Parsley Dept: USVI delegate Donna Christensen speaks!

This is the main discussion section. Grab yer cups! All hands on deck!
Post Reply
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Parsley Dept: USVI delegate Donna Christensen speaks!

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Speaks? Yes. Communicates? Are you kidding...


The one - and only - counter to the growing mountain of evidence against the massive USVI subsidies is offered by the "Honorable" Donna Christensen, delagate to the US Congress from the USVI:
“This [allegation] is simply not true. Imports of rum into the United States from the Caribbean are up year on year, according to International Trade Commission data. Moreover, the Caribbean producers enjoy many protections from their own governments, in the form of tariffs and taxes that are inconsistent with their own WTO obligations. Many of these Caribbean rum producers are owned by multinationals similar to those with which the USVI has partnered. Some commentators like to portray this issue as David versus Goliath. I can tell you that David in this story is the USVI, fighting to grow its own rum industry and keep its economy afloat.”
What chutzpah! Get your parsley, er parsing magnifying glass out.

1. "Imports of rum into the United States from the Caribbean are up year on year."

Ms. Mealymouth cleverly speaks of the "Caribbean", which - oh my - includes her own USVI and Puerto Rico. Of course sales are up, but not from the Caricom Caribbean, ie all the other "Caribbean" rums. Their sales are growing - worse - every year, from around 70 per cent of the total in 2000, down to 50 per cent in 2008, and falling steadily to 39 to 40% by 2011.

2012 figures are still not reported by the US (want to guess why), but they won't be pretty. And the massive subsidies won't really hit until this year, 2013. Knowing misrepresentation.

2. "Many of these Caribbean rum producers are owned by multinationals similar to those with which the USVI has partnered."


She means Diageo and rums like Zacapa that they own. She is saying that Diageo sales from the USVI and those from their Guatemalan Zacapa for example (already beaten and bought out by them), are somehow different. She is actually citing Diageo as an alternative to, uh, Diageo. Dishonest.

3. "Some commentators like to portray this issue as David versus Goliath. I can tell you that David in this story is the USVI, fighting to grow its own rum industry".

Poor little Diageo and the handful of poor islanders they hire to empty the wastebaskets at their huge and highly automated facilities that are usually run by a handful of engineers at a central control panel. What gall, girl. You are what ex-wives are all about.




*******
Time to stop, whew! The real hired help here are the subsidized "delegates" and PR maven who like to point at isolated sales as "proof" that "...it's all good ...nothing to look at here, move along folks ".
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:34 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

A picture is worth shutting the Compleat Idiot up!


From the January 2013 monthly newsletter from the Inter-American Development Bank. Please note that 2012 is not yet reported...


. . . . . .Image
(Source: http://www.iadb.org/intal/cartamensual/ ... ter197.pdf)


This is how the Honorable Prick from the USVI blows Diageo by misrepresenting the facts. The USVI is the "David" in this? Gag me with a spoon. Look at 1999 when the real Caribbean rums actually dominated, and 2011 when the rebated USVI/PR and the Big Three were steadily taking over. You can expect another drop in 2012, and a huge drop this year as the really big money kicks in.

An honest and fair analysis supports not the USVI delegate's version, but rather that of CARICOM which simply is that up until to 2012, their Caribbean rums steadily lost share, a bad situation that was (barely) tolerable. The steady loss of their once solid position of 71% of the US market, to about 40% - a loss of about 45% - nearly half of their formerly dominant share. Bad enough, but the new massive multi-billion dollar USVI subsidies change all that, and suddenly.

A rum renaissance? Sure, if you consider Batshit Dingleberry a rum. As far as real and true Caribbean rums are concerned, 2013 will be the year the guillotine starts it's deadly Diageo drop...

Rivers of rum and blood...
Capn's Addenda: For those who (rightfully) note that sales of CARICOM rum seems to increasing, despite a loss of share, keep in mind that a significant part of sales attributed to them are actually those of the Big Three. See below.
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:39 am, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
jankdc
Cap'n
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: Cleveland

Post by jankdc »

Is it my imagination or is the overall dollar amount of Caricom rum actually growing? I know it's still bad and the USVI/Diageo production hasn't fully come online, but this chart actually give me a little hope that most of the producers can stick it out until these unfair trade agreements are challenged.
Rum Reviews Rankings and Cheat Sheet
References: MGXO, R Mat. GR, Scar Ibis, Apple 12, Barb 5, Pusser's, Wray and Neph, ED 15, 10Cn, West Plant, R Barc Imp.
da'rum
Minor God
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:09 pm

Post by da'rum »

Thats a good point Jankdc, it does seem by looking at that graph that Caricom nations are actually selling more now in quantity than ten years ago even though the percentage of overall sales has dropped.

What say you Jimbo? Any clarification on this?
in goes your eye out
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

So sorry, and easy...


1. Keep in mind that the CARICOM's share includes Zacapa, Pampero, Myers's, Cacique, Castillo, Estelar and others owned by the Big Three. Almost all of these sell very well as the Big Three also control distribution.

2. The CARICOM figures also include bulk sales of rum to - drum roll! - yup, the Big Three. How do you spell b-l-a-c-k-m-a-i-l? It's called shut up, bend over and spread em. Like coffee and bananas this turns the Caribbean into sharecroppers who can no longer afford to make, age and sell the real and quality rums we adore.

3. The BIG THREE sales are so big, so incestuous that they even make some of their own cheap brands with bulk CARICOM rum. Example:


Image
(Credit: Tiki Central)


Castillo used to be a sub-brand owned and made by Bacardi in PR, and was clearly marked as "Puerto Rican Rum". Growing sales forced the Bat to buy bulk rum from CARICOM, and now the bottle is labeled "Caribbean" (hard to see, on purpose). According to Tiki Central "...it used to say "DISTILLED AND BOTTLED BY RON DE CASTILLO Y CIA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO". The words "Distilled and" are gone, now." Capish? Of course. And even much rum labeled "Bacardi" is also sourced elsewhere (and credited to CARICOM).

So sorry, my sincere apologies. I know all this stuff but should have posted it. Taking into account that a signficant share of the CARICOM numbers are actually those of the wolves in disguise, it's way, WAY worse, and it's already very, very bad even as of 2011.

I have made an official request with the Inter-American Bank (they actually give you a case number, and promise to answer in no more than 30 days) to get the 2012 figures. Last and far from least: even through 2011, it was very, very bad and as per a CARICOM post "barely tolerable". Now let's toss an atomic bomb into the region: additional massive subsidies that make the rebates look like chump change - that will kick in this year, and it's game over.

When Carl Kanto not only signs the petition, but publicly states that he fears that El Dorado and others may soon be history, what more needs to be said? Not much. And I'm not about to argue with Dave Broom either. It's real, it's bad, it's worse than we know, and it's soon. Hope that helps.


Bottom Line

1. It was very bad.

2. It was getting worse.

3. The trends are all wrong, and are about to change dramatically.

4. And now, unless they can walk on air, it's Rum, er Road Runner time...


Image
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
da'rum
Minor God
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:09 pm

Post by da'rum »

Thanks for the extra information, however.. if what you say is true, then that graph is confusing and mis-representative and dare I say as useless as a chocolate tea kettle.

A graph is a tool to make things self explanatory, this graph fails.


*******
Capn's Log: Absolutely right, I noticed that myself, but I know what's behind it. Unfortunately, this is beyond most monkeys. Keep in mind this graph was made by the IAB (which is dominated by US interests). As a former researcher you are right - this is a self serving graph which was accomplished by stacking the results instead of a side-by-side style of graph which would have given a more honest picture, even with the misleading data used (which compares origin only, and not ownership or transfer).

As for the monkeys, they might understand the Wile E. Coyote graph though, lol...
in goes your eye out
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

A more accurate presentation would be this...


. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Image


Much more revealing, eh? This graph is the very same graph of the ITC (or IAB), but presents the sales side-by-side instead of stacked. Stacking is fine if your interest is total rum sales, but makes comparison of the CARICOM share difficult. A purposeful presentation by this US department.

Even this is misleading for two reasons:

(1) The data counts the Big Three's bulk rum purchases as being from CARICOM. Diageo and Bacardi both purchase bulk Caribbean rums for sales which are actually theirs. In response to CARICOM's intention to file a WTO complaint, Diageo made clear they would have to rethink these purchases. How do you spell b-l-a-c-k-m-a-i-l?

(2) As noted above, the sales of Zacapa and other brands owned by Diageo and Bacardi are also included in CARICOM's share. The real share of actual Caribbean owned fine aged rums is far less, and getting worse. Just look at your retailers' rum shelves.

Keep in mind that 2012 figures are not yet in - further this does not count the effect of the new and absolutely massive and unprecedented, multi-billion dollar subsidies that threaten to crush their tiny Caribbean competition.

We are watching an execution...
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Let's play with numbers...


It's clear from the graph above that the trends are all wrong for Caribbean rums, even before the USVI subsidies. Another negative factor is that not all the sales attributed to CARICOM belong to them. A prime example is Zacapa. Diageo had been promoting and distributing Zacapa for about three years prior to 2011. When this contract ended - very successfully - Diageo decided to buy a 50% share of Zacapa for what was chump change for them - $150 million pounds. Was it a good deal?

Absolutely! In the rest of 2011 and 2012 the Zacapa brand grew by triple digits and was one of Diageo's highly promoted success stories. And what defines success? In 2011 that would be a 50% share of 200,000 12-bottle cases.


Now let's play!

Diageo's share of those sales would be one-half, or 100,000 12-bottle cases. In a post I found, a retailer from California stated that a few years back the wholesale cost was $19 a bottle (to a California retailer), for a suggested retail price of $30. Let's say the distributor's cost was half that, or $9.50 per bottle x 100,000 cases x 12 bottles per case. Grand total: $9.5 Million dollars. I repeat - $9.5 Million dollars for Diageo's share of Zacapa. And just why is that important?

Because $9.5 million is pretty much the difference in alleged CARICOM sales between 2010 and 2011. And there's more. Nor does the graph properly account for Diageo's Venezuelan brand, or the bulk rum that both Diageo and Bacardi buy for their own "Caribbean" products. In sum...

Now these are a dumb ass estimate but even so it doesn't take a Compleat Idiot to realize that the Caribbean numbers, as bad as they are already, are actually much worse. If anyone has a better notion of what the importers pay per bottle or case, make yourself known...


*******
Link: http://www.drinksint.com/news/fullstory ... _deal.html
(About the Diageo/Zacapa deal and sales figures)
User avatar
jankdc
Cap'n
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: Cleveland

Post by jankdc »

Great analysis Jimbo. Thanks!
Rum Reviews Rankings and Cheat Sheet
References: MGXO, R Mat. GR, Scar Ibis, Apple 12, Barb 5, Pusser's, Wray and Neph, ED 15, 10Cn, West Plant, R Barc Imp.
Post Reply