Court’s permission to allow women bartenders in the state has raised the spirits of those wanting to break into the job, one of the last male bastions that hadn’t crumbled all these years.
The petitions had been filed by two women, Roopa and Anasuya, saying the excise act forbidding women from being employed in places where liquor was served should be amended.
Potential employers didn’t seem to have a problem. Sanjay and Jayaram, who own bars and restaurants where liquor was served, had told the judges they did not have any objection if permission for the move came through.
The government had taken a more cautious line, saying any decision on allowing women into the job should take into account security concerns.
Bartending has long been risky, a fact brought into focus by the April 1999 murder of Jessica Lall, a celebrity barmaid in a Delhi restaurant, over a quarrel that had allegedly arisen from serving liquor”.
Isn’t it great to see these 2 women stand up for themselves and have the right to earn a living anyway they want?