Hmmm - "just customers?"

Because it seems an appropriate time for another rollicking debate, I found this post on Vinography (a wine blog) and thought it both interesting and provocative. I'll admit that the first paragraph had the hairs on the back of my neck standing at attention, but as he continues, I have a better understanding of his point.

Any thoughts, forumites?

How to Win Friends in the Wine Business
Filed under: Ramblings and Rants , Wine News
It never ceases to amaze me how people tend to forget that they are just customers. I'm guilty of this too, sometimes, but we tend to start thinking that we're entitled to buy whatever it is that we're buying, and we forget that being able to buy the things we want is a privilege that comes with strings attached. We have to hold up our end of the bargain to be good customers, and we also have to remember that even when we do, the folks selling us what we want are not obligated to keep doing so, especially if they can get better customers than us.

Which is what, I suppose, the signs that read "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" are all about at the end of the day.

With this in mind, I find it completely outrageous that a wine company called Bordeaux Magnum has actually sued Chateau Latour because Latour has decided not to sell them as much wine as they have in previous years. Even more outrageous, however, is the fact that a judge let this company win the case. Latour is now being forced to pay this company nearly $50,000 in damages.

Say what !?! This is the equivalent of me suing the San Francisco Opera for not offering to sell me season tickets again this year. Where is the contract that says they have to even sell me anything at all? It doesn't exist.

And as so correctly pointed out by a blog post by the guys over at Decanter, when was the last time any wine producer got to sue a negociant for not buying all the wine in a bad vintage?

This lawsuit smells, and sets a horrible precedent for everyone concerned. But mostly it makes me never, ever want to buy anything from Bordeaux Magnum. And I'm guessing (hoping?) there are a lot of people who won't want to be selling them anything either.

Posted by alder at July 10, 2007 10:00 PM

Here is the link to the post itself:

http://www.vinography.com/archives/2007 ... _wine.html

It's an outrage. It's outrageous, incredulous, preposterous and at the same time leaves me no choice but to be self-righteous.

I'll have to remember to be more gracious and thankful that retailers are still allowing me to hand over my hard-earned money. Bad me, bad me.

If there were business dealings in the past between the two companies, there very well may have been some type of contractual agreement that was breached. Just possibly another side to the story ...

Maybe this is why no one at Kroger ever says "thank you" to me...I'm just a customer.

Reminds me of the time I went to Liquor Barn and bought several hundred dollars worth of wine for a party, and then the clerk told me to box it up myself. At Old Town liquors, not only will they box it up, but they will carry it to the car for you. hell, if you spend enough they will probably carry you to the car as well.

Consumers don't have contracts but companies do. There may have been a breach of contract? This company might have had something stating how much they were supposed to receive. It would be silly not to have a contract when it involves that much money but you never know with a Chateau, they strike me as hand shakers. I don't know if the blogger had all of the info needed or at the very least has left out key things in order to sway perceptions.

Even if there were no contract, there is a lot of money involved. It's not like someone denying OJ a seat at their restaurant as is the case with the average consumer. A consumer just goes without and thats is that, no harm. A company takes economic hits. I don't know if this person getting refused opera tickets would result in people being laid off, for instance? Though, I doubt if it is so extreme a case. It is probably just a profit thing or just involves a lot of money but doesnt involve lay offs or anything. An extreme example of it is, if I am an airline and I order 10 multimillion dollar planes and hire people to operate the whole thing, you better believe there is going to be a contract and I am not going to be happy if I don't get what I ordered because of the effect it will have on the company. This type of thing happens every day with corporations. I think this one is a case of mistakes made by the wine maker and a long precedence being suddenly stopped for no reason other than changing tactics. Which is fine but you might want to let customers know before they budget for the year and expect a heavy income from selling your product. Not to say I agree with the judge.

The fact that a company would just decide, for no reason, not to sell as much of a thing anymore, is strange. They may have been buying the same amount for decades and then they decide not to for no reason. No reason is the major thing here. Had Chateau Latour been in dire straights, I doubt if a judge would fine them. How do we know Chateau Latour isn't holding wine to drive up the price? Perhaps they want to drive up the price so they can make as much as those who sell their product that jack the price up to ridiculous prices? I also think that they can sell to whom they like but should give notice so that the company can adjust. It is a good debate because I am inclined to understand both sides and I dont think I could make a decision either way.

I don't even understand that first paragraph. "we tend to start thinking that we're entitled to buy whatever it is that we're buying". That is about the dumbest statement I have ever heard. Obviously this person has never heard of warranties. I get what the person is saying but that is not the way to say it if you want to get a point across. It is pretty cut and dry, I buy it, I am entitled. If it is no longer for sale, how can I buy it? This person really doesnt understand the differences between the regular consumer and large companies or at least large sums of money.

I will say that almost every single time I go to the Kroger at Central Station the employee manning the self-check out lane says, "Thank you," or "Have a nice day," or whatever. I have not experienced this at many of the other Krogers in town. I do appreciate it, though.

He should appreciate the fact you are performing the job he gets paid to do.

"He should appreciate the fact you are performing the job he gets paid to do."

Not really. He's not getting paid to scan and checkout; his/her job is to help customers complete their transactions when they choose to use the self-serve. Kroger should appreciate it, but the reality is that u-scans are taking the place/jobs that previously needed checkers- so I wouldn't expect the employees to be thankful.

I am very pleasantly surprised, however, at what good customer service / help I get at my local Kroger - Springhurst/Brownsboro Road. Speaking of which, folks: what name should/ is given to this Kroger? I loved Krogucci, but it's already taken (and a bit of an over statement).

Actually, my best friend has worked at Kroger for years and he said that the u-scans did not replace anyone's job, but has made it easier for the cashiers because more people can check out at once instead of waiting in long lines. They think it's great because they are already short-staffed as it is.

"Kroger should appreciate it, but the reality is that u-scans are taking the place/jobs that previously needed checkers- so I wouldn't expect the employees to be thankful.

I was kidding.