Not at all, Peter. The fees will pay to purchases at the tasting room or winery itself. What i said is that if a wine club member comes up to taste and purchases additional wines at that time, those purchases would be subject to the fees. Hope that clears that up.
Cheers.
Larry never explains why the Paso, Sonoma, Napa and Willamette Valley associations all have a robust association raising $2M+/- without taxing the tasting room sales to pay for the large wineries marketing costs to the trade. All these associations are voluntarily. The SB Vintners have refused to use the methods these other associations have used to be successful.
Stephen,
Again, not true. You are correct that all of these other associations are ‘voluntary’ and nearly every winery, and many local businesses, gladly support them. There is a synergy in these other wines areas. Are you back to proposing a ‘futures’ or ‘barrel auction’ event that some of these other do to raise funds? This has been done and will continue to be explored. Are you proposing a grape commission to raise funds as they do in Sonoma? Again, actively being worked on. What other methods are you talking about?
And as many of us in the area have suggested, why not join the Board so that you can actively push for these things instead of being on the outside?
Cheers.
And ALL of these other regions are looking at what is happening in SB County because they are interested in doing the same thing . . .
Cheers.
And for the last time, the ‘marketing costs’ will actually benefit smaller wineries most likely more than the larger ones. Should our region become better known to all wine drinkers, especially those in Southern California, ALL wineries will benefit, and smaller ones in many ways proportionately better.
I buy a lot Of Santa Barbara wine, but none of it at a tasting room, it’s all shipped directly to me. Occasionally I buy it from a wine store.
What’s the logic for only taxing tasting room sales? To raise the same amount of money, if you taxed all sales the % would be a miniscule fraction of the 1.5% applied only to tasting room sales. Do the big wineries not even want to contribute that miniscule percentage?
Peter,
It’s a tough situation - and the idea is to make it as much like a hotel BID, etc - that those who visit in person are assessed the fees. That seems to make it ‘more fair’ to many - but not to everyone, as you can see. And whatever percentage you put out there, there would be some who would be opposed to it - we know that for a fact . . .
Cheers.
This post stating the proceeds will be used for much more than marketing - government relations, education, etc. is a darned good reason why all the wineries should contribute.
Larry, I’ve yet to see you put forward a logical argument as to why everyone shouldn’t pay their fair share. I’m mystified why a small winery owner like yourself is so forcefully arguing against your own self interest.
Peter,
Why is this against my own self interest? I don’t understand the comment. My ‘self interest’ is to raise the flag about our wonderful area and the wines that we produce and do what I can to help get that word out about the quality and diversity our region should be but is not known for outside of wine geeks.
The scenario that Stephen has presented is just his view on it - it does not mean that is how others feel about it or that it is a ‘fact’. Small wineries like my own have a great deal to gain by having a strong singular voice out in a crowded wine market to help educate folks about ‘brand Santa Barbara County’ and to help protect our region from governmental challenges.
All wineries will be affected by this and all will contribute - unless they do not have any tasting rooms in our area. The largest wineries in our area all do have tasting rooms and therefore will be contributing as well.
We will also push for a ‘grape commission’ down the line whereby some of the largest wineries that grow here but bring most of their fruit north will contribute - but understand that the funds generated by such an avenue are much more restricted . . .
Cheers.
Ahhh the old San Francisco city quality of life victory strategy!
Larry,
This totally seems like a scam from the consumer standpoint. I don’t see any benefit as a consumer. I leverage and utilize the https://winesofthesantacruzmountains.com website and marketing all the time. Last time I knew they were not taxing me to fund their marketing. Why would the consumer support this?
Sean
The SBC Vintners Association would like to have a larger budget. When they raise dues, the number of wineries in the Association drops. One point of view is that they are voting with their feet. OTOH, there is a genuine potential for a free rider effect. So, they would like to have a method to make their revenue less optional.
They have been exploring the BID idea for a while. Because it’s a somewhat different and more varied situation than, for example hotel stays in a city, the BID is not a perfect fit and they have tried to come up with various incarnations of it. In an earlier version, I believe all wine club shipments would have had the fee assessed, but only for members in California. There were various objections to that proposal, probably from wineries and possibly fearing backlash from wine club members.
It doesn’t help that one of the ways they tried to sell this to the wineries is to point out that “you won’t pay anything, the consumers will pay”. As you know, this can be debated and it certainly raises the question whether the consumers will be happy about it.
There are also a number of legal constraints on BIDs. I thought one of them was that the entities that pay into the BID have to pay in proportion to the benefit provided by the BID. It seems to me it’s a hard sell to claim the current proposal meets that condition. But, I’m not an expert on these things.
-Al
It is so absolutely amazing to me how casually the BID fanatics discuss 1.5% price hikes to the consumer, and try to spin it as if it somehow benefits the end person who puts the wine in a glass and drinks it.
I thought in my history books it was a .5% tax hike on (non alcoholic) tea that got Brewer/Patriot Sam Adams all riled up to start a war. According to my battered HP12C, that is 1/3 the tax that is being proposed on the hard drinking consumer here.
Larry, you didn’t answer my question. If the tax were assessed on total sales it would be a much lower percent for all concerned. Why isn’t that more equitable?
Larry, yet again you managed to avoid answering my question. I said it was against your self interest to argue for a tax on tasting room sales only. You can find wines from Santa Barbara in supermarkets and wine stores all over the USA. Won’t the wineries who sell those wines benefit from a Santa Barbara marketing campaign? Why don’t you explain why those sales should be exempt from the tax.
SB VINTNERS 3RD WINE BID PROPOSAL FAILS. The SB Vintners 3rd Wine BID proposal to tax tasting room sales including food, merchandize etc. at 1 1/2% but not tax Wine Club sales and Trade sales was presented on August 18th in an informational meeting to the SB Board of Supervisors. Some Supervisors questioned spending $1,217,651 or 23% of BID funds on advocacy. The auditor-controller’s staff report said the self-reporting “may not be practical or feasible. Accordingly, a change in the proposed basis is likely.” Yesterday the SB Vintners announced they were scrapping Wine BID proposal # 3 and going back to the 1% on all DTC sales which would include wine club sales but not wholesale sales to the trade. They still want the mom and pop wineries to pay the large wineries marketing to the trade. They are scrapping their advocacy proposal. Wine BID #4 will be released next week. As if we did not have enough to do with harvest and COVID.