PDA

View Full Version : Red Bull and Monster Distributors



Jim
01-29-2007, 02:20 PM
Just wondering if there are any regions in the country where both of these brands are coexisting in the same distribution house. Can anyone alert me to specific areas of the US where this is occurring?

It seems for the most part in NY and the Northeast that both brands have been split up ie Red Bull forced some distributors to drop Monster a couple of years ago.

Does Red Bull allow any of its distributors in other regions of the US to carry Monster? If so then where?

deepnenergy
01-29-2007, 03:40 PM
In most cases The major meaning RB, Mon, RS, and even in some states now Kronik. The exclusive right to distribute with equity prohibits the sale of other brands.

In some states a ED company might even have two DSD locked down between on & Off premise accounts and between sizes 8.4 vs 16oz.

RB started it along with giving equity but beer and CSD companies have been doing it for years.

Does this answer your question, bro?

greg
01-29-2007, 05:10 PM
It is my understanding in talks with all sorts of distributors that a RB distributor may not carry any other brand in the same house as RB. That also means they can not start a parallel company and use the same trucks as RB to distribute as well. It has to be totally seperate, and even then it is HIGHLY, HIGHLY frowned upon by RBUSA.
RB does not allow any RB dist to carry Monster.
Monster in your part of the country is a bit different than most. Due to the dist set up in NY, NJ, and the New England states they have not been taken over by the AB houses as easily or wantenly. The Monster deal, as it seems to me, was not that much of a sweetheart deal as most had thought.

deepnenergy
01-29-2007, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by greg:
It is my understanding in talks with all sorts of distributors that a RB distributor may not carry any other brand in the same house as RB. That also means they can not start a parallel company and use the same trucks as RB to distribute as well. It has to be totally seperate, and even then it is HIGHLY, HIGHLY frowned upon by RBUSA.
RB does not allow any RB dist to carry Monster.
Monster in your part of the country is a bit different than most. Due to the dist set up in NY, NJ, and the New England states they have not been taken over by the AB houses as easily or wantenly. The Monster deal, as it seems to me, was not that much of a sweetheart deal as most had thought. The DEAL as we all are looking at hasn't even got started. 07 was in the plan all along. It would be best for a company that has placement to move to gain as much as possible before ewe see full doors popping up all over as they intend to do.

I will tell you my fellow Ed people, the Monster AB deal is not over and when it comes in full swing it will be big for Monster & AB

Red Sox fan
01-29-2007, 06:08 PM
Monster just left Coke Buffalo and switched into "Try-it" distributors which is a Bud house that also carries Red Bull.

From what I understand Monster will be on the Alchohol side and Red Bull will remain on the NA side of the buisiness.

I agree with Greg, The Monster/AB deal will not improve Monster's distro substantially, in many areas it may go in reverse.

SumPoosieCat
01-29-2007, 07:11 PM
Sorry ... this is off track a little but does anyone know what Distributors pay per case for the RB 12ounce can?

greg
01-29-2007, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by deepnenergy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by greg:
It is my understanding in talks with all sorts of distributors that a RB distributor may not carry any other brand in the same house as RB. That also means they can not start a parallel company and use the same trucks as RB to distribute as well. It has to be totally seperate, and even then it is HIGHLY, HIGHLY frowned upon by RBUSA.
RB does not allow any RB dist to carry Monster.
Monster in your part of the country is a bit different than most. Due to the dist set up in NY, NJ, and the New England states they have not been taken over by the AB houses as easily or wantenly. The Monster deal, as it seems to me, was not that much of a sweetheart deal as most had thought. The DEAL as we all are looking at hasn't even got started. 07 was in the plan all along. It would be best for a company that has placement to move to gain as much as possible before ewe see full doors popping up all over as they intend to do.

I will tell you my fellow Ed people, the Monster AB deal is not over and when it comes in full swing it will be big for Monster & AB </font>[/QUOTE]Thats funny. I was in gentlemens office today...this is the truth, who was looking at REDLINE to help him gain some margin back that he lost last year to the Monster deal. He told me he recieved his final buyout buy out check in December, 3 months after he had to give up his Monster to 2 AB dist here in florida.
It is in effect now and I'm telling you you that even the AB guys who recieved the Monster says it stinks. They are the ones having to Buy out previous dist's and then they are paying 100% of the POS material, coolers, shirts, etc. Most of them are doing it against their better judgement to stay in good with AB Corporate and hope to see their money back in the next 5 years.

greg
01-29-2007, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Red Sox fan:
Monster just left Coke Buffalo and switched into "Try-it" distributors which is a Bud house that also carries Red Bull.

From what I understand Monster will be on the Alchohol side and Red Bull will remain on the NA side of the buisiness.
This is one of the problems a lot of AB dist are having with Monster. AB is used to invoicing customers and getting paid as product is delivered. With Monster in the mix a lot of retailers, most corporate, are telling them to invoice seperate so the can pay in net 15, 20 30 or whatever.
I seriously don't know how these guys can have RB and Monster in the same house. RB must beside themselves if they can't control this.

Red Sox fan
01-29-2007, 08:59 PM
From what I hear RB embraced this..If Monster goes on the beer side of the AB house it creates all kinds of legal and billing issues for Monster because of the rules surrounding alch dists. in many state (some of which you mentioned above Greg).

This was a proactive move on Red Bull's part to bring down a competitor! Love it..

Bill Brasky
01-30-2007, 08:06 AM
(Iverson Voice Here:)
Proactive? Proactive? We talking Proactive?
RedSox Fan: You of all people should know NOTHING from RB has been PROACTIVE in the last 5 years. Where do you think your success has come from? Clearly RB's failure to be Proactive and/or Reactive to the market and Monster/Rockstar's Proactive & Reactive measures.

Seriously..Proactive? The first time the ED World has even seen RB be REACTIVE is now with the 12oz launch.

As far as Coke Buffalo goes... I hear the rumors of their ways quite often in the beverage world. With Monster leaving, Rockstar has an opportunity to gain space there with Coke, but the Mgt. and Sales Force has ZERO execution there, not to mention most of W/NY has made their mind up it is RB and Monster to get their Energy Fix.

The AB house in Buffalo is an amazing distributor, surely RB's success there has improved dramatically from their amazing execution in the trade. Clearly they have their mind made up that they will make Monster and RB co-exist and make an statement for both companies...They know the world is watching. I'm quite sure both AB & Monster know what they are doing in NY.

deepnenergy
01-30-2007, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Bill Brasky:
(Iverson Voice Here:)
Proactive? Proactive? We talking Proactive?
RedSox Fan: You of all people should know NOTHING from RB has been PROACTIVE in the last 5 years. Where do you think your success has come from? Clearly RB's failure to be Proactive and/or Reactive to the market and Monster/Rockstar's Proactive & Reactive measures.

Seriously..Proactive? The first time the ED World has even seen RB be REACTIVE is now with the 12oz launch.

As far as Coke Buffalo goes... I hear the rumors of their ways quite often in the beverage world. With Monster leaving, Rockstar has an opportunity to gain space there with Coke, but the Mgt. and Sales Force has ZERO execution there, not to mention most of W/NY has made their mind up it is RB and Monster to get their Energy Fix.

The AB house in Buffalo is an amazing distributor, surely RB's success there has improved dramatically from their amazing execution in the trade. Clearly they have their mind made up that they will make Monster and RB co-exist and make an statement for both companies...They know the world is watching. I'm quite sure both AB & Monster know what they are doing in NY. Is not the Snapple distributor doing Monster in NY?

Super Jay
01-30-2007, 09:44 AM
No AB has Monster for all of NY state.

deepnenergy
01-30-2007, 09:49 AM
so what is the Snapple guys doing? did they take on something else?

Red Sox fan
01-30-2007, 10:04 AM
Deepenergy-Do you really think Red Bull just allowed Monster to walk in the front door of their distributor? You think they did it to "show the world the two can co-exist in the same house?" Wow, Red Bull has gone soft but not that soft!!!!

Wrong! the only way this happens is if Red Bull AGREE's to allow Monster in. And the only way RED BULL Agree's to that is if Red Bull beleives they are making a positive strategic move to degrade the distribution of a competitor. In this case Red Bull is fully aware, as is everyone else in that area that Monster will face many more challenges by being on the alch side of Tryit as they will be operating under a different set of rules and will have far more challenges than they had at Coke.

I do agree that being with Coke in this area comes with it's own set of challenges especially because of Pepsi's strong share in this market. However, they are capable as evidenced by their ability to grow market share for Monster.

SumPoosieCat
01-30-2007, 10:40 AM
I am not sure if anyone understands what Red Bull has been doing. The last few years all they have managed to do is come out with a bigger can. It is easy to see why Rockstar and Monster have picked up market share while Red Bull marketshare continues to drop each year.

Red Sox fan
01-30-2007, 10:51 AM
My repsponse above was for Brasky, not deep. my bad.

greg
01-30-2007, 11:00 AM
Thats what I like about this board......I learn something "almost" everyday!
Good info. Keep it coming.

Ron Swedelson
01-30-2007, 11:19 AM
I have seen a few houses that have both brands. But Red Bull came in second, and the distributors were not allowed to pick up another competing brand.

NRGSLLR@
01-30-2007, 11:41 AM
I still think this whole RB mess (restricting a business from distributing another brand seems like unfair restraint of trade) has to be a violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. What do you think Greg? Or Robinson Pattman.

What Monster needs to keep in mind, which I am sure they do, is that in many states, AB doesn't deliver to C Stores and is used to cash on delivery, this may throw a monkey wrench into things in the beginning.

deepnenergy
01-30-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by NRGSLLR@:
I still think this whole RB mess (restricting a business from distributing another brand seems like unfair restraint of trade) has to be a violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. What do you think Greg? Or Robinson Pattman.

What Monster needs to keep in mind, which I am sure they do, is that in many states, AB doesn't deliver to C Stores and is used to cash on delivery, this may throw a monkey wrench into things in the beginning. YOU ARE SO RIGHT IT IS, But it done by all ED, CSD and BEER but it falls under some exclusive distributor rights to that area and since they add equity to it it now makes it legal, not in all states but most. Now if they took it away companies could not buy doors anymore or do shelf programs for everyday price reductions to chains because you would still be buying the space like RB or Monster does to the DSD.
smile.gif

greg
01-30-2007, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by NRGSLLR@:
I still think this whole RB mess (restricting a business from distributing another brand seems like unfair restraint of trade) has to be a violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. What do you think Greg? Or Robinson Pattman.

What Monster needs to keep in mind, which I am sure they do, is that in many states, AB doesn't deliver to C Stores and is used to cash on delivery, this may throw a monkey wrench into things in the beginning. My opinion is this. I have read a little bit about the Sherman Anti Trust Act as has our lawyers given us advice about it. It seems that a company can demand that if you are to do business with them on a distributor level they can ask you to not carry another brand. It is up to the distributor to agree or not agree to this. It is freedom of choice. RB is not forcing anyone to sign the contract. It is a business deal that both parties agree to mutually at the signing of the contract. A GO or NO GO concept.

greg
01-30-2007, 02:43 PM
I revisited the Sherman Anti Trust Law and found this main theme of the law.
The Act also provides: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony .

In keeping within the spirit of the law I deem this to mean that a company or individual can not monopolize a certain industry or region.
Seeing as how there are a ton of distributors that carry other brands as well as tons of companies competing for market penetration I can not see how RB, or anyone for that matter, asking a distributor to only carry the one brand to be guilty of violating the Act.
IMO

deepnenergy
01-30-2007, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by greg:
I revisited the Sherman Anti Trust Law and found this main theme of the law.
The Act also provides: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony .

In keeping within the spirit of the law I deem this to mean that a company or individual can not monopolize a certain industry or region.
Seeing as how there are a ton of distributors that carry other brands as well as tons of companies competing for market penetration I can not see how RB, or anyone for that matter, asking a distributor to only carry the one brand to be guilty of violating the Act.
IMO and that ends that...

deepnenergy
01-30-2007, 03:52 PM
one quick question....could a company break this law by dividing their sku's in to size/flavor categories and doing the same contract with two or more different distributors in an area that there are limited amount of DSD that handle EDs???

NRGSLLR@
01-30-2007, 05:18 PM
I think the violation comes when a company demands that a distributor sell the product at a fixed wholesale cost (price fixing) I think ADM has gotten a lot of federal heat on that point.

greg
01-30-2007, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by NRGSLLR@:
I think the violation comes when a company demands that a distributor sell the product at a fixed wholesale cost (price fixing) I think ADM has gotten a lot of federal heat on that point. I will re-read the act but I think the Manufacturer can fix wholesale cost but it must be across the board. i.e. I can not sell it to Retailer "a" for $32 and go across the street to retailer "b" and sell it for $30( all things being the same)
BOSE speakers does this all the time. They set retail cost and when they have a sale all retailers have to have the sale.

NRGSLLR@
01-30-2007, 05:31 PM
I know it can vary by channel of trade and even volume discount, but my question is when I the manufacturer sell it to ABC wholesaler or XYZ distributor for $24 can I mandate they must sell it to a retail at $32 no more, no less.

dahojo
01-31-2007, 09:13 AM
No you can not mandate.

deepnenergy
01-31-2007, 11:24 AM
How I handle it is I SWP at 32 then let the DSD know that you will do programs to the c-stores that insure the 32 case price even though your giving everyday price rebates they still get the $8 per case and I've had them even split the extended price rebates with me for the 2/3 programs.

But to mandate, that's a bad thing. Most DSD I have had deals with will support your programs if you bring them in and show them why it will work. IMO

zne0
02-02-2007, 01:40 AM
speaking w/ local Bud distributor, this particular one does not sell the Monster Brands instead as an initial deal Bud sells Lost Rumba and Unbound and is waiting on the monster Brand to be move to the Bud house, There have been local Bud distributors that choose not to carry the Monster brand due to redbull I heard this was the case in the Bay area w/a local Bud distributors, In the previous post I read a comment on monster being w/ bud in the same house w/red bull in the beer side this being (after some research) monster wants to get in to the on premise business and bud is the best opportunity to get their food in the door, here in parts of california Youngs Market a liquor distributor services all of on premise accounts with Red Bull and the local Red Bull Dist services everything but on premise.

Ron Swedelson
02-02-2007, 10:25 AM
Is that in the East Bay that Youngs services? I heard they got rid of their on-premise routs in the local house. With the Bud House, and I think you are refering to the South Bay, they probably don't want to give up RB, and thats understandable. If Monster pulled from 7-UP in one area, they would probably have to pull from them in the rest of the Bay Area. So without their full network ready to go, Im guessing Monster will stay with 7-UP for a while, plus who knows what their contrac states, or how much they will have to pay. Man, if Coke takes Rockstar out here, and Bud takes Monster, 7-Up will be left with crap again. Most stoes would not put up with 7-Ups service before they had thoes two energy drinks.