The Scotch Blog

Voting Improprieties, Ethics, and Plain Old Stupidity

Who would have thought that there would be an attempt to stuff The Drammies ballot box?

Not me. But it happened.

A mass of emails flooded the ballot box. All selecting the same products. All coming from either the domain of a very large producer of alcohol or from the domain of a small marketing firm - that does work for a large producer of alcohol.

Now, while I can believe that all these folks read The Scotch Blog, it was interesting that none of these emails came to the address provided in the story. They ALL were sent to the same, but wrong email address.

I'm guessing this was the result of some memo that went out - these guys didn't even have the courtesy to come to the site to commit the voting fraud!

Here are are my "Voting for Dummies" tips (with handy analogies):

• When you want to cheat on a test - don't all fill out the same answers
  • (Mix your submissions up a little)
• When you want to rob a bank, don't wear a name tag.
  • (Next time use personal emails and not your corporate ones)
• When you all want to forge a check, change the name on the check once in a while.
  • (Don't all submit from the same memo)
• Most importantly, hire an inside man.
  • If you really want to rig the contest, then try to bribe me - it has a better chance of working.

Nice try, but if this happens again, all of your nominees will be removed from consideration.

The 2007 Drammies: Nominees

The Nominees are in

The emails are in and you've made your choices.

We received hundreds of nominations - I'm impressed with some of the stuff the readership is drinking. Some of the potential nominees were things that are so rare (or hard to get, like the Laphroaig Oloroso Sherry) I doubt we'd have enough people who could have possible tried them in order to vote - but points for obscurity to you nominators!

We also had the same products nominated in both Best & Worst Marketing Categories (can you say "Macallan 55 yo Lalique?); and also received some nominations in the "NEW" categories that, while they may have been new to you, have been on the streets for some time - disqualifying them from the 2007 awards.

In the end the nominees come down to what received the most nominations - and what really deserved to have a shot at the most coveted award in the whisky world - The Drammies.

Why coveted? Because instead of an off-hand comment by Jim Murray that becomes turned into "The Best in the World" and splashed in ads, press releases, and stories by "journalists" who are too lazy to really write a story - these awards are nominated and voted on by people who actually drink and enjoy the subject matter.

Without further ado:

12 is the new 10

t's been quite a while since I had one of my Industry Round Table stories - where I throw out a question and see what some people in the industry think. And maybe, just maybe, if I can ask such a dumb question that no one responds.

For no particular reason I was thinking about the progression in age statements - that is, how 10 year old expressions seem to be less common and in some cases how 12 year old expressions are becoming a distillery's "entry point" - the flag-ship and youngest expression in the distillery fleet.

We all know that older isn't better.

We also know that older IS generally more expensive.

So I want to know - is there a reason why the 10 year olds are getting pushed out by their older brethren?

To look at this from another angle - are those companies that ARE replacing their 10 year old with a 12 year old expression doing so to open up a slot for a new price point with a younger (5 - 8) or even no-age statement whisky with a more attractive price and more mass market appeal?

INTERLUDE Boy, that sounds like exactly the kind of strategy some smart liquor producer might want to consider. Why? Because of this conversation I have all too often: Young Guy/Girl: So you write about Scotch? Kevin: Something like that . . . This is where I either hear "I tried it and hate it" - in which case the convo goes down a different path . . . or I hear this: YG/G: I tried it and liked it, but it is too expensive for me. K: Well you you know, the reason it's so expensive is because  <maturation time; quality; importation costs; blah, blah, blah> .  . . YG/G: Yeah that's great. It's still too expensive. And most of you (they/we?) have already vilified blends as "inferior" <JUST PART of the reason so many in the industry are up in arms over the term "Blended Malt">  to the point where blends can not successfully fulfill this role as the  entry level drug for Single malts. So we need some quality vatted malts  to fulfill this role.