Beer market of Russia 2018
- General market picture
- Foreign trade setting records
- Demography as challenge to branding
- Aged consumer
- Declining of youth brands
- Nostalgia on trend
- DIOT feels at home
- 5.0 Original is the new face of import
- Positions of Market Leaders
- Carlsberg Group
- AB InBev Efes
- AB InBev
Ukrainian beer market 2018
- Better than yesterday
- Performance by value
- Positions of Ukrainian brewers
The beer market dynamics in Russia is approaching zero, yet major brewers are divided into those who developed considerably in 2017 and those who considerably reduced their volumes. For instance, company Efes has managed to substantially extend their sales due to restrained pricing policy and activity in the modern trade. Heineken has also demonstrated an excellent performance promoted by significant increase of advertisement budgets launching a non-alcohol sort of the title brand and unusual activity in the economy market segment. Carlsberg and AB InBev have been focusing on margins and lost a market share of their inexpensive brands. Serious dependence on PET package and mass enthusiasm about Zhigulevskoe have negatively impacted the most of big regional brewers, that have been for the first time pressed by the leaders in the key sales channels, especially in Volga and Central regions. In the small business there has been a noticeable slowdown in appearing of new restaurant breweries, yet the number of craft breweries has been growing rapidly. In 2018, the beer market is likely to grow a little, while the share of AB InBev Efes may decrease due to the integration. ...
“Catalogue of Russian Beer Producers 2018” includes 1070 businesses ranging from large subsidiaries of international companies to rather small restaurant and craft microbreweries.The catalogue includes 32 large breweries, 75 regional breweries, 693 industrial mini- and microbreweries as well as 270 restaurant breweries. ...
India. HC orders closure of liquor shop
A Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran passed the order while allowing a public interest litigation petition, filed by Vaiko’s younger brother and Kalingapatti panchayat president V. Ravichandran, challenging the Collector’s refusal to close down the shop permanently.
The judges wondered how could the official have gone to the extent of cancelling a resolution passed by the panchayat last year, demanding immediate closure of the shop, without issuing notice to the office-bearers and conducting an inquiry under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
“Of course, it is true that the shop has not violated the distance rule, but the crux of the arguments advanced by the petitioner is that the present location causes nuisance. “We find force in the arguments. It is common knowledge that those under the influence of alcohol would lose control of their senses and their disorderly behaviour is undoubtedly a nuisance...
Therefore, we have every reason to hold that the location of the shop violates the right to decent life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the judges said. Although the officials had contended that the petitioner and his brother had begun demanding closure of the shop because of political motives and that there had not been any complaint of nuisance near the shop, the judges said that failure to lodge complaints need not necessarily mean that there was no nuisance at all.
On the contention of a Government Advocate that the protesters had ransacked the shop and damaged goods worth over Rs.7 lakh and therefore they were not liable to maintain the present petition, the judges said they did not want to express any opinion on that allegation since the petitioner had denied it and it was a matter to be investigated by the police.
Reacting to the verdict, Mr Vaiko said his late mother, who led the protest demanding closure of the liquor shop, would rest in peace as the High Court had decided in favour of its closure.
17 Ноя. 2016