Hermit Woods Winery

[8gv]

Originally Posted by jbolty

Any business that mixes in politics risks alienating half their potential customers.

There is wisdom in this statement.

I had to zip my lip for my entire career as an employee and then as a business owner.

Now that I am retired I am free to offend all comers!

[jeffk]

While my wife and I enjoy a bottle of wine through the week with our meals and the occasional wine tasting and "special" bottle of wine is enjoyed, I am not going to pay $20+ a week for a bottle of wine. There are plenty of very good wines at reasonable prices out there. Our favorite is an $8 a bottle Riesling; $416 vs. $1040 a year. I could afford it if I chose to but am very happy with the less expensive wine and have $600+ to spend on something else.

That's me. However, I suspect that many feel the same way.

The winery can price it's products however they please for whatever reason they please. The public will decide, each person by their own standards, whether their wines are worth the prices they charge.

A comparison for another food product might be Ben & Jerry's that is a very good but premium priced ice cream. They also have a strongly stated "socially conscious" philosophy. They have done well in the market. I may not agree with their programs and even got a good chuckle when food analysis showed their products were not quite as "pristine" as they would like but I love their ice cream. However, it is an occasional indulgence because of the price (and sadly the calories). There are other excellent ice creams in a variety of flavors in the market at better prices (but sadly with just as many calories). I ignore B&J's pontificating policies and occasionally enjoy their delicious ice cream. Many people who buy their products have not the slightest idea of their "philosophy" and might care less if they did.

The free market, each individual making a choice to purchase based on their own value judgements, will decide the success of B&J's and Hermit Woods. I can tell you why I make the purchase choices I do and would be interested in why others make their choices and may or may not agree with them but in the end I don't care if others make different choices. As long as I am not forced to buy expensive (or cheap for that matter) ice cream or wine for someone else, who cares.

BTW, it's a whole other matter if the government sets a $15 minimum wage that removes my choice to pay entirely.

[joey2665]

I believe you are missing the issue. Yes they absolutely have the right to charge what they want as does Ben and Jerrys but the issue here is a specific surcharge for them to pay their employees the 15.00 per hour. Ben and jerrys do not have a surcharge because they want to save a rain forest. They take their profit and do with it as the see fit whether keeping the funds or contributing to social causes.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by joey2665

I believe you are missing the issue. Yes they absolutely have the right to charge what they want as does Ben and Jerrys but the issue here is a specific surcharge for them to pay their employees the 15.00 per hour. Ben and jerrys do not have a surcharge because they want to save a rain forest. They take their profit and do with it as the see fit whether keeping the funds or contributing to social causes.

The point is that Hermit Woods was transparent as to why they are raising their prices. If you disagree with the policy and price, don't shop there. B&J does it in the background by building their "social program" costs into the base price. Purchasers of either product are still paying for these programs whether you know about it or not. B&J's customers might want to put their heads in the sand about it and B&J's helps them do that by not breaking out the costs as an add-on charge. If B&J's has bumped their prices 5% to cover the cost of supporting their causes, isn't the effect the same?

For that matter, most banks, insurance companies, and other large businesses support music, plays, and lots of other local activities. Many are truly altruistic but if they don't they are not considered to be "good neighbors". They use a portion of the money I pay them to do this. I don't have a choice about it. What's the difference?

In addition, if I am a stockholder of one of these businesses, the management is taking some of the money that I should have received as returned profit and diverting it to other uses.

In short, businesses of all kinds are taking more money from us than they actually need to provide their products and using the surplus in ways they see fit. I agree that Hermit Woods doing it in such a obvious way can bug some people but the actual practice is typical for business.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The point is that Hermit Woods was transparent as to why they are raising their prices. If you disagree with the policy and price, don't shop there. B&J does it in the background by building their "social program" costs into the base price. Purchasers of either product are still paying for these programs whether you know about it or not. B&J's customers might want to put their heads in the sand about it and B&J's helps them do that by not breaking out the costs as an add-on charge. If B&J's has bumped their prices 5% to cover the cost of supporting their causes, isn't the effect the same?

For that matter, most banks, insurance companies, and other large businesses support music, plays, and lots of other local activities. Many are truly altruistic but if they don't they are not considered to be "good neighbors". They use a portion of the money I pay them to do this. I don't have a choice about it. What's the difference?

In addition, if I am a stockholder of one of these businesses, the management is taking some of the money that I should have received as returned profit and diverting it to other uses.

In short, businesses of all kinds are taking more money from us than they actually need to provide their products and using the surplus in ways they see fit. I agree that Hermit Woods doing it in such a obvious way can bug some people but the actual practice is typical for business.

I disagree in this instance. Again what any company does with its profit is up them and their shareholders to decide. They charge a price and I choose to purchase or not purchase that product. This is a specific surcharge for a specific purpose for a normal cost of doing business, "labor" which is always included in the sale price. This transparency in my eyes is NOT true transparency but a company making a political statement and passing it along directly to the consumer