UKCF members loyalty discount ?.

[monkey66]

It is probably fair to say that the internet has changed retailing for ever. We all romanticise about the great service of old but most of us (these days) but from the cheapest on-line retailer (give or take).

We have just seen another major high street chain go into receivership. Why, because we go into the store, look at the products and go and buy it on-line for less. This is nearly impossible for retailers to compete with when they have the expense of bricks and mortar.

I expect service and will pay a premium for it but I don't (any more) expect the same service from the cheapest supplier I can find on-line compared to retailers I know and trust. When I buy from the cheapest on-line type place (that I don't really know) I accept the risk that their customer service may be crap.

This does not make it right (and I have had many a fight) but it is a reality. Paypal and CC charge-back is one of the few tools available.

[whisky77]

I think it is all about relationships with individual retailers. Build this up (face to face or on the phone) and this is the way to go.

I suspect the reality is they can never compete with duty-free prices (or even come close) as the difference can be up to 70% and I am sure their retail margin is nothing like that.

One could suppose there may be more damage than gain to dropping your margins (if you still cannot compete) on what is after all a luxury goods market.

Retailers put offers on here from time to time (Davidoff, CGars, JJ Fox, LCHD (Ajay) ). I have seen great deals on mysmokingshop and cigarsunlimited to name a couple (I'm sure Tipp has some more for the list). I believe if you become a member at LCDH you get an on-going discount.

I think more significantly that the afficianado part of the market is a small percentage of overall sales and we have nothing like the buying power we might think we have. With this in mind no-one is going to significantly devalue their market for a disproportionately small sector (relative to the profit impact).

It is probably safe to assume that H and F and the established UK retailers are not stupid, indeed the ones I have met are pretty sharp business-people.

I will however put your suggestion to the guys and girls I know (as and when and see them) and see what response I get. Realistically though I find it hard to imagine (even with group buys) that we would see more than 10-20% discount (they need to eat like the rest of us). I question if that would be enough to tempt people away from duty free?

NB - All of the above is based on nothing more than my speculation!

Valid point Monkey, the retailers are working within a different market segment to the duty free markets and the margins are simply not there, or certainly not within the European marketplace.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Forum Runner

[JOAO LA PEZ]

If the margins are so bad then someone please explain how a box of 25 i pay ?32 for whilst on holiday costs ?155 in this country, now that ?32 includes the government tax and a profit margin.

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

[monkey66]

If the margins are so bad then someone please explain how a box of 25 i pay ?32 for whilst on holiday costs ?155 in this country, now that ?32 includes the government tax and a profit margin.

Different rates of tax in different countries, different companies with different profit margins.

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Any particular reason that you posted this Joao

[JOAO LA PEZ]

Different rates of tax in different countries, different companies with different profit margins.

You insulting our intelligence with that comment

Everything needed to make informed judgements is out on the net.

Article 19, read it and think about the restriction on what we are allowed to post about on here, there is a contradiction. So, is it illegal to discuss or inform about offshore sellers, or is it the act of purchasing with the intention of defrauding HMRC?, I think it is the latter as Article 19 clearly gives carte blanche to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

[monkey66]

Could be wrong but pretty sure it wouldn't grant permission for discussions of a potential criminal nature. Otherwise one could discuss plans for peodhipilia, terrorism ...anything?

Every forum and blog has and uses moderation (im thinking about the comments left on The Times after an article). Are you suggesting they are all breaching European Law?

I really am not tring to be flippant or insulting so please do not take it as such. An interesting discussion.

Sent from happy, clappy, tappy.

[JOAO LA PEZ]

The discussion of criminal acts is a lot different from sharing legitimate information, I am no lawyer but Article 19 seem pretty simple to understand. Human rights a breached all the time in many things.

If someone asks me on here where i go to purchase Duty Free Cigars when abroad and i answer "I go to XXXXXX cigar merchants in XXXXXXXX country, that is sharing legitimate information. And here is where i believe the contradiction lies.

Inquiring of me how to defraud HMRC now that would be breaking the law.

[tippexx]

Could be wrong but pretty sure it wouldn't grant permission for discussions of a potential criminal nature. Otherwise one could discuss plans for peodhipilia, terrorism ...anything.

I think intent is the qualifier Monk. Two blokes sitting at computers at opposite ends of the World discussing any of those things might be planning something bad .... or they might be writing a screen play!

[Deano]

Yes and there was/is plenty of intent in the discussions on here and elsewhere!

[Deano]

The discussion of criminal acts is a lot different from sharing legitimate information, I am no lawyer but Article 19 seem pretty simple to understand. Human rights a breached all the time in many things.

If someone asks me on here where i go to purchase Duty Free Cigars when abroad and i answer "I go to XXXXXX cigar merchants in XXXXXXXX country, that is sharing legitimate information. And here is where i believe the contradiction lies.

Inquiring of me how to defraud HMRC now that would be breaking the law.

Well that's why we allow exactly that. What we don't allow is the discussion of sole on-line retailers whose main purpose is to sell to tax-heavy states, such as the UK.

[tippexx]

Yes and there was/is plenty of intent in the discussions on here and elsewhere!

But no bad intention then or now. Human nature as always is what it is, and forbidden fruits the more tempting when surrounded by orchards. Rules are Rules and I understand that, but I also understand that our BOTL might be inquiring after knowledge to satisfy their curiosities or experiences to allay their fears and anxieties. Once upon a time we could all help each other, now that isn't quite so easy.

[Deano]

Doesn't matter if there's 'bad intention', or whatever human nature is. We live in a country that has laws, which we must abide by.
The rules on this forum must abide by these too, or the owner/moderator of such an entity could be in contention for criminal prosecution.

[Deano]

I must say, quite blandly, and please don't take offence - I just simply do not understand why people can't in-turn understand these basic, basic principles. What am I missing?

[Drewmidorn]

.

[monkey66]

What i think we are talking about is interpretation. This is the key to the difference of opinions.

The question we examined was: if we allow open discussion of sources of tax free tobacco products, could a judge think it reasonable that we must have known this information would potentially be used to defraud HMRC? The implication being conspiracy to evade taxes.

Our belief is they could so we take the position not to.

As you know law is all about interpretation, intent and reason. These are often grey areas (hence a lot if rich lawyers). You may be right but no one in their right mind would risk a court case to find out.

With this in mind i think it is clear that we will not be changing our position on this subject. I respect your opinion on the subject and i trust you respect ours.

On the subject of human rights there are far more significant issues in this world than the price of cigars!



Sent from happy, clappy, tappy.