All fair points, though I suggest there are ways for restaurants to learn about and then access the season's best sellers that are not tied to a singular distributor repping that winery and being the sole source of information/recommendation to them/the industry. Simply providing a leading sales table/ranking to users on WD Market's site would give them an idea of what's hot at the moment and leave the choice to buy to them. That's not even considering more user-focused outreach approaches that could be sponsored by wineries or third parties (adding a few extra bucks to the kitty) that included info such as this and ensures that users remain on the edge of what's driving the market. Simply retorting the argument as this would be a simple aspect to address if it really is considered an issue for the wider user base. Let's also not forget that WD will be rolling out WD Market v1 not WD Market v12.15 that will have benefited from extensive feedback and learning experiences over years of usage resulting in amended/augmented features. That's how any tech firm offering a software (or hardware) solution upgrades over time, and I bet all my shares that WD Market in 2 years will have additional features not on the first release version.
IMO the logistics support for Bibendum is the smallest aspect of the deal, the bigger one you already mentioned which I believe is key: immediate access to over 5,000 vendors through a to Bibendum's clients trusted channel, plus the signaling effect to peers of Bidendum. The risk to Bidendum, in this case, IMO is a lot higher than that to WD, and Bidendum's clients should understand that too, thereby recognizing why Bibendum took that risk. IMO it has nothing to do with a 20M DW8 shares grants or the fees they can earn, that's currently peanuts in terms of the risk assumed by Bidendum to their business if this was the backfire and alienates their client base they built over two decades. And that's a signal effect to its peers as the middlemen model gets attacked...in every industry...sooner or later.
I won't argue with your insider industry experience and belief that disruption will be harder due to the structural component you see. And in the end, that's a belief you and others are entitled to. I would simply highlight the following: banking for centuries was considered a face-to-face, relationship-driven business where the relationship built with your banker, often over decades, was paramount to doing any sort of business. Without that relationship in place you couldn't do anything. You had to physically visit the guy during narrow office hours (otherwise you'd miss him as he's off golfing) to discuss if you could add an extra $2500 to your revolving credit line next month to facilitate taking on extra inventory. Well, that's changed to the point where I haven't spoken to my banker in nearly a decade yet I am able to access and change loan facilities purely online, wire funds to any bank imaginable globally from my phone or ipad securely with immediate confirmation and none of this "Oh, I will have to call Larry in processing to confirm the payment was put through but they won't know for at least 3 business days either" BS they'd give you. Got a problem that I need to speak to someone about?!? There's a phone number or a hotline in some cases open 24/7. And this has happened in almost every industry, hence the massive growth of call centers a decade-plus ago and now AI adaptation, etc. Even the most conservative industries where trust plays a much bigger part of the business model than the wine industry are increasingly disrupted and the next generation of employees will be less apprehensive of change than current industry leaders. Yes, in the medical device industry and pharma industry sales reps are still killing it but take a look at some of the new start-ups being funded in Silicon Valley, Singapore, and Berlin that are looking to take a sliver of that market. (There is tons of historical research material on industry disruption examples from sell-side firms, consultants, business schools, etc that is freely available online providing a roadmap that more often than not is quite similar. History may not repeat but is sure rhymes.)
Will there always be outliers? Yes, I agree with your assessment, there is room if their product or service is so unique, their moat and brand are so differentiated and they do everything in-house then the pressure to change with their peers may be less strong. Even that can change over time if industry demands change in format, product attributes or delivery/access mechanism and they would then need to adapt, or die. Kodak is a great case example, or IBM in the late 70s, etc. One could argue that large wineries due to their share of the market fall into that category with their existing infrastructure and in-house reps, delivery drivers, etc. Would they be willing to change their delivery model if i resulted in cost savings and increased profits, all else equal? Yes, and I guarantee those conversations have been had. Why haven't they changed their MO and just jumped 100% into bed with WD yet? Business risk -- very simple. If they can save tons of money by switching to a viable, proven, and scalable model that can take on a substantial part or all of their volumes (in addition to the other business being handled) they will eventually move. Initially gradually to test it out and then take on more and more until they find a balance of in-house/external that's best for their model. And that's the proof of concept stage that WD is undergoing as part of everything else that's going on. So this isn't a 'if' question, but rather a 'when'. Considering the scale of this and what it implies this shouldn't be rushed and DT & senior management know the risk, requirements, and implications to the business model profitability and will ensure they get this right before taking a massive step.
Anyway, simply another opinion and hopefully food for thought. The future doesn't have a simple binary outcome and it's important to remember that. DYR, GLTAH.
Expand
(20min delay)