By proposing to adhere to identical, reduced operating hours, NETA and Sanctuary, Brookline’s first and soon-to-be-second cannabis dispensaries, have ensured that neither will lose market share to the other by virtue of having shorter or different hours.

It seems likely that all or most of all of the demand that would have been fulfilled outside of these new hours will be reallocated to within the new hours, whether customers just change when they go or have a friend go for them.

So NETA and Sanctuary, by virtue of having identical, shorter hours, are reducing their operating expenses — primarily in the form of lower employee compensation but also utility bills and required maintenance through wear and tear — without having an offsetting impact on their revenues.

I am reminded of what I was told by a liquor store owner a zillion years ago when MA still had “the Blue Laws” prohibiting sale of alcohol on Sundays. This particular owner told me that he liked the restriction because it meant he could be assured of having every Sunday off/closed while not losing any sales to competition.

This “coopetition” between NETA and Sanctuary could be disrupted if and when some new competitor proposes longer or different hours. But why would they do that?  If they “succeed,” then it’s likely NETA and Sanctuary would seek to change their hours to match — so everyone’s costs go up but no one’s revenues go op.

I think this latest step is *potentially* a very good development for all sides…

To the extent there are “losers” here, I think there are largely two categories: customers who would like to purchase in the hours proposed to be eliminated, and NETA employees — who will almost certainly have lower aggregate compensation with the shorter hours, though by definition they will be working through more volume per unit of time…

So what now?

Should we require an appointment-only model?

For more original content: subscribe to my newsletter