View Available Products report by beer and container type only (rather than by product)

Following on from:

It would be lovely to see stock broken down by container type & brand in the Available Products report. I don’t think this is the case currently?

This would make using one product for returnable & NR containers feasible for us. Or at least help the elves to shift the correct containers.

1 Like

Thanks for the suggestion, Jon.

In the meantime, this is how the Stock availability forecast report is broken down, so you can grab these numbers from there if needed.

I don’t seem to see brand there? I see it in the stock breakdown on the product screen. And, yes, your change to my FR title might make it more useful to some, as it would cover separate products for the same beer in different container types, although then it stops being a Products report doesn’t it. Hmmm.

Sorry for the slow response, Jon. When you say “Brand”, what do you mean in Breww terminology? I was (mistakenly, by the sounds of it) assuming Brand = Beer.

image

To expand a bit. We currently have (at least) two products for each of our cask beers.
They need to be considered differently when processing orders.

Our own containers (“beerName Firkin”) will only be assigned to orders for which delivery is “local” - so that we can recover them easily.

Rented containers (e.g. “beerName Kegstar Firkin”) may be assigned to orders going further afield by courier / on pallets / or local deliveries, since recovering them is not essential.

And while we don’t do this much here, I’ve been in position where backfilling for beer swaps was a part of the job. Again, a non-returnable “brand” would be useful for covering this.

It’s important that sales can easily see our stock of a beer in returnable or NR containers. Hence, separate products. Production (me) would rather deal with a single product.

1 Like

Ah, ok yes, that makes sense. Sorry, I didn’t realise that you meant the NR brands as we often find people use the term “brand” to be what we call “beer”. My mistake. That makes sense now, thanks!

1 Like