Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Boom_Bap · 02-12-2016 3:20pm

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Dear Mods, can you suspend any possible ban for a wee while so I can say my honest opinion at that sanctimonious load of old pony ??

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

You sound quite frustrated and angry and your posts are becoming a bit incoherent.

Perhaps a break away from the thread is in order?

How about the 2 of you (Mortourvelo & MeatTwoVeg) don't post in this thread anymore as you are ruining a discussion with your bickering.

Do not post in this thread again.

Snickers Man · 02-12-2016 3:32pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I don't believe studying other countries is necessarily helpful. There are far too many variables to draw any definitive conclusions.
Many studies are contradictory.
Reproducing results of human behavior studies has proved notoriously difficult for social scientists.

I'm sorry. Are you arguing your case or mine?

Any social science, such as economics, sociology, pyschology etc is plagued with the problem of excessive variables. Nothing new there. So why would you think that pushing up the price of alcohol (a one-club golfing strategy if ever there was one) would have a magical effect on our society when in relative terms it has been tried for decades, resulting in our current mess?

Many studies are contradictory? Damn right they are. Doesn't stop doctors from beginning just about every argument on this issue with the prefix "Studies show that...." Hell, even the article on which the OP was based had a "studies show" introduction.

So if you're not going to base your arguments on academic studies, because of their contradictory results, excessive number of variables, poor levels of comparison and overall reliability (and I agree you shouldn't) then what are you going to base them on? The naive dependence on the most basic law of economics that rising prices reduce demand has PROVEN to be insufficient and in my view counterproductive.

Spanish Eyes · 02-12-2016 3:34pm

Philip Clean Ruler wrote: »

No you don't.

The problem most people have is that its the government forcing higher prices than the market dictates for a product people enjoy and should be entitled to buy at a fair price comparable to most of the rest of the world.

I would find it very hard to see the EU allowing this price fixing to be introduced to be honest.

They have left the option of MUP or increased taxation (after a challenge by whisky producers) to the Scottish courts.

Scottish courts have decided on MUP.

Don't see we would be any different.

So much for EU rules on price fixing and so on. But there we are.

AlanG · 02-12-2016 3:34pm

The issue I have with MAP is that it is a case of rich people telling poor people what to do to solve their problem. Alcohol abuse impacts all strata of Irish society but MAP only attempts to address it for the poor. If Varadker believes pricing can solve the problem he should increase excise duty so the drinker a €20 bottle of wine will be saved from themselves just as much as the drinker of a €6 bottle. Once politicians start solving the drinking problems of the "poor" separately to those of the "rich" it is never going to end well.

02-12-2016 3:43pm

How about just letting people drink as they want and stop interfering in how people live their lives.

Leroy42 · 02-12-2016 3:44pm

True AlanG, but there is also the argument that having pricing so low is making the product more available to more people. €1 a can (or whatever, I am not argueing amount the correct price) can mean that many younger people can easily buy the product.

But as you rightly pointed out, drinking in the higher income levels is just as big, if not as visible, a problem. Just because one drink craft beer doesn't mean you are any less a problem drinker than Dutch Gold man.

Even the idea of craft beer socialise the problem. "I am perfectly fine to drink as I have an appreciation of real beer, whilst you my alcoholic friend are a problem drinker that must be tackled with your dutch gold."

I suppose part of the thinking is that by making it more expensive it moves more into the 'luxury' type product, a special occasion. However, I would suggest that given the amount we spend on drink each year, whilst individual drink might not be in the luxury band, taken as a whole they are. Taking a person who goes to the pub twice a week, get 4 pints each time. THat close to €50 per week, +2500k per year. That is a significant amount of money.

So it can't just be the cost that is driving this.

Leroy42 · 02-12-2016 3:46pm

Philip Clean Ruler wrote: »

How about just letting people drink as they want and stop interfering in how people live their lives.

Because, like it or not, there is a social cost to alcohol. Whether than be drink driving, garda resources, A&E, lost productivity, health problems or family problems, there is a cost.

It may not directly effect you are the group you are in, but based on the reports it would seem that it effects, in varying ways, a large % of the population.

Obviously this will range from full alcoholism leading to death, to simply spending too much money on it.

Snickers Man · 02-12-2016 4:20pm

AlanG wrote: »

The issue I have with MAP is that it is a case of rich people telling poor people what to do to solve their problem. Alcohol abuse impacts all strata of Irish society but MAP only attempts to address it for the poor.

This is very true. And it will also criminalise the poor to a greater degree than the rich or at least the better off. It will encourage the growth of illegal alcohol production and distribution, not to mention selling, aimed largely at the poor.

Is your average doctor or lawyer going to be socialising in a shebeen in Clondalkin or Tallaght? I think not, but these sort of establishments will spring up as "legitimate" alcohol becomes more expensive.

Is it good for society that the lower income groups criminalise themselves just to partake in an activity that the wealthier can afford to enjoy legally just because they have more wealth, especially if the cost is artificially maintained by the government in the first place.

It will not, as you say, end well. Just look at America during Prohibition. Manufacture and sale of alcohol was forbidden; consumption was not. So the wealthy could stockpile their cases of wine and champagne and spirits before the ban and enjoy them in their own company legally for years afterwards. The poor had to go to speakeasies and become indebted to the likes of Mr Capone and his buddies.

bear1 · 02-12-2016 4:21pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Considering all the apparent flaws in my posting style, it's strange that I seem to be conclusively winning the debate on all the salient points.

If you're unable to best such a poor opponent, you perhaps need to look at your own debate deficiencies?

Im still waiting for you to explain how drinking at home costs the state money.

Bubbaclaus · 02-12-2016 4:28pm

bear1 wrote: »

Im still waiting for you to explain how drinking at home costs the state money.

Seriously? Can't come up with a single reason yourself?

Fecking hell.

bear1 · 02-12-2016 4:46pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Seriously? Can't come up with a single reason yourself?

Fecking hell.

I can't think how someone sitting at home drinking is costing the state.. no.
Can you?

andekwarhola · 02-12-2016 4:47pm

osarusan wrote: »

You can't make a coherent argument to save your life.

It's patently obvious he's on a wind up at this stage.

Edit: didn't realize he can't post now, apologies.

Snickers Man · 02-12-2016 5:06pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

It's quite simple.
Alcohol is too cheap. The pendulum has swung too far. It's time to introduce measures to combat it. MUP is one of those measures.
Half the people claiming it won't work are threatening to drive up North or distill some bathtub gin to combat the measure.

I guess logic isn't their strong suit.

Your arrogance suggests you may be a doctor of some persuasion!

I think few people claim that changes in pricing will have no effect at all; rather, we suggest that they will indeed have many effects, just few that are beneficial.

You don't have to be a Noble prize winning economist to know something of the theory of price curves and elasticity of demand, or of the notion of substitution and replacement of one type of product or activity with another if it becomes too expensive.

Price "curves" suggest that although there is a change in demand when prices is artificially altered the result is not always linear. The more "elastic" the demand, the more immediate and direct is the effect of price changes on that demand. Inelastic products or activities can endure large variations in price without demand being greatly affected; that's why they're curves and not straight lines.

Socialising with alcohol, ie going to the pub is a fairly inelastic pursuit. No matter how much the price of booze goes up, many people will still just suck it up and utter the words "Still great value!" as they raise their pint to their lips.

But as well as that people will still seek out cheaper alternatives; in other words they will substitute their current practice of going to the supermarket or off licence for their booze with the more considered policy of stocking up while out of the jurisdiction either in Northern Ireland or on the continent itself. They will also seek out illicit supplies of such products from those who practice smuggling at a professional level. And they will be encouraged to go to illegal drinking clubs or "Shebeens" in poorer areas.

Now these are all likely effects of a change in pricing. But are they teh effects you want?

It's basically very simple People drink, mostly, because they want to. They think it's their right (which it is) and theywill do it. You want to change attitudes you have to make them WANT to change. And it takes more than economic bullying to do so.

I ask again: What country or countries do YOU think have the sort of attitude and practice towards alcohol that you think we should try to emulate here? What's your goal, in other words? When we sort out a consensus on that, we may have some idea of how we want to achieve it.

dr.fuzzenstein · 02-12-2016 5:26pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I don't believe studying other countries is necessarily helpful. There are far too many variables to draw any definitive conclusions.
Many studies are contradictory.
Reproducing results of human behavior studies has proved notoriously difficult for social scientists.

This would also negate any studies on MUP

goose2005 · 02-12-2016 10:52pm

It'll be minimum unit pricing for sugar next. A can of Coke will cost €8, and criminal gangs will smuggle in barrels of the stuff. Farmers will grow sugarbeet in secret greenhouses to illicitly produce their own sugar

goose2005 · 02-12-2016 10:56pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

Your arrogance suggests you may be a doctor of some persuasion!

I think few people claim that changes in pricing will have no effect at all; rather, we suggest that they will indeed have many effects, just few that are beneficial.

You don't have to be a Noble prize winning economist to know something of the theory of price curves and elasticity of demand, or of the notion of substitution and replacement of one type of product or activity with another if it becomes too expensive.

Price "curves" suggest that although there is a change in demand when prices is artificially altered the result is not always linear. The more "elastic" the demand, the more immediate and direct is the effect of price changes on that demand. Inelastic products or activities can endure large variations in price without demand being greatly affected; that's why they're curves and not straight lines.

Socialising with alcohol, ie going to the pub is a fairly inelastic pursuit. No matter how much the price of booze goes up, many people will still just suck it up and utter the words "Still great value!" as they raise their pint to their lips.

But as well as that people will still seek out cheaper alternatives; in other words they will substitute their current practice of going to the supermarket or off licence for their booze with the more considered policy of stocking up while out of the jurisdiction either in Northern Ireland or on the continent itself. They will also seek out illicit supplies of such products from those who practice smuggling at a professional level. And they will be encouraged to go to illegal drinking clubs or "Shebeens" in poorer areas.

Now these are all likely effects of a change in pricing. But are they teh effects you want?

It's basically very simple People drink, mostly, because they want to. They think it's their right (which it is) and theywill do it. You want to change attitudes you have to make them WANT to change. And it takes more than economic bullying to do so.

I ask again: What country or countries do YOU think have the sort of attitude and practice towards alcohol that you think we should try to emulate here? What's your goal, in other words? When we sort out a consensus on that, we may have some idea of how we want to achieve it.

Ironically MUP could well induce casual drinkers to start thinking and acting like alcoholics - only buying the cheapest, strongest stuff, calculating alcohol units in their head, stocking up at every opportunity, keeping a big supply at home etc.

darkpagandeath · 02-12-2016 10:59pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

If your drinking habits are such that MUP would have a large effect on you then you need to have a good look at yourself.

Why I don't want to pay over priced prices in the pub.

darkpagandeath · 02-12-2016 11:01pm

They should get rid of the Dail bar tab and alike just to lead from the front like.

Capt'n Midnight · 03-12-2016 1:41am

Back in the day when censorship was more of a thing you'd have books where the paperback version was banned but not the hard back.

Minimum pricing is similar. Only those drinking cheap alcohol will have to pay substantially more. Those drinking in pubs or nightclubs or buying the better brands are already over the minimum price.

And unlike increasing excise duty which could provide funds for the health service any the increase due to minimum price will only go to the supermarkets and distributors.

foggy_lad · 03-12-2016 1:57am

I keep thinking that the minister went slumming it one night on the cheapest most potent auld tack that could be found and got a few slaps of the Johnny-Jump-Up and has sworn bitter vengeance on cheap drinks ever since!

The Wolverine · 03-12-2016 3:26am

I'd love if the big brands like Heineken, Guinness and the likes who might bump up shop prices to keep the premium image demand the publicans bump prices too or risk not being supplied like Weather spoons, would be some karma

It's only being done to help publicans pack pubs. it would be a tax on all drink if they really cared about health.

Although given a can of Heineken in a rural pub is like €4 and more in urban areas it will nearly still be cheaper to buy in the shop

I'll be curious to see if the Government don't say they the minimum pricing needs rising after a year or two when publicans still haven't been able to gouge and fill their coffers

Another thing is they while they won't budge of sky high prices, unless you live in a large town or city it's impossible to go to the pub as you can't get a way home most times as even if a taxi can be got you pay a bomb so it's not worth it. Get a few cans and have a few friends around and theirs no pressure to go home that night if anyone isn't sober to drive.

All though one thing I had wondered is if say Heineken charge €2.20 a can now if say the cheap Lidl stuff goes to €2 a can would you not keep your prices as they are as would most not go for the likes of Heineken, Budweiser or Carlsberg if the prices were similar? Wouldn't they make a mint? I know some prefer the cheaper stuff but would a lot not get the cheaper stuff as they find the value more reasonable

The Wolverine · 03-12-2016 3:47am

Also anyone know what's the price of a 330ml bottle to be? I usually drink craft stout like O'Haras which is 500ml and €3 a bottle but for regular beer, bottles of Sol is all I like.

Also based on units will a 500ml craft bottle not go up? Too any idea price?

macnug · 03-12-2016 9:55am

The Wolverine wrote:

Also anyone know what's the price of a 330ml bottle to be? I usually drink craft stout like O'Haras which is 500ml and â‚¬3 a bottle but for regular beer, bottles of Sol is all I like.

The bottles won't change much as they are already over priced compared to the cans, about â‚¬22.70 for a box of 20 at 4.3%, however this is the minimum price, nobody knows what the rrp will be.

The Wolverine wrote:

Also based on units will a 500ml craft bottle not go up? Too any idea price?

Minimum price on 6%, 500ml would be about â‚¬2.40, 8% would be about â‚¬3.20.

As far as I remember, when this was being discussed last year in the beer forum, the rate was 10c a gram and conversion between volume and weight with alcohol is ~0.8, open to correction though.

brightspark · 03-12-2016 10:56am

The Wolverine wrote: »

All though one thing I had wondered is if say Heineken charge €2.20 a can now if say the cheap Lidl stuff goes to €2 a can would you not keep your prices as they are as would most not go for the likes of Heineken, Budweiser or Carlsberg if the prices were similar? Wouldn't they make a mint? I know some prefer the cheaper stuff but would a lot not get the cheaper stuff as they find the value more reasonable

Not sure exactly who brews what but I'd be certain that whoever brews the "cheap Lidl" stuff also brews a more well known branded product.

That branded product will certainly go up in price to reflect its premium image, the price of premium goods are more driven by what people will pay than what they cost to produce.

MUP is being brought in by MUPpets controlled by the drinks industry who are the only ones who are certain to gain from it. If higher drinks prices are required simply raise the taxes, don't just give the drinks industry more money.

Capt'n Midnight · 03-12-2016 6:39pm

brightspark wrote: »

Not sure exactly who brews what but I'd be certain that whoever brews the "cheap Lidl" stuff also brews a more well known branded product.

That branded product will certainly go up in price to reflect its premium image, the price of premium goods are more driven by what people will pay than what they cost to produce.

You can be sure Lidl won't be paying extra to the brewers, despite being forced to raise the retail price.

MUP is being brought in by MUPpets controlled by the drinks industry who are the only ones who are certain to gain from it. If higher drinks prices are required simply raise the taxes, don't just give the drinks industry more money.

+1

Excise has fallen in real terms since the 1990's

goose2005 · 04-12-2016 5:35pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in the day when censorship was more of a thing you'd have books where the paperback version was banned but not the hard back.

Minimum pricing is similar. Only those drinking cheap alcohol will have to pay substantially more. Those drinking in pubs or nightclubs or buying the better brands are alre

Yes, it'll only impact the "scummers." Imagine a system of alcohol ration tokens that everyone, rich and poor, had to abide by - it would never last, the idea of the nanny state intruding on the well-off would never fly. The nanny state is only for the lower orders. Look how long it took for drink-driving laws to be effectively imposed - the reason being that they penalise well-off drivers almost as much as poor ones

Capt'n Midnight · 04-12-2016 7:59pm

Imagine if they tried to block property speculators by setting a minimum price for houses at a level slightly below the price for new homes around Dublin.

It would have zero effect on house purchasers in Dublin.

It might affect some speculators outside Dublin , but would also affect everyone else who couldn't afford a more expensive house in the first place.

You can imagine the sort of new houses builders would throw up if they were guaranteed a minimum price regardless.

Johnboner · 04-12-2016 8:06pm

The more nanny state policies we have the better.

04-12-2016 9:36pm

Johnboner wrote: »

The more nanny state policies we have the better.

Not sure i like the idea of a shower of smug charlatans telling me what is good for me and what isnt to be honest but each to their own. Perhaps you should go see a dominatrix if that is what you are into

brightspark · 04-12-2016 10:13pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Imagine if they tried to block property speculators by setting a minimum price for houses at a level slightly below the price for new homes around Dublin.

It would have zero effect on house purchasers in Dublin.

I know it's only hypothetical but it wouldn't have a zero effect on house prices in Dublin.

Say for example they set the price at €250,000, with houses in the outskirts of Dublin previously costing €260,000.

The immediate effect would be to raise the price on the outskirts of Dublin as they are more desirable than the house in Portlaoise (a bit unfair to Portlaoise I know).
In turn the houses in each "better" area of Dublin would be increasingly more expensive. Ultimately all houses will increase in price.

Capt'n Midnight · 04-12-2016 10:50pm

brightspark wrote: »

In turn the houses in each "better" area of Dublin would be increasingly more expensive. Ultimately all houses will increase in price.

Only the cheaper houses and next to cheaper houses would go up. Prices in D4 would be unaffected.

Regardless people determined to get a house would still try to get one.

FizzleSticks · 04-12-2016 11:03pm

This post has been deleted.

brightspark · 04-12-2016 11:42pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Only the cheaper houses and next to cheaper houses would go up. Prices in D4 would be unaffected.

Regardless people determined to get a house would still try to get one.

I don't think you understand, it must inflate all prices, including ultimately D4, (probably more so as D4 buyers are less likely to be price sensitive)

Even in D4 there will be a range of prices, some cheaper, some next to cheaper, it's probably debatable if the increases would be linear from the edge of Dublin through to D4, but the difference between them will remain.

Goods are valued in comparison to other goods so more desirable goods are going to be more expensive no matter what they cost originally.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-12-2016 12:16am

brightspark wrote: »

I don't think you understand, it must inflate all prices, including ultimately D4, (probably more so as D4 buyers are less likely to be price sensitive)
...
Goods are valued in comparison to other goods so more desirable goods are going to be more expensive no matter what they cost originally.

Bad money drives out good money.

If it costs a fixed amount for something , quality is going to go south. Yes the mediocre stuff is going to be price above the vile stuff but the premium stuff shouldn't increase, especially since there will be less money sloshing around and since the profits on the vile stuff have gone up.

If it inflates all prices then you are saying that supermarkets, distributor and publicans must be money grabbing ba$tards !

Publicans and Night Club owners are the very people who make sure that at the end of the night that no one has drunk too much and that our streets aren't full of aggressive people should not have been served.

Glenster · 05-12-2016 12:06pm

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

brightspark wrote: »

Goods are valued in comparison to other goods so more desirable goods are going to be more expensive no matter what they cost originally.

Goods are valued in comparison to other comparable goods.

The kind of person who is going to buy a mansion in D4 is not going to be overly concerned if a law is passed mandating apartments to be sold for at least 150K in Tallaght.

Zubeneschamali · 05-12-2016 1:22pm

Glenster wrote: »

Goods are valued in comparison to other comparable goods.

Yes- I was never going to drink Dutch Gold or Buckfast- not if they were giving it away for free.

Forcing Lidl to charge €2 a can for Dutch Gold will not make Franziskaner dearer to make or distribute, and Lidl can make money selling it for the same €2 a bottle right now.

Why would they volunteer to charge more for it if it makes money and brings in punters? Competition will not drive prices up - it will drive cheaper beers off the shelves.

listermint · 05-12-2016 1:35pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes- I was never going to drink Dutch Gold or Buckfast- not if they were giving it away for free.

Forcing Lidl to charge €2 a can for Dutch Gold will not make Franziskaner dearer to make or distribute, and Lidl can make money selling it for the same €2 a bottle right now.

Why would they volunteer to charge more for it if it makes money and brings in punters? Competition will not drive prices up - it will drive cheaper beers off the shelves.

Untrue,

The cheap brand will come up to the minimum price level, (it wont go away) the premium brand will increase to get away from the minimum price level.

All prices increase across the board.

In no world do the distributors remove cheaper alternatives they will always remain, but they will price the so called premium ones accordingly.

Its completely insane to think anything other than across the board prices increases will occur.

05-12-2016 3:15pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes- I was never going to drink Dutch Gold or Buckfast- not if they were giving it away for free.

Forcing Lidl to charge €2 a can for Dutch Gold will not make Franziskaner dearer to make or distribute, and Lidl can make money selling it for the same €2 a bottle right now.

Why would they volunteer to charge more for it if it makes money and brings in punters? Competition will not drive prices up - it will drive cheaper beers off the shelves.

Heineken (though I think they came to an agreement) and Guinness refuse to allow their products be sold in weatherpersons as they feel they are not charging enough to distinguish between themselves and budget brands.

Do you not think the same will happen with off-licenses and supermarkets.

Zubeneschamali · 05-12-2016 3:17pm

listermint wrote: »

Its completely insane to think anything other than across the board prices increases will occur.

Explain the logic to me: Lidl make money selling quality German beer right now at €2 a bottle.

The govt tells them not to sell beer at less than €2. Where is their motivation to raise the price on German beer? Their prices haven't gone up. The competition hasn't changed.

I think they will just laugh all the way to the bank as their profit-generating sales at €2 a bottle becomes the cheapest beer on the market.

osarusan · 05-12-2016 3:20pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The govt tells them not to sell beer at less than €2. Where is their motivation to raise the price on German beer? Their prices haven't gone up. The competition hasn't changed.

The shop could come under pressure from the German beer producer to raise prices to differentiate them from the swill that was cheaper but is now priced the same.

The shop could also come under pressure from producer of said swill to raise the prices of other beers, as the producer of swill know virtually nobody buys their swill for reasons other than price.

Zubeneschamali · 05-12-2016 3:20pm

Philip Clean Ruler wrote: »

Do you not think the same will happen with off-licenses and supermarkets.

No.

Time will tell, i suppose.

ohnonotgmail · 05-12-2016 3:26pm

osarusan wrote: »

The shop could come under pressure from the German beer producer to raise prices to differentiate them from the swill that was cheaper but is now priced the same.

The shop could also come under pressure from producer of said swill to raise the prices of other beers, as the producer of swill know virtually nobody buys their swill for reasons other than price.

Is it not more likely that they will stop selling the cheap rubbish because the reason for its existence no longer exists?

Zubeneschamali · 05-12-2016 3:28pm

osarusan wrote: »

The shop could come under pressure from the German beer producer to raise prices to differentiate them from the swill that was cheaper but is now priced the same.

Heineken and Guinness have lots of management layers in Ireland micromanaging this stuff.

Franziskaner management probably can't point to Ireland on a map, but they know who Lidl are.

osarusan · 05-12-2016 3:34pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is it not more likely that they will stop selling the cheap rubbish because the reason for its existence no longer exists?

Sure, that might happen in some cases, but a shop like Lidl or Aldi would lose a serious amount of their range of alcohol (not just beer either) if they simply didn't stock the products that would be affected.

Just thinking about the beer, I think almost every beer in Aldi would be affected - very few are sold for over €2 for a 500ml bottle. O'Shea's are something of a premium brand at €1.89.

Glenster · 05-12-2016 3:53pm

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Philip Clean Ruler wrote: »

Heineken (though I think they came to an agreement) and Guinness refuse to allow their products be sold in weatherpersons as they feel they are not charging enough to distinguish between themselves and budget brands.

Do you not think the same will happen with off-licenses and supermarkets.

False. They refuse to sell in Weatherspoons because of a disagreement over the terms of sale.

Ask any public house hotel in Ireland Diageo and Heineken have the most onerous terms of sale I've ever seen, basically payment up front, weatherspoons refuse to operate that system.

Zubeneschamali · 05-12-2016 3:54pm

osarusan wrote: »

a shop like Lidl or Aldi would lose a serious amount of their range of alcohol (not just beer either) if they simply didn't stock the products that would be affected.

So change their range.

It would be rank insanity to try and sell a €1 can of Galahad for €2 when quality German beer is available at that price. Those products are simply going to vanish off shelves.

ohnonotgmail · 05-12-2016 4:01pm

osarusan wrote: »

Sure, that might happen in some cases, but a shop like Lidl or Aldi would lose a serious amount of their range of alcohol (not just beer either) if they simply didn't stock the products that would be affected.

Just thinking about the beer, I think almost every beer in Aldi would be affected - very few are sold for over €2 for a 500ml bottle. O'Shea's are something of a premium brand at €1.89.

I dont think there is issue for brands that are at or about the minimum price. I do think brands that are significantly below the minimum price will just disappear. Why would anybody pay significantly more than they do now when they can get better beers at the same price?

KungPao · 05-12-2016 4:02pm

Any loopholes I wonder?

Like e.g. supermarket sells 8 cans for €16 but throw in a free pizza worth €4.

pilly · 05-12-2016 4:09pm

KungPao wrote: »

Any loopholes I wonder?

Like e.g. supermarket sells 8 cans for €16 but throw in a free pizza worth €4.

That's a good point, they often do deals for a fiver where you get starter, pizza, desert for a fiver.

osarusan · 05-12-2016 4:15pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So change their range.

It would be rank insanity to try and sell a €1 can of Galahad for €2 when quality German beer is available at that price. Those products are simply going to vanish off shelves.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont think there is issue for brands that are at or about the minimum price. I do think brands that are significantly below the minimum price will just disappear. Why would anybody pay significantly more than they do now when they can get better beers at the same price?

I agree that of course it's the cheap crap that will be most affected. Dutch Gold, for example, is only sold in Ireland and has nothing going for it other than its price. I don't know what will happen to that. Others I suppose will just leave the Irish market.

But I don't think it's as simple as saying X, Y, and Z disappear and everything else stays the same. Price and price positioning is part of a sales strategy, and that strategy will be affected by a minimum price.

With a reduced/new range of products, there's no guarantee that the German beer at €2 represents the value it did before, and that there's no reason for it to change price.

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Comments