Wazua
»
Investor
»
Stocks
»
East African Breweries
Rank: Chief Joined: 1/3/2007 Posts: 18,378 Location: Nairobi
|
Why don't EABL competitors set up their distribution networks? If the distributors want out of the contracts with EABL, they should evoke the clauses that allow for an amicable separation. Apple [Safaricom] was smart when it opened up its own stores. Controlling the value chain from manufacturing to retail [especially retail] is important. Apple stores are hugely profitable. Mumias benefitted from branding their sugar which a step towards controlling their retail presence. A pity they screwed up. Unga's products are "branded" so folks [like @VVS] look for "Unga" products. Unga has opened 2 retail "distribution" centers for some of their products. I hope they open more rather than relying solely on unreliable/competing distributors. Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 9/29/2010 Posts: 679 Location: nairobi
|
VituVingiSana wrote:Why don't EABL competitors set up their distribution networks? If the distributors want out of the contracts with EABL, they should evoke the clauses that allow for an amicable separation. Apple [Safaricom] was smart when it opened up its own stores. Controlling the value chain from manufacturing to retail [especially retail] is important. Apple stores are hugely profitable. Mumias benefitted from branding their sugar which a step towards controlling their retail presence. A pity they screwed up. Unga's products are "branded" so folks [like @VVS] look for "Unga" products. Unga has opened 2 retail "distribution" centers for some of their products. I hope they open more rather than relying solely on unreliable/competing distributors. isn't this against anti trust rules? why force a distributor to only distribute eabl products? its not like eabl subsidizes these distributors anyway
|
|
|
Rank: Chief Joined: 1/3/2007 Posts: 18,378 Location: Nairobi
|
kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Why don't EABL competitors set up their distribution networks? If the distributors want out of the contracts with EABL, they should evoke the clauses that allow for an amicable separation. Apple [Safaricom] was smart when it opened up its own stores. Controlling the value chain from manufacturing to retail [especially retail] is important. Apple stores are hugely profitable. Mumias benefitted from branding their sugar which a step towards controlling their retail presence. A pity they screwed up. Unga's products are "branded" so folks [like @VVS] look for "Unga" products. Unga has opened 2 retail "distribution" centers for some of their products. I hope they open more rather than relying solely on unreliable/competing distributors. isn't this against anti trust rules? why force a distributor to only distribute eabl products? its not like eabl subsidizes these distributors anyway Why should EABL subsidize the distributors who have "exclusive" territories? The distributors make a fixed amount per crate. I believe EABL does pay for branding the distributors lorries. Coca Cola does not allow retailers to store "Pepsi" products in their branded fridges. I think EABL should revoke the "exclusive" territories for those distributors who want to carry other brands. That allows all to prosper. Free market. Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 9/29/2010 Posts: 679 Location: nairobi
|
VituVingiSana wrote:kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Why don't EABL competitors set up their distribution networks? If the distributors want out of the contracts with EABL, they should evoke the clauses that allow for an amicable separation. Apple [Safaricom] was smart when it opened up its own stores. Controlling the value chain from manufacturing to retail [especially retail] is important. Apple stores are hugely profitable. Mumias benefitted from branding their sugar which a step towards controlling their retail presence. A pity they screwed up. Unga's products are "branded" so folks [like @VVS] look for "Unga" products. Unga has opened 2 retail "distribution" centers for some of their products. I hope they open more rather than relying solely on unreliable/competing distributors. isn't this against anti trust rules? why force a distributor to only distribute eabl products? its not like eabl subsidizes these distributors anyway Why should EABL subsidize the distributors who have "exclusive" territories? The distributors make a fixed amount per crate. I believe EABL does pay for branding the distributors lorries. Coca Cola does not allow retailers to store "Pepsi" products in their branded fridges. I think EABL should revoke the "exclusive" territories for those distributors who want to carry other brands. That allows all to prosper. Free market. the exclusive territories are paid for in form of goodwill so this is no concession on their part, a distributor has to fork out 50m in a bank guarantee and provide another 50 in working capital, eabl does not do any branding, they have no case to justify a monopoly...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 9/23/2009 Posts: 8,083 Location: Enk are Nyirobi
|
kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Why don't EABL competitors set up their distribution networks? If the distributors want out of the contracts with EABL, they should evoke the clauses that allow for an amicable separation. Apple [Safaricom] was smart when it opened up its own stores. Controlling the value chain from manufacturing to retail [especially retail] is important. Apple stores are hugely profitable. Mumias benefitted from branding their sugar which a step towards controlling their retail presence. A pity they screwed up. Unga's products are "branded" so folks [like @VVS] look for "Unga" products. Unga has opened 2 retail "distribution" centers for some of their products. I hope they open more rather than relying solely on unreliable/competing distributors. isn't this against anti trust rules? why force a distributor to only distribute eabl products? its not like eabl subsidizes these distributors anyway Why should EABL subsidize the distributors who have "exclusive" territories? The distributors make a fixed amount per crate. I believe EABL does pay for branding the distributors lorries. Coca Cola does not allow retailers to store "Pepsi" products in their branded fridges. I think EABL should revoke the "exclusive" territories for those distributors who want to carry other brands. That allows all to prosper. Free market. the exclusive territories are paid for in form of goodwill so this is no concession on their part, a distributor has to fork out 50m in a bank guarantee and provide another 50 in working capital, eabl does not do any branding, they have no case to justify a monopoly... Companies that perfected the art of giving handouts to government officials to maintain their monopolies really suffering, because of; 1. Anti bribery laws back home in UK 2. Uhuru is a free market president. This is an opportunity for local manufacturers like Keroche, Kevian, Mastermind to thrive. Life is short. Live passionately.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/23/2009 Posts: 14,321 Location: nairobi
|
VituVingiSana wrote:kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Why don't EABL competitors set up their distribution networks? If the distributors want out of the contracts with EABL, they should evoke the clauses that allow for an amicable separation. Apple [Safaricom] was smart when it opened up its own stores. Controlling the value chain from manufacturing to retail [especially retail] is important. Apple stores are hugely profitable. Mumias benefitted from branding their sugar which a step towards controlling their retail presence. A pity they screwed up. Unga's products are "branded" so folks [like @VVS] look for "Unga" products. Unga has opened 2 retail "distribution" centers for some of their products. I hope they open more rather than relying solely on unreliable/competing distributors. isn't this against anti trust rules? why force a distributor to only distribute eabl products? its not like eabl subsidizes these distributors anyway Why should EABL subsidize the distributors who have "exclusive" territories? The distributors make a fixed amount per crate. I believe EABL does pay for branding the distributors lorries. Coca Cola does not allow retailers to store "Pepsi" products in their branded fridges. I think EABL should revoke the "exclusive" territories for those distributors who want to carry other brands. That allows all to prosper. Free market. Bia Tosha has led the way. Kudos madam COOP, IMH, KEGN, KQ, MTNU
|
|
|
Rank: Chief Joined: 1/3/2007 Posts: 18,378 Location: Nairobi
|
sparkly wrote:kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Why don't EABL competitors set up their distribution networks? If the distributors want out of the contracts with EABL, they should evoke the clauses that allow for an amicable separation. Apple [Safaricom] was smart when it opened up its own stores. Controlling the value chain from manufacturing to retail [especially retail] is important. Apple stores are hugely profitable. Mumias benefitted from branding their sugar which a step towards controlling their retail presence. A pity they screwed up. Unga's products are "branded" so folks [like @VVS] look for "Unga" products. Unga has opened 2 retail "distribution" centers for some of their products. I hope they open more rather than relying solely on unreliable/competing distributors. isn't this against anti trust rules? why force a distributor to only distribute eabl products? its not like eabl subsidizes these distributors anyway Why should EABL subsidize the distributors who have "exclusive" territories? The distributors make a fixed amount per crate. I believe EABL does pay for branding the distributors lorries. Coca Cola does not allow retailers to store "Pepsi" products in their branded fridges. I think EABL should revoke the "exclusive" territories for those distributors who want to carry other brands. That allows all to prosper. Free market. the exclusive territories are paid for in form of goodwill so this is no concession on their part, a distributor has to fork out 50m in a bank guarantee and provide another 50 in working capital, eabl does not do any branding, they have no case to justify a monopoly... Companies that perfected the art of giving handouts to government officials to maintain their monopolies really suffering, because of; 1. Anti bribery laws back home in UK 2. Uhuru is a free market president.    This is an opportunity for local manufacturers like Keroche, Kevian, Mastermind to thrive. Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 5/30/2016 Posts: 332 Location: Kayole
|
VituVingiSana wrote:sparkly wrote:kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Why don't EABL competitors set up their distribution networks? If the distributors want out of the contracts with EABL, they should evoke the clauses that allow for an amicable separation. Apple [Safaricom] was smart when it opened up its own stores. Controlling the value chain from manufacturing to retail [especially retail] is important. Apple stores are hugely profitable. Mumias benefitted from branding their sugar which a step towards controlling their retail presence. A pity they screwed up. Unga's products are "branded" so folks [like @VVS] look for "Unga" products. Unga has opened 2 retail "distribution" centers for some of their products. I hope they open more rather than relying solely on unreliable/competing distributors. isn't this against anti trust rules? why force a distributor to only distribute eabl products? its not like eabl subsidizes these distributors anyway Why should EABL subsidize the distributors who have "exclusive" territories? The distributors make a fixed amount per crate. I believe EABL does pay for branding the distributors lorries. Coca Cola does not allow retailers to store "Pepsi" products in their branded fridges. I think EABL should revoke the "exclusive" territories for those distributors who want to carry other brands. That allows all to prosper. Free market. the exclusive territories are paid for in form of goodwill so this is no concession on their part, a distributor has to fork out 50m in a bank guarantee and provide another 50 in working capital, eabl does not do any branding, they have no case to justify a monopoly... Companies that perfected the art of giving handouts to government officials to maintain their monopolies really suffering, because of; 1. Anti bribery laws back home in UK 2. Uhuru is a free market president. This is an opportunity for local manufacturers like Keroche, Kevian, Mastermind to thrive. Jubilee garment is the worst thing that happened to NSE KEGN, KPLC, KQ, SCOM
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/13/2015 Posts: 1,658
|
sparkly wrote:kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:kizee1 wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Why don't EABL competitors set up their distribution networks? If the distributors want out of the contracts with EABL, they should evoke the clauses that allow for an amicable separation. Apple [Safaricom] was smart when it opened up its own stores. Controlling the value chain from manufacturing to retail [especially retail] is important. Apple stores are hugely profitable. Mumias benefitted from branding their sugar which a step towards controlling their retail presence. A pity they screwed up. Unga's products are "branded" so folks [like @VVS] look for "Unga" products. Unga has opened 2 retail "distribution" centers for some of their products. I hope they open more rather than relying solely on unreliable/competing distributors. isn't this against anti trust rules? why force a distributor to only distribute eabl products? its not like eabl subsidizes these distributors anyway Why should EABL subsidize the distributors who have "exclusive" territories? The distributors make a fixed amount per crate. I believe EABL does pay for branding the distributors lorries. Coca Cola does not allow retailers to store "Pepsi" products in their branded fridges. I think EABL should revoke the "exclusive" territories for those distributors who want to carry other brands. That allows all to prosper. Free market. the exclusive territories are paid for in form of goodwill so this is no concession on their part, a distributor has to fork out 50m in a bank guarantee and provide another 50 in working capital, eabl does not do any branding, they have no case to justify a monopoly... Companies that perfected the art of giving handouts to government officials to maintain their monopolies really suffering, because of; 1. Anti bribery laws back home in UK 2. Uhuru is a free market president. This is an opportunity for local manufacturers like Keroche, Kevian, Mastermind to thrive. Uhuru a free market president I need whisky right now...or even better just give me what you are smoking
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 12/7/2012 Posts: 11,937
|
UMK is doing good before giving the baton to WSR. NSE was down even during Moi and Kibaki days, it will rise!!!!!!!!! In the business world, everyone is paid in two coins - cash and experience. Take the experience first; the cash will come later - H Geneen
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Investor
»
Stocks
»
East African Breweries
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|