Ciroc and Deleon cut ties with Puff ?

[gho3st]

Ownership is overrated. He had 50% split of the profits

Yea but with ownership, hed have been able to get both profits and sell it after the value go up.

Parent company played the long game, knowing the value of the brand would be worth 10x times the profit sharing they were giving him on new flavors he promoted

 

[CrimsonTider]

Yea but with ownership, hed have been able to get both profits and sell it after the value go up.

Parent company played the long game, knowing the value of the brand would be worth 10x times the profit sharing they were giving him on new flavors he promoted

Ownership also comes with risk too. If he tanks or gets devalued he has carry that

I don’t know why nikkas on the internet think they know more about business deals than Diddy

 

[Vandelay]

Yes he could. This narrative that you just a worker if you don't own distribution networks is wrong.

You don't have to own the road to be a driver and if you use one and there's a toll it doesn't mean you work for it. It's the price you pay to use that road to get to your destination.

Coli brehs conception of business is like to be a driver you have to build the road and own the road just to drive the road otherwise you fronting.

As someone in distribution and consumer packaged goods, this is 100% accurate.

The rub here is, who owns that other 50% stake. If it's Diageo, they can just torpedo the brand by not letting him go elsewhere. This would be painful on Diageo's behalf because they probably have a shyt-ton of inventory manufactured and contracts to manufacture more liquor that they will pay severe penalties on. But if you have someone calling you racist in the media, it might be worth it to take that L because it can damage the other 200 brands that they own.

If he can work with the other owner(s) and go elsewhere, the new distributor may not give him as favorable split on the profits. Owning is much different than distributing. This is why the "owning your masters" arguments in the early aughts was dumb. If you have no one to sell to, IT DOESN'T MATTER if you own 100% of something. Retailers don't just buy from anyone. There's quality control issues, there's issues if the company can't supply the demand. It turns into shelf space issues and lost sales that can hurt the retailer.

EDIT: As dumb as it sounds, I'm learning in my current role at work...an empty shelf is not as easy as "just put something else on it". You have to reset the whole display with new UPC. Believe it or not this takes WEEKS to do if you are a medium/large retailer like Wal-Mart/Target/Walgreens, etc. Think about all the times you went into a store, and shyt wasn't there and you thought to yourself, "they got more in the back". Half the time...no they don't, and no they just can't put something else there.

Every deal is different, and folks need to stop going to that "he's just an employee" rhetoric. Puff seemingly had a creampuff deal, but if he can prove Casamigos and other brands was sold in more retailers, than that is mad shady. It's kind of hard to prove however. Diageo is public, but it's hard to prove that Diageo deliberately subverted the brand or if retailers just didn't buy it as much...which I think is more likely the case.

The message to take from this who owns the other 50% and every deal is different. He definitely owns a large stake in the company, but he might be tied up in a dumbass contract, which is likely the case if he only invested $1,000.

 

[StretfordRed]

Same game new players. Make money off black folks, cut ties, and then rebrand. Still I am getting tired of the rappers and entertainers passing off products like its there's when they are really employees.

It has nothing to do with that.

He sued them and they cut ties.

 

[gho3st]

Ownership also comes with risk too. If he tanks or gets devalued he has carry that

I don’t know why nikkas on the internet think they know more about business deals than Diddy

Well he obviously dont have a deal anymore. You know what would have prevented that? Ownership

 

[Finesse]

Odd part is he is still promoting em on his gram

 

[Cat piss martini]

Good.....fukk that fakkit!

 

[xCivicx]

I BEEN told yall that Diddy DID NOT own Ciroc and he was just a MASCOT for it

I work for the company that distributes Ciroc on GA

 

[Kool]

"Mr Combs contributed a total of $1,000"

 

[xCivicx]

As someone in distribution and consumer packaged goods, this is 100% accurate.

The rub here is, who owns that other 50% stake. If it's Diageo, they can just torpedo the brand by not letting him go elsewhere. This would be painful on Diageo's behalf because they probably have a shyt-ton of inventory manufactured and contracts to manufacture more liquor that they will pay severe penalties on. But if you have someone calling you racist in the media, it might be worth it to take that L because it can damage the other 200 brands that they own.

If he can work with the other owner(s) and go elsewhere, the new distributor may not give him as favorable split on the profits. Owning is much different than distributing. This is why the "owning your masters" arguments in the early aughts was dumb. If you have no one to sell to, IT DOESN'T MATTER if you own 100% of something. Retailers don't just buy from anyone. There's quality control issues, there's issues if the company can't supply the demand. It turns into shelf space issues and lost sales that can hurt the retailer.

EDIT: As dumb as it sounds, I'm learning in my current role at work...an empty shelf is not as easy as "just put something else on it". You have to reset the whole display with new UPC. Believe it or not this takes WEEKS to do if you are a medium/large retailer like Wal-Mart/Target/Walgreens, etc. Think about all the times you went into a store, and shyt wasn't there and you thought to yourself, "they got more in the back". Half the time...no they don't, and no they just can't put something else there.

Every deal is different, and folks need to stop going to that "he's just an employee" rhetoric. Puff seemingly had a creampuff deal, but if he can prove Casamigos and other brands was sold in more retailers, than that is mad shady. It's kind of hard to prove however. Diageo is public, but it's hard to prove that Diageo deliberately subverted the brand or if retailers just didn't buy it as much...which I think is more likely the case.

The message to take from this who owns the other 50% and every deal is different. He definitely owns a large stake in the company, but he might be tied up in a dumbass contract, which is likely the case if he only invested $1,000.

Diddy most definitely cannot take ciroc anywhere

He is just an employee

 

[Elim Garak]

 

[Vandelay]

Diddy most definitely cannot take ciroc anywhere

He is just an employee

I see you indicated you work at Diageo. Do you know the specifics of his contract? I don't, but I am explaining how ownership, management, manufacturing and channel distribution work. All three are key in generating profit for the brand.

I'm not discounting who has more power in the relationship. Diddy only put a G up which would indicate he probably doesn't do any distribution AS WELL AS manufacturing. If he is however an "employee", why not just fire him and continue selling the brand?

They severed the distribution partnership. It's on Diddy and his partners to find new distribution and potentially manufacturing, which is going to come at a significant cost in. Diageo has a bigger portfolio and can subsequently use that to insulate themselves from the millions they are going to lose from terminating the relationship. Diddy losing millions versus Diageo losing millions is a big difference. Diageo is choosing to take the hit here to hurt Puff.

EDIT: I know we like to equate everything to Kanye's misfortunes, but that's why Adidas was able to toss Kanye on his ass and continue selling sneakers.

That's why I am explaining the difference between ownership, management, manufacturing and channel distribution. I don't think everyone understands that.

 

[xCivicx]

I see you indicated you work at Diageo. Do you know the specifics of his contract? I don't, but I am explaining how ownership, management, manufacturing and channel distribution work. All three are key in generating profit for the brand.

I'm not discounting who has more power in the relationship. Diddy only put a G up which would indicate he probably doesn't do any distribution AS WELL AS manufacturing. If he is however an "employee", why not just fire him and continue selling the brand?

They severed the distribution partnership. It's on Diddy and his partners to find new distribution and potentially manufacturing, which is going to come at a significant cost in. Diageo has a bigger portfolio and can subsequently use that to insulate themselves from the millions they are going to lose from terminating the relationship. Diddy losing millions versus Diageo losing millions is a big difference. Diageo is choosing to take the hit here to hurt Puff.

EDIT: I know we like to equate everything to Kanye's misfortunes, but that's why Adidas was able to toss Kanye on his ass and continue selling sneakers. They weren't selling, and subsequently brought him back.

That's why I am explaining the difference between ownership, management, manufacturing and channel distribution. I don't think everyone understands that.

I work at General Wholesale. We receive Ciroc from Diageo and we distribute it throughout GA

Diageo controls distribution 1000%. Diddy's deal had nothing to do with distribution. Diddy's deal was based on sales

Diddy would get a certain amount of money for each case sold, but that only kicks in AFTER a certain amount of Ciroc has been sold first

For example the deal would work like this:

Diddy gets 5 dollars per case of Ciroc sold, but only AFTER 50,000 cases of Ciroc are sold first. He doesn't get paid off of those first 50k cases. I'm not sure if Diddy owns any stock in Ciroc but I've never seen any paperwork on that

And yes, Diageo did basically fire him. They still hold the rights to distribute Ciroc right now, to this day.

I'm not sure why people think Diddy is some kind of major player when it comes to Ciroc. He's not. He gets/ got paid to market/advertise it

 

[Vandelay]

I work at General Wholesale. We receive Ciroc from Diageo and we distribute it throughout GA

Diageo controls distribution 1000%. Diddy's deal had nothing to do with distribution. Diddy's deal was based on sales

Diddy would get a certain amount of money for each case sold, but that only kicks in AFTER a certain amount of Ciroc has been sold first

For example the deal would work like this:

Diddy gets 5 dollars per case of Ciroc sold, but only AFTER 50,000 cases of Ciroc are sold first. He doesn't get paid off of those first 50k cases. I'm not sure if Diddy owns any stock in Ciroc but I've never seen any paperwork on that

And yes, Diageo did basically fire him. They still hold the rights to distribute Ciroc right now, to this day.

I'm not sure why people think Diddy is some kind of major player when it comes to Ciroc. He's not. He gets/ got paid to market/advertise it

Anyone who says Diddy owns ciroc is saying the distribution is through Diageo. That's how distribution deals work. It doesn't mean you don't have ownership in the brand.

He needs to find a new distributor now, and what I'm assuming is manufacturing because he put so little money up front. Maybe the original creators manufacture. I don't know the specifics of the deal, but once he has that distribution again can sell to General Warehouse, Binny's, Liquor Emporium, Walmart, Target again. The problem is it's probably going to be even more unfavorable because he or his company is going to have to reestablish those distribution channels. That doesn't mean he doesn't own it. He just doesn't have the avenues to sell it again.

It's like this...you can make a movie...but if you don't have the relationships with AMC, Regal, Marcus Theatres, Movie Tavern, Netflix, Amazon, Red Box...it doesn't matter if you own 50% or 100%...you have no way to get it to the general public. That's what sounds like is happening here.

 

[xCivicx]

Anyone who says Diddy owns ciroc is saying the distribution is through Diageo. That's how distribution deals work. It doesn't mean you don't gave ownership in the brand.

He needs to find a new distributor now, and what I'm assuming is manufacturing because he put so little money up front. Maybe the original creators manufacture. I don't know the specifics of the deal, but once he has that distribution again can sell to General Warehouse, Binny's, Liquor Emporium, Walmart, Target again. The problem is it's probably going to be even more unfavorable because he or his company is going to have to reestablish those distribution channels. That doesn't mean he doesn't own it. He just doesn't have the avenues to sell it again.

It's like this...you can make a movie...but if you don't have the relationships with AMC, Regal, Marcus Theatres, Movie Tavern, Netflix, Amazon, Red Box...it doesn't matter if you own 50% or 100%...you have no way to get it to the general public. That's what sounds like is happening here.

You're not listening to what I'm saying

Diddy has nothing at all to do with distribution. He doesn't have a majority stake in anything regarding Ciroc

He's out. Ciroc is literally still being distributed. Right now.