Call A Spade a Spade: Industry Responses

I had a number of comments on my recent story Call A Spade A Spade.

Dominic Roskrow Editor, Whisky Magazine

I’m still very much of the belief that the word ‘blend’ should NEVER be used in a description of a product that contains only malt whisky. I therefore don’t think your definitions are any better. Sorry!

I have some affinity with the view that single malt whisky should be called just that. And anything with malt whiskies from more than one distillery COULD be just called ‘malt whisky’ or even ‘malt whiskies’.

But why not: mixed malts whisky, mingled malt whiskies or married malt whiskies?
Or to tie in with your suggestion:

• A mix of malt whiskies
• A marriage of malt whiskies
• A combination of malt whiskies

Caspar MacRae Brand Ambassador, The Macallan

I would happily embrace anything that gets away from the terms 'Pure' or 'Vatted'. Despite what some people say, these terms were not well understood by many people and are vague enough to be misleading.

I'm optimistic enough to believe that single and blended malts still have huge potential for global growth, so it makes sense for the SWA to establish definitive terms now.

However, I am all in favour of clear labelling and I would love to see more labels that carry additional explanations for the consumer. So to label a Scotch a 'Blended Whisky' is fine - but then to add 'a blend of single malt and grain whiskies' as a subsequent explanation would be even better...

Neil Macdonald Director of Malt Whisky Brands, Chivas Bros.

What has perhaps been overlooked in this discussion, is the importance of having consistency and clarity going forward. Your new proposals offer this both in terms of nomenclature and also how the copy is laid out on the labels.

Mark Reynier Bruichladdich

Fair enough.  Pure Malt was a deliberate con of the consumer that plays on the misinterpretation of the Scottish use of the word Pure as meaning 'only' and Johnny Foreigner's interpretation as 'unadulterated'.

Blended is fine for blended whisky - but again a suspiciously deliberate confusion will exist, fogging the distinction between the two accepted definitions of single malt and blended whisky.

The opposite of single is several; so perhaps "Multi Malt".

I replied to the SWA when seeking opinions - but never got a response.

Jeffrey Topping The Wild Scotsman Whisky

This is one of my favorite topics.  As I have written in my own site I believe Whisky producers should be allowed to use the appropriate terms for there products.   I believe the SWA has created more confusion than help to the consumer by fussing with these terms.  If the SWA truly wanted to be accurate in how they listed scotch whisky than a "Single Malt" should really be labeled as either "Single Vatted Malt Scotch" or "Single Blended Malt Scotch".  The reason is that ALL "Single Malts" are Vatted unless they are "Single Cask Malt".  Now I know some people would think this is cutting hairs, but it is more accurate a term than Single Malt.  The consumer has a false impression that "Single Malts" are the ultimate in quality for Scotch Whisky and that is just not true.  Single Cask Malt Scotch would be the highest quality level since it is the essence from one single Cask (barrel).

I know I have drifted somewhat, however, at the end of the day I should not be forced to change my label because a multi-billion dollar company allegedly tried to defraud the consumers by changing there "Single Malt" brand to a "vatted malt".  As a producer I clearly label my product a Vatted Malt as well as provide a secondary reference on the back of my bottle to clarify such matters.  I truly believe that the term "blended Malts" will "de-value" the category of Pure/Vatted Malts.  The AVERAGE consumer will only see the word "blended" as being "low quality" and in return "low value".  I appreciate all of the Whisky enthusiasts, however, at the end of the day the majority of all Scotch Whisky is purchased by consumers and not enthusiasts. Enthusiasts take the time to study and learn about the process and the industry and they will make educated buys regardless of the label wording.  Consumers will buy based on a very limited knowledge typically based on "buzz words and phrases" (i.e. Blended meaning GRAIN AND MALT).

John Glaser Compass Box Whisky

Regarding nomenclature, my view is unchanged:  "Blended Malt Scotch Whisky" is bad for Scotch because the word "blended" is tainted very badly (when it comes to Scotch) across most of the world.  Every whisky company who has done any consumer research in this area knows this full well (happy to share some stuff with you, Kevin) yet those few people at the SWA and at companies who profess to support BMSW are burying there heads in the sand on this one.

Therefore, my opinion on your proposal is that I think the idea is a good one (to use user language) but the use of the word BLENDED will cripple the near and long-term potential of malts that are not singles.  (And this, I believe, is what some companies really want! This is why they support the proposal...because they want to elevate single malt brands in the eyes of consumers.  Unjustly so.)

---

So It seems like (at least some of) the industry might be able to get behind the more descriptive language, but the word "Blend" may still be a sticking point.

That's fine by me.

I think this proposal is flexible enough to support (as Dominic suggests) an alternate term and STILL be a good alternative to the one on the table.

Comments

[Mike]

"Single Cask Malt Scotch would be the highest quality level since it is the essence from one single Cask (barrel)."

One would have to have a significantly different use of the term "quality" from mine for this to be true.