Figures show UK drinkers favour beer over wine

I was interested to read the article 'Wine pips beer as top tipple: survey in your issue of 14 July.

The article claims that 'three-quarters of drinkers consume wine... while beer is drunk by 59% of the drinking public. The piece was evidently based on research by Synovate, which polled 2,000 adults across four countries including the UK and asked them what they drank in a 'typical week.

Recent data for the UK from TNS Alcovision (12 months ending December 2004), which surveys 20,000 adults, paints a very different picture, in which beer is still the nation's most popular everyday drink. According to Alcovision, 32% of drinkers have enjoyed a beer within the last seven days, compared to 27% who have drunk wine.

The article also states that men choose beer over wine as their favourite drink but that 'the gap is small. It is not clear how the 'favourite drink status is derived, but looking at what men actually drink, more than 50% have had a beer in the last week, compared to 24% for wine. Women are choosing wine over beer, but not by the 'overwhelming margin claimed in the piece 29% have drunk wine in the last week compared to 14% for beer.

Despite the growth of wine, the drink that is enjoyed by more consumers on more occasions in the UK is beer, and this is reflected in the most recent consumption figures from HM Revenue & Customs: in 2004, beer consumption was 60,272,000 hectolitres, compared to wine's 12,742,000.

Ros Shiel

PR Manager

Beautiful Bee

Sky's unfair pricing policy needs addressing

So it's official. Sky has stung pubs and clubs again with its usual outrageous annual price increases, this time with reports of rises of between 12% and 29%.

Sky has tried to justify these increases by claiming that following the April rateable value revisions, two thirds of subscribers had remained in the same charging band or had dropped to a lower level. The problem with this is that your rateable value could have been reduced but if you remain in the same band you are still going to be hit by a hefty increase and in some instances if you have only dropped by one band you are still paying around the same or slightly more than last year. So you are not necessarily going to be better off even if your rateable value has gone down.

I have not spoken to a licensee yet that has dropped to a lower level and believe me, I have spoken to a few on this issue. In fact, one licensee has seen his rateable value reduced by £5,000 but he still falls into the same charging band (band J) so he has been hit by an increase of around 12%. If you take just that one example of band J, this covers a rateable value range of £25,001 to £33,000. Surely it is common sense to anyone that a premises with a rateable value of £33,000 has a far greater turnover than one with a rateable value of £25,001, but with Sky these premises would be paying the same price. This is totally unfair and this is where the problem starts with Sky's pricing policy.

Sky always hits back at the industry and asks for a suggestion of a fairer system. I know for a fact that it has had several meetings recently before the price increases were announced with industry bodies and suggestions have been put forward.

One is to assess the charges on area space or capacity of the premises. In reality this is not going to work as who is going to go round to all the pubs and clubs that have Sky and collect this information? This would be a mammoth task and one I am sure Sky would claim not to have the resources to carry out.

Another is that of a rateable value multiplier system where the premises' rateable value would be multiplied by a set multiplier to give an annual charge that would be paid in 12 monthly payments, exactly the way business rates are charged. This would mean that each premises would have its own individual charge. It would not be difficult to implement as the rateable value information is already in place and easily assessable, although Sky would have to make sure that the multiplier is set at a fair amount. This would put an end to the situation where, from my previous example, a premises with a rateable value of £25,001 pays the same price as one at £33,000.

It has been reported recently that around 1,000 premises are currently illegally screening football through cheaper foreign satellite systems rather than Sky and although I do not agree with premises doing this, this figure is surely only going to rise unless something is done about Sky or unless Sky itself holds its hands up and seriously reviews its pricing policy. The industry awaits...

Douglas Stoneley-Hulme

The Antelope

Kearsley

Bolto

Letters other headings style to go here

Letters text first paragraph letters first paragraph text letters first paragraph text.

Letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text.

Letters other headings style to go here

Letters text first paragraph letters first paragraph text letters first paragraph text.

Letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text letters text.