Painkiller, Pusser's Rum and a Tiki Bar - General Tiki

J jokeiii Tiki Socialite Miami, FL Joined: Sep 18, 2010 Posts: 503	J jokeiii Posted posted on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 4:14 AM Well, I'm certainly not going to subsidizing Pusser's actions. Someone, somewhere, called this a pyrrhic victory for Pusser's and I think that's right. Gary Regan and others are calling for no backlash against Pusser's but, rather, increased support for PKNY. Which is nice, but not exactly, y'know, practical for those of us living in Florida (or Arizona, or Illinois, or Australia, or...) and so, to show my displeasure in the Adam Smith-approved way, I have decided to forego purchasing Pusser's and strongly advocate other like-minded folks do likewise. It's one thing, I think, to trademark a cocktail with your brand name on it (i.e. "The Bacardi Cocktail") and quite another to become a squatter and then to defend the squatting. Is it legal? It seems to be. Is it right? I don't think it is, but others may disagree. (Fine, whatever.) The more relevant question should be "Is it a net plus, a sound business decision at the end of it all?" The answer, as I think Pusser's will discover to its great cost is likely to be "no." By their own admission, they move +/-30K cases of rum. That's not a lot of wiggle room. Pusser's appeals (or seeks to) serious cocktailians. (That Painkiller in a can? Not a good idea, Pusser's. That's like a Ferrari moped.) Those people know there are other options out there and are likeliest to be outraged by these developments. The rest of the world will happily go on drinking Bacardi. So if you don't move a ton of product AND you only move that product among a certain niche of the population, angering that niche (or a significant portion thereof) is not the brightest business move. As far as I can tell, Pusser's is in damage-control mode, and failing. The statement issued by founder Charles Tobias struck me as a bit dismissive and condescending (i.e. "if you don't like the law, change it") and not likely to win the hearts and minds of that very same niche upon which Pusser's sales are so dependent. Moral of the story? Just because you can, legally, do something doesn't make it correct or, perhaps more importantly, a wise business decision.

Well, I'm certainly not going to subsidizing Pusser's actions. Someone, somewhere, called this a pyrrhic victory for Pusser's and I think that's right.

Gary Regan and others are calling for no backlash against Pusser's but, rather, increased support for PKNY. Which is nice, but not exactly, y'know, practical for those of us living in Florida (or Arizona, or Illinois, or Australia, or...) and so, to show my displeasure in the Adam Smith-approved way, I have decided to forego purchasing Pusser's and strongly advocate other like-minded folks do likewise.

It's one thing, I think, to trademark a cocktail with your brand name on it (i.e. "The Bacardi Cocktail") and quite another to become a squatter and then to defend the squatting. Is it legal? It seems to be. Is it right? I don't think it is, but others may disagree. (Fine, whatever.) The more relevant question should be "Is it a net plus, a sound business decision at the end of it all?" The answer, as I think Pusser's will discover to its great cost is likely to be "no."

By their own admission, they move +/-30K cases of rum. That's not a lot of wiggle room. Pusser's appeals (or seeks to) serious cocktailians. (That Painkiller in a can? Not a good idea, Pusser's. That's like a Ferrari moped.) Those people know there are other options out there and are likeliest to be outraged by these developments. The rest of the world will happily go on drinking Bacardi. So if you don't move a ton of product AND you only move that product among a certain niche of the population, angering that niche (or a significant portion thereof) is not the brightest business move.

As far as I can tell, Pusser's is in damage-control mode, and failing. The statement issued by founder Charles Tobias struck me as a bit dismissive and condescending (i.e. "if you don't like the law, change it") and not likely to win the hearts and minds of that very same niche upon which Pusser's sales are so dependent.

Moral of the story?

Just because you can, legally, do something doesn't make it correct or, perhaps more importantly, a wise business decision.

Post #593729 by jokeiii on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 4:14 AM