Search results

The demand for alcohol is a well‐researched topic, yet the published literature regarding consumer responses to changes in the price of alcohol includes many conflicting and inconsistent results. This paper seeks to present an analysis of known own‐price elasticity estimates, and to attempt to understand why reported results differ.

The approach taken to analysing the data is the meta‐regression approach. Specifically, the meta‐regression considers 150 beers, spirits, and wines, own price elasticity point estimates, which have been drawn from studies that consider demand responses to changes in the price of alcohol in 18 different countries.

The results of the empirical work reported in this paper suggest that the year of the study, the length of study, the per capita level of alcohol consumption, and the relative ethanol share of a beverage are important factors when explaining variations in consumer demand responses to changes in the price of alcohol. Interestingly, the study also suggests that country‐specific and beverage‐specific effects are not important.

The paper is valuable as it uses the meta‐regression framework to control for study design characteristics and, once these characteristics are controlled for, it becomes possible to identify the underlying trend in the demand for alcohol. Specifically, the trend was shown to be one where the demand for alcoholic beverages became increasingly inelastic up to 1969 and decreasingly inelastic thereafter.

Concentrates on the elements of creating commercially successful wine brands through focusing on the three major areas for international wine and spirits companies ‐ the UK, the USA and Canada. Believes that the greatest body of consumer research has been undertaken in the UK and that in the absence of any other research from these markets the UK experience for the basis of this summary. Delves into the current wine market and consumer behaviour, segmenting this into a series of ways and types and categorisations. Investigates country of origin regarding wines and lists these giving a breakdown on each.

Next after butter and milk—as regards the total number of samples examined—come spirits, of which 6,938 samples were dealt with. Of the articles of which sufficiently numerous analyses were made to furnish reliable data, spirits as a class are the most extensively adulterated, and the 12 per cent. of adulteration recorded for the year under review does not, in all probability, nearly represent the real extent of the evil. Many samples are returned as genuine which have been watered beyond the legal limit because the vendors have exhibited dilution notices, a method of legalising what are essentially fraudulent practices which is, unfortunately, being extended to other foods and drinks, and bids fair to bring the whole execution of the “Acts” to a standstill. In addition to this there are the widest differences of opinion and practice amongst both Public Analysts and Local Authorities as regards those spirits which have been the subjects of prosecution, on account of their origin or mode of manufacture, i.e., for being partially or entirely the product of the “patent still.” Prosecutions of brandy for containing spirit not derived from the grape have been fairly common, and similar offences connected with whisky and rum have also been brought before the courts, and yet the proportion of “spirits” now found to be adulterated is 30 per cent. lower than it was ten years ago, when watering was practically the only offence recorded. In view of the interest aroused and the intrinsic importance of the whole question some details and some guidance also might be looked for in such a report as this. Unfortunately the spirits are all lumped together under one heading, and although the presence in brandy of alcohol not derived from the grape is referred to, no further details are given. It is, no doubt, the case that the Local Government Board is not in a position to express an authoritative opinion on any of the difficult problems to which we have referred, and has no legal power to fix standards or enforce their use; nevertheless the mere statement of the number of prosecutions, of brandy, for instance (for containing other than grape‐derived spirit) together with the maximum and minimum proportions of the foreign spirit or the figures for esters in the corresponding cases would have at least shown to what extent the recently promulgated standards for this liquor had gained acceptance throughout the country.

The Norwegian retail market for alcoholic beverages is controlled by a state monopoly. Wine and other alcoholic beverages above 4.75 per cent alcohol, can only be bought in government stores called The Wine Monopoly (Vinmonopolet in Norwegian) or consumed in hotels, restaurants, bars, pubs, or catering firms. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the Norwegian wine market and present some of the major opportunities and constraints facing foreign producers.

The objective of this article is twofold: first, to explain the role of the actors in the Norwegian wine market and second, to identify the market opportunities for Italian and other foreign producers. The organisation of the monopoly, the strategies wine producers may use to introduce new wines into the market, and the marketing levers that can be used to utilise the market opportunities are of special interest. The key informant techniques as well as official statistics are used.

Comparing the outcome of the authors' field research, done during the winter of 2010, with government statistics on wine consumption, it is clear that the competitive environment evolves daily. Consumers' tastes and perceptions play a crucial role in this dynamism.

There have not been many studies of the effects of the alcohol monopoly on the Norwegian market. Therefore, it is of particular interest to investigate the organisation of the Norwegian alcohol monopoly and how wine producers may successfully introduce new wines into this market. This paper makes a positive contribution to the literature in this field, giving some promotion strategies which could be achievable and could work in the Norwegian wine market.

Consumer researchers are interested in the degree to which global convergence is occurring along with various consumer behaviour dimensions and to what extent the consumption patterns in different parts of the world are becoming similar. With increasing internationalisation and cultural cross‐fertilisation, the industrialised societies of the world are converging in many ways. Shifts in alcoholic beverage consumption patterns in Europe over the past 50 years may represent a case in point. As traditional cultural boundaries become blurred, consumer preferences for wine appears to be driven less by long‐standing local and regional traditions, and more by growing acceptance of a wider choice. The disparity of wine consumption among the 12 countries studied has also decreased. Other powerful forces are likely to accelerate the pace of convergence in the future.

This article describes a study which is being undertaken by the authors of the adoption processes used by UK retailers in the case of new wine and spirit products. Following a literature review they outline the work of earlier researchers in deducing the factors which retailers, in general, consider in deciding whether or not to stock a new product. The principal factors are found to be consumer demand, compatibility with existing merchandise, financial criteria and manufacturer's support for the product The article also highlights the increasing concentration of buyer power in the UK grocery market.

In a previous article we have called attention to the danger of eating tinned and bottled vegetables which have been coloured by the addition of salts of copper and we have urged upon the public that no such preparations should be purchased without an adequate guarantee that they are free from copper compounds. Copper poisoning, however, is not the only danger to which consumers of preserved foods are liable. Judging from the reports of cases of irritant poisoning which appear with somewhat alarming frequency in the daily press, and from the information which we have been at pains to obtain, there can be no question that the occurrence of a large number of these cases is to be attributed to the ingestion of tinned foods which has been improperly prepared or kept. It is not to be supposed that the numerous cases of illness which have been ascribed to the use of tinned foods were all cases of metallic poisoning brought about by the action of the contents of the tins upon the metal and solder of the latter. The evidence available does not show that a majority of the cases could be put down to this cause alone; but it must be admitted that the evidence is in most instances of an unsatisfactory and inconclusive character. It has become a somewhat too common custom to put forward the view that so‐called “ptomaine” poisoning is the cause of the mischief; and this upon very insufficient evidence. While there is no doubt that the presence in tinned goods of some poisonous products of decomposition or organic change very frequently gives rise to dangerous illness, so little is known of the chemical nature and of the physiological effects of “ptomaines” that to obtain conclusive evidence is in all cases most difficult, and in many, if not in most, quite impossible. A study of the subject leads to the conclusion that both ptomaine poisoning and metallic poisoning—also of an obscure kind—have, either separately or in conjunction, produced the effects from time to time reported. In view of the many outbreaks of illness, and especially, of course, of the deaths which have been attributed to the eating of bad tinned foods it is of the utmost importance that some more stringent control than that which can be said to exist at present should be exercised over the preparation and sale of tinned goods. In Holland some two or three years ago, in consequence partly of the fact that, after eating tinned food, about seventy soldiers were attacked by severe illness at the Dutch manœuvres, the attention of the Government was drawn to the matter by Drs. VAN HAMEL ROOS and HARMENS, who advocated the use of enamel for coating tins. It appears that an enamel of special manufacture is now extensively used in Holland by the manfacturers of the better qualities of tinned food, and that the use of such enamelled tins is insisted upon for naval and military stores. This is a course which might with great advantage be followed in this country. While absolute safety may not be attainable, adequate steps should be taken to prevent the use of damaged, inferior or improper materials, to enforce cleanliness, and to ensure the adoption of some better system of canning.

In a Report, issued on July 9, 1896, the Select Committee on Food Products Adulteration recommended the establishment of a central government scientific authority, who should act as a court of reference upon scientific questions arising under the Adulteration Acts, and who should be empowered, at their discretion, to prescribe standards and limits as to the quality and purity of food. It was rightly held by the Select Committee that the constitution of such an authority is an absolute necessity in order that the all‐important question of food standards may be duly considered and dealt with, and that all matters affecting the administration of the Acts and involving scientific considerations may be placed on a more satisfactory footing. The Committee also expressed the opinion that the formation of such an authority would result in the removal of many practical difficulties met with in the administration of the Acts, and would largely obviate the costly litigation in which public bodies, traders, and others are constantly liable to be involved under existing conditions. Nothing whatever has been done to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee in spite of the fact that the necessity for some such course of action as that indicated has been demonstrated beyond possibility of question, and that further evidence proving the wisdom of the Committee's suggestion is constantly afforded. The Islington brandy case provides the latest illustration of the extremely unsatisfactory conditions under which public bodies are required to administer the Acts and under which traders have to answer charges made against them. A local grocer was summoned by the Islington Borough Council for selling, as brandy, a liquid which was certified by the Public Analyst to contain 60 per cent. of spirit not derived from the grape, and which was therefore not of the nature, substance and quality of the article demanded. The vendor naturally referred the matter to the firm who had supplied him. The case was taken up by a traders' association, and, after five lengthy hearings, in the course of which much expert evidence was given on both sides, resulted in a conviction and the infliction of a penalty of £5 and £50 costs—an amount which probably represents only a fraction of the expense involved. For the present we do not propose to review the scientific evidence which was put forward by the prosecution and by the defence. There is no doubt that Mr. FORDHAM, the magistrate who heard the case, was perfectly right in taking the view that the term “brandy,” when unqualified, means a spirit distilled from wine or from fermented products of the grape. It is also perfectly plain that when a person asks for brandy and is supplied with coloured grain spirit, or with a mixture of grain spirit and true brandy, he is prejudiced, and that the vendor commits an offence under the Acts. The fact that the term “brandy” has been commonly applied to “silent spirit” coloured and flavoured to imitate true brandy, or to mixtures of brandy and alcohol derived from other sources than the produce of the grape, is not a legitimate excuse for the sale of such factitious articles as “brandy.” The great difficulty lies in differentiating by analytical means between the genuine article and the imitation. The vast majority of people, being utterly ignorant even of the elements of chemistry, labour under the impression that all that need be done in a matter of this kind is to tell the Public Analyst to “analyse,” and that full, exact, and absolutely definite information which nobody can call in question, will be forthcoming as a matter of course. The evidence given in the case under consideration is quite enough in itself to show the absurdity of this assumption. On the one hand the Public Analyst stated that he was satisfied, from the results of his general investigations in regard to brandy and from the results of his analysis of the sample submitted to him, that this sample contained 60 per cent. of spirit other than that derived from the produce of the grape. On the other hand, a number of analytical experts called for the defence asserted that in the present state of analytical knowledge it was perfectly impossible for any Public Analyst to arrive at the conclusion mentioned in regard to the sample in question, and that, as a fact, the analytical evidence adduced did not justify the statement made in the certificate on which the proceedings were founded. The defence do not appear to have denied that the Public Analyst might be right. In reality it appears only to have been contended that his analytical evidence was not, sufficient to prove that he was so. At any rate the experts called for the defence certainly did not prove by scientific evidence that he was wrong.

It is a matter of common knowledge that beer, in its several varieties, is by no means the same thing to‐day as it was a generation or less ago; the progress of chemical and biological knowledge on the one hand, and the keenness of competition on the other, have led to great alterations both in the materials used in its production and the methods by which it is produced. Exact or reliable knowledge about this, however, is far from being common; vehement assertions are made that all or almost all the changes are for the better, and also that beer is now a manufactured chemical product of deleterious nature, in which little or nothing of genuine material is used. Such statements are rendered unacceptable by the existence of self‐interest on one side and prejudice on the other. A short account of some of the facts concerned may, therefore, be of service.