Talk:The Beer Store

/Archive 1

Contentious section
This section has been tagged for checking since December 2008, but it's very long, and each time I look at it I get daunted. Help would be appreciated in cutting it back, then checking it, and seeing how much is worth keeping.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is indeed too long, but some parts of it are key to the article. Unless someone wants to attempt a rewrite, I'll go ahead and do a quick hack, leaving just the portions I see as notable, along with the corresponding refs. The rest, if needed, can become the basis of a new article, Criticism of The Beer Store, or perhaps Criticism of Ontario Alcohol Regulation. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, my quick hack brought this down to a more reasonable size, but it is still written a bit clumsily. I don't get a sense of a bias in the remaining text, but would appreciate a second pair of eyes to go over it. If all agree, we should remove the POV notice at the top. And if someone can find another archive for the two expired references, that would be great. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Most Canadian provinces have since allowed privately owned stores to compete for sales of beer and wine while retaining tighter controls over the sale of spirits, while Alberta has privatized all retail liquor stores. However, in Ontario, no changes have been made and Brewers Retail continues to sell over 90% of the beer sold in the province. Despite its near-monopoly, it is permitted to charge non-shareholding breweries substantial listing fees for each beer carried in stock (currently more than $45,000 per brand no matter how many stores the brewery actually stocks beer in). This practice has been criticized as restricting competition in the huge Ontario beer market, especially from smaller brewers who often cannot afford the fees, especially for multiple brands.

Although the province-owned LCBO also sells beer to the general public, Brewers Retail is the main distributor to restaurants and bars (Ontario-based craft breweries may sell to licenced establishments directly). The company refuses to grant either quantity discounts or credit to any customer, meaning that even the most solvent establishments in Ontario must pay cash on delivery for their beer. This is a constant source of friction between Brewers Retail and the hospitality industry.

Despite their unpopularity, the AGCO sends undercover agents to perform random spot-checks on off-site consumption. Observers have frequently noted that AGCO agents often seem more concerned with off-site consumption than they are with enforcing the legal drinking age. Bars can be heavily fined (and even lose their liquor licences) if they fail to take stringent steps to ensure that the beer and liquor they sell is consumed on-site.

Representatives for Brewers Retail claim that not offering either credit or quantity discounts means that everyone is treated the same way, and also ensures that Brewers Retail and The Beer Store do not have to pass on costs associated with bad debts to consumers. They also offer free delivery of orders province-wide, but only if the licensee orders a very large amount by small business standards; otherwise there is a $25 delivery fee. The company claims that, unlike the LCBO, it does not outright refuse shelf space to any eligible product approved for sale in Ontario.

The company claims that the Brewers Retail monopoly generates significant economies of scale and that most of the savings generated compared to the systems used elsewhere are passed on to the consumer. The company claims that allowing corner stores to sell beer (as is done in neighbouring Quebec where about 20,000 stores sell beer compared to 1,250 in Ontario - about 25 times the number of stores per capita) would cause increased distribution costs of about $4/case that in other provinces have been either passed on to consumers or absorbed by the government in the form of a tax cut. However, these claims are dubious at best and have been vehemently refuted by officials in both Quebec and Alberta. As of June 2007, the retail price for a case of 24 of some brands of beer sold in Gatineau, Quebec has been proven to be more than $10 cheaper than the price for 24 of the same brand in nearby Ottawa, despite the fact that the differences in taxes are less than half that amount for that volume of any particular brand.

Brewers Retail further claims that selection is greatly reduced in the more liberalized jurisdictions, especially outside the major cities. They reason that a small, independent store will only have space and cash flow to stock a few major brands, as opposed to the hundreds on the shelves of The Beer Stores. These claims have developed a hollow ring with the recent changeover of many Beer Store outlets from the Self-Serve format to the "Ice Cold Express" format. Critics of this change claim that its only logical purpose is to discourage customers from buying brands other than those of the Brewers Retail shareholders. One survey found that 78% of The Beer Store’s customers are opposed to the format change.

The price difference of approximately 40 cents per serving between stores in Eastern Ontario and Southwestern Quebec is sufficient enough to make illegal smuggling (or "bootlegging") of beer across Ontario's unpatrolled eastern border for re-sale on the black market, a highly profitable enterprise, especially for anyone who can find both a vendor in Quebec that will negotiate discounts (which at least some will do in exchange for the convenience of selling beer by the pallet) and can also find (or simply be) one or more high-volume customers in Ontario (such as unscrupulous bar owners who might simply looking for a feasible way to fight what they see as an unjustified monopoly). BRI has lobbied the Government of Ontario to name interprovincial bootlegging of beer as an irritant in intergovernmental relations with Quebec. However, BRI and the unions representing employees of both the Beer Store and the LCBO have been criticized for falsely and/or misleadingly claiming that it is against the law for consumers to bring alcoholic beverages from Quebec or (less commonly) from Manitoba under any and all circumstances. In fact, it is perfectly legal for consumers to import alcoholic beverages from other provinces into Ontario provided it is not intended for re-sale.

Supporters of more open competition counter that average Canadians are not normally connoisseurs of obscure beers, and usually prefer the increased convenience that limited or full privatization has been responsible for in other provinces. They also contend that as the purchaser of all imported beer in Ontario, the LCBO has the facilities, contacts and resources to satisfy the needs of those consumers who want the less common brands (most of which are imported and thus handled by the LCBO in any event).

Brewers Retail has become politically controversial, especially following the Molson-Coors-SAB Miller merger, which placed the majority of its ownership in the hands of foreigners. In 2005, Ontario's alcohol laws were reviewed and proposals to allow the sale of beer in grocery and convenience stores were put forth. However, although some Liberal backed the idea of changes of some sort, the Liberal government rejected the proposals and refused to change the laws. The government has received considerable criticism for perpetuating a virtual monopoly on Ontario beer distribution by a foreign-owned cartel. An online petition was started by a private citizen, Derek Forward, to ask the provincial government to end the monopoly enjoyed by the Beer Store (See ipetitions.com/petition/nobeerstore). The petition has received coverage in the Toronto Star, and has generated enough support to allow it to be formally presented to the provincial legislature in the fall of 2008 for consideration (petition No. P–146: "Practice and arrangement of retailing beer"). An official response from the government is expected in December, 2008.

Brewers Retail has waged an ongoing battle with the Brick Brewing Company of Waterloo since at least 2002, when it used monopolistic tactics to force what is now Ontario's largest independent brewer to stop offering beer in "Stubbies" by withholding supplies of industry standard "long-necked" bottles. This dispute was finally settled in favour of Brick in September 2008.

Following Sapporo Breweries' purchase of Sleeman Breweries Ltd. for approximately $400 million, no portion of Brewers Retail is now held by any majority Canadian-owned entity, which has increased pressure on the government to force an end to the Brewers Retail near-monopoly, or at least to return it to Canadian ownership. 

At the start of the 2007 provincial election campaign, Brick again made headlines when it cited a number of discriminatory BRI practices and policies (such as restrictions on price advertising) for causing a decline in company sales. BRI representatives deny that their policies are hurting small brewers and implicitly questioned the timing of the Brick Brewing Company's statement, suggesting that in their view it is unethical for a brewery to openly criticize BRI policies in the middle of an election campaign.

In response to the growing unpopularity of the Brewers Retail monopoly, the main opposition party in Ontario now opposes the status quo with regards to Brewers Retail, although radically different alternatives have been proposed:


 * The official opposition Progressive Conservatives propose abolishing the Brewers Retail monopoly and initiating a licencing process which would allow private retailers such as corner stores who meet the necessary qualifications to sell beer and wine. It appears that distilled beverages would not be included in the program; thus the LCBO monopoly on those products would likely remain in force. The policy was re-iterated by PC leader John Tory on September 23, 2007.  BRI would be permitted to continue operations. The previous PC government of Mike Harris mused about complete privatization of the retail liquor industry, although the PCs did not carry this out during their time in office.
 * The social democratic New Democrats strongly oppose any relaxation of the government-legislated monopolies in alcoholic beverages. Some NDP MPPs have responded to the relevant foreign acquisitions by demanding the nationalization of Brewers Retail by means of expropriation, with the company and its assets then being absorbed into the LCBO. It is not clear if that is official party policy, but if it were to take place, then most Beer Stores would presumably be converted into LCBO stores.  In places where Beer Stores are too close to existing LCBO stores for it to make sense to maintain separate LCBO locations, the outlets would presumably be merged with one store, shut down, and sold.  The LCBO would hence become the sole distributor of alcoholic beverages in Ontario.
 * Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty also rejected Tory's suggestion, and has said nothing to suggest he supports any change to the status quo with regards to the LCBO or the Beer Store. He has been criticized during the campaign for making a disingenuous argument that focused on the importance of maintaining the "safety" of alcoholic beverages available in Ontario, when in fact there is negligible difference with regards to the quality of the relevant product sold in Ontario compared to any other province. It has been reported that in recent years, the Liberals have received sizable donations from several individuals with close ties to the province's three major brewers.

Ontario Craft Brewers is the main lobby group for Ontario's smaller brewers, and has been increasingly critical of the current system. The 29 OCB members currently employ several thousand Ontarians. OCB wants to either acquire shares in BRI or be permitted to set up their own competing chain. Premier McGuinty responded by saying that his government would not even consider any application to form a competing chain, and that his government would not consider compelling BRI's shareholders to sell any shares, although some Liberal and Conservative backbenchers have said they would expect BRI to at least negotiate in good faith with craft brewers who made a serious offer. BRI responded by saying that it was not considering and would not consider selling shares at any price, and that they do more than enough to accommodate non-shareholding brewers already. Canada's National Brewers (the lobby group that represents the BRI shareholders) further said that in the event OCB did get to set up a competing chain, they would refuse to stock their products there. 

As mentioned above, the BRI monopoly became an election issue of at least moderate importance in the first half of the 2007 campaign. BRI representatives have warned that it is unlikely they would be willing to continue doing business as before if they have to compete with corner stores. They contend that since corner stores offer products they are not allowed to sell to attract customers, they would have an unfair advantage over the Beer Store model. In return, corner stores insist that beer sales may be the best solution for their interests, as their profit margins have decreased with tighter regulations on cigarette sales; they see beer sales as a way to make up this gap.

Failure
This article is an embarrassment and looks life it was drafted from a TBS corporate press release. --Ultra Megatron (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Roughly 40% of the article is criticism against the company. Not quite what TBS would have wanted on their press release. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I live in the states and found this article to be fairly biased, especially under the criticism -> brewer neutrality section. Criticism usually comes in the form of someone not associated with the company discussing public discourse. Under the aforementioned section, every sentence is followed by "however" and a rebuttal of the criticism, sometimes without even citing a source. When it does, as in "However, TBS does provide credit terms and flexible payment options for customers. Customers may receive up to seven days of credit terms," the response is laughable. "...does provide credit terms and flexible payment options...[?]," if that wasn't written by someone affiliated with TBS, I don't know what would be. On top of that, that quote links to a page that's not found... TBS employees need to update this wikipedia link or I'll have to remove the quote since it's not verifiable. Krezyle (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please go ahead and rewrite that section based on existing sources. All the "However" sentences should probably be moved to a different section named "Response to criticism" or suchlike. Owen&times; &#9742;  10:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In late 2014 this continues to read like a press release. Every point of criticism is met with a counterpoint without citation. I have to conclude that someone in the retailer's media department is going in and changing things back. I also note that the article never mentions when the name was changed, which is a more important part of the company's profile than its claim that it removes garbage from Ontario landfills (since a substantial portion of Ontario's solid waste is sent to landfills in Michigan). Jnmwiki (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

History
Two thirds of this section is about recycling/bottle returns. Shouldn't a company with nearly 100 years of operations have something more relevant (and less obviously flattering)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.19.37 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconding this. There is almost nothing History worthy in this section. The recycling should not be part of this unless it is about the history of said program. As mentioned, with over 100 years of history there is more that could be included.99.245.255.72 (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Even worse is that there's a Green Policies section. Does no one moderate this page? Where's the warning at the top of the page that it needs work? 99.245.255.72 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The beer strike was when during the 1960s - 1967?/1968??74.12.126.169 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"Only"
For those that keep reintroducing the POV term "only" - the fact that the newspaper states "a mere 13%" does not give editors carte blanche to include it as fact. The word "only" is a leading term designed to induce readers to formulate a specific opinion. If the word is to be included, it must be done in such a way to identify the source of the POV. Wikipedia has clear rules about this. (See also Describing points of view.) Mind matrix  20:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a quote to the cite template. That gets it in without having POV in the article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mindmatrix, you are incorrect. The caption under The Star's article picture clearly says, "A recent poll by Angus Reid reveals only 13 per cent of Ontarians realize The Beer Store is controlled by foreign multinationals." The only POV I see here is your own, Mindmatrix. Kindly leave your views out of the article. We are not here to second-guess primary sources. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the POV of the Star. I added the quote to the citation to show that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The relevant statistic is "13%", not "only 13%". No respectful statistician would ever present data by skewing it with such POV using leading terms. Presentation of statistics should be neutral, and any POV introduced by a reporter should be clearly stated as such. Nowhere did I say the source does not contain the word "only"; I'm stating that use is the reporter's POV, not an inherent property of the statistic. I am not "second-guess(ing) primary sources" - the relevant value of 13% was clearly presented. (Note that I was the one to add the original paragraph in this edit; the word "only" was added by an anon soon afterward.) Attributing to an individual a POV simply because one disagrees with that individual is a common tactic; please stop doing that, as it only diminishes your argument. Mind  matrix  13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is coming from someone who reverted back to use of "only:" per the above arguments about neutrality I think it is acceptable to leave it out. Besides, arguing over its inclusion is kind of demeaning to the reader, don't you think? Most people will come to the conclusion on their own that 13% is a pitiful number. By the way, does anyone have a link to the actual poll results? I've been googling and googling and I can't find anything. - Sweet Nightmares  14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had found it the day I added that paragraph, but apparently Ipsos Reid Canada deleted it from their website. Internet Archive last spidered the site on December 8 (see this), and archive.is hasn't spidered that section of the website at all (see this). I also tried the French website and archives, but no luck. Sometimes, I get the feeling companies still don't understand this "internet" thing; either that, or the research is now a premium access product. Sigh. Mind  matrix  21:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Beer Store- updated MFA framework has been innacurately represented
"The Beer Store's duopoly with the LCBO on 6-pack beers ended on December 15, 2015, with the legalization of 6-pack beer sales at selected supermarkets in urban centres due to concerns over the retailer's monopoly position. The Beer Store still holds a legal monopoly in Ontario for selling larger cases, like 12-packs & 24-packs. A 2013 Angus Reid survey commissioned by the Ontario Convenience Stores Association found that 13% of Ontario residents were aware that "The Beer Store monopoly is not a government-owned enterprise""

This passage is unfounded and delivers negative connotations with respect to the company. Currently under the MFA (created by Brewers Retail, Molson, Labatt and Sleeman) the Beer Store has agreed to test pilot 12 pack pricing options at various LCBO locations. This MFA agreement was not borne out of any concern over a monopoly position, but rather for the purpose of ensuring the continued benefit of Ontario consumers. While the beer store is not a government owned enterprise, we would appreciate it if the above paragraph could be removed or revised to be factually correct. It is correct that it is not a government owned enterprise, The Beer Store is now openly owned by 30 ontario based brewers, of which the three above brewers hold a majority share. The MFA agreement and its subsequent shareholder agreeement outline this very clearly. Also, article 4.1 of the MFA dictates that The Beer Store is to maintain an open and transparent relationship with the public by providing information through its website. Therefore, please feel free to refer to the website or any other legislative documents to support your information. Tyler Cassack (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, as to your claim of the passage being "unfounded", it seems to be well supported by the cited sources. If there are any factual errors, please highlight them, providing supporting reliable sources to the contrary.
 * Secondly, Wikipedia is not a corporate marketing brochure. Whether or not an article "delivers negative connotations" is not the concern of the editors, as long as the article is correct and well-sourced. If you feel the wording does not present a neutral point of view, then by all means, suggest alternate wording to present facts in a more neutral light.
 * Thirdly, test pilots notwithstanding, the monopoly over selling beer in 12- and 24-packs is still legally in force as of time of writing. If and when regulations are changed to allow competitors to sell such packages, the article will be updated to reflect that.
 * As for your other comments regarding transparency and suchlike, I see nothing in the article to contradict it. I don't find the good intentions of the corporation to be notable enough to warrant a mention in the article, but will gladly add a paragraph about corporate culture and public relations, provided you can come up with one that is worded neutrally and supported by independent (non-corporate) sources. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Just posting asking for some basic revision of the following outlined paragraph: "The Beer Store is permitted to charge non-shareholding breweries listing fees, for each beer carried in stock, that many critics perceive as substantial.[19] Listing fees have been criticized as restricting competition in the huge Ontario beer market, especially from smaller brewers who often cannot afford the fees, especially for multiple brands.Furthermore, TBS provides reduced volume rates for brewers who produce under 75,000 hectoliters and steeper discounts for brewers who produce under 25,000 hectoliters.[15] The current Brewers Retail Inc. ("BRI") User Agreement (2010) that brewers are asked to sign includes a statement that is a departure from this cost-recovery tradition. It states, "...the cost to BRI of providing a service shall include a reasonable margin of profit to BRI". Previous agreements read, ..."the cost to BRI of providing a service shall include a reasonable margin of profit that was envisioned in the original Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU). The removal of any reference to the MOU is problematic for small craft brewers who must access consumers through their largest competitors"

Under the new MFA agreement, small brewers are now entitled to a lower tier rate that is significantly less than the basic service rate asked of the larger brewing companies. To qualify, smaller breweries who produce under 1,000,000 hectolitres a year of beer are granted the lower tiered rate on their first 50,000 hectolitres. This policy was borne specifically out of the concern this paragraph has highlighted. It can be found in the Shareholder's agreement. Furthermore, qualifying small brewers who produce under 10,000 hectolitres a year are now provided with 2 free guaranteed product listings at 7 of their most proximate Beer Stores. Delivery for these small brewers has also been made easier. (Sections 6.3 and 6.4)

If words such as the following could be incorporated into the passage it would be greatly appreciated. "The Beer Store charges a one time listing fee for all packages. In turn, brewers are permitted to choose any store they wish to sell their products. Ontario Brewers with sales under 10,000 hectolitres per year are permitted two free listings in The Beer Store's seven most proximate stores to their Brewery." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Cassack (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting "All alcoholic beverage containers purchased in Ontario are accepted for deposit return at any Beer Store location that returns empty containers." be revised to include "(over 100ml)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.28.128 (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting the following reference be verified: http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/economic-study-ontarios-beer-retailing-123800709.html The link seems to be broken for myself and I cannot find any other evidence to back the claims made regarding the "Estimated Profit" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Cassack (talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * as outdated. The original source cannot be verified at this time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Beer Store. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131209065511/http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/economic-study-ontarios-beer-retailing-123800709.html to http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/economic-study-ontarios-beer-retailing-123800709.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Article compromised by recent OR edits
I am concerned that several recent edits by User:Idontbuythat and User:Beerresearcher, especially to the section on Ontario's recent changes to alcohol sales regulations, may have compromised the integrity of the article by incorporating original research, to the point that I think they may be the same user. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who Beerresearcher is. Idontbuythat (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)