Let’s be perfectly clear about the consequence if Urban Grape is successful in its quest to get the city to reject a liquor license for Shaw’s: a subsidy from some wine and beer drinkers to Urban Grape and its patrons.
A liquor license to Shaw’s promises some combination of lower prices, better selection, or greater convenience. Denying Shaw’s a license will mean that customers who would have enjoyed those benefits will have to pay more, have a worse selection, enjoy less convenience, or some combination thereof so that Urban Grape can maintain its current level of business and Urban Grape fans can enjoy those special benefits that matter to them, but not to the market. That’s money, time, or other value denied one group of people for the benefit of another group. In other words, a subsidy or transfer.
I get the appeal of Urban Grape. Our family buys all its wine (consumed at a rate of about a bottle a week) from the most precious of precious wine stores: Vino di vino.But, I don’t think that the city should be exacting a subsidy from other wine buyers to prop up Vino di vino. If there’s not a market for its unique business proposition, it should fold. We’ll make do.
It may be that others think that Vino di vino and Urban Grape and other local, independent merchants — Newtonville Books, New England Mobile Book Fair, &c. — are so important to the fabric of our town that we should subsidize them. If so, make that argument. And, then let’s subsidize them, with fixed transfers that are direct and transparent, not with indirect regulatory nonsense. Otherwise, the city should stay out of the wine business and let the market do its thing.
I’ll make the argument. Three words: Concord, New Hampshire.
Where’s Terry Malloy? He can back me up on this. If you ever want to see what an alternate universe might look like in terms of Massachusetts beer and wine sale if we took another approach, visit New Hampshire. There, you can buy beer just about anywhere: the supermarket, the convenience store, and my personal favorite, the gas station. (NH’s arbitrary hoop to jump through: hard alsohol is sold only through state stores.)
NH’s system is suuuuper convenient for beer drinkers. Having gone to college in NH, I can tell you that my Natty Lite was both convenient and cheap. The Shaws or the Shop & Save in Concord both have entire eisles devoted to beer, and they do a pretty good job with selection. Bud, Bud Lite, Miller, Coors. The do Ireland with Guiness and Harp. Mexico with Dos Equis and Corona. Micro-brews with Sam Adams and… Sam Adams? If you get a store manager with vision, maybe you’ll get some Harpoon.
And for years I was a big proponent of that system. But lately, I’ve had a change of heart. Because, as a consumer, is it better for me that my Miller Lite is $1 less per 12 pack, or is it better that I can go to Marty’s (or wherever) and buy absolutely anything I want whenever I want it?
Denying that option means that customers who would have enjoyed those benefits have to pay more, have a worse selection, enjoy less convenience, or some combination thereof
Sean’s point is a good one, but I think the “worse selection” bit is a stretch. I think the choice is better selection/less convenience vs. more convenience/worse selection.
I take your point about selection. It’s not clear that Shaw’s would provide better selection, though it’s possible (depending on your definition of “better”).
But, I think we agree on the larger point: Bud light drinkers should not be subsidizing your opportunity to get some fancy-pants microbrew without a steep markup.
I went to college in NH as well (when the drinking age was still 18… yeah, I’m dating myself) and loved the convenience of buying at the supermarket and the convenience stores near the school. The thing is, I grew up.
Do I buy a case of 3 buck Chuck at TJ’s in Cambridge or Brookline? Of course I do but most of my liquor buying is from local businesses that I want to support. I pay more for a bottle of Jameson’s at the place under the Shaws in Newtonville or head over to Silver Lake Liquors in the Lake for my Red Sox wine. When I need variety, I go into Marty’s where I love browsing the beer section for interesting labels, brews, etc.
If Urban Grape thinks their customer base is fickle enough to say, “I’m too lazy to head downstairs to pick up what I need, I’ll just grab some crap beer to send down the cartalator with my groceries,” then is that really a customer is loyal to Urban Grape? Their customers waited during the Star market remodel, they’ll stay loyal if Star carried wine & beer as well.
Vinodivino has shown in the last several years what local wine shops (with a focus) can offer. Vinodivino opened is one of the worse locations possible — low foot traffic, awful parking AND a full service liquor store with a large wine selection just doors down. Did the liquor store ask for crony favoritism because they’ve been in business longer with greater local roots? Unlikely.
If you’re making cog au vin and you want a flavorful burgundy, Star Market isn’t going to have it. Urban Grape needs to reevaluate it’s business plan, accent what it does best and not insult customers by asking them to get gov’t favoritism because a super market might take away a zinfandel customer. Does Urban Grape think Winstons is concerned that Wegmans is coming and they will have roses? Come on now.
Ed,
Marty’s, Vino DeVino, Upper Falls Liquors, etc will still exist. They have the variety in beer, wine and liquor and that’s where they make their markup not the commodity beers and wines that will be sold in supermarkets.
But, as you know Ed, any thinking beer drinker takes the easy drive to South Concord, New Hampshire (just beyond the Prisby homestead in Bow) and fills up their trunk at “Cimo’s South End Deli” (formerly Ordway’s). Great selection and service and some of the profit is reinvested in barrooms across Newton Mass.
You can buy cigarettes everywhere and there are still smoke shopes. Is that analogous?
This supporting small business thing goes to far on this issue. I don’t think our shops make Newton a nicer place and none of them stay open until 11. I find it pretty inconvenient for the sake of ‘support small businesses.’
Kim-it’s not “for the sake of” local businesses. I find local businesses provide superior service and are willing to help me out when I’m in need. I can wait for 45 minutes at the chain pharmacy that’s closer to my home but Keyes Drug goes the extra mile when I need a prescription filled. So making a 7 minute drive to Keyes where I know the people and know they will help me out is a better experience than driving 3 minutes to a chain where the pharmacist appears to be going through the motions. I can say the same about Schwartz Hardware and a number of other local businesses.
Both of the threads on this subject have really provided some thoughtful discussions about important issues that go beyond where one buys their beer or wine. Thanks to all who’ve contributed so far.
Also, I wanted to note that we were contacted through the Village 14 Twitter account by someone at Urban Grape who has also read the comments here. I encouraged them to join in the conversation but so far, they declined.
However, the Urban Grape blog did address the Star Market issue in a new thread there today.
If the store owners don’t care to comment here, perhaps some of their customers might. This site aims to encourage dialogue and I think all can agree that the tone here has been both civil and welcoming.
Sure, Greg. I’m a regular customer at Urban Grape, as I am at Vinodivino. Both great shops.
Not really sure why TJ [owner of Urban Grape] is so upset about this Star Market thing. He’s a very smart guy though [and very nice as well], so I’m sure he’s carefully calculated the financial impact, and it’s substantial enough to cause him concern.
I’m very surprised this possibility wasn’t foreseen and addressed in the leasing process. Product exclusivity is very common in shopping centers.
That being said, Urban Grape is a high end shop. I shop there because they have a great selection of fine wines, and an extremely knowledgable staff. I just don’t see Star Market carrying the same quality wines or providing the same level of service. I’m almost embarrassed to say how much I routinely spend on a bottle of wine, and I seldom walk out of a wine shop without at least 6-12 bottles. Star Market is never going to carry wines that interest me, so Urban Grape isn’t going to lose a dime of my business to Star.
Fundamentally though, I’m in favor of consumer choice. I can’t see that any public good is served by denying a license to Star.
@Mike: I’m fully open to believing that the folks at Urban Grape are a nice bunch of well-meaning people. But I have to say they’re not doing much to help themselves.
Take, for example, this from a story in today’s Globe.
I have nothing but empathy for the comment in the first paragraph above. I know profit margins can be tough for mom and pop retailers and even the loss of a few sales each day could be huge.
But was it really necessary for Hadley to add that she “fears that teenagers would find it easier to buy alcohol at the grocery store”?
I’m having a hard time believing that has anything to do with why the store is rallying support in opposition to this license.
Oh by the way, according to the same Globe story (emphasis is mine) …
But there is only liquor “store” mentioned in the story: Urban Grape. Are there indeed others with “uncorked anger”? Or was this an editing/reporting error/exaggeration?
Greg– I agree with your comments. Had the folks from Urban Grape asked, I would have advised them against taking the approach they’ve chosen. Just as I’d advise anyone looking for a truly great bottle of wine, to visit either Urban Grape or Vinodivino.
Interestingly enough, my partners and I own two supermarket properties, neither of which sells alcohol. We lease one property to Shaw’s and the other to Stop n’ Shop. Just for kicks I had someone check those leases, and in both cases we reserved the right to veto future alcohol sales. While I’m surprised that Urban Grape didn’t better protect themselves in their own lease, their best hope now may be their landlord, who may have the ability to keep Star from adding liquor sales. Unless Star’s lease contains monetary incentives to the landlord, he/she may want to provide an attractive tenant like Urban Grape some protection.
Urban Grape presented a theoretical — Star Market will be more relaxed about id checks. But with last month’s cigarette sting — Star Market didn’t sell to a minor while the liquor store down the street did.
Margins, huh? I believe margins in the super market business are less than 5%. Combine that will the fact that given town approvals, each new Wegmans will potentially have wine and beer up to the maximum licenses. – four now, then 9 by 2020. Star/Shaws must have dozens of stores in Mass, thus while Wegmans might have 100% of their stores with wine/beer, Star/Shaws will have a relatively small number with licenses. If (and only if) it’s gov’ts job to help margins, why Urban Grape and not Star?
@Hoss: You lost me. I wasn’t commenting on Star Market’s market share, I was commenting on how the loss of a sales might hurt Urban Grape. That’s an argument I can, as I wrote, fully empathize with. What I can’t buy is the store owner raising the we must stop this license because teens will go to the grocery store to buy beer argument. I don’t believe it nor do I believe that’s what’s she’s really worried about.
I found some data — according to Hoovers there are 178 Star/Shaws in total with more than 100 in the Boston area. According to a cursory internet search, average profit margin in the super market industry is around 1%.
So Wegman’s potentially might have 100% wine/beer licenses, a clear margin advantage, Star/Shaws will have less the 10% stores with licenses.
It makes sense that Star would protect it’s huge investment in the Chestnut Hill store strategically against Wegmans (not Urban Grape)