The Scotch Blog

Heaven Hill Sets the Candidates straight. Why didn't you?

This is the type of Publicity Stunt that EVERY whiskey maker in the U.S. should have scrambled for.

You likely recall last month when Hillary Clinton committed the apparently horrendous faux pas - whilst trying to show how "down-to-earth" she is - of ordering a shot of Crown Royal.

Of course YOU all know that Crown Royal is a Canadian whisky - and apparently it's the worst thing that any Presidential candidate could possibly do - imbibe ANYTHING but American whiskey.

Now, let me state for the record, that I see NOTHING wrong with Hillary ordering a Crown Royal whisky.

To me it simply highlights the general publics' ignorance of the various whisk(e)y types and their origins more so than being an example of Hillary showing a disregard for the American whiskey industry.

 Let me also state for the record that I'd rather see a rabid wolverine stuffed in my pants than see Hillary Clinton as President.

ANYWAY.

The appropriate response was for one of the Bourbon companies to take the opportunity to "set the record straight" and get some press.

The appropriate response was to get some air-time at the expense of Hillary. Obama and McCain would have eaten it up.

It SHOULD have been done the next day.

Only Heaven Hill did it. And it took them almost a month (Likely to get it through the god-damned lawyers.)

The following is free advice.

If you produce whiskey in the U.S., and your marketing department did NOT suggest this - you should IMMEDIATELY FIRE YOUR MARKETING TEAM.

Ed. Note: I saw no mention of whether the beer was "all-American" Miller (owned of course by South African Brewing).

Clarifying

Let's be clear.

Despite the fact that I am not a fan of the term "blended malt"... It does not mean that I prefer or support "vatted malt" or "malt whisky".

More to follow.

The SWA Responds

I've stated before that I am a big supporter of the work that the SWA does to protect Scotch Whisky in the world market. But that doesn't mean we always have to agree!

As always, we are delighted to give the SWA a chance to respond to the past few posts which deride their proposal...

---

Dear Kevin

We've read with interest your recent postings in relation to the draft Scotch Whisky Regulations.

Whilst we will have to agree to disagree on the merits of the term 'Blended Malt Scotch Whisky', I thought it might be helpful to set out for you and your readers why the term has been proposed by the industry/UK Government, and also to highlight the wider package of proposals that are currently being considered. 

Choice of the term 'Blended Malt Scotch Whisky'

There was lengthy industry discussion around the choice of the term and, in the end, it was chosen because the industry working group/SWA members believe it is the only description that accurately describes what the product is, in a manner which is comprehensible to consumers worldwide, both to the enthusiast but also the millions who enjoy the product but may know little about the category. 

Consumers understand that ‘blending means mixing’ and blending is generally understood as meaning ‘more than one’.  A number of companies have of course already changed their labels to use the description ‘Blended Malt Scotch Whisky’ and, encouragingly, there is no evidence to indicate any consumer confusion or resistance to the description.   We should also remember that any legislation introduced in the UK must also comply with EU law and under European legislation any combination of malt whiskies is defined as a 'blend'.

The SWA has always said that, whatever terms are introduced, the industry will need to take the opportunity to grow awareness and understanding of all the categories.   We will be doing just that internationally in the coming months.  The aim is to ensure that everyone receives clear, consistent, and accurate information about what they are buying.  (There is clearly little confusion about the term amongst whisky enthusiasts because, although some may not like the term, they understand what it means.)

Blend Fury

Will Lyons had an excellent piece in Scotland on Sunday on the issues with the SWA's move to introduce "Blended Malt" into the world's whisky lexicon.

---

Originally printed Sunday, March 30th, 2008
Scotland on Sunday

Blend fury

By William Lyons

A NEW row threatens to split the whisky industry as small distilleries accuse the big boys of confusing consumers and undermining single malts, writes William Lyons.

A SHORT drive from Dufftown, high above the River Spey, lies Cardhu single malt distillery. The jewel in Diageo's crown has been out of the public eye since the infamous "pure malt" controversy threatened to split the industry. But this week, as the six stills rumble away to produce the main spirit for Johnnie Walker, echoes of the dispute are being heard once again in a new row over the future of Scotch.

It's been four years since the £2.5bn industry almost ripped itself apart over the Cardhu affair when the Grant family, owner of Glenfiddich, one of Speyside's most powerful brands, roused the industry into forcing Diageo to withdraw the pure malt blend.

As the last cases were removed from the European market an uneasy calm settled over the whisky industry. As one insider said at the time: "The tanks are on the lawn but for now we have turned the engines off."

Those engines are about to be turned back on, albeit from a different source. This time it is the small distilleries that are leading the fight. With talk of the big distillers throwing their weight around, the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) steam-rolling through unpopular measures, and deals being "conducted among an old boys' network", the atmosphere has once again turned sour. As one prominent distiller remarked to this newspaper: "The Cardhu debacle which everyone thought had gone away, has not. Nothing has changed."

The vortex of this latest row is the new category "blended malt whisky", ironically the definition created to placate those who objected so strongly to Diageo's inflammatory invention.

A Modest Proposal Revisted

Driven by John Glaser's "open letter", I thought I'd revisit this "modest proposal" I made a few years ago.

In the body, you'll see that I utilize the word Blend in my descriptions - but over the intervening time, I've come to agree with John - that the average consumer considers a whisky that is a "Blend" to be inferior.

As such I would happily change the proposal from"Blend" to a less distracting word.

In the end, I fear that the SWA's original proposal was driven as a reaction to the Cardhu fiasco - and solely focused on protecting the term "Single Malt" to the extent that the other categories of Scotch whisky were hardly considered.

I am sorry to say that I suspect that, at this point, the parties involved may be sticking with their original proposal driven by an obstinate desire to "save face" - more than doing the ultimately correct thing. This suspicion is driven by the fact that both industry insiders and educated consumers have displayed a visceral dislike of the proposal. There has been vociferous response to the terms from these quarters - yet that outcry has been ignored.

At this point, I'm not really sure WHO, if anyone (outside of the proposing body), thinks this is a good idea.

Here's the bottom line.

Consumers are confused by the whisky category across the board. Why make it worse?

---

Originally Posted July 17, 2006

Call a Spade a Spade

Back in August of 2005 (in a story called A Rose By Any Other Name) I talked about the SWA-proposed nomenclature for the whisky industry.

In that story I went over the pros and cons for the existing and proposed nomenclature:

There are several terms in play. Let's look at them objectively:

VATTED MALT

There are those purists who feel that the term “Vatted malt” should be used. 

Pros:

This is the term that has been used for years, and those familiar with Scotch whisky know that “vatted malt” means a blend of single malts.

Cons: 

All whiskies (aside from single cask) are vatted before bottling.

More than that - The term simply sucks. We are trying to minimize confusion among and attract new drinkers – who wants to drink something from a “vat?”

BLENDED MALT

The Scotch Whisky Association wants to use  "Blended Malt":

Pros:

It's accurate. The products in question are comprised of a mixture of single malts. In my book, that's a "Blend." 

Cons:

Companies producing vatted whiskies feel that this term demeans the blended malts in question and may cause confusion among new drinkers through an unwanted association with “Blended Scotch whisky” the term used when describing a whisky which is created by combining single malt whisky(ies) with grain whisky.

MALT SCOTCH WHISKY

An alternate term, pushed by some of the vatters is "malt Scotch whisky.”

John Glaser (Compass Box Whisky) was quoted as saying:

“Blends are perceived by many consumers to be inferior products. The potential damage of using the word blend is far greater than sticking with vatted malt or simply using malt Scotch whisky.”

Back in August of 2005 (in a story called A Rose By Any Other Name) I talked about the SWA-proposed nomenclature for the whisky industry.

In that story I went over the pros and cons for the existing and proposed nomenclature:

There are several terms in play. Let's look at them objectively:

VATTED MALT

There are those purists who feel that the term “Vatted malt” should be used. 

Pros:

This is the term that has been used for years, and those familiar with Scotch whisky know that “vatted malt” means a blend of single malts.

Cons: 

All whiskies (aside from single cask) are vatted before bottling.

More than that - The term simply sucks. We are trying to minimize confusion among and attract new drinkers – who wants to drink something from a “vat?”

BLENDED MALT

The Scotch Whisky Association wants to use  "Blended Malt":

Pros:

It's accurate. The products in question are comprised of a mixture of single malts. In my book, that's a "Blend." 

Cons:

Companies producing vatted whiskies feel that this term demeans the blended malts in question and may cause confusion among new drinkers through an unwanted association with “Blended Scotch whisky” the term used when describing a whisky which is created by combining single malt whisky(ies) with grain whisky.

MALT SCOTCH WHISKY

An alternate term, pushed by some of the vatters is "malt Scotch whisky.”

John Glaser (Compass Box Whisky) was quoted as saying:

“Blends are perceived by many consumers to be inferior products. The potential damage of using the word blend is far greater than sticking with vatted malt or simply using malt Scotch whisky.”

An open letter from John Glaser

Say NO! to Blended Malt Scotch Whisky: Sign the Petition!

Hello friends,

Pardon the interruption, but I simply want to call your attention to an issue that is very important to our business and to the Scotch whisky industry, and is something you can help us with.

Please help us tell the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) and the UK Government that we think their legislative proposal to force companies such as ours to label our malt whiskies “Blended Malt Scotch Whisky” (instead of simply “Malt Whisky” as we do now) is a bad idea for the industry.  If this proposal becomes law, it would cause further confusion for consumers around the world regarding the labelling of Scotch whisky.  It would make people think less of artisan-made malt whiskies, such as ours, because we would have to put “blended” on our labels, a term people (wrongly, but nonetheless) perceive to refer to inferior quality products.

It would also force us to redesign and reprint all our labels, and resubmit them to label authorities around the world.  Which would be an expensive pain and a waste of time.

This proposal has been widely derided by people across the industry, including whiskymakers, marketers, retailers, distributors and writers, including the late Michael Jackson, all of whom have pointed out that the proposal will do exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do, which is reduce consumer confusion about Scotch whisky. But the SWA have buried their heads in the sand on this issue in order to push through other legislative issues they feel are more important!

I could go on.  But instead I’ll point you to a petition on the web that takes less than a minute to sign and which will help us send a message to the SWA and the lawmakers that the “blended malt Scotch whisky” legislation is a bad idea.  Just click the link:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no_to_blended_malt_Scotch_whisky/

Help us help the Scotch whisky industry!

Regards,
John Glaser
Compass Box Delicious Whisky Ltd

Now THIS is fun.

I took Canadian Club to task for the "Your Dad Drank It" ads as being stupid and misogynistic.

I recently came across this commercial (Australian?) for Jim Beam Bourbon.

How'd I miss this the first go around?

From the same parent company. This one is, by comparison, fun.

---

Update: Another one in the series...(Thanks Michael)

Paul Walsh Gets It!!! But does the rest of the organization?

I just finished reading an article in The Scotsman called More to exporting than bagpipes & tartan by Colin Donald.

It's an article focusing on Paul Walsh - Chief Executive of Diageo and newly named Chairman of the SWA.

In the article, Mr. Walsh is quoted as saying:

"I think the reason that Scotch languished as it did in the 1990s was that, as marketeers, we relied too much on the wonders of the product and we communicated those wonders through – forgive me – bagpipes, heather and tartan. Those are very important and relevant qualities but in today's world they are not enough to position the product to a new-age consumer."

Mr. Walsh gets it. I'd like the opportunity to chat with Mr. Walsh, as I am impressed with his stewardship of Diageo - and the man has certainly turned a good profit for me as a shareholder.

What Diageo, as a marketing behemoth, misses is that marketing needs to be authentic - and authenticity can come from selling the Kilts and Castles. If you forgo that imagery, then your approach must firmly rooted in an authentic departure.

Despite what most CPG brand managers believe, branding is NOT the "Walking Man" or inexplicable brand extensions or even the product itself - instead a brand is that impalpable convergence between what you want a customer to think about your product - and what they actually think about it.

Brands are defined by consumers - not by the companies which produce them.

That's a tough pill to swallow for all the marketing, advertising, and public relations people (and not just at Diageo) - who are absolutely certain that they can control the mind of the weak-willed consumer. They miss the point that a company can certainly influence how a consumer thinks - by clearly describing the qualities which differentiate a product.

Playing on the insecurities of the consumer - as so many marketers do - is not "life-style". Nor is it a long-term marketing strategy.

So while I agree with Mr. Walsh's keen observation (and I don't just say that because I've been saying it for years) that in order to be truly successful in the world-wide market, the perception of Scotch has to change - a move to life-style based marketing is a great start - but certainly not the only answer.

Life-style marketing is not a panacea - and, managed poorly such approaches can unfortunately degenerate into fad status. It can also become the basis for a very poor play-book. (Rap Stars & Alcohol, anyone?)

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.

The Marketing of the Ultra-premium Whiskeys

Today's story comes from Foodie & blogger-extraodinaire, Kate Hopkins, the brains behind Accidental Hedonist.

Kate's been getting into our favorite beverage lately and has a great take on the 'surgence' (yeah, yeah, I know - that's not a word) of premium Bourbon.

There's the feeling out there that Scotch drinkers don't like Bourbon and that Bourbon drinkers don't go near Scotch. Speaking from my personal experience and the people that I meet, that's simply not true.

If you know a Scotch snob who looks down his nose at Bourbon, kick him in the nuts and find some new friends.

Coming in 2008 we'll devote a substantial chunk of time to Bourbon. And my annual whisky tasting this year will be focusing on non-Scotch whiskies (yes, like Bourbon), so look for that story. But to whet your appetite for the U.S's official liquor, here's Kate...

---

The Marketing of the Ultra-premium Whiskeys
Accidental Hedonist, November 29, 2007
by Kate Hopkins

Eric Asimov, the drink writer at the New York Times, takes a look at bourbon and its increase in popularity.

The dive in sales forced bourbon producers to accept that the whiskey market had changed. They might not be able to compete with vodka, but to avoid permanent relegation to the dusty back shelves of liquor stores, bourbon producers would have to find a way to attract the budding connoisseur class.

For me, this evolution in the whiskey industry here in America is quite fascinating. For all of this talk of "tradition" and "history" in the Kentucky/Tennessee whiskey industries, the fact remains that these companies didn't really hit their stride until our own lifetime. Around the fifties and sixties, Canadian Whisky was the popular drink. Then Jack Daniels and Jim Beam hit their stride in the sixties and seventies, mostly from the fact that they had good financial backing, decent marketing, and the ability to get into markets that other distillers could not. No where on this list is the phrase "devoted to the quality of the product".