Limited alcohol options at gigs

Brock Turnpike

Does anyone happen to know how the drinks licenses are decided for gigs? For example; you might only be able to buy Heineken beers at one good, whereas at another good you may only be able to buy Carlsberg.

How is this decided?
How did this approach to gigs come about?

Where is the demand for this? Surely most people don't want to be so limited in options when they go to a gig. Typically the main drinks available at the gig bars are absolute pisswater. Why do concert promoters force such a lack of variety on to people who have paid a significant amount of money for tickets to a gig?

hetuzozaho

I presume the big drinks company give the festival a heap of cash and then call the shots on what else can be sold.

(same way they do in pubs round the country)

lbj666

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Does anyone happen to know how the drinks licenses are decided for gigs? For example; you might only be able to buy Heineken beers at one good, whereas at another good you may only be able to buy Carlsberg.

How is this decided?
How did this approach to gigs come about?

Where is the demand for this? Surely most people don't want to be so limited in options when they go to a gig. Typically the main drinks available at the gig bars are absolute pisswater. Why do concert promoters force such a lack of variety on to people who have paid a significant amount of money for tickets to a gig?

Usually the promoter tenders out the exclusive rights to sell the booze. It's supposed to be a significant amount of money but the Brewers don't make as much as you'd think out of it, the benefit of it is the product exposure.

The other thing the nice craft beers are not mass produced to meet the demand of large scale events.

Think of it this way have you ever been to a beer festival in Ireland where the booze was running out by Sunday night?

ghostdancer

plenty of venues also have exclusive agreements with the big drinks companies (Diageo, Heineken and C&C the main ones here).

Brock Turnpike

lbj666 wrote: »

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Does anyone happen to know how the drinks licenses are decided for gigs? For example; you might only be able to buy Heineken beers at one good, whereas at another good you may only be able to buy Carlsberg.

How is this decided?
How did this approach to gigs come about?

Where is the demand for this? Surely most people don't want to be so limited in options when they go to a gig. Typically the main drinks available at the gig bars are absolute pisswater. Why do concert promoters force such a lack of variety on to people who have paid a significant amount of money for tickets to a gig?

Usually the promoter tenders out the exclusive rights to sell the booze. It's supposed to be a significant amount of money but the Brewers don't make as much as you'd think out of it, the benefit of it is the product exposure.

The other thing the nice craft beers are not mass produced to meet the demand of large scale events.

Think of it this way have you ever been to a beer festival in Ireland where the booze was running out by Sunday night?

I was at Coachella and they had a main drink sponsor which only sold their own products, but they're was also a large craft beer tent where there was a huge selection of craft beers available. I think it would be much better to do some over here.

Arghus

First World problems.

Scuid Mhór

I was at Mac DeMarco a few weeks ago and I thought the drinks retailing was terrific, they were even selling gin and tonic and wine. That should be the future of gigs in my opinion.

Birneybau

Arghus wrote: »

First World problems.

Yes. And?

The Nal

Hipflask in the pocket solves everything.

blackwhite

Last year a sports club that I'm involved in had the bar completely refurbished. The taps/pipes/cooling equipment needed replacing at the time as well.

Both Diageo and Heineken offered a substantial contribution to the fitout costs in exchange for a period of exclusivity behind the bar - and this for a clubhouse that's only open in 4/5 days a week and only the evenings mid-week.

Over €40k of equiment & furniture received in exchange for 6 months exclusivity (won't say which company).

If they're willing to shell out that for 6 months in a sports club bar that might average 20-30 patrons a night, imagine what they are willing to pay for a concert venue.

fafy

To the original question- its all down to money, in exchange for exclusivity, and its not good for consumers, when they have a limited choice.

The two main drinks companies- Diageo & Heineken have nicely carved up the market between them, and have dangled massive carrots in front of venue owners & promoters, it can be difficult to resist.

MCD own the Olympia- which only serves Heineken products
Aiken Promotions own Vicar street, which only serves Diageo products.
(On previous occasions i was there, that was the case, has this changed ?)

The above pattern, is often consistent, at any festivals these promoters are involved with.

And its not just at gigs/festivals you will see this, its in pubs all the time, some do not offer one company’s range, and the ones that do both, often have a limited choice of the others products.

The two drinks players, offer incentives to pubs and clubs to get rid of some of the beer taps of the rival company, happens all the time.

hetuzozaho

blackwhite wrote: »

Last year a sports club that I'm involved in had the bar completely refurbished. The taps/pipes/cooling equipment needed replacing at the time as well.

Both Diageo and Heineken offered a substantial contribution to the fitout costs in exchange for a period of exclusivity behind the bar - and this for a clubhouse that's only open in 4/5 days a week and only the evenings mid-week.

Over €40k of equiment & furniture received in exchange for 6 months exclusivity (won't say which company).

If they're willing to shell out that for 6 months in a sports club bar that might average 20-30 patrons a night, imagine what they are willing to pay for a concert venue.

Yeah they do it everywhere... getting pubs to take out tasty craft beer taps in exchange for kegs/cash - so insecure about their product

Brock Turnpike

My biggest issue with the approach is that they seem to think, if they have exclusivity on it, that it's somehow going to make people who don't like their product change their mind. I'd be a stout and craft beer drinker. Forcing me to purchase Heineken or Carlsberg isn't going to suddenly make me taste it and think "do you know what, that pisswater is actually nice and now I'll change my drinking habits."

If people think your products tastes like piss, then they aren't going to change their minds based on advertising or exclusivity.

bodhrandude

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

My biggest issue with the approach is that they seem to think, if they have exclusivity on it, that it's somehow going to make people who don't like their product change their mind. I'd be a stout and craft beer drinker. Forcing me to purchase Heineken or Carlsberg isn't going to suddenly make me taste it and think "do you know what, that pisswater is actually nice and now I'll change my drinking habits."

If people think your products tastes like piss, then they aren't going to change their minds based on advertising or exclusivity.

I remember back in the mid-noughties Heineken running ad campaigns promoting music events, they were trying to give the impression that Heineken were the innovators behind the music scene, when in reality they just had a cartel at most of the outdoor events in Ireland.

rubadub

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Forcing me to purchase Heineken or Carlsberg isn't going to suddenly make me taste it and think "do you know what, that pisswater is actually nice and now I'll change my drinking habits.

It could turn some, many people are incredibly set in their ways.

I find it both astonishing and laughable when I see so many people who would count themselves as "guinness drinkers" who might have literally only tried 1 other stout in their entire life, and might have baulked at the taste of it yet would likely not tell the difference if served it up on the sly after 4 pints.

In gigs once in the door they have you trapped, I like trying different beers and if out in town I would try and get friends to visit a pub with good selection, but those pubs often actively boycott the mainstream brands.

It is quite ridiculous, imagine a lad saying he absolutely adores chocolate, eats 6 bars a night, 3 times a week, but solely twix bars! would never stray from them, -jaysus you never know what you might get, far too risky!

bodhrandude wrote: »

give the impression that Heineken were the innovators behind the music scene,

I never got that vibe off it. The "bud rising" and "heineken green energy" gigs were brilliant, they were very heavily subsidised, sometimes really cheap tickets (relative to if the band were playing at another time), I know a lad in the business who knew some fees bands were getting to play these tiny venues. Then the arthurs day came about, also great, until all these gobshite complainers ruined everything, and also seemingly scared off bud & heineken from doing heavy promotions. I know they still had some stuff to some degree but nothing like what it was.

johnnyskeleton

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

My biggest issue with the approach is that they seem to think, if they have exclusivity on it, that it's somehow going to make people who don't like their product change their mind. I'd be a stout and craft beer drinker. Forcing me to purchase Heineken or Carlsberg isn't going to suddenly make me taste it and think "do you know what, that pisswater is actually nice and now I'll change my drinking habits."

If people think your products tastes like piss, then they aren't going to change their minds based on advertising or exclusivity.

No, but you might still buy a few pints for €6.50 a go. Meanwhile, the person who isn't too fussed about what they drink might taste it and think it's ok, and so drink it again in future venues.

I mean, the exact ins and outs of it are hard to gauge, but I think it's fair to say that if large, profit drive corporations seem to almost universally consider it to be good business sense to pay money to corner the market, whether it is good or bad for the consumer it is certainly profitable for those companies.

rubadub wrote: »

It is quite ridiculous, imagine a lad saying he absolutely adores chocolate, eats 6 bars a night, 3 times a week, but solely twix bars! would never stray from them, -jaysus you never know what you might get, far too risky!

I've no problem with this to be honest. Most people are like that. They order the same thing in the take away, buy the same chocolate bar or same bag of crisps. If people are happy that they know what they like and don't want to change it, that's great.

The problem would come when the mars bar company takes over a festival and only sells twixes at 30% mark up. At that stage, the twix guy might be happy, but everyone else has to dance to his tune.

Then the arthurs day came about, also great, until all these gobshite complainers ruined everything, and also seemingly scared off bud & heineken from doing heavy promotions. I know they still had some stuff to some degree but nothing like what it was.

What happened to Arthurs day that it was cancelled? I thought it was more that it was becoming very rowdy and Diageo were moving in the Drink Aware route and didn't want to be associated with a kind of Paddys Day Lite!

LoughNeagh2017

I just drink mineral water, if I started drinking alcohol I would never stop

Saruwatari

Gigs/festivals having sub-par drinks selection only does me a favor - saving me a few quid, and the need to miss part of the gig for a brief interlude in the reliably foul jacks.

If a bar only has Diageo/Heineken kack, I'll take my chances with a water instead, so their loss.

tomwaits48

Heaven forbid you go to a gig and not drink alcohol.

Brock Turnpike

tomwaits48 wrote: »

Heaven forbid you go to a gig and not drink alcohol.

Fantastic contribution ,Tom. Well done.