Beer Marketer's Insights
AB Lookin’ Forward and Lookin’ Back; Better Days Ahead; What Happened in March? Pricing
AB optimistic it will hit key goal of 12% earnings per share increase for 2001, group veep Randy Baker told analysts, as strong beer biz fundamentals "indicate a better situation going forward." Although profit margins for domestic beer biz flat in 1st qtr, AB expects them to improve as year goes on. AB reduced expectation for its volume gain (to 1.5-2% for shipments and STRs), but stickin by 2.2%-2.7% "guidance" for rev per bbl increase in 2001, whether or not theres a fall price hike. ABs rev per bbl up 2.6% in 1st qtr. Other expectations for 2001: cost of goods sold, including significant increase for energy, up 1.5-2% per bbl; mktg, gen and admin costs/bbl up 3%; domestic beer ad spending up 3%+. AB corporate hit double-digit profits gain in 1st qtr even tho domestic beer profits up 5% to $674 mil, as ABs intl beer biz profits more than doubled to $11.4 mil, packaging profits more than tripled, equity income from Modelo up $9 mil, 24% to $48 mil. More 1st qtr details: in Calif, AB STRs up "just slightly"; in Tex, STRs up more than natl avg of 0.3%, but "not outstanding"; in Fla, AB STRs up "quite a bit more" than 0.3%. Where was AB softest? "Particularly weak" in PA, MD, thru Ill, Ind, Mich, said Randy, and "a bit weak in the south versus our expectations." And with STRs up just 0.3%, "really none of our brand families did well relative to trends" in past few yrs. Bud family up more than 0.3%. Bud Light not up 10%, but high-single-digits (7% we hear). Michelob family down, Nat Light up slightly, Busch down. Randy stressed AB doesnt view 1st qtr STR trends as "representative" of AB trends for yr.
Randy also told analysts that "even taking these recent [price discounting] actions into account, competition has followed both our October and February price increases at very high overall rates, in the 80-90% range.... We do not consider the current level of discounting to be a significant change." Randy did note "an increase in competitive discounting activity in several markets" in Apr, but "these actions have typically been limited to a single package in localized markets rather than across the board." Randy characterized 1st qtr pricing as "very, very good environment." AB promotion expenses, he said, down 10% in 1st qtr, and had been down 8% in 1st qtr 2000. Miller continues to eliminate price gaps between its brands and AB brands in some states, according to Randy. Pricing situation not "comparable" to 97 when there was "massive" rollout of 30-packs and "very widespread discounting." A final point: "We really have not seen, on an overall basis, trading down" from imports or from premium-price brands to popular-priced brands.
While Miller Lite total sales-to-retailers were down 0.3% in 2000, Miller Lite was up in 27 states and in 60% of distribs, prexy John Bowlin said. 57 distribs were up at double-digit rate on Miller Lite. Sr veep sales Jim Mortensen showed that in some key states, like NY and Calif, Miller Lite distribution at less than 70% of off-premise accounts. If some of these distribution gaps closed, assuming sales at only 50% of existing avg accounts, Miller would gain about 5 mil cases annually. Other brands had less good distribution. Jim detailed opportunities totaling, he said, 12 mil cases in all. Cut his estimate in half, Jim said, and Miller would still gain 1% from these efforts. Tho Jim acknowledged need for better "pull" from ads, he asked: "Isnt it fair to think more is possible when it comes to distribution?" Miller focused lots on 7 key holidays that make up about 40% of beer consumption. Tho Miller lost share on Memorial Day and Jul 4th 2000, it held on Labor Day last yr. During Super Bowl 2001, Miller got displays in 66% of stores vs 71% for AB and 44% for Coors and "we were thrilled," said Jim. Miller has 21 share in convenience stores compared to 60 for AB, according to Jim. Recent convenience store study showed "return for space allocated": AB at $4.41 per foot, Miller at $3.50 and Coors at $1.55, "indicating" that Coors is "generally overspaced," said Jim.
"We will have to work through some bumps over the next few quarters," prexy John Bowlin said, like economic downturn, "spiralling" energy costs as well as Millers "unacceptable" volume results. Here are sales trends on Millers 5 key brands in 2000: Lite down 0.3%, Gen Draft down 6%, Miller High Life down 1.5%, Icehouse down 3.3% and Fosters up 1.4%. Those 5 brands over 70% of volume and over 80% of margin contribution. John said Lite "has to do better" in Tex, Calif and Fla "where huge and growing numbers of young adult Hispanic drinkers reside." And "we need to regenerate Fosters growth nationally." Heres more new mktg info from sr veep mktg Bob Mikulay: Miller will return Miller Genuine Draft to natl advertising, outspend AB and Coors on ESPN, spend $50 mil media on entertainment programming, spend 2x competitors on Hispanic media, got exclusive rights for World Cup soccer in 2002 and more. John also reiterated: "temperature controlled warehouses are essential" and that Millers June 2002 "deadline" for Miller distribs to have these warehouses "is real and were not changing it." John concluded that Miller "turnaround" has been "harder and taken longer than I expected. There was a lot to fix." But "like you, I am here to win."
Miller Ad Spending Will Be Up 20%; Sticking With "Premium Brands at Premium Prices"
Miller debuted about 50 new tv ads at its natl sales conference and said it would up media spending by about $60 mil in 2001, including 35% hike on Miller Lite and 38% on Miller Genuine Draft. Prexy John Bowlin said: "Weve made good progress on many fronts, with admittedly disappointing volume results.... Now we have to take our efforts to the next level." Miller is "not changing course," John said. Top execs discussed progress on pricing, packaging, advertising, sku reduction, etc. "I am convinced these were and are the right strategies.... It simply means that its going to take more time and more resources than we expected." Philip Morris COO Bill Webb said that PMs way is to "invest behind strategies and give them time to work.... We believe the results will come." He said current pool of Miller ads "a big step forward" which will "continue to be improved. It is an evolving process and the blowtorch is being applied." Miller will have "more muscle." Spending this yr "will be $100 million more than it was just two years ago."
Miller strategy of "premium brands at premium prices," had "a bigger impact on volume than we expected," said prexy John, but "were sticking with that strategy because its the right thing to do.... Most of our price gaps have now been closed. And we have plans in place to close the remaining gaps." John added: "Now lets not confuse tactical price promotions and competitive pricing actions with a change in our pricing strategy. They are two very different things." Sr veep sales Jim Mortensen said that competitors "may be planning to run deeper discounts this summer--in some markets. So we added money to our price promotion budget and were prepared to compete."
Miller/Coors Distribs "Only Option" in Most Mkts; Should Happen "Now," Sez Miller Sr Veep
There are 38 states where Millers share gap with AB is 20 points or greater, sr sales veep Jim Mortensen told 4000 folks at Millers natl sales conference. "In those 38 states," said Jim, "complementary consolidation (Miller/Coors combo) makes sense. Lets be more blunt. Its the only option." Miller guy should be buyer "most times," other times non-Miller distrib should be buyer; sometimes "a merger makes sense," said Jim. "We believe it is in our mutual interest to have the best operator... well-capitalized to compete with" AB distrib. "When should all of this happen? Well, right now!" Why? "The longer we wait the stronger the AB network will become and the less your businesses will be worth." Back in 1997, there were 149 shared Miller/Coors houses, today 191. "We expect that number to easily reach 200 this year and then accelerate.... That does not mean we consider Coors an ally. They remain a competitor and one we plan to beat and will beat."
Jim recalled that originally Miller had tried "reconfiguration" or "contiguous consolidation" (in neighboring territories) but it "just doesnt go far enough to enhance distributor scale at least for" Miller system. Yet reconfiguration is "effective option for AB ... that they will pursue," Jim asserted. "Imagine AB with 500 or 600 distributors instead of 770 today. Its not a question of if, its more a question of when," Jim continued. Smaller AB network "plays to a strength that AB has already, which is that AB and its network appear seamless to retailers. Chain retailers tell us time and time again that its easier to work with the AB network. Together, Miller and its network have more to do to better service the needs of chain retailers who are themselves consolidating and becoming more demanding." "Heres the rub" on consolidation, Jim added. "The worry or even disagreement in the room may be coming more from Miller than the distributors. Thats because we are all concerned, myself included, with the f word... FOCUS." More suppliers and more brands equal less focus. But Miller "will discover new ways to operate within a consolidated network. We have to." Jim concluded: "We have to strike a better balance between requiring focus and earning focus." Prexy John Bowlin added: shared houses "does not mean we are no longer competitors with those other beers, especially Coors.... Coors has gained momentum" last few yrs and "one of the biggest factors in their success has been consolidation into the Miller system.... By going into Miller houses, Coors has been able to leverage your experience and your talents. Going forward, we aim to recapture your commitment to our brands."
US malt bev shipments up 350,000 bbls, 0.7% in 1st qtr, INSIGHTS estimates. That assumes decent Mar gain for imports, up 12% thru Feb. But following tuff 4th qtr 2000, US shipments at best even for 6 mos. Recent retail picture is softer still. Both AB and Coors reported better shipments trend than depletions for each of last 3 qtrs. And volume flat-to-down Jan-Mar in 2 biggest off-premise channels: supermkts and convenience stores.
| Shipments (000) | Change | 12 Mos Thru | Change | |||||
| 1st 01 | 1st 00 | bbls | % | Mar 01 | Mar 00 | bbls | % | |
| AB | 24,475 | 23,975 | 500 | 2.1 | 99,700 | 97,350 | 2,350 | 2.4 |
| Miller | 9,600 | 10,250 | -650 | -6.3 | 41,882 | 44,325 | -2,443 | -5.5 |
| Coors | 5,112 | 4,827 | 285 | 5.9 | 23,149 | 22,047 | 1,102 | 5.0 |
| Pabst | 2,250 | 2,650 | -400 | -15.1 | 10,350 | 12,315 | -1,965 | -16.0 |
| Other Domestic | 2,988 | 3,166 | -178 | -5.6 | 11,136 | 11,660 | -524 | -4.5 |
| Domestic Total | 44,270 | 44,458 | -188 | -0.4 | 184,742 | 185,797 | -1,055 | -0.6 |
| Imports | 4,910 | 4,388 | 522 | 11.9 | 20,642 | 18,317 | 2,325 | 12.7 |
| Total | 49,180 | 48,846 | 334 | 0.7 | 205,384 | 204,114 | 1,270 | 0.6 |
| (Taxfree) | 925 | 950 | -25 | -2.6 | 5,034 | 5,629 | -595 | -10.6 |
| US Total | 48,255 | 47,896 | 359 | 0.7 | 200,350 | 198,485 | 1,865 | 0.9 |
| (Miller's Canadian beer volume -- Foster's in 1st qtr 2001, all of Molson USA for other periods -- included with Miller, Import and US Total shipments; excluded from Domestic total to avoid double-counting.) | ||||||||
ABs 1st qtr shipments up 500,000 bbls, 2.1%. But ABs sales to retailers (STRs) up just 0.3% "compared to an exceptionally strong" 1st qtr 2000 when STRs up 4.5%, AB said. AB STRs up only a little over 1% for 9 mos. AB sr veep Randy Baker told analysts that Mar "very weak" for AB and industry, that AB has reduced its 2001 volume expectations from a 2-3% AB gain to 1.5-2% gain. Despite tuff Mar, AB "rebounded" in Apr and "expects a return to more normal volume growth" for rest of 2001. Grabbed just below 50 share in 1st qtr; up 0.8 to 48.5 for 12 mos. AB also continued to extend lead over #2 Miller. In fact, over last 12 mos AB built lead over Miller by nearly 5 mil bbls, almost 10%. Miller announced 5.3% drop in "domestic underlying volume," which excludes Molson brands it sold in 1st qtr 2000 (a little over 200,000 bbls) and exports for 1st qtr 2000 and 2001. If you include brands Miller actually shipped both qtrs and exports, we estimate Miller shipments off 650,000 bbls, 6.3%. Any way you look at it, Miller down 5% or more for 3d straight qtr. Hasnt posted gain since 1st qtr 2000. Millers 12-mo mkt share slipped to about 20.4, we estimate. Coors shipments up 259,000 bbls, 5.9% in 1st qtr. But Coors upped inventories 300,000 bbls; its STRs were down 1.3%. Coors STRs flat for 6 mos. (Coors figure does not include any Molson volume.) But Coors shipments still up solid 5% for 12 mos. Pabst trends still running down mid-teens, we estimate. If Mar import ship-ments on track, means another half-mil bbl+ gain in 1st qtr. Domestic brewers below top 4 down slightly in 1st qtr at 3 mil bbls. Sam Adams shipments dropped 7% in 1st qtr.
Cone Cautions on Consolidation: "Guaranteeing Your Future or Guaranteeing Your Failure?"
Fla distrib Doug Cone cautioned would-be dealmakers to "look before you leap" and "make sure you are doing your own due diligence," in provocative talk at INSIGHTS Consolidation Conference. Doug is a 5-mil-case Miller/Coors/Pabst/import distrib who has already done 7 deals. But he sez increased distrib costs, increasing demands of suppliers and retailers and declining brands and biz values give reason for pause. His comments provided stark contrast to prevailing gung ho attitude toward economic synergies of Miller/Coors deals. Meanwhile, Fla distribution "landscape" is "changing relatively dramatically. Footprint issues are being resolved"; at least 3 deals should close by end of Jul. AB distribs in Fla buying Corona from Miller/Coors houses for $23.50-24.00 per case, Doug said.
Doug sees several issues as potential disincentives to consolidation. Doug talked about "real" issue of temperature controlled warehouses, which Miller requires by summer 2002. "Miller is very serious about it. Its in our current equity agreement," which Doug willingly signed, but its still "going to cost a hell of a lot of money." Doug pointed to a larger distribs "cost of retrofitting" which "will exceed the appraised value of that warehouse. Now, what do you do? Does this not become in some respects a disincentive for many wholesalers when they are looking at an acquisition?" More distribs than "anybody realizes," Doug said, face huge costs to "retrofit" warehouse. And while Coors quality standards are "a good thing," they are "sort of a double-edged sword." "I always want to be in the green zone" for quality, Doug said. But Doug took "extra days of inventory" to avoid summer shortages. And when sales soften, "without that pull" distribs could have "a problem" that "can translate back into real costs." Other cost pressures: fuel, electricity, and increasing demands of chain retailers, which are 63% of biz in state. Another issue: rapid decline of Pabst brands (with "no end in sight") which are still big part of many distribs bizzes. Of Dougs 5-mil cases, 1.25 mil are Pabst. And "all of us know that business for the last 6 months has been soft, even for Coors, even for Miller." Import and malternative growth, especially in rural mkt, not enuf. Tho premium and above volume up, in all "were making money, but not the kind of profit we hoped we would," Doug said. Tho Doug thought he was "building value" with acquisitions, Doug recently had valuation of his biz done and found it was worth $8 mil less than he expected. "That was probably the biggest shocker that I had had.... The pure fact of the matter is that over the last 4 years, the value of my business has been declining." Doug not sure 5 mil cases will qualify as critical mass in future. In conclusion, Doug said he is still "strong" in beer biz, but its "not as much fun as it used to be." And "Is it fraught with more pitfalls than ever? Absolutely."
Consolidation Works "Better Than We Said," Sez Consultant Joe Thompson; Case Study
Profit improvement after consolidation sharply increased distrib value and outweighed volume loss in before-and-after case study detailed by consultant Joe Thompson at INSIGHTS Consolidation Conference. In 14.7-mil-case mkt, Miller and Coors distribs consolidated to go against AB distrib which had 53 share. Going into deal, Miller distrib had 34 share, -1.1% volume trend, 22.8% gross margin and EBITDA (earnings before taxes, interest, depreciation and amortization) of 4.2% of rev. Coors distrib had 13 share, volume down 4.9%, 21.5% gross margin, and EBITDA just 1%. When deal first done, consolidated co had 285 SKUs. What happened? Distrib made "drastic reduction" in SKUs down to 140, killed major brand and "underestimated transition difficulties," as every buyer does, Joe reminded. Volume dropped 5% (more than forecast), but Joe said distrib still had broad choice, better shelf mgmt, and reduced out-of-stocks. At same time, financials worked out much better than forecast: consolidated distribs gross margin was 24.4% and EBITDA jumped to 9.8%. Why did margins jump so much? Distrib focused on higher-profit SKUs, and distrib able to price more aggressively. Less discounting too. Better yet, look what happened to value. Taking rough figure of 6X EBITDA, Joe valued seller at $1.5 mil before consolidation, buyer worth $10.4 mil, AB distrib estimated at $36.3 mil, or more than 3X value of Miller and Coors distribs as stand-alones. What was value after consolidation? With much improved margins, consolidated distrib boosted EBITDA to $6.3 mil. So using same 6X EBITDA formula, new distrib valued at $37.7 mil, slightly more than AB distrib.
In some mkts (where mkt shares break out 70-30), Joe warned, distribs "may have waited too long" to consolidate as mkt share gaps depress value. On supplier level, Coors and Miller may need to look at something like a "creative alliance," in Joes view, especially since theres not much volume left to take from 2d-tier brewers. Tho distrib consolidation has to happen and "works better than we thought," he reminded, "its harder to put [distributorships] together than anybody thinks. Its harder, it takes longer and it costs more money. The good news is: margin growth is always better than we think it is." Question now, according to Joe: "Can we do it fast enough?"
While distrib consolidation inevitable, especially more Miller-Coors deals, more talk this yr about potential pitfalls at recent INSIGHTS Consolidation conference. Yes, putting distribs together creates stronger, more efficient, more profitable bizzes and competitive pressures demand it, especially in mkts where high-share distrib has 2-1 advantage. But rising costs, softer sales, potential legal tensions, continued AB share gains and flat-out difficulty of running big consolidated distribs with multiple big suppliers gives some pause. Lotsa buzz this year too about figure tossed out that Corona being sold for avg of $23 per case these days, often to AB distrib. Articles below give real-life examples of how consolidation supposed to work, and how it's no guarantee. More next issue.
Programs, Prevention Partners and Policy; Can Industry and Activists Be On the Same Page?
When industry members get involved in local and national efforts to prevent alcohol problems, public health advocates often question their motives as well as the programs they choose to advance. Tensions between the industry and public health advocates (as well as amongst industry members themselves) inevitably result, as the story last issue on Tallahassee suggested. In this issue, INSIGHTS reviews several recent industry initiatives and indicates how some activists remain antagonistic. Since government officials and policymakers more and more often call for "comprehensive" efforts to prevent abuse?programs that embrace education, enforcement and environmental change?these tensions will continue to be a part of the alcohol issues "mix".
NY metro-area distrib Oak doesn?t deserve injunction to stop termination scheduled for Jun 22, Miller argued in fed ct response to Oak?s suit to keep Miller brands. Why not? Three main reasons: 1) Oak has "damage remedy" under NY law; 2) a state court dismissed same arguments Oak now using when Oak tried ?em to stop Heineken termination; 3) Miller has right under NY law to terminate Oak to "improve the efficiency of its distribution network" in NY metro area. One reason Miller?s gotta make its move now, it sez: "during Oak?s tenure as a Miller distributor" in metro NY, Miller "weakened" to "fifth best selling family of brands" (under 10 share) behind AB, Coors, Heineken and Corona. Miller "needed to have a larger, stronger" distrib in NY metro and will consolidate Oak biz with neighboring Miller distrib Phoenix, which already got Oak?s Heineken biz. With "summer selling season" coming on, Miller had "no realistic option" other than to terminate and consolidate, it claims, once Heineken successfully terminated Oak, given "reduction in Oak?s scale ... coupled with the benefits of consolidation that Miller had identified." Oak?s "barrage" of lawsuits in state and fed courts, Miller claims, offers a "variety of exotic theories to cloud the fact that Miller?s termination is legal." Oak will receive "fair compensation" for damages under same NY law that allows termination for consolidation, Miller points out. In fact, Miller sez that while Oak will be compensated for damages, "Miller would suffer greatly" if termination halted because it would "be prevented from increasing the efficiency" of its distrib network. The "cost to Miller of remaining tied to its current inefficient distribution system in a key market through the summer selling season would be great" and its ability to "recoup those losses ... is questionable at best," especially since Oak was so weakened by losing Heineken. Miller also states flatly it "has never done any of the things Oak claims are ?bad faith,?" including charges Miller was part of "price war" and/or "bottle scam" in NY metro. Turns out Miller negotiated to participate in consortium (with Heineken and Phoenix/Beehive) to buy out Oak and affiliate Boening Bros, but talks broke down. While Oak has claimed it will go out of biz if it loses Miller, Miller counters that Oak carries other brands and "has even added at least one new significant brand after being terminated by Heineken and Miller [Yuengling]. Oak?s claims of its imminent demise should therefore be taken with a grain of salt."
Miller also in court with 1 of its Tex distribs. Lubbock Bev Co had cut deal to sell its 733,000 cases to non-beer co Techtro for $4.2 mil, but Miller nixed. Lubbock sued. Charged Miller "unreasonably" withheld approval and then acted to "reduce" Lubbock?s value by not paying money Miller owed, "improperly and inconsistently shipping product" and failing to offer discounts or "honor agreements to share expenses" on local ads. Miller countersued and moved case to fed ct where it charges that after audit in 99, it found Lubbock owed Miller $30,000 in "overpaid FOB reimbursements." Miller extrapolated that amount to say Lubbock owed it $173,000. So Miller "entitled to terminate" distrib agreement "immediately, without any compensation." Lubbock?s actions are "fraud," Miller argues. Lubbock sez audit improper, denies allegations, continues as Miller distrib.

