How Many Bottles Make a Case Against Prohibition?

Online Wine and Virginia’s Direct Shipment Ban1

Alan E. Wiseman

Assistant Professor of Political Science

Ohio State University

wiseman.69@osu.edu

Jerry Ellig

Acting Director

Office of Policy Planning, Federal Trade Commission

jellig@ftc.gov

March 2003

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s ban on 

direct wine shipments from out-of-state sellers on wine prices and variety available to 

consumers in the greater McLean, Virginia area. Our results indicate that Virginia’s 

direct shipment ban reduces the varieties of wine available to consumers and prevents

consumers from purchasing some premium wines at lower prices online. Using a sample 

of 83 wines judged to be “highly popular” in Wine and Spirits magazine’s annual 

restaurant poll, we find that 15 percent of wines available online were not available from 

retail wine stores within 10 miles of McLean during the month the data were collected. 

The fact that local wine stores may not carry certain wines may result, in part, from other 

Virginia regulations that affect the structure of the wholesale market. We also find that 

the lowest quoted online price offered significant cost savings over the lowest local retail 

price in our survey for many types of wine during the month the data were collected. The 

extent of any cost savings depends on the price per bottle, the quantity of wine ordered, 

and the shipping method chosen. For wines costing $20/bottle or more, online purchase 

of a 12-bottle case could save, on average, 13 percent if shipped via ground. Average 

savings of up to 21 percent are available on a 12-bottle case of wines costing more than 

$40/bottle, and purchasers of these wines can save money regardless of the shipping 

method. Such savings, however, are not consistent for all types of wine; for bottles 

costing less than $20, consumers would pay an additional 8-83 percent per bottle online. 

In addition, some individual wines priced below $40 were less expensive in local retail 

stores. 

 

JEL classifications: 6120, 6333, L110, LO330, L220, L510, L810, L860

 

1

 The authors thank Denis Breen, Mark Frankena, Dan Hosken, Paul Pautler, David Scheffman, and two 

referees for helpful comments, and Van Brantner and Sara Harkavy for their capable research assistance on 

this project. The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the 

views of the Federal Trade Commission or any individual commissioner.
1

Do current legal regimes encourage or prevent consumers from extracting various 

benefits from electronic commerce? A growing literature examines how electronic 

commerce affects the prices and availability of numerous physical goods. Economic 

theory provides reasons that online prices could be either higher or lower than offline 

prices, with empirical scholarship reporting mixed results. Online commerce also may 

increase the variety of products available to consumers, because the products that are not 

available in bricks-and-mortar stores that are within a reasonable distance or with 

reasonable search costs may be available online. As with prices, however, the size of the 

variety effect is an empirical question.

Even if consumers can benefit from cost savings and/or greater variety by 

shopping online, the current regulatory and legal landscape that governs electronic 

commerce may affect the degree to which consumers can realize these benefits. This 

paper tries to assess the manner in which the current legal framework governing wine and 

alcohol distribution and sales might affect electronic commerce in wine. We provide a 

modest empirical examination of the potential cost savings and product selection that 

might be available online to consumers in a particular state in the absence of certain legal 

restrictions.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 provides a brief discussion of the 

existing literature and commentary on potential cost savings of electronic commerce as 

well as the policy implications of Internet wine sales. Section 2 discusses, in more detail, 

the current legal framework that governs interstate alcohol sales and outlines theoretical 

expectations about what (if any) differences should exist between online and offline wine 

prices and product inventories. Section 3 discusses the data collection methods employed 
2

for our price and product variety comparison between online and offline retail channels, 

and Section 4 presents the findings. Section 5 concludes with a summary, some caveats, 

and a brief discussion of prospects for future research.

Section 1: Literature and Policy Issues

This study adds to the quickly growing body of scholarship that investigates 

whether consumers can realize nontrivial benefits by shopping online rather than, or in 

addition to, bricks-and-mortar outlets. Considering the body of existing research, 

empirical findings are mixed. In auto retailing, for example, users of a referral site that 

facilitates price competition among dealers (autobytel.com) pay lower prices than they 

otherwise would have paid (Scott Morton, Zettlemeyer, and Silva-Risso 2001; 

Zettlemeyer, Scott Morton, and Silva-Risso 2001). Some studies of online auto auctions, 

CDs, books, and software, in contrast, have found that prices are higher online (Lee 1997, 

Bailey 1998a, b). A more recent study of books and CDs found that online prices are 

lower (Brynjolfsson and Smith 2000). Besides price savings, the present study also 

addresses questions about product variety that consumers may encounter online. 

Whether these benefits are significant or trivial is an empirical matter, and little 

scholarship has focused on this particular question. 

Studies of prices and product availability in electronic markets are highly relevant 

to public policy, because many types of regulations may inhibit consumers’ ability to 

purchase specific products online. A recent Federal Trade Commission workshop 

revealed a wide variety of restrictions affecting the online availability of products as 

diverse as contact lenses, automobiles, books, real estate, caskets, pharmaceuticals, wine, 
3

and virtually all types of secondhand merchandise.2 A better understanding of the costs 

and benefits of these regulations to consumers could lead to a more informed policy 

debate.

Along these lines, perhaps no e-commerce topic generates as much controversy as 

online wine sales. In this debate traditional consumer concerns, such as price and va riety, 

are commonly balanced against other significant public policy goals. In many states, 

laws prevent or hamper online wine sales by prohibiting out-of-state retailers or wineries 

from shipping wine directly to customers. Proponents of these laws argue that the 

economic harm to consumers is slight, and that these laws are necessary to promote 

temperance, collect alcohol taxes, and prevent underage drinking. (Gray 2002, Hurd 

2002, Mead 2002, Painter 2002) Opponents claim that consumers suffer significant 

harm, and that legitimate concerns about taxation and alcoholic beverage control can be 

addressed through policies that are less restrictive than an outright ban on direct 

shipment. (Genesen 2002, Gross 2002, McFadden 2002, Sloane 2002) 

Despite a wide array of arguments on both sides, no substantial data (or analysis) 

has been offered that would allow policymakers to assess the impact of alternative 

policies on consumers. We seek to remedy part of this gap by comparing online and 

offline wine prices and product variety for a political jurisdiction where direct shipment 

from out-of-state wine sellers is prohibited: McLean, Virginia. At the time the data for 

this study were gathered, the Commonwealth of Virginia banned direct shipment of 

 

2

 See http://www.ftc.gov/opp/ecommerce/anticompetitive/index.htm.
4

alcoholic beverages to Virginia residents by out-of-state vendors, but permitted direct 

shipment by in-state wineries, breweries, and retailers.3 

Drawing on price data from online wine retailers, wineries that sell online, and 

bricks-and-mortar wine retailers in Northern Virginia, this study offers a snapshot of the 

retail landscape that a consumer in McLean, Virginia faces when seeking to purchase 

relatively popular wines in the presence of a ban on direct shipment by out-of-state 

sellers. By foreclosing online wine purchases from out-of-state sellers, Virginia’s direct 

shipment ban reduces the product selection available to consumers and prevents 

consumers from purchasing many premium wines at lower prices online. 

Section 2: Legal Regimes and Potential Impacts

Alcohol Regulation

Unlike most consumer goods that are shipped across state lines, interstate alcohol 

sales operate under an extremely stringent legal framework. States commonly employ a 

“three-tiered” system in which manufacturing (i.e., distilling, fermenting, or brewing), 

wholesaling, and retailing are vertically dis-integrated.4 The Virginia statute offers a 

typical justification for the ban on vertical integration:

The General Assembly finds that it is necessary and proper to require a 

separation between manufacturing interests, wholesale interests and retail 

interests in the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages in order 

to prevent suppliers from dominating local markets through vertical 

 

3

 In March 2002, a federal court declared this law unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause in the belief 

that it discriminates against out-of-state sellers. Directly following the ruling, the court granted a stay in 

order to give the state legislature an opportunity to correct provisions of the law found to be 

unconstitutional. Bolick v. Roberts, 199 F. Supp. 2d 397 (E.D. Va. 2002). In the 2003 legislative session, 

the Virginia General Assembly overwhelmingly approved legislation that would permit out-of-state firms 

to ship beer and wine to consumers in Virginia if they obtain a permit and remit relevant taxes. This 

legislation awaits the Governor’s signature at the time this study was released. Direct shipment from outof-state was thus illegal at the time the data for this study were gathered.

4

 The principal exception occurs when states that sell distilled spirits through state-owned liquor stores also 

choose to perform the wholesaling function, receiving shipments direct from distillers. 
5

integration and to prevent excessive sales of alcoholic beverages caused 

by overly aggressive marketing techniques. (VA Code Sec. 4.1-215.C)

Most wine purchased by Virginia consumers passes through the three-tier system, 

although in-state wineries are allowed to sell direct to Virginia consumers. Out-of-state 

wineries must sell to a firm that possesses a license to import wine into Virginia. The 

importer must then sell to a Virginia wholesaler, who supplies retailers. Wholesalers 

often also hold licenses to import, and because out-of-state firms cannot obtain Virginia 

wholesale or retail licenses, their wines must pass through these Virginia businesses 

before they reach customers (VA Code Sec. 4.1-207).

The direct shipment ban is hardly unique to Virginia. As of July 2002 (when the 

data for this study were gathered), 23 states allowed interstate direct shipments of wine 

under certain conditions, whereas 27 prohibited it, with seven states classifying direct 

wine shipments as a felony. 5 While 27 states prohibited interstate direct sales, only 20 

states prohibited intrastate direct sales.6 In seven states, including Virginia, an in-state 

 

5

 Of those states that allow interstate direct sales, 13 are classified as “reciprocity” states. These states 

recognize two-way shipping rights between jurisdictions. Just because a state is reciprocal does not 

necessarily mean that it permits interstate wine shipments from all states. Rather, reciprocity only 

guarantees that shipping rights from other reciprocal states are acknowledged. In addition, the shipping 

rights might be restricted only to other reciprocal states. Similarly, the shipping rights might also depend 

on the kind of wines being shipped, relative alcohol contents, etc. Besides the states that are reciprocal, ten 

states allow limited direct wine shipments through personal importation laws that allow consumers to 

receive wine from another state, subject to certain conditions. In some states this privilege requires written 

approval from the relevant authorities, involves a very limited amount of alcohol, or is subject to other 

specific state-by-state restrictions.

While unknown to many consumers, personal importation or transportation laws in several states 

expressly prohibit bringing alcohol across state lines without going through the appropriate distribution 

channels. Hence, if a consumer drives cross country with a case of wine in his car, he may unwittingly 

violate a myriad of state-level alcohol laws during his journey as he enters and exits states. Virginia 

permits individuals to bring into the state, in their personal possession, one gallon or four liters of alcoholic 

beverages “not for resale,” and new residents can bring in a “reasonable quantity” of alcoholic beverages 

“not for resale” as part of their household goods. (VA Code Sec. 4.1-310.E) In response to post-9/11 

restrictions that have made it more difficult for travelers to bring wine home on airplanes, a new federal law 

permits individuals who place an order in person at a winery to ship to their residences the same amount of 

wine that their state law would permit them to physically carry into the state.

6

Several states that ban direct shipment from out-of-state but permit direct shipment from in-state wineries 

or retailers have seen their bans challenged as unconstitutional restrictions on interstate commerce. Two 
6

winery can ship wine directly to an in-state customer, but that same customer cannot 

legally have wine shipped to his residence from another state.7 Appendix A provides a 

state-by-state breakdown of direct wine sales laws as of July 2002.

Online Prices and Variety: Hypotheses

Laws that permit direct shipment of wine allow wineries and other merchants to 

compete with in-state bricks-and-mortar retailers who are supplied by wholesalers under 

the three-tier system. Direct shipment facilitates Internet wine sales by making it 

possible for these competitors to send their products directly to consumers instead of 

through the three-tier system of the state in which the customer lives. Both proponents 

and opponents seem to regard legal direct shipment as a necessary condition for ecommerce in wine.

Therefore, legalized direct shipping offers consumers access to hundreds of 

wineries and retailers across the nation, rather than the limited number that a typical 

consumer would likely seek out and visit in the course of shopping offline. Even if a 

local bricks-and-mortar retail wine market is highly competitive and includes retailers 

 

such state bans have been upheld in legal challenges, three have been overturned, and two are pending. 

Bainbridge v. Bush, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (M.D. Fl. 2001), vacated on other grounds, Bainbridge v. 

Turner, 311 F.3d 1104 (11th Cir. 2002)(Florida), Heald v. Engler, No. 00-CV-71438-DT, slip op. (E.D. 

Mich. Sept. 28, 2001)(Michigan), Bolick v. Roberts, 199 F. Supp. 2d 397 (E.D. Va. 2002)(Virginia), 

Beskind v. Easley, 197 F. Supp. 2d 464 (W.D.N.C. 2002)(North Carolina), Dickerson v. Bailey, 212 F. 

Supp. 2d 673 (S.D. Tex. 2002), incorporating Dickerson v. Bailey 87 F.Supp.2d 691 (S.D. Tex. 

2000)(Texas), Swedenburg v. Kelly, 232 F. Supp. 2d 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)(New York), Mast v. Long, No. 

CS-01-00298, 2002 WL 31039421, slip op. (E.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2002)(Washington). 

7

 Our discussions with several wine retailers outside of Virginia reveal that some wine retailers and 

wineries will ship directly into Virginia, while others will not. When the shipping retailers were asked how 

this activity was legal under Virginia law, they said that when they sell the wine to the consumer and then 

arrange shipment via 3rd-party carrier, they are effectively transferring ownership of the wine to the 

consumer and then helping him “ship it to himself.” From a legal standpoint then, these retailers claimed 

that they were absolving themselves of all legal liability once the consumer purchased the wine, and it was 

the consumer’s responsibility to determine whether state law permits such shipments. According to the 

winery/retailer, it is in compliance with the law, even if the Virginia consumer is unwittingly breaking the 

law by shipping wine across state lines to himself. For the purposes of this study, we presume that 

Virginia’s direct shipment ban is a binding constraint – an assumption consistent with the existence of 
7

offering large inventories, we would expect that a consumer could find some additional 

varieties and better prices when given the option of searching several hundred retailers 

nationwide.

Nevertheless, economic theory provides several, often conflicting, expectations 

regarding whether online prices may be higher or lower than offline prices, and whether 

online shopping gives consumers access to varieties of products that are not available 

offline within a reasonable distance of the customer. The following section provides a 

brief discussion of these different perspectives.

Potential price effects

Why online prices may be lower

There are four possible reasons why online wine prices generally might be lower 

than offline wine prices: many more sellers, lower search costs, less market power, and 

lower cost of the online sales channel. (Smith, Bailey, and Brynjolfsson 1999). 

The first, and most obvious, explanation for why consumers are sometimes likely 

to find lower prices by searching online is that the number of online sellers greatly 

exceeds the number of local retail sellers – particularly the number of local retail sellers 

whose inventories a consumer could check with reasonable search costs. The online 

shopbot we used to gather wine prices, Winesearcher.com, can access more than 700 

online retailers and a number of wineries – many more than a consumer likely would visit 

in person. Even if average prices were the same online and offline, the opportunity to 

search many more retailers online means that the consumer is more likely to encounter a

lower price online.

 

high-profile litigation, court findings in that litigation, and the push to remove the ban in the 2003 

legislative session.
8

Another explanation for why online prices may be lower than offline prices is 

based on search costs. By reducing the cost of searching price and nonprice attributes, ecommerce could lead to low retail margins and prices online. (Bakos 1997, 2001:71; 

Wiseman 2001: 28-29) Previous empirical research in other industries has found that 

online purchases are highly elastic with respect to both online and offline prices 

(Goolsbee 2001, 2000; Ellison and Ellison 2001; Goolsbee and Chevalier 2002).

8

 If wine 

consumers are price-sensitive, then price-cutting could be a viable business strategy for 

an electronic wine retailer.

A third economic explanation for why online wine sellers might charge lower 

prices is that they may be able to circumvent the wholesaler markup paid by offline 

retailers without incurring substantial alternative costs. Critics of the three-tier system 

often argue that it may create inefficiencies or create market power for wholesalers by 

creating barriers to entry (state licensing) and limiting intrabrand competition by 

requiring producers to give exclusive territories to wholesalers. (Gross 2002:3; Sloane 

2002:2) Staff of federal antitrust agencies has often opposed state efforts to strengthen 

the three-tier system on similar grounds.9 

In the case of Virginia, for example, licensing may create barriers to entry in 

several ways. One type of entrant -- the out-of-state business-- simply cannot obtain a 

Virginia wine wholesaler’s license. In addition, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 

 

8

 Contrary to this research, Degeratu, Rangaswamy, and Wu (1998) found that online grocery purchasers 

are less price sensitive than offline grocery purchasers

9

 See, e.g., comments of Federal Trade Commission Staff on proposals in Illinois, North Carolina, and 

Massachusetts at http://www.ftc.gov/be/v990005.htm, http://www.ftc.gov/be/v990003.htm, and 

http://www.ftc.gov/be/v960012.htm. 
9

may decline to grant any type of alcohol license for a variety of reasons, including one 

that appears to grant substantial discretion; a license can be denied if:

The number of licenses existent in the locality is such that the granting of 

a license is detrimental to the interest, morals, safety or welfare of the 

public. (VA Code Sec. 4.1-222 A.3)

Most available empirical studies find that laws permitting or requiring territorial 

exclusivity for wholesalers of alcoholic beverages do indeed raise prices. (See, e.g., 

Jordan and Jaffee 1987, Culbertson and Bradford 1991, Sass and Saurman 1996.) While 

Virginia law bans exclusive territories, it requires the winery to designate a “primary area 

of responsibility” for each wholesaler to whom it sells, and the winery can have only one 

distributor in each territory for a single established brand (Code of Virginia Sec. 4.1-

404.). Primary areas of responsibility may have the same effect as exclusive territories if 

wholesalers generally refrain from selling to retailers outside of their primary area of 

responsibility.

Some aspects of Virginia’s three-tier system might confer market power on 

wholesalers. Direct shipping allows wineries to circumvent this market power by selling 

direct to consumers online. In addition, to the extent that online customers purchase wine 

from retailers rather than wineries, direct shipping could reduce market power by placing 

retailers and wholesalers in different geographic markets in competition with each other. 

Online wine prices could thus be lower because they might reflect the more competitive 

conditions online, whereas offline prices could be higher than online prices if local 

wholesalers possess market power.

Finally, Internet wine prices may be lower if Internet vendors possess lower cost 

structures or other efficiency advantages. An Internet retailer or winery may have a 
10

fundamentally different business model that incurs less of the traditional retail costs 

(stores, sales personnel, etc.)10 A winery that sells direct to consumers can also bypass 

transaction cost inefficiencies created by state alcohol franchise laws, which often make 

it prohibitively costly for a winery to switch wholesalers.

Considering Virginia again, state law specifies that a winery cannot terminate its 

agreement with a wholesaler in the absence of “good cause,” such as state revocation of 

the wholesaler’s license, bankruptcy of the wholesaler, failure to maintain a sales volume 

or trend for the brand comparable to that of other Virginia wholesalers that carry the 

brand, or other factors. The wholesaler must be given 60 days to cure any deficiency, 

and the state’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control ultimately determines good 

cause after a hearing. (VA Code Sec. 4.1-406) Virginia law also requires wholesalers to 

pay an annual licensing fee of $715-$1,430, depending on volume; local governments are 

permitted to charge an additional $50 license tax. Wholesalers must also post a surety 

bond of $100,000. (VA Code Sec. 4.1-223.4) Finally, a wholesaler who wants to import 

must obtain a wine importer’s license that costs $285 annually. (VA Code Sec. 4.1-

231.2) To the extent that such restrictions increase risk, increase costs, and reduce 

distribution flexibility, Internet wine retailers may have a cost advantage if they can 

obtain wine from wholesalers in states with less burdensome regulations. Alternatively, 

the winery can avoid the regulatory costs created by wine wholesale franchise laws by 

 

10 One possibility is that online retailers possess lower costs because they can “free ride” off of pre-sale 

services, such as wine tastings or wine appreciation classes, provided by bricks-and-mortar retailers. To 

our knowledge, no scholarship has examined the possibility of free-riding in the context of online wine 

sales. Interestingly, no parties testifying on the (highly contentious) wine panel at the FTC’s October 2002 

workshop on barriers to e-commerce raised the free rider issue, although it was discussed on panels dealing 

other industries, such as automobiles. See http://www.ftc.gov/opp/ecommerce/anticompetitive/agenda.htm.
11

selling direct via the Internet. In either case, the retail price of wine on the Internet could 

be lower.

Online wine prices might also be lower due to direct sales from wineries that 

enjoy transaction cost efficiencies as a result of vertical integration. Two economics 

papers (Gertner 1999, Gertner and Stillman 2001) suggest that vertically integrated 

retailers are more likely to sell direct online because vertical integration can lower 

coordination costs, help solve externality problems, and mitigate channel conflict. 

Empirical evidence from retailing is consistent with the hypothesis that manufacturers 

who are already integrated into retailing initiate direct online sales more quickly than 

non-integrated apparel producers. If vertical integration produces transaction cost 

efficiencies for wineries, it is also plausible that some of those efficiencies may be passed 

through to consumers in the form of lower prices. Wineries selling direct may charge 

lower prices than bricks-and-mortar retailers, and other online merchants may even feel 

compelled to match these prices.11

Why online prices may be higher

The literature on e-commerce offers two hypotheses suggesting why online wine 

prices could be higher than offline prices: value of consumers’ time, and reduced search 

costs for quality attributes.

If Internet wine sellers are not the lowest-cost suppliers, they may charge a higher 

price and survive because their customers find the convenience worth the extra cost. In 

 

11 In Virginia, direct shipment provides the only avenue by which out-of-state wineries could integrate 

forward into retailing, because all out-of-state wine sold in bricks-and-mortar stores must first pass through

independent wholesalers. Indeed, one of the explicitly stated purposes of Virginia’s Alcoholic Beverage 

Control laws is to prevent vertical integration. (The only exception is for in-state wineries, which can make 

retail sales to customers who visit the winery and can ship directly to customers in Virginia.) 
12

their discussion of price dispersion, Smith, Bailey, and Brynjolffson (1999: 109) suggest 

that e-retailers who “make it easier to find and evaluate products may be able to charge a 

price premium to time-sensitive customers.” A similar theory could be advanced to 

explain why Internet prices could exceed offline prices for identical products. Assume 

that a subset of consumers have a high value of time and thus incur high search costs if 

they attempt to compare prices at bricks and mortar stores. These customers would likely 

be willing to pay a premium for the privilege of not having to search multiple physical 

stores – and not even having to travel to a single store -- to get their wine. Customers 

with low search and travel costs might still check the Internet prices as part of their 

search, but they would likely patronize the lower-priced bricks-and-mortar stores.

Perceived product differentiation presents an alternative reason that online wine 

sales could be higher than offline prices. By reducing the cost of obtaining information 

on quality attributes, online sales could increase customers’ ability to perceive differences 

between different varieties of wine. As customers are better able to select wines that 

match their individual tastes, they become less price-sensitive. Experimental evidence is 

consistent with this theory (Lynch and Ariely 2000). If online wine buyers make greater 

use of such information than offline buyers, then online buyers may be less pricesensitive and online prices could be higher.

For either of these theories to work, there must be some impediment that prevents 

online retailers from competing away their profit margins by offering lower prices to 

consumers or paying higher prices for their wine supplies. For this reason, these theories 

may more accurately describe how online pricing works when an electronic market is in 
13

its infancy and there are few competitors, or when some other barrier prevents the 

emergence of significant online competition.

Potential variety effects

Why online variety may be greater

There are three principal reasons that consumers may have access to a greater 

variety of wines online: larger numbers of retailers, intentional product differentiation, 

and lower fixed costs of marketing and distribution.

The number of online retailers whose products a consumer could search greatly 

exceeds the number of local retailers that a consumer could reasonably search. One 

would expect that access to a substantially larger number of retailers would expand the 

variety of products from which a consumer could choose.

An economic theory that would predict greater product variety online is based on 

product differentiation. Electronic commerce can facilitate price competition for 

products that are close substitutes, thus eroding retail margins (Ellison and Ellison 2001). 

Product differentiation is a possible strategy for muting price competition (Bakos 1997; 

2001:71-72; Lynch and Ariely 2000; Wiseman 2000: 30). For online wine sales, 

differentiation could take several forms that would increase the available number of 

labels. For example, online merchants could seek out more obscure labels that were not 

previously available through bricks-and-mortar stores, or lesser-known labels could 

become available if wineries found that consumers attach greater cachet to wine s ordered 

direct from the winery. 12

 

12 One far-fetched possibility is that wineries could proliferate the number of labels by developing different 

blends of grape varieties (and adding other fruit juices for non-purists). Over the long run, vineyards may 

develop and cultivate a larger number of new varieties of grapes, and additional small wineries with 

distinctive characteristics may come into existence. Given the early state of online commerce and the 
14

Even if wineries and e-retailers do not consciously seek to increase differentiation 

in order to reduce price competition, online wine sales could increase variety simply due 

to the relative costs of selling wine online vs. through bricks-and-mortar stores. 

Advocates of direct shipping frequently assert that online wine sales give consumers 

access to a greater variety of wines than they can obtain by visiting the local retailer 

(Genesen 2002, Gross 2002, McFadden 2002, Sloane 2002). Even with the best 

distribution system possible, there are several products that wine producers simply will 

not sell through channels beyond their tasting rooms (or by other direct means). If a 

consumer who lives in a state that bans interstate direct wine shipments finds himself in a 

Napa Valley tasting room, he may find a product that he would like to acquire at home. 

Yet, he may not be able to obtain the wine from a local retailer because the winery does 

not sell through a wholesale distributor.

The economic theory implicit in this example is that selling a wine through offline 

retail stores may entail fixed costs (for the vineyard, wholesaler, and/or retailer) that are 

prohibitively high for relatively small quantities of a particular wine (McFadden 2002:1). 

Internet technology dramatically lowers the fixed cost of making consumers aware that a 

particular product or variety even exists (Bakos 2001: 71). Online sales may thus have 

lower fixed costs per winery, brand, or variety. While the variable costs (e.g. shipping) 

may be higher, the fixed costs may be sufficiently lower that wineries may profit from 

online distribution even if sale through the three-tier system is unprofitable. Under these 

conditions, online shopping should provide access to greater variety.

 

substantial lead times involved in developing new wineries and grape varieties, we expect that online 

commerce has had little effect on these latter factors to date. 
15

Why online variety may be no greater

An alternative product variety hypothesis is offered by wine wholesalers and 

alcoholic beverage regulators: any product for which there is customer demand can make 

its way into the existing distribution system. As evidence they cite public opinion polls 

revealing that the vast majority of alcohol drinkers are satisfied with the selection of beer 

and wine available in from local retailers (Gray 2002: 4), and relatively little utilization 

by wineries of legal direct shipping laws enacted by some states (Painter 2002). In 

economic terms, the se parties are suggesting that fixed costs of getting a particular label 

into the three-tier system are not high enough to reduce variety to any meaningful extent; 

therefore, if a winery cannot find wholesalers to carry its wines, consumer demand must 

be negligible.

Section 3: Data Sources and Calculations

There is little empirical information on how access to out-of-state wine sellers 

through the Internet affects the prices and varieties of wines available to consumers. To 

address this void, this study analyzes the prices and wine selections offered by stores that 

identify themselves as wine retailers in the greater McLean, Virginia, area for a preidentified market bundle of popular wines. McLean was chosen as the relevant retail area 

for several reasons. First, Virginia bans direct sales, and hence it is an appropriate state 

for which to consider the effects of direct sales laws on product selection and price. 

Second, given the socio-economic status of many residents in McLean (and Northern 

Virginia, generally), it seemed likely that several bricks-and-mortar outlets could be 

found locally that catered to the needs of a sophisticated wine drinking population. As a 

result, any estimate of the “variety effect” would likely be conservative and could not be 
16

dismissed as driven by the choice of a location where few fine wines would likely be 

available.13 Due to the choice of locality, our results should be interpreted as a 

comparison of the online and offline prices and product variety available in a locality 

likely to have a high demand for “better” wines, rather than an illustration of prices and 

variety available to a “typical” consumer.

The wine sample

In an effort to select an unbiased sample of wines that are likely to be popular 

among wine drinkers who are likely to frequent wine stores, the wine data for this study 

was drawn from the 13th Annual Restaurant Poll conducted by Wine and Spirits

magazine. The findings from this poll were published in their April 2002 issue, which 

identified the “Top 50 Wines” overall, as well as by varietal. One of the benefits of using 

the Wine and Spirits list, rather than a list compiled by a different publication, is that 

Wine and Spirits actually relies on consumer demand for individual wines in compiling 

their rankings, rather than “expert” opinions, which may be unrepresentative of the winedrinking public. More specifically, to determine the “Top 50,” the publishers sent out a 

questionnaire on wine sales to 1,995 restaurants in the United States; 381 restaurants 

responded. The survey asked (among other questions) what each restaurant’s top ten 

selling wines were in the last quarter of 2001. For each of the ten wines listed on a 

restaurant’s response, Wine and Spirits assigned a point value ranging from ten (for the 

best selling wine) to one (for the tenth best selling wine), which contributed towards its 

 

13 While McLean was chosen, any community in Northern Virginia that was reasonably close to 

Washington, DC, would be equally appropriate for this study. Given the nature of the data being 

considered, it is doubtful that the results presented below would differ appreciably if the market being 

studied was somewhere other than McLean (with the possible exception that the more-expensive wines 

might be more difficult to find in less affluent areas).
17

list of the most popular wines (which were arranged by varietal). For example, if Winery 

X held spots 1-3 on Restaurant Y’s wine list for its Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon, 

and Merlot, respectively, then its Chardonnay would receive 10 points, its Cabernet 

would receive 9 points, and its Merlot would receive 8 points, respectively. The ranking 

of each wine was determined, then, by summing the scores across all respondents.14

Given the list of most popular wines, arranged by varietal, the 50 highest point 

recipients were selected for price comparisons from the collection of Sauvignon Blancs, 

Chardonnays, Cabernet Sauvignons, Merlots, Pinot Noirs, and Zinfandels produced by 

American winemakers. The highest ranked wine in this sample is the Sonoma-Cutrer 

Vineyards Chardonnay, with 464 points, while the 50th-most popular wine is a five-way 

tie between Caymus Vineyards’ and Kendall Jackson Vineyards’ Cabernet Sauvignon, 

Rodney Strong Vineyards’ Merlot, La Crema’s Pinot Noir, and Murphy-Goode’s 

Sauvignon Blanc with 41 points each. The complete sample of wines analyzed is listed 

in Appendix B. As can be seen, focusing our attention on the top 50 point recipients 

actually identifies 83 individual bottles. The difference between ordinal rankings (the 

Top 50) and sample size (83) follows from the fact that Wine and Sprits recognizes all 

relevant bottles that fall under a given wineries’ varietal when it identifies the most 

popular Chardonnays, Merlots, etc. For example, Cakebread’s chardonnay received 244 

points, making it the third most popular wine overall, but Wine and Spirits recognized 

two bottles, the “Napa Valley” and the “Napa Valley Reserve,” as “Cakebread 

Chardonnay,” and hence both were included in our sample. 

 

14 Questions might be raised over whether this list truly represents the most popular wines in the United 

States, as some of the best selling wines overall (i.e., “jug” wines) are not in this list. While it may be true 

that certain best selling (and lower quality) wines are not represented in this sample, we find it unlikely that 
18

Taking this list of 83 bottles, the relevant wineries were contacted, either by 

phone or Internet, to determine whether all bottlings were available for retail sale, as well 

as the year of the most recent vintage. Appendix B identifies four bottles with an asterisk 

that were either unavailable for retail sale to consumers (i.e., they were only sold to 

restaurants), had been misnamed by Wine and Spirits, or could otherwise not be found 

online. The remaining 79 bottles, which were identified as being currently available 

vintages, were used for price comparisons between offline and online retail channels.

Price and variety searches

We designed our study so that it would reasonably simulate how a serious wine 

consumer might shop. The online shopper, of course, can access hundreds of retailers 

and wineries; the shopbot we used to gather prices, “Winesearcher.com,” had access to 

more than 700 wine stores with online inventory access and also listed wine price data 

from some wineries. We assumed that legalized direct shipping would permit the 

McLean consumer to order from any of these online sources.

For offline shopping, it is doubtful that a consumer would physically visit (or 

even phone) every possible source of wine in the area. Consulting “Yahoo! Yellow 

Pages,” we collected a list of every store identifying itself as a “wine retailer” located 

within a ten-mile radius of McLean. 15 We assumed that a McLean consumer would 

search several nearby stores that carry large inventories at attractive prices. To guard 

against the possibility that even large retailers might not always carry a full array of 

 

these wines would be among those that serious wine drinkers might consider for regular 

purchase/consumption. 

15 Because Virginia state law expressly bans the importation of alcohol from other states, we only focused 

our attention on those stores within the ten-mile radius that were located in Virginia. Several reviewers of 

this paper who drink wine and live in Northern Virginia doubted that a wine consumer would search all 13 

wine retailers we identified. If they are correct, then our price and variety findings likely under-estimate 

the potential benefits of legalized direct shipping. 
19

lesser-known wines that they could obtain from wholesalers, we also assumed that the 

consumer might check a number of smaller, specialty wine shops. The list that emerged 

consisted of the 13 retail outlets identified in Appendix C; it includes several “wine 

megastores” (Total Beverage) as well as smaller wine shops.

Our sample does not include general grocery stores (e.g., Giant, Safeway) or club 

stores (e.g., Costco). However, two of the bricks-and-mortar stores searched were 

beverage megastores known for carrying very large selections at competitive prices. In 

the personal shopping experience of the authors and several reviewers of this paper, these 

megastores’ everyday prices tend to be lower than or equal to those of grocery stores, but 

the grocery stores often beat the megastores’ prices on lower-priced wines advertised as 

weekly specials. Hence, if the exclusion of grocery stores affects our price data, it likely 

overstates the offline prices for some of the less expensive wines that may have been 

offered by a grocer at a special, lower price at some point during the period when we 

collected our data. To assess whether the absence of grocery stores affects our results on 

variety, we made followup visits to several large grocery stores in McLean to see if they 

carried any of the wines that were unavailable at the stores in our sample that were listed 

as wine retailers in the Yellow Pages. They did not.

The first step in collecting price information was to contact the wineries directly 

and find out what prices the wineries were charging for their bottles. It is obvious, 

however, that there may be other retail channels available through the Internet that might 

sell wine for prices lower than those available at wineries.

To collect price data from other Internet-based stores, we engaged 

Winesearcher.com to collect the lowest online retail prices for each bottle in our sample. 
20

The store name where each bottle was found, as well as its zip code, was also collected 

and used in calculating transportation costs. Using the shopbot, prices could be found for 

each of the 79 bottles. Comparing the Winesearcher.com price and the prices collected 

directly from the wineries, the least expensive price for each bottle was identified as the 

“best online price” at the time of data collection.

After collecting price data from out-of-state vendors, our next step was to collect 

price data for our sample from bricks-and-mortar stores. Prices for the bottles in our 

sample were collected from the 13 bricks-and-mortar retail outlets in one of two ways. 

Where the retail outlet had an Internet presence that listed its inventory and respective 

prices, price data were collected online. While these prices were not checked against 

physical inventory through on-site visits, for the purposes of this study it was assumed 

that the prices are identical to those in the store.16 Those stores that had an appropriate 

web presence are indicated with an asterisk in Appendix C. Alternatively, for the 

remaining 10 stores, price data was collected by actually visiting the stores in early July 

2002 and checking inventory on the shelves and recording its prices. All price data (on 

and offline) were collected between early June and early July 2002.

A critic might argue that special “sale” pricing during the month over which data 

were gathered may have distorted our online vs. offline price comparisons. With a search 

of more than 700 online stores versus 13 offline stores, the probability of finding a wine 

available at a sale price online may be greater than the probability of finding the same 

wine at a sale price offline (if individual online and offline wine merchants offer sale

 

16 This assumption has been employed in similar price-comparison studies (e.g., Bailey (1998)). 
21

prices with the same frequency). Our findings thus may overstate price savings for the 

customer who is content to wait until a sought-after wine comes on sale in a bricks-andmortar store. On the other hand, any portion of our results that may stem from the 

increased probability of finding a wine on sale online counts as a legitimate cost saving 

for the customer who is unwilling to “time the market” and wait until a desired wine 

comes on sale offline.

Taxes and transportation costs

Retail sales and excise tax differentials could affect our price comparisons. We 

opted to compare prices without sales taxes, in order to ascertain whether Virginians who 

comply with all state sales and use tax laws (and would therefore pay these taxes both on 

wine purchased from out-of-state and on wine purchased locally) can save money buying 

wine online. While it is possible that shoppers in Virginia would try to evade sales taxes 

if they were allowed to buy online from out-of-state vendors, Virginia’s legislation to 

remove the direct shipment ban requires shippers to obtain a state permit and remit 

applicable taxes. Wine industry representatives state that they are more than willing to 

remit taxes to states that permit them to ship directly to consumers. (See FTC 2002: 229) 

Hence, in the results that follow, sales taxes are not considered; our cost comparisons 

assume no cost savings due to sales tax evasion.

Excise taxes may also create price differentials if there are significant differences 

across states or if other states decline to charge excise taxes on wine exported to Virginia. 

Virginia’s excise tax on wine is 40 cents/liter.17 We declined to include the Virginia 

excise tax after discovering that a tax that small does not significantly change the results. 

 

17 Virginia Code Sec. 4.1-234.
22

Some of the online prices may include excise taxes imposed by other states, depending 

on the particular policy of the state where the wine exporter is located.18

To address transportation (i.e., shipping and handling) costs, the following 

procedure was used. For each bottle that would be purchased online, data were collected 

from the United Parcel Service website (www.ups.com) on the costs associated with 

shipping boxes of the appropriate size and weight to represent a single bottle, a half case, 

and a case of wine from the zip code where the online vendor was located (using a daily 

pickup service) into McLean, Virginia, under a variety of shipping options.19 We 

estimated the cost of shipping larger quantities than a single bottle because an online 

shopper likely would purchase several bottles or an entire case of a given vintage. There 

are large economies of scale in shipping. Hence, the per-bottle shipping fee associated 

with an entire case, or at least multiple bottles, of each selection in the “Top 50” is 

significantly less than for an individual bottle.20

This method may either over- or under-state transportation costs to ship wine into 

McLean, for several reasons. First, because our search process found the least expensive 

bottle, and we then calculated the cost of shipping it to McLean, it is possible that we 

overlooked less expensive bottle price/shipping price combinations. For example, if a 

slightly more expensive bottle was identified, but it was closer to McLean, so it was 

much less expensive to ship than a bottle from a more distant location, our selection 

method would not identify this bottle for analysis. Second, this method ignores the 

 

18 California, for example, rebates excise taxes on all wine that is exported from the state.

19 The weight and box dimension specifications were based on one of the authors’ personal experience, in a 

political jurisdiction where direct shipping is legal, with out-of-state wine clubs that used packaging of 

these dimensions and weight for the bottles that they shipped.

20 For example, it costs $8.81, $14.23, and $16.45 to ship one bottle from Palo Alto, CA to McLean, VA 

via standard ground, 3rd-day, and 2nd day shipping respectively. In contrast, if a consumer were ordering an 
23

possibility that a single retailer might be the lowest-cost seller of more than one wine, and 

so even a customer who wanted only one or two bottles of a particular wine might reap 

economies of scale in shipping by ordering several different wines simultaneously from 

the same seller. 

The calculation method also ignores the possibility that online wine retailers 

might impose handling charges in addition to the shipping costs. Since Virginia bans 

direct shipment, most of the online retailers do not quote shipping rates to McLean. In 

addition, most of the online retailers in our sample calculate shipping charges after the 

order is placed, so we do not have good information about additional handling charges or 

other markups on shipping charges for any delivery location. Several, however, do post 

shipping and handling information that is accessible without placing an order, and we 

checked the shipping and handling costs for ground delivery to Washington, DC, the 

jurisdiction closest to Northern Virginia that permits direct shipment (albeit limited). 

None of the online vendors who post such information imposes an additional handling 

charge. Some quote shipping charges that are higher than our estimate, which may 

indicate that a handling charge is bundled with the shipping charges as a markup. The 

typical shipping charge posted on web sites exceeds our single-bottle and six-bottle 

estimate by about $4-$5. Variances between posted and estimated 12-bottle shipping 

charges vary widely, from $16 below our estimate to $14 above, with a median of 

approximately $5. Unfortunately, we do not know whether these figures are typical for 

all online wine retailers in our sample, given that shipping cost data for the various 

quantities of wine were published on web sites by approximately six retailers. In 

 

entire case from a retailer in Palo Alto, the per-bottle shipping charges would be $2.93, $5.40, and $6.98 

for standard ground, 3rd-day, and 2nd-day shipping respectively.
24

addition, a random search of online retailers listed in the Winesearcher.com database 

revealed several that do not charge a significant premium above UPS rates when shipping 

to the reciprocity states. Thus, it is possible that some online retailers charge more for 

shipping than our estimates indicate, but this may be offset by the other two factors that 

tend to inflate our online cost estimates. In any event, the per bottle difference is not very 

large for six- and 12-bottle orders.

For bricks-and-mortar stores, transportation costs were calculated using the 

standard government reimbursement for automobile travel ($0.365 per mile), multiplied 

by the round-trip distance of the store from McLean, Virginia, as indicated by Yahoo! 

Maps. These costs were divided by the various numbers of bottles (1, 6, or 12) we 

assumed the customer purchases. Readers might argue that this method also might 

overstate transportation costs because consumers might combine their shopping trips for 

wine with other errands. While this concern may be valid, it is our belief that this method 

might actually understate the relative costs associated with driving around Northern 

Virginia (especially in peak travel times, such as rush hour). It goes without saying that 

this method for calculating transportation costs does not account for the opportunity costs 

associated with visiting numerous wine stores and searching for the lowest-priced wines. 

Research in transportation economics suggests that individuals attach widely varying 

valuations to travel time, suggesting that opportunity costs of visiting bricks-and-mortar 

wine stores may vary widely across customers (Small, Winston, and Yan 2002).

These weaknesses aside, calculating travel costs solely based on mileage 

reimbursement seemed like the most systematic method to determine the additional 

expense associated with purchases made at local retailers. To the extent that this 
25

procedure understates the true expenses associated with transporting wines in Northern 

Virginia, the reader should take this matter into account when considering the following 

results.

Using this imputed transportation cost data, we were able to calculate the total 

price for each bottle on our list, purchased in various quantities.21 The total price is the 

sum of the lowest retail price (online or offline) and the relevant transportation cost 

associated with delivering it to a home residence (via shipping or driving 

reimbursement). Descriptive statistics for wine prices and transportation costs are 

presented in Table 1.22

Section 4: Findings

The price and availability data do not permit us to make a comprehensive analysis 

of the effect of the direct shipment ban on consumer welfare. A measurement of overall 

consumer welfare would require quantity data that are not available, data on factors other 

than price and variety that consumers value, and data on consumer search patterns. Nor 

should our calculations be viewed as a “comparative static” analysis of the online and 

offline market equilibria in the presence and absence of the direct shipping ban. Online 

prices and variety currently may differ from offline prices and variety, but it is possible 

that the long-run equilibrium in the absence of the direct shipping ban could involve a

different set of prices or different selection as bricks-and-mortar stores alter their prices

 

21 We ignore quantity discounts, based on our experience that online and offline retailers usually offer 

similar quantity discounts for purchase of a whole case.

22 An interesting feature of the data is that the lowest online prices overwhelmingly come not from 

wineries, but from out-of-state retail outlets that have web-accessible inventories and are listed on 

winesearcher.com. 
26

 and product selection in response to online competition. A comprehensive long-run 

analysis would need to take any such changes into account.

Nevertheless, our data do help us assess whether the direct shipping ban in the 

short run prevents consumers from accessing various wines or prices they could not 

otherwise receive. In that sense, our study is similar to the pre-deregulation studies that 

compared air fares in unregulated intrastate markets with regulated interstate fares for 

flights of similar length. (See, e.g., Levine 1965.) Our results should be interpreted as an 

indicator of the potential for direct shipment to offer price and variety bene fits to 

consumers, rather than a quantitative prediction of the size of these benefits if the direct 

shipment ban were lifted.

Selection

While we are considering a relatively small product sample in this study, it is 

instructive to investigate whether consumers’ choices are limited because they are not 

able to shop online for wine from out-of-state vendors. Table 2 lists the wines that were 

unavailable in Virginia bricks-and-mortar wine retailers within a 10-mile radius of 

McLean. In total, 15 of the 83 wines in our sample (approximately 18 percent) are 

unavailable through the Virginia retail outlets searched. In comparison, only 4 of the 83 

wines in our sample (approximately 5 percent) could not be found through retail channels 

online. When excluding from consideration the one wine unavailable online and the 

three wines that could not be found online or offline, we find that 12 of the 79 wines 

available online (15 percent) are not available in bricks-and-mortar stores within ten 

miles of McLean. 23

 

23 Three of the four wines that were unavailable online could also not be found in bricks-and-mortar outlets 

(the exception being Rombauer Vineyards’ Napa Valley Chardonnay).
27

An additional issue emerges when considering the characteristics of some of the 

bottles that are unavailable in the McLean vicinity. The last column of Table 2 presents 

the Wine and Spirits popularity ranking for each bottle. For the bottles that are 

unavailable in the McLean vicinity, 8 out of 15 (approximately 53 percent) come from 

among the 20 most popular bottles, according to Wine and Spirits’ restaurant poll. This 

finding may mean that some wineries have neglected to gain state approval for sale of 

popular labels in Virginia, or that wholesalers or retailers in McLean have neglected to 

carry some wines that would be popular with the region’s consumers, or merely that there 

are regional differences in demand for various wines.

Clearly, though, the McLean consumers who want to purchase these wines are 

adversely affected by the direct sales ban. For McLean consumers to acquire these 

bottles, they would have to either widen their search perimeter beyond the 10-mile radius 

employed here, request special orders through their local retailers (if such arrangements 

could be made), or risk breaking the law by having wine shipped directly to their 

residences by merchants employing 3rd-party shipping agents. Regardless of which 

avenue they chose, it likely would be less convenient for consumers (from a search cost 

standpoint) to acquire these bottles through bricks-and-mortar outlets than to use the 

Internet. 

Price

Virginia’s ban on out-of-state direct wine shipments might also affect the prices 

available to consumers. To assess the cost differences between shopping online and 

offline, Table 3a presents the average cost savings and/or cost penalties from shopping 

online for the entire sample of 67 wines that could be found in Virginia bricks-and-mortar 
28

outlets. Cost differences were calculated first as the difference between the lowest offline 

price and the lowest online price found via winesearcher.com, or at a given winery’s 

website. We then recalculated cost differences including transportation costs for a 

variety of shipping options.

The average figures reported in the tables usually reflect a combination of cost 

savings for online purchase of some wines and cost penalties for online purchase of other 

wines. Except for the tables reporting results for the most expensive wines, there are 

always at least a few wines that are cheaper offline, regardless of shipping method. A 

consumer who purchased each wine from the least expensive source could thus enjoy 

greater cost savings than our average percentage figures imply. 

As is evident from Table 3a, price comparisons between the Internet and bricksand-mortar stores favor the Internet, where the average price of a bottle in the sample (not 

accounting for transportation/shipping and handling costs) is $5.84 less if purchased 

online.24 The picture changes, however, if one considers shipping expenses, and the 

lowest-cost option depends on the quantity ordered and shipping method. Depending on 

the quantity and shipping method, an online customer might save as much as $3.54 per 

bottle on average when buying a whole case and shipping via ground, or pay as much as 

$7.26 per bottle more on average if shipping a single bottle via 2nd Day Air. For the most 

likely quantities – 6 or 12 bottles – the online consumer saves several dollars per bottle if 

shipping via ground, but the cost difference when shipping via air is not statistically 

significant. 

 

24 We opted to exclude Virginia’s 40 cents/liter excise tax on wine from the analysis, because the size of 

these price differences makes it clear that the excise tax would not significantly alter the results.
29

Given that wine is a somewhat perishable product (in the sense that a consumer 

would not want to expose his bottles to extreme heat or cold) it is likely that many 

shipments would occur through the faster shipping channels such as 3rd Day or 2nd Day 

Air, in comparison to standard ground service.25 Hence, while consumers could 

obviously acquire some wine cheaper online, the incorporation of transportation costs 

makes it less clear which channel is dominant for consumers who wish to acquire all of 

the wines in our sample. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that consumers consistently pay 

more online only when ordering single bottles.

Another perspective can be gained by considering the cost differences between 

online and offline sales for the more expensive bottles in the sample. Tables 3b and 3c 

present the average cost savings from shopping online for wines that have offline retail 

prices equal to or greater than $20.00 and $40.00, respectively. 26 While the sample size 

decreases when considering these sub samples, dropping from 67 to 36 for bottles equal 

to or greater than $20.00, and from 36 to 9 for bottles equal to or greater than $40.00, the 

potential gains from shopping online increase. For the sample of bottles equal to or 

greater than $20.00, a McLean consumer has the opportunity to save anywhere from 

$4.40 to $7.19 per bottle on average by shopping online, depending on the quantity 

purchased and shipping method employed. (After taking shipping costs into account, 

only two wines priced at or above $20 are less expensive purchased by the case offline.) 

 

25 The extent to which consumers would prefer to use a faster shipping method will be affected, in large 

part, by the time of the year that the wine is being purchased. As noted by one California wine retailer with 

an online presence (www.beltramos.com) if wine needs to be shipped in very cold or very warm weather, 

they recommend “the fastest service possible.”

26 Transportation costs were recalculated in the appropriate manner to account for consolidation of orders 

from identical retail outlets.
30

Cost differences for 2nd Day Air, and for purchase of a single bottle via 3d Day Air, are 

not significantly different from zero. 

Alternatively, for bottles that are equal to or greater than $40.00 in price, a 

McLean consumer can save an average of between $15.00 and $18.45 per bottle by 

shopping online rather than offline. All of the wines priced at or above $40 are less 

expensive by the case when purchased online, regardless of shipping method. As with 

the “Over $20” sample, cost differences for 2nd Day Air are not significantly different 

from zero, except for purchase of a whole case. Hence, it seems clear that at least for the 

more expensive products, consumers could experience significant savings if the ban were 

lifted.

The fact that removing direct shipment bans would favor those consumers who 

are in the market for more expensive wines is further supported by considering Table 3d, 

which presents the cost savings and extra expenses from shopping online for only those 

bottles that are less expensive than $20.00. While average online prices are $1.66 lower 

than average offline prices, these savings quickly wash away when incorporating the 

relevant shipping and handling charges. Depending on the quantity and shipping method, 

consumers stand to pay an average of between $0.94 and $11.39 more per bottle by 

shopping online rather than in bricks-and-mortar stores. 

Tables 4a, 4b, and 4c present the data from a slightly different perspective, 

showing the proportional online cost savings. The entire sample of wines online would 

be 3.6 percent less expensive (on average) than buying them in a store if purchased by the 

case and shipped via UPS ground service. The average single bottle would be almost 48 

percent more expensive if purchased online and shipped via UPS 2nd Day Air, and even a 
31

case would be at least 7 percent more expensive if shipped via air. Alternatively, for the 

wines priced at $20 and above, it would cost an average of 7 percent to 13 percent less 

(depending on the quantity) to purchase them online and ship via ground service. 

Savings are negligible or nonexistent if the consumer chooses 2nd or 3d Day Air. Finally, 

the consumer can save an average of 13 percent to 21 percent on the “$40 and up” wines, 

depending on the quantity and shipping method. Once again, this result supports the 

notion that the typical consumer who seeks higher-priced wines could pay less if the 

direct sales ban were removed.

Table 4d presents the extra cost of buying bottles less than $20.00 online versus 

offline. While purchasing the lower priced bottles online can save consumers almost 10 

percent of what they would pay in bricks-and-mortar stores, this saving evaporates once 

shipping and handling costs are incorporated into the equation. Consumers would find 

themselves paying between 8 percent and 83 percent more when purchasing wine online, 

depending on the quantity and shipping method.

Section 5: Conclusion

While electronic commerce has grown to encompass many business-to-consumer 

transactions, existing laws and regulations prevent certain industries from carrying out 

their activities on the Web. Current bans on direct shipment prevent a nationwide virtual 

wine store from emerging anytime in the near future. This study has discussed the legal 

framework currently governing alcohol sales and has made a modest attempt to assess 

whether Virginia’s prohibition on interstate direct shipment affects the prices and variety 

available to Virginia consumers.
32

Focusing on consumers in McLean, Virginia, and considering a particular search 

behavior for a bundle of highly popular wines identified by Wine and Spirits magazine, 

our results suggest that McLean consumers may face higher prices and have access to 

less product variety than they would in the absence of the direct sales ban. Specifically, 

approximately 15 percent of the wines in our sample are unavailable in 13 bricks-andmortar stores identified as wine retailers within 10 miles of McLean, but could be ordered 

online if direct shipment were legal. The effect on consumers may be more significant 

than this percentage suggests, for two reasons. First, since the sample consists of the 

more popular wines, it excludes thousands of lesser-known labels that may not be carried 

by bricks-and-mortar retailers. Second, to the extent that individuals have heterogeneous 

and strongly-held preferences, the consumers who sought to purchase these wines may be 

significantly worse off if they settle for less-preferred substitutes.

Many consumers also forego price savings as a result of the ban on direct 

shipment. On average, consumers could save money on the wines in our sample if they 

could acquire them from out-of-state vendors, purchase six or 12 bottles, and have them 

delivered via standard UPS ground service. This finding does not, however, apply to all 

wines in the sample. For bottles costing less than $20, consumers stand to spend 8 

percent to 83 percent more per bottle when shopping online versus shopping offline once 

transportation charges are taken into account. For wines costing more than $20/bottle, 

online purchase would save as much as 13 percent on average, depending on the quantity 

and shipping method. Average savings of up to 21 percent are available on wines costing 

more than $40/bottle. Many of these averages obscure differences between the costs of 
33

individual wines; even for the least expensive shipping method, some individual wines 

priced below $40 are always less expensive offline. 

Similar to the findings on variety, it is important to remember that these results 

likely understate the potential cost savings that come from shopping online. The method 

employed for calculating shipping costs from remote vendors was conservative. If wine 

drinkers obtain economies of scale in shipping by ordering more than one wine at a time 

from the same online retailer, then the available savings from shopping online are usually 

larger for the consumer who wants only one or two bottles of a given wine.

It is not clear from the data whether these price savings result from lower search 

costs, mitigation of market power, or lower costs of online retailers. The price savings 

are largest for the most expensive wines – precisely the ones more likely to be purchased 

by wealthy individuals with high search costs or connoisseurs for whom product 

differentiation would matter most. If online wine retailers succeeded in charging a 

premium for convenience or for product differentiation, then we would expect to see 

higher online prices for the more expensive bottles. 

In considering these conclusions, a few caveats should be noted. First, it is 

important to emphasize that these findings are based on a short-run partial equilibrium 

analysis that does not address how online and offline vendors might alter their prices and 

product selection if the direct sales ban were lifted. If interstate direct shipment into 

Virginia were legalized, it is possible that offline retailers would reduce prices or offer 

access to greater inventory, which would benefit consumers but reduce or eliminate the 

disparity between online and offline variety and price. It is also conceivable that 

competition from online retailers might reduce variety available offline if the offline 
34

segment of the market contracts significantly. (But see McFadden 2002.) Further 

research, in the form of some sort of event history analysis, could try to address this issue 

more completely by comparing changes in prices and product variety before and after a 

state altered its alcohol sales and importation laws.27 Studies comparing similar 

geographic markets in states with different alcohol laws would also help to provide 

information about the differences in marketing and retail institutions under different legal 

regimes. Our findings suggest that such studies may well be worth pursuing. 

Second, given the small sample size and the limited scope of the geographic 

market being analyzed, one should be aware of the limits on generalizing from these 

results. Future research could easily address this issue by replicating this analysis with 

other geographic markets that are subject to restrictive alcohol sales and importation 

laws, as well as using a larger sample of wines.

Finally, we should emphasize that our results reflect assumptions about consumer 

search behavior that we believe are plausible, but different assumptions might lead to 

different results. For example, if serious wine consumers include grocery stores in their 

search, then it is possible that they might find some lower offline prices than we found –

especially if they time their purchases to coincide with grocery stores’ weekly advertised 

specials. If a McLean wine drinker is unlikely to travel as much as 10 miles to some of 

the specialty wine shops in Northern Virginia, then average offline prices might be higher 

or variety lesser than our results indicate.

 

27 Virginia’s governor is currently considering a bill that would legalize interstate direct shipping, and 

interstate direct shipment bans have also been overturned by courts in North Carolina, New York and 

Texas. If these states change their policies, their experience could provide data for such analysis.
35

These caveats aside, this study adds to the debate over the benefits to consumers 

from legalizing interstate alcohol sales, which would be necessary to facilitate the 

development of widespread electronic commerce in wine. Further research will only 

enhance our understanding of the size and scope of the benefits that consumers stand to 

gain by the development of an additional electronic marketplace.
36

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics

Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Obs.

Lowest Online Price 25.969 20.980 7.970 129.990 79

Lowest Offline Price 28.290 23.916 8.490 169.990 68

Transportation Costs (Buying 1 Bottle) 1.655 2.512 0.073 7.3 68

Transportation Costs per Bottle (Buying 6 Bottles) 0.276 0.419 0.122 1.217 68

Transportation Costs per Bottle (Buying 12 Bottles) 0.138 0.209 0.006 0.608 68

Ground Shipment Costs (Buying 1 Bottle) 5.960 0.583 4.530 6.300 79

3

rd Day Air Shipment Costs (Buying 1 Bottle) 9.985 1.714 6.350 10.980 79

2

nd Day Air Shipment Costs (Buying 1 Bottle) 13.215 1.943 8.560 14.310 79

Ground Shipment Costs per Bottle (Buying 6 Bottles) 2.834 0.685 1.493 3.248 79

3

rd Day Air Shipment Costs per Bottle (Buying 6 Bottles) 5.532 1.294 2.557 6.287 79

2

nd Day Air Shipment Costs per Bottle (Buying 6 Bottles) 7.033 1.617 3.232 7.940 79

Ground Shipment Costs per Bottle (Buying 12 Bottles) 2.504 0.711 1.051 2.932 79

3

rd Day Air Shipment Costs per Bottle (Buying 12 Bottles) 4.737 1.150 2.072 5.404 79

2

nd Day Air Shipment Costs per Bottle (Buying 12 Bottles) 6.115 1.532 2.594 6.982 79
37

Table 2: Wines Unavailable at Bricks and Mortar Retail Outlets

Winery Varietal28 Wine Label Bottle Rank

Cakebread Cellars CA Napa Valley 16

Caymus Vineyards CA Napa Vly. Special Selection 49

Duckhorn Vineyards M Three Palms 8

Ferrari-Carano Winery CH Alexander Vly. Reserve 7

Ferrari-Carano Winery M Alexander Valley 22

Ferrari-Carano Winery SB Alexander Valley Fume 40

Jordan Vineyard & Winery CA Alexander Valley Estate 24

Kendall-Jackson Vineyards* CA Calif. Proprietors Reserve 49

Kendall-Jackson Vineyards* M Calif. Proprietors Reserve 15

La Crema (Kendall-Jackson) P Russian River Valley 49

Murphy Goode Estate SB Fume Reserve 49

Robert Mondavi Winery CA Napa Valley 19

Stag's Leap Wine Cellars CA SLD Fay 11

Sterling Vineyards* M Central Coast – Vintners Collection 6

The Hess Collection CA Napa Valley (Mt. Veeder) 9

 

28 The abbreviations for varietals are as follows: CH = Chardonnay; CA= Cabernet Sauvignon; SB = 

Sauvignon Blanc, M = Merlot; P = Pinot Noir; Z = Zinfandel. An asterisk (*) indicates that the bottle could 

not be found in any Internet inventories.
38

Table 3a: Cost Savings (Extra Expenses) per Bottle When Shopping Online for 

Entire Sample29

Category Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. Obs.

Online Savings (no transportation costs) 5.838** 10.579 -2.200 83.000 67

Online Savings (UPS Ground Service - Buying 1 Bottle) 1.507 11.560 -8.427 82.686 67

Online Savings (UPS 3rd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -2.443* 11.518 13.107 78.006 67

Online Savings (UPS 2nd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -7.256** 10.556 16.510 68.690 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 6 Bottles) 3.342** 10.701 -5.436 80.749 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 6 Bottles) 0.7066 10.720 -8.475 77.711 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 6 Bottles) -0.767 10.748 -10.128 76.058 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 12

Bottles) 3.543** 10.633 -5.126 80.567 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 12 Bottles) 1.353 10.644 -7.598 78.095 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 12 Bottles) 0.11 10.668 -9.176 76.517 67

Table 3b: Cost Savings (Extra Expenses) per Bottle When Shopping Online for 

Wines Greater or Equal to $20.00 (Offline Price)

Category Mean

Std. 

Dev. Min. Max. Obs.

Online Savings (no transportation costs) 9.435** 13.376 -2.000 83.000 36

Online Savings (UPS Ground Service - 1 Bottle) 5.512** 14.348 -8.008 82.686 36

Online Savings (UPS 3rd Day Air - 1 Bottle) 1.526 14.268 -12.688 78.006 36

Online Savings (UPS 2nd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -3.693 13.234 -16.310 68.690 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 6 Bottles) 7.027** 13.446 -5.200 80.749 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 6 Bottles) 4.396* 13.432 -8.238 77.711 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 6 Bottles) 2.912 13.45 -9.891 76.058 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 12 Bottles) 7.194** 13.371 -4.907 80.567 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 12 Bottles) 5.005** 13.361 -7.380 78.095 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 12 Bottles) 3.654 13.367 -8.957 76.517 36

 

29 For Tables 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d, a double asterisk (**) indicates significance greater than the 95% 

confidence level. A single asterisk (*) indicates significance greater than the 90% confidence level (two -

tailed test). 
39

Table 3c: Cost Savings (Extra Expenses) per Bottle When Shopping Online for 

Wines Greater or Equal to $40.00 (Offline Price)

Category Mean

Std. 

Dev. Min. Max. Obs.

Online Savings (no transportation costs) 20.607** 23.817 7.000 83.000 9

Online Savings (UPS Ground Service - 1 Bottle) 17.881* 24.827 2.263 82.686 9

Online Savings (UPS 3rd Day Air - 1 Bottle) 13.573 24.596 -1.678 78.006 9

Online Savings (UPS 2nd Day Air - 1 Bottle) 6.969 23.461 -6.310 68.690 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 6 Bottles) 18.388** 23.804 5.376 80.749 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 6 Bottles) 15.762* 23.683 2.772 77.771 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 6 Bottles) 14.28 23.648 1.119 76.057 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 12 Bottles) 18.448** 23.711 5.677 80.567 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 12 Bottles) 16.262* 23.628 3.204 78.095 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 12 Bottles) 14.990* 23.572 1.627 76.517 9

Table 3d: Cost Savings (Extra Expenses) per Bottle When Shopping Online for Wines 

Less than $20.00 (Offline Price)

Category Mean

Std. 

Dev. Min. Max. Obs.

Online Savings (no transportation costs) 1.661** 2.183 -2.200 6.000 31

Online Savings (UPS Ground Service - 1 Bottle) -3.144** 3.496 -8.427 6.000 31

Online Savings (UPS 3rd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -7.053** 3.67 -13.107 1.32 31

Online Savings (UPS 2nd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -11.393** 2.807 -16.510 -5.580 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 6 Bottles) -0.934** 2.414 -5.436 3.316 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 6 Bottles) -3.578** 2.656 -8.475 1.392 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 6 Bottles) -5.039** 2.824 -10.128 2.455 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 12 Bottles) -0.697 2.362 -5.126 3.644 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 12 Bottles) -2.888** 2.532 -7.598 1.948 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 12 Bottles) -4.220** 2.742 -9.176 1.112 31
40

Table 4a: Proportional Cost Savings (Extra Expenses) per Bottle When Shopping 

Online for Entire Sample30

Category Mean

Std. 

Dev. Min. Max. Obs.

Online Savings (no transportation costs) 0.158** 0.13 -0.187 0.488 67

Online Savings (UPS Ground Service - 1 Bottle) -0.085** 0.272 -0.753 0.470 67

Online Savings (UPS 3rd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -0.272** 0.368 -1.270 0.443 67

Online Savings (UPS 2nd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -0.481** 0.430 -1.645 0.390 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 6 Bottles) 0.024 0.184 -0.500 0.459 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 6 Bottles) -0.103** 0.251 -0.846 0.442 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 6 Bottles) -0.181** 0.298 -1.038 0.447 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 12 Bottles) 0.036* 0.176 -0.465 0.458 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 12 Bottles) -0.070** 0.230 -0.744 0.444 67

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 12 Bottles) -0.134** 0.266 -0.922 0.435 67

Table 4b: Proportional Cost Savings (Extra Expenses) per Bottle When Shopping 

Online for Wines Greater or Equal to $20.00 (Offline Price)

Category Mean

Std. 

Dev. Min. Max. Obs.

Online Savings (no transportation costs) 0.211** 0.099 -0.061 0.488 36

Online Savings (UPS Ground Service - 1 Bottle) 0.076** 0.143 -0.241 0.470 36

Online Savings (UPS 3rd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -0.039 0.174 -0.381 0.443 36

Online Savings (UPS 2nd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -0.182** 0.185 -0.490 0.390 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 6 Bottles) 0.129** 0.106 -0.156 0.459 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 6 Bottles) 0.052** 0.125 -0.248 0.442 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 6 Bottles) 0.008 0.137 -0.297 0.432 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 12 Bottles) 0.134** 0.104 -0.147 0.458 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 12 Bottles) 0.070** 0.118 -0.222 0.444 36

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 12 Bottles) 0.031 0.13 -0.269 0.435 36

 

30 For Tables 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d, a double asterisk (**) indicates significance greater than the 95% 

confidence level. A single asterisk (*) indicates significance greater than the 90% confidence level (two -

tailed test). 
41

Table 4c: Proportional Cost Savings (Extra Expenses) per Bottle When Shopping 

Online for Wines Greater or Equal to $40.00 (Offline Price) 

Category Mean

Std. 

Dev. Min. Max. Obs.

Online Savings (no transportation costs) 0.253** 0.122 0.078 0.488 9

Online Savings (UPS Ground Service - 1 Bottle) 0.196** 0.136 0.025 0.470 9

Online Savings (UPS 3rd Day Air - 1 Bottle) 0.129** 0.142 -0.034 0.443 9

Online Savings (UPS 2nd Day Air - 1 Bottle) 0.03 0.147 -0.107 0.390 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 6 Bottles) 0.206** 0.121 0.060 0.459 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 6 Bottles) 0.166** 0.128 0.038 0.442 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 6 Bottles) 0.143** 0.133 0.017 0.432 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 12 Bottles) 0.207** 0.12 0.064 0.458 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 12 Bottles) 0.173** 0.126 0.041 0.444 9

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 12 Bottles) 0.152** 0.13 0.021 0.435 9

Table 4d: Proportional Cost Savings (Extra Expenses) per Bottle When Shopping 

Online for Wines Less than $20.00 (Offline Price) 

Category Mean

Std. 

Dev. Min. Max. Obs.

Online Savings (no transportation costs) 0.097** 0.136 -0.187 0.334 31

Online Savings (UPS Ground Service - 1 Bottle) -0.272** 0.267 -0.753 0.228 31

Online Savings (UPS 3rd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -0.543** 0.347 -1.270 0.050 31

Online Savings (UPS 2nd Day Air - 1 Bottle) -0.828** 0.365 -1.650 -0.278 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 6 Bottles) -0.097** 0.181 -0.501 0.165 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 6 Bottles) -0.283** 0.242 -0.843 0.070 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 6 Bottles) -0.385** 0.277 -1.030 0.012 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS Ground Service - 12 Bottles) -0.078** 0.174 -0.465 0.182 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 3rd Day Air - 12 Bottles) -0.232** 0.222 -0.744 0.097 31

Online Savings per Bottle (UPS 2nd Day Air - 12 Bottles) -0.326** 0.257 -0.922 0.056 31
42

Appendix A: States and Direct Wine Shipment Laws 31

Reciprocal States

California Colorado

Hawaii Idaho

Illinois Iowa

Minnesota Missouri

New Mexico Oregon

Washington Wisconsin

West Virginia

Direct Shipments Prohibited (Non-Felony)

Alabama Arizona

Arkansas Delaware

Kansas Maine

Massachusetts Michigan

Mississippi New Jersey

New York Ohio

Oklahoma Pennsylvania

South Carolina South Dakota

Texas Utah

Vermont Virginia

Direct Shipments Prohibited (Felony)

Florida Georgia (without permit)

Indiana Kentucky

Maryland North Carolina

Tennessee

Legal Under Certain Circumstances

Alaska Connecticut

District of Columbia Georgia (with permit)

Louisiana Montana

Nebraska Nevada

New Hampshire North Dakota

Rhode Island Wyoming

 

31 Information current as of July 2002. Source: www.wineinstitute.org.
43

Appendix B: Wine and Spirits “Top Fifty” Wines

Winery Varietal32 Wine Label

Beaulieu Vineyard CA Napa Valley Tapestry

Beaulieu Vineyard CA Napa Valley Rutherford

Benziger Family Winery CH Carneros

Beringer Vineyards CA Knights Valley

Beringer Vineyards CA Napa Valley Private Reserve

Beringer Vineyards CH Napa Vly. Private Reserve

Beringer Vineyards CH Napa Valley

Blackstone Winery M California

Blackstone Winery M Napa Valley

Cakebread Cellars CA Napa Valley

Cakebread Cellars CH Napa Valley

Cakebread Cellars CH Napa Valley Reserve

Cakebread Cellars SB Napa Valley

Cambria Winery & Vineyard CH Santa Maria Vly. Katherine's

Caymus Vineyards CA Napa Valley

Caymus Vineyards CA Napa Vly. Special Selection

Chalk Hill Winery CH Chalk Hill

Chateau St. Jean CH Sonoma

Chateau St. Jean CH Belle Terre

Chateau Ste. Michelle M Washington

Chateau Ste. Michelle M Canoe Ridge

Clos du Bois M Sonoma

Clos du Bois M Alexander Valley

Cuvaison Winery CH Napa Valley Carneros

De Loach Vineyards CH Sonoma OFS

De Loach Vineyards CH Russian River Valley

Duckhorn Vineyards M Napa Valley

Duckhorn Vineyards M Three Palms

Duckhorn Vineyards SB Napa Valley

Ferrari-Carano Winery CH Alexander Vly. Reserve

Ferrari-Carano Winery CH Alexander Valley

Ferrari-Carano Winery M Alexander Valley

Ferrari-Carano Winery SB Alexander Valley Fume

Franciscan Oakville Estate M Napa Oakville Estates

Frog's Leap Winery SB Napa Valley

Grgich Hills Cellar CH Napa Valley

J. Lohr Winery CA Paso Robles 7 Oaks

J. Lohr Winery CA Paso Robles Hilltop

Jordan Vineyard & Winery CA Alexander Valley Estate

Jordan Vineyard & Winery CH Sonoma Cty. Estate

Kendall-Jackson Vineyards CA Calif. Vinters Reserve

Kendall-Jackson Vineyards* CA Calif. Proprietors Reserve

Kendall-Jackson Vineyards CH Calif. Vinters Reserve

Kendall-Jackson Vineyards CH Calif. Grand Reserve

Kendall-Jackson Vineyards M Calif. Vinters Reserve

Kendall-Jackson Vineyards* M Calif. Proprietors Reserve

 

32 The abbreviations for varietals are as follows: CH = Chardonnay; CA= Cabernet Sauvignon; SB = 

Sauvignon Blanc, M = Merlot; P = Pinot Noir; Z = Zinfandel. An asterisk (*) indicates that the bottle could 

not be found in any Internet inventories.
44

La Crema (Kendall-Jackson) P Russian River Valley

Landmark Vineyards CH Sonoma Overlook

Markham Winery M Napa Valley

Murphy Goode Estate SB Fume

Murphy Goode Estate SB Fume Reserve

Ravenswood Z Sonoma Vitners Blend

Ravenswood Z Lodi

Ridge Vineyards Z Lytton Springs

Ridge Vineyards Z Geyserville

Robert Mondavi Winery CA Napa Valley

Robert Mondavi Winery CA North Coast Coastal

Rodney Strong Vineyards CH Chalk Hill

Rodney Strong Vineyards CH Sonoma

Rodney Strong Vineyards M Sonoma

Rombauer Vineyards* CH Napa Valley

Rombauer Vineyards CH Napa Valley Carneros

Rombauer Vineyards M Napa Valley

Rutherford Hill Winery M Napa Valley

Shafer Vineyards M Napa Valley

Silver Oak Wine Cellars CA Alexander Valley

Silver Oak Wine Cellars CA Napa Valley

Simi Winery CH Alexander Valley

Sonoma-Cutrer Vineyards CH Russian River Ranches

Sonoma-Cutrer Vineyards CH Les Pierres

Sonoma-Cutrer Vineyards CH Cutrer

Stag's Leap Wine Cellars CA Napa Valley

Stag's Leap Wine Cellars CA SLD Fay

Stag's Leap Winery CA Napa Valley

Stag's Leap Winery M Napa Valley

Sterling Vineyards CA Napa Valley

Sterling Vineyards CA Diamond Mountain Ranch

Sterling Vineyards M Napa Valley

Sterling Vineyards* M Central Coast - Vintners Collection

The Hess Collection CA Calif. Hess Select

The Hess Collection CA Napa Valley (Mt. Veeder)

The Hess Collection CH Calif. Hess Select

The Hess Collection CH Napa Valley

 
45

Appendix C: Bricks and Mortar Retailers Searched33

1. Total Beverage* 

1451 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, VA

703-749-0011

Mileage: 0.1

2. Sutton Place Gourmet

6655 Old Dominion Dr

McLean, VA

703-448-3828

Mileage: 0.2

3. Cecile’s Wine Cellar

1351 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, VA

703-356-6500

Mileage: 0.4

4. Arrowine

4508 Lee Highway

Arlington, VA 

703-525-0990

Mileage: 4.0

5. International Wine and Beverage

4040 Lee Highway

Arlington, VA

703-528-2800

Mileage: 4.5

6. Norm’s Beer and Wine

136 Branch Road SE

Vienna, VA

703-242-0100

Mileage: 4.6

7. Vienna Vintner

233 Maple Ave E

Vienna, VA

703-242-9463

Mileage: 4.9

8. Classic Wines

 

33 An asterisk (*) indicates that the price data was collected from the store’s online catalogue.
46

9912 Georgetown Pike #C

Great Falls, VA

703-759-0430

Mileage: 7.4

9. Total Beverage Landmark*

6240 Little River Turnpike

Alexandria, VA

703-941-1133

Mileage: 8.2

10. Botstetter’s Wine and Gourmet

3690 King Street #J

Alexandria, VA

703-820-8600

Mileage: 8.5

11. Fern Street Gourmet

1708 Fern Street

Alexandria, VA

703-931-1234

Mileage: 8.8

12. Daily Planet Wine and Gourmet*

2004 Mount Vernon Ave

Alexandria, VA

703-549-5051

Mileage: 9.9

13. Rick’s Wine and Gourmet

3117 Duke Street

Alexandria, VA

703-823-4600

Mileage: 10.0
47

References

Bailey, Joseph P. 1998a. “Electronic Commerce: Prices and Consumer Issues for Three 

Products: Books, Compact Disks, and Software,” Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development, OECD/GD(98)4.

________. 1998b. Intermediation and Electronic Markets: Aggregation and Pricing in 

Internet Commerce. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Bakos, Yannis. 2001. “The Emerging Landscape for Retail E-Commerce,” Journal of 

Economic Perspectives 15:1 (Winter): 69-80.

________. 1997. “Reducing Buyer Search Costs: Implications for Electronic 

Marketplaces,” Management Science 43:12: 1676-92.

Brown, Jeffrey R., and Austan Goolsbee. 2002. “Does the Internet Make Markets More 

Competitive? Evidence from the Life Insurance Industry,” Journal of Political Economy

110:3 (June): 481-507.

Brynjolfsson, Erik, and Michael Smith. 2000. “Frictionless Commerce? A Comparison 

of Internet and Conventional Retailers,” Management Science (April).

Culbertson, W. Patton, and David Bradford. 1991. “The Price of Beer: Some Evidence 

from Interstate Comparisons,” International Journal of Industrial Organization 9:2: 275-

89. 

Degeratu, Alexandru, Arvind Rangaswamy, and Jianan Wu. 1998. “Consumer Choice 

Behavior in Online and Regular Stores: The Effects of Brand Name, Price, and Other 

Search Attributes,” paper presented at INFORM conference on Marketing Science and 

the Internet, Cambridge, MA (March).

Ellison, Glenn, and Sara Fisher Ellison. 2001. “Search, Obfuscation, and Price 

Elasticities on the Internet,” manuscript, MIT (January).

Federal Trade Commission. 2002. “Public Workshop: Possibly Anticompetitive Efforts 

to Restrict Competition on the Internet” (Oct. 8 Transcript) at 

http://www.ftc.gov/opp/ecommerce/anticompetitive/021008antitrans.pdf 

Genesen, Tracy. 2002. “Coalition for Free Trade Position Summary,” presented at 

Federal Trade Commission Workshop on Possible Anti-Competitive Efforts to Restrict 

Competition on the Internet (October 8).

Gertner, Robert H., and Robert S. Stillman. 2001. “Vertical Integration and Internet 

Strategies in the Apparel Industry,” Journal of Industrial Economics 49:4 (December): 

417-40.
48

Goolsbee, Austan. 2001. “Competition in the Computer Industry: Online versus Retail,” 

Journal of Industrial Economics 49:4 (December): 487-99.

________. 2000. “In a World Without Borders: The Impact of Taxes on Internet 

Commerce,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 115:2 (May): 561-76. 

________, and Judith Chevalier. 2002. “Measuring Prices and Price Competition 

Online: Amazon and Barnes and Noble,” National bureau of Economic Research 

Working paper No. W9085 (July). 

Gray, C. Boyden. 2002. “Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America Summary Position 

Paper,” presented at Federal Trade Commission Workshop on Possible Anti-Competitive 

Efforts to Restrict Competition on the Internet (October 8).

Gross, Steve. 2002. “Wine Institute Position Summary,” presented at Federal Trade 

Commission Workshop on Possible Anti-Competitive Efforts to Restrict Competition on 

the Internet (October 8).

Hurd, William H. 2002. “Remarks of William H. Hurd,” presented at Federal Trade 

Commission Workshop on Possible Anti-Competitive Efforts to Restrict Competition on 

the Internet (October 8).

Jordan, W. John, and Bruce L. Jaffee. 1987. “The Use of Exclusive Territories in the 

Distribution of Beer: Theoretical and Empirical Observations,” Antitrust Bulletin 32:1 

(Spring): 137-64. 

Lee, Ho Geun. 1997. “Do Electronic Marketplaces Lower the Price of Goods?,” 

Communications of the ACM 41:12.

Levine, Michael E. (1965) “Is Regulation Necessary?: California Air Transportation and 

National Regulatory Policy,” Yale Law Journal 74 (July): 1416-47.

Lynch, John G., and Dan Ariely. 2000. “Wine Online: Search Costs Affect Competition 

on Price, Quality, and Distribution,” Marketing Science 19:1 (Winter): 83-103. 

McFadden, Daniel L. 2002. “Interstate Wine Shipments and E-Commerce,” presented at 

Federal Trade Commission Workshop on Possible Anti-Competitive Efforts to Restrict 

Competition on the Internet (October 8).

Mead, Irene M. 2002. “State of Michigan’s Remarks,” presented at Federal Trade 

Commission Workshop on Possible Anti-Competitive Efforts to Restrict Competition on 

the Internet (October 8).

Painter, Murphy J. 2002. “Statement of Murphy J. Painter on Behalf of the Joint 

Committee of the States,” presented at Federal Trade Commission Workshop on Possible 

Anti-Competitive Efforts to Restrict Competition on the Internet (October 8).
49

Sass, Tim R., and David S. Saurman. 1996. “Efficiency Effects of Exclusive Territories: 

Evidence from the Indiana Beer Market,” Economic Inquiry 34:3 (July): 597-615.

Scott Morton, Fiona, Florian Zettelmeyer and Jorge Silva-Risso. 2001. “Internet Car 

Retailing,” Journal of Industrial Economics 49:4 (December): 501-19.

Sloane, David. 2002. “Summary Statement of the American Vintners Association,” 

presented at Federal Trade Commission Workshop on Possible Anti-Competitive Efforts 

to Restrict Competition on the Internet (October 8).

Small, Kenneth A., Clifford Winston, and Jia Yan. 2002. “Uncovering the Distribution 

of Motorists’ Preferences for Travel Time and Reliability: Implications for Road 

Pricing,” unpublished manuscript, University of California, Irvine.

Smith, Michael D., Joseph Bailey, and Erik Brynjolfsson. 2000. “Understanding Digital 

Markets: Review and Assessment,” in E. Brynjolfsson and B. Kahin, eds. Understanding 

the Digital Economy: Data, Tools, and Research. Cambridge: MIT Press: 99-136

Wine and Spirits, April 2002.

Wiseman, Alan E. 2000. Economic Perspectives on the Internet. Washington, DC: 

Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission.

Zettelmeyer, Florian, Fiona Scott Morton, and Jorge Silva-Risso. 2001. “Cowboys or 

Cowards? Why are Internet Car Prices Lower?,” National Bureau of Economic Research 

Working Paper No. 86