Cde Monomotapa wrote:sparkly wrote:amolo wrote:The competitors were not making their own bottles but poaching EABL bottles thus not incuring the cost of producing bottles! The new bottle is clearly marked Tusker and cannot be used by competitor's brands. It's bad enough the competitors uses EABL fridges, so why should EABL let them use thier bottles too!
Does that mean the competition is on overdrive, buying the soon to be phased out bottles...
This is brilliant insight..eish! It is even too funny! Kenyans r shrewd to the core!!
EABL has millions (if not tens of millions) of bottles in circulation, Summit & Co maybe has demand for a few hundred thousand max... it would not make sense for Summit & co. to go hard after these with cash given that their sales will never reach such volumes(in my opinion)...
Tusker has circa 40% beer market share in Kenya, of course the old bottles will lose demand, especially if they phase out WCap & Pili as well. If they are sold as waste (throw away prices) for recycling into the new shape its a hell of a bargain!!
What is the cost of production for a bottle? I think it would be less than buying (eg. at the usual retail deposit price).
If I (summit & co) make a deal with a bottle manufaturer and buy a million bottles at 5bob (which is very unlikely) instead of 20bob I will save a "whooping" 15million bob!
This is pocket change in the beer market, probably a month's worth of ads on tv... nothing in the grand scheme of things!
Summit will always be in shit, they can only pray that EABL will one day want to buy them out.
"I'd rather be lucky than clever... every time!" - ME
"The problem is not what we don't know... it's what we know for sure that just ain't!" - MARK TWAIN
"Space we can recover... time never!" - NAPOLEON BONAPARTE