Results 1 to 8 of 8
04-10-2009, 02:22 PM #1New Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
Red bull in paying bars and clubs not to carry other energy drinks
I have notice that every bar and club you go to redbull has their drink in it. So i found out that redbull is paying alot of clubs & bars to only carry redbull and not bring in another energy drink
is this legal? Is it legal for redbull to do this?
04-10-2009, 03:03 PM #2Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Chicago, IL
04-10-2009, 05:50 PM #3Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
A very valid topic that many on this board can relate to in some way or another.
04-10-2009, 07:04 PM #4
It is very much legal. It is called an exclusivity contract agreement. As stated above it happens all the time in different stores, restaurants and bars. Companies pay big money to these establishments for them as well.
For an embelishment on the above example, Say Mcdonalds decides to bring in Pepsi fountains to go beside the Coke fountains, how many millions would coke lose just because pepsi is sitting next to them, same as with coke coming into taco bell. It is easier to the companies that have the contracts to just pay a chunk of this money straight to the account rather than have the account offer the customer a wider choice of beverages. I am not saying that I agree or disagree with it but either way it is what it is and I have no say in the matter. It is like when a new President is elected here in the USA. you either voted for the guy (or gal) and you are happy or you didn't vote for them and you are not. Either way they are the President and there isn't anything you can do about it until it comes up for another vote, then the entire process starts over.If what you did yesterday still looks big, you haven't done much today.
04-12-2009, 01:39 AM #5Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
It isn't totally legal. When large corporations pay a business to keep others out, it is called a monopolis action. RB is also bordering on an Unfair Trade Practice.
As in the Red Bull cases around the United States, RB will give money, free product and other bennies. There are Fair Trade Acts in the US that prohibit this but they usually don't enforce them. There are lawsuits in the works at this time to prevent RB from doing business in this manor. I guess that we can wait and see what happens.
04-12-2009, 06:50 PM #6
So I guess there should be lawsuits against every sporting arena, concert hall, and restaurant as well??
Most of these fair trade laws were introduced in the 1930s and are for the most part obsolete, that is why they aren't enforced much. They are akin to the state law in Oklahoma that you cannot go whaling inside the of the state (last time I looked at a map there wasn't any ocean here so why this law was ever introduced is beyond me).
I really doubt that all of the lawsuits against red bull will amount to anything other than the trial lawyers getting rich. It really isn't so much redbull wanting to keep the others out as it has to deal with greedy bar owners and the like bringing in inferior products and passing them off as redbull. This goes along the lines of sales reps with other companies using the line "it mixes just like redbull", "tastes just like red bull" and so on.
oh well I have ranted enoughIf what you did yesterday still looks big, you haven't done much today.
04-13-2009, 01:36 PM #7Bad Email - Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
You have to choose your words carefully... they don't pay them to be exclusive, they give them a bonus if the companies chooses not to bring other vendors product in... so its not the beverage company saying you have to keep business out OR ELSE, its them saying hey we'll offer you this huge bonus if you use our products only, but don't say they can't bring other business in... its the companies choice to earn the bonus...
Some state have laws protecting against this, like in wisconsin restaurants with fountain drinks must keep 1 line open to competition... and the vendor supplying their equipment, can't pick it up if the chain decides to make use of that law and put a competitors product on it... now maybe there is a bonus from that company if they remain exclusive they will pay out at the end of the year, but thats up to the store...
otherwise every store would have to carry every product ever made, otherwise face lawsuit against them... and we know stores don't have THAT much square footage... so its a matter of carefully wording contracts and tip toe'ing along legal lines to get it done... its not to say the salesmen might not be extra agressive and use wording they shouldn't but it all boils down to the same thing... pay that account more than their competition is, and you'll get the space... easy enough...
The chip example, is right and wrong... its not to say the store doesn't want to carry the chips you like, but through programs and pure sales, there is no reason for the chain stores to carry every little mom-n-pop brand... sure they might sell several cases a week but when they look at per square foot sales, that might represent 1% of overall sales in the aisle... why would they carry that 1% when 99% of people are buying something else? its dollars and cents for them... every delivery costs them money and time, it requires backstock space, it requires computer data input, it requires more money to put more products on the shelf... if they can get 99% of previous sales and not spend the money to capture that 1%... they stand to make more money on saved time and space...
P.S. I forgot to add... lots of chains won't carry a product at one or two locations anymore, they want to carry it chain wide in every account for uniform looks and display programs sent down to stores so every suqare inch of that floor is mapped out to reduce people displaying things the company doesn't want to, or stocking products they don't feel is a better bargain to the chain...
Last edited by DrPepperYummy; 04-13-2009 at 01:40 PM.
04-05-2014, 04:30 PM #8New Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2014