I began 2013 as a fawning fan of all things whisky. I ended the year angry. Much of the latter part of the year I spent internalizing way too much frustration. But I'm not keeping quiet this year because when it comes to whisky, though the liquid is fun much of the rest is not.
There’s a lot being written about whisky both online and in print. Most of it ultimately serves as promotional material for large corporations. Even when the crustiest and most cynical of us bloggers write, “Hey, this is pretty good” about a whisky, we’re helping get more bottles sold. But saying something nice about something we like isn’t the problem. The issue at hand is the widespread regurgitation and propagation of marketing material at the expense of factual information and independence. Plenty of folks are writing to support the whisky industry, but how many are considering the readers and consumers?
There’s a lot being written about whisky both online and in print. Most of it ultimately serves as promotional material for large corporations. Even when the crustiest and most cynical of us bloggers write, “Hey, this is pretty good” about a whisky, we’re helping get more bottles sold. But saying something nice about something we like isn’t the problem. The issue at hand is the widespread regurgitation and propagation of marketing material at the expense of factual information and independence. Plenty of folks are writing to support the whisky industry, but how many are considering the readers and consumers?
Let’s take a step back for a sec. There are many categories of people writing about whisky,
each with different influences in play.
Firstly, we have independent bottlers, like Single Cask
Nation and Caskstrength. Then we
have retailers, like K&L Wines, who also occasionally do their own
independent bottling. These first
two groups have a vested interest in sales. That’s their income, it’s their job. As long as they clearly disclose to their readership their involvement with the industry, then it is up
to the reader to consider how much that involvement influences the writers' reviews or
opinions on the business.
Next, there are the paid writers. Their numbers are few.
Paid writing gigs are difficult to come by in any industry and whisky is
no exception. Sometimes these
(mostly) men publish books, but more frequently they write articles for a handful of whisky journals. While
books don’t require outright advertising by whiskymakers in their pages, the
journals do. Those print ads can
be the cause of healthy skepticism in a reader. On one page he will see an advertisement for Glenmorangie, then five pages
later a loving article about Master Morangie Bill Lumsden, then twelve pages
later a rave review of the newest limited edition GlenMo. While I don’t believe writers are being
forced to sculpt their content, journals (and books) will have a difficult time
being published if the industry that creates their subject matter experiences a
steep decline or is no longer deemed exciting. So while the writers may not purposely write things to keep
the industry zooming along, it is in the publishers’ interest that whisky revenues barrel ahead.
Finally, there’s the vast blogosphere. There are hundreds of us writing and
posting tasting notes. Some of us
have direct connections to the industry, most of us have none. Some of us get free review samples directly from the companies, most of us do not. Some of us shmooze industry types, some of us attend free
tastings, some of us resell our bottles in the secondary market. Some of us do none of those
things. But those things we do,
those social or financial choices, must be disclosed to our readerships in order
to give everyone what he or she needs in order to consume our content in an
informed fashion.
Three months ago, MAO from My Annoying Opinions critiqued
the blogging community both privately in the Whisky Bloggers Facebook group and publicly on his blog. He
challenged us by saying that all of our warm “fuzzy” buddy-buddy-ness with each
other, and with whisky professionals, had created a “(soft)
corruption”, and that any sort of “spirit of critique” no longer existed. He was roundly shouted down and labeled
a “troll”. Perhaps people took
issue with his tone, as he minces no words. Perhaps people were very comfortable in their
give-and-receive whisky lifestyle.
Perhaps people felt like they and their friends were being criticized as
human beings. Unfortunately the
one blogger who answered the challenge and attempted some public self-deconstruction took all the heat for
sins that have been more heavily exploited by others. The discussion turned absolutist and staunchly partisan and
ultimately everyone went back to his and her Twitter Tastings. MAO's original reasonable point was left
neglected, and I was left concerned that most of us couldn’t bear to spare any
meditation on the matter.
Those who say that blogging is merely a masturbatory endeavor are either deluded, in denial, or protecting something. Only masturbation is masturbatory. Once your blog post is "published" an audience other than you, the author, reads it. Sometimes it is three people. Sometimes it is 300,000. Your words appear on someone else's screen and exist in that person's life.
People buy bottles of whisky after they read our
reviews. Yes, even some of my
readers have purchased things influenced by something I’ve written. Even I, a reader who hates buying blind,
have bought things after seeing a number of positive reviews by bloggers I
like. Whisky is getting very
expensive and there’s a whole lot of marketing blather out there, so folks are
looking for reviews that appear at least somewhat independent.
I’ll frame that last paragraph another way. For those bloggers who are posting
reviews of whisky provided directly from brand ambassadors or other industry
employees, please disclose in your review that the whisky was provided directly from a brand ambassador or another industry employee. And even more importantly, I urge you
to consider your readers when writing a final assessment of that free
whisky, because that whisky you received for free is not free to your readers.
If you’re posting a 90-point/4.5-star/A-rated review about
your free whisky and you yourself are not running out to buy a bottle of it
with your own money, then I encourage you to tell your readers why. Those folks inspired by your words will need to spend their own income to get that same whisky.
And to all bloggers, before you continue perpetuating
popular whisky tales, go in and do some research. Give us facts.
For instance, here's one issue: people writing extensively or repetitively
that whisky prices are going up due to shortages caused by massive whisky sales
over the last several years. There
are tables and PDFs available via the SWA and Shanken News Dailey and Drinks Business Review as well as other (often free) spirits
news sites demonstrating that growth of volume sales has not risen
consistently from year to year nor has volume growth been consistent across all brands. I am not denying that
whisky revenues have been up, nor that volume sales were very good in 2013.
Just give some numbers and facts before contributing to the scarcity
fears stoked by companies that stand to profit off of fear-based purchasing and
the resulting price bloat. If your
research supports the scarcity story, then that’s fine, give us the info.
I also encourage independent bloggers to challenge the industry when their tactics either mislead consumers or blur the truth. There are the small things cropping up on a regular basis. For instance, when "news" broke that Diageo will be releasing a new range of Mortlach single malt, it was revealed that the entry malt will be named Rare Old. As an entry malt, a non-age-statement entry malt, it is almost certainly neither rare nor old. But nonetheless they named it that and it is purported to be priced in the JW-Platinum-$90-range. Or, how about the catalyst to my current discontent? The Glenlivet Alpha. There was an almost total lack of comment on the cynicism behind the abandon-all-ye-brains-and-wallets approach to the Alpha, a glorified version of the Nadurra but at thrice the price and with a lower ABV to match. Rather, quite a portion of the blogosphere seemed to fall over itself to get a sample and encourage the mad rush to buy into a zero-disclosure ugly marketing stunt. Meanwhile, the Rare Old and Alpha lead to another concern on a much larger scale: the growing spate of NAS releases means even less disclosure about what's inside the product consumers are buying. Why should we not question the industry's fear of informed consumers? If we don't question, then who will?
This is my plea for all of us to maintain a level of
independence and keep our readers in mind. I used to have 40+ blogs on my newsfeed. Now I have 10, and a couple of those I
keep on the feed just to piss me off.
Yes, whisky is a tremendous and glorious thing. But not every whisky is tremendous and
glorious and excellent and a rip-roaring rollercoaster thrill ride. If every single review you write is
about an amazing whisky, then I stopped reading your blog. If you never site where you've sourced your whisky, then I stopped reading your blog.
If your blog actively encouraged scarcity fear, then I stopped reading your blog. If your blog made generalizations that
only served to benefit the industry, then I stopped reading your blog. All it would have taken to keep this reader around would have been
some background information about your whisky and some facts to back up your stories. These elements lead me to believe you have thought about your readers before you clicked Publish.
So where the hell did this post come from?
Stop and consider for a moment what you value as a drinker and what the industry values. Do those values match up? As a whisky consumer, I would like good whisky I can buy. Publicly-traded whisky producers would like to sell as much of a product at as high of a price and at as low of a cost as they can. I don’t like paying more for less. In order to satisfy their balance sheets and investors (which they value more than their employees, customers, and product quality), and to thus maintain rising growth, corporations need me to pay more for less. You see how these things don’t really match up?
Stop and consider for a moment what you value as a drinker and what the industry values. Do those values match up? As a whisky consumer, I would like good whisky I can buy. Publicly-traded whisky producers would like to sell as much of a product at as high of a price and at as low of a cost as they can. I don’t like paying more for less. In order to satisfy their balance sheets and investors (which they value more than their employees, customers, and product quality), and to thus maintain rising growth, corporations need me to pay more for less. You see how these things don’t really match up?
I believe many of the actual distillers and blending teams are working
their tails off trying to create a product they can be proud of, often with
ingredients of lessening quality.
But because most companies desire constant revenue growth above all else – thus all of the lawyers,
lobbyists, and marketing divisions – selling a brand is what’s important. So what if they lose a customer like
me? There are new malleable customers to be had, everywhere. The lose-a-customer-gain-a-customer approach is not the best way to do business, but the tobacco industry got by on it for years.
If you think I’m a commie dick for my anti-corporate
ravings, that’s fine. You won’t be
the first. But at least think
about your readers, your fellow drinkers.
There are enough mechanisms in place to support the whisky industry. Why
not recognize the rest of us, the humans?
Nothing we, the blogosphere, write exists in a vacuum. Our rave reviews can sell bottles, which may eventually influence prices. Our perpetuation of marketing blurbs (whether fact or myth) can sell bottles, which may eventually influence prices. I doubt my little bloggie here has much influence on its own, but it is part of the larger blogosphere and sometimes contributes to The Whisky Talk. In fact, I think half my readers are my fellow bloggers, which is why I wrote this. Diving for Pearls has been far from exemplary in the past and should be held to the same standards I just wrote. So here are some disclosures:
Nothing we, the blogosphere, write exists in a vacuum. Our rave reviews can sell bottles, which may eventually influence prices. Our perpetuation of marketing blurbs (whether fact or myth) can sell bottles, which may eventually influence prices. I doubt my little bloggie here has much influence on its own, but it is part of the larger blogosphere and sometimes contributes to The Whisky Talk. In fact, I think half my readers are my fellow bloggers, which is why I wrote this. Diving for Pearls has been far from exemplary in the past and should be held to the same standards I just wrote. So here are some disclosures:
- 96% of my reviews have been from sample swaps, sample purchases, gifts from friends outside the industry, or my own bottles. The remaining percentage includes whiskies I’ve consumed at ambassador/rep-led free tastings. As of the beginning of 2013, I stopped rating whiskies consumed at these events. I will make an effort in every review to reference where the whisky came from. If I don’t, please call my attention to it.
- I do know a few brand ambassadors and distributor reps. I say this not as “I’m kind of a big deal”, but instead there are a few folks from The Dreaded Industry whom I find cool to chat and drink with. None of these people have requested any reviews of their products.
- I actually wouldn’t mind working in the industry in some fashion. In fact, I’ve snooped around about a few jobs. But since I socialize and network terribly, that’s probably cost me some employment. And I’m pretty sure I’ve written a couple things that potential employers wouldn’t be terribly excited about.
Thanks Michael, two thumbs up. I really apprechiate your thoughts as a welcome input when it comes to this quickly changing industry in which we all participate in one or the other way.
ReplyDeleteKeep ravin ;)
Thank you, Cobo, for your comment. And thank you for reading my blog!
DeleteBTW, is that '70s bottle (from your flickr pics) of Teacher's yours? If so, enjoy!
Yes it is... from time to time i'm in the mood for a nice old Blend :)
DeleteI was also very surprised by the White Cat Blend... very subtle and sweet without having the Grain subdue the general taste and balance.
Michael, I'm very proud of you! And your blog will always be on my blog reader list, however much that will shrink! It's currently down to 30 from 60 or so. (I also loved the part with two blogs you keep on your 10-blog feed just to piss you off!)
ReplyDeleteThank you, Florin. I always appreciate your comments and feedback. I'll never reveal whose two blogs those are, though actually I've rotated some in and out of that exclusive group.
DeleteThis is why I've made sure to include some line to the effect of 'is this worth buying?' in my reviews, especially since I don't score anything. Most of the time when someone is reading a review, that's what they care the most about. Value is critical.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, Jordan. Value is critical, I agree. I try to do that in my reviews as well. Though, it's getting difficult to determine value levels as prices keep rising. So it's all relative. Thus I feel like I have to qualify how something is a value. For instance, is Laphroaig a value at $45 for a 10yo? Historically (even as of two years ago), no. But in the current market, yes, because Talisker is now selling for $70 in some places. Then there's the value for quality. Kilchoman is expensive for baby whisky, but the quality is there. It's tough to say $60 for a 5yo 46% ABV whisky is good value when looking at those facts, but in the $60 price range it's some of the best stuff on the shelf.
DeleteYou definitely do take these issues into consideration in your reviews, plus you're always up front about how that whisky got into your hands. You also keep your reviews lean and straightforward, which is admirable since some of us (read: I) can get wordy.
I only regret that I have but two thumbs to put up for this blog post!
ReplyDeleteThank you Josh! You and I need to chat soon...
DeleteIndeed, we do!
DeleteYou hit the nail on the head for this blogger. To this point, unless I've disclosed it, I've purchased all of the stuff I've reviewed but I realize I don't think I've ever mentioned that. You've inspired me to not only fix that, but make clear that I really don't want review samples from the industry (if someone want to send me things to enjoy, that's cool, but I'm not going to blog about them).
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. That change is coming soon.
Thank you, Eric, for your comment! I think you've referenced your own bottles at times, like with your Four Roses Gift Shop single barrels (I'm jealous!). But it's not a bad idea for all of us to err on the side of clarity.
DeleteFree review samples are odd ethical territory. One can claim that the free stuff won't influence the review. But is it true? My personal take is that if I buy the whisk(e)y, then I'm going to have a clearer frame of mind to write about its value and quality. Clearly many other folks feel differently.
I respect your take on these matters. Thanks again for your comment!
Speaking of Four Roses gift shop single barrels, I have a sample of (almost) 11 year OBSO with your name on it, and there will be an (almost) 12 year OESK sometime in the future. Should be fun to try them side-by-side.
DeleteSweet. Thanks Josh! We can both do a Taste Off between them if you've saved enough for two drams of the OBSO.
DeleteWhat a load of bullshit. People like you are what's wrong with whisky!
ReplyDeleteHey, that WAS annoying! I applaud your consistency.
DeleteAs you probably know, Joshua (but just in case someone else doesn't): I am joking. That's a response I've gotten in the past when I've voiced similar views. I couldn't resist taking a turn to aim it at someone else. I'm hilarious that way.
DeleteIndeed, MAO, I figured that was the case. I should have put a winky face at the end of my comment. :)
DeleteHey now, I think we can all agree that any request for ethical considerations in whisky blogging is unreasonable. And yes, I have ruined Whisky.
DeleteCool post. Some day we should start a campaign for publicly searchable barrel ID that has to be attached to every TTB filing. At least DSP/s
ReplyDeleteBourbon Truth
Thank you, Bourbon Truth (or The Troof, as I refer to you when I'm talking to myself). It would be great to have a publicly searchable barrel database integrated with TTB filings. I'm pretty certain the distilleries/DSPs, especially the well-run ones, have their own barrel databases. How much would it hurt them to disclose this sort of information to their customers? Instead it could even lead to more (and smarter) enthusiasm amongst their customers.
DeleteMichael, can I take a moment to notice that Bourbon Truth/Lloyd Christmas stopped for a visit? You've made it, Michael. This guy is the Zorro of bourbon, everyone talks about him but nobody knows who he is! He had his own full disclosure moment which was only his second funniest posting involving dogs and bourbon!
DeleteYes, I have three dusties of Turd Nub Puerto Rican Bourbon in my cabinet, lined up side-by-side like the bowling pins they are, thanks to Mr. Christmas's high recommendation.
DeleteLotsa ha-ha, lotsa atta-boy in these comments. But no hard solutions to the posed problems couched in aggrieved bitchery.
ReplyDeleteThat solution is simple. Don't buy products that violate customer good faith.
Scour meat-space shelves & cyber inventories for product quantfiable as quality for value, meaning price, age statement, defined grain and water sources, long ferment times.
Who cares what cods-wallop Glenlivet foists on the retailer ? Make the dunderhead sit on that inventory until it gets remaindered at a fair price. This year's treasured dusties are last decade's overpriced failures.
Macallan can name every color in the rainbow on a label for all it matters to me; I don't buy that egregiously gouging product. Lagavulin can piss in 60ml Boston rounds and blanket the planet in samples. I still won't drink it, let alone pay for it.
Do your homework instead of expecting itemized cross-tabulated provenance spoonfed to you at a bargain, you entitlement demanding princess wannabe.
K&L got three cases of 18y Balmenach Deerstalker. Damn few keywords required in Google to learn the distillery is owned by the Thai beverage conglomerate pimping Mekong brand, but the product is essentially the Scots equivalent of Smooth Ambler.
Wanna see who you need to be buying instead of hoary brand names traded among transnational vulture capital dynasties like skanks at a biker gangbang ? Look at the mashbills dared by Feisty Spirits in Colorado.
Try it, buy it and hoard it for parity group exchange at tasting events, or don't, as your tastes prefer
Most of all, educate new drinkers in order to grow your retail product scouting network
and goad local "craft" distillers to get their product in wood right now instead of thinking they can pay the note on their overleveraged West German copper column with another locavore herb infused newmake abomination.
"Entitlement demanding princess wannabe"? If that was aimed at me, then you can ditch the "wannabe" part. Everyone who knows me knows I'm a princess. But entitlements? I'm not sure how encouraging bloggers to stop being an echo chamber for marketing hacks equals me demanding entitlement.
DeleteSimilar to you, I am not a customer of Diageo's or Macallan's. I actually do like some of their products but have decided that the limited level of hedonistic pleasure their products provide do not outweigh the ethical issues I have with those brands/companies.
The Glenlivet Alpha never had a chance to sit on shelves since a good part of the blogosphere (who are not paid by Pernod) encouraged the mob to instantly buy out a naked emperor product. And this appears to happen with every single limited release by a major whiskymaker. People who are trying to figure out what to buy are provided no information by the company responsible for the product, so some folks turn to the blogs looking not for guidance but at least a hint of what to expect. If they're provided with something not short of brand rep regurgitation masquerading as independent thought, then I have an issue with that. If a company is obfuscating information or lying about its products, I'm asking folks with a readership not to parrot the fib. I'm not sure that's demanding entitlement.
My readers, I don't think, are demanding entitlement either. If I can find something helpful, I'll share it. That's part of what keeps me motivated with this blog. Everyone should to do his homework, as you said. Informed consumers need to gather information themselves, but when they start doing Google searches they'll get links to sites with the aforementioned recycled marketing. If more content providers (or writers or bloggers or whatever you want to call them) increased their independence, then said "homework" would result in more honesty, more discussion, and a few more facts.
Mr. Morlock, you are certainly very serious about your spirits. Your final paragraph is awesome. I agree 100% with it. It's been difficult to find many, or any, small American distillers to recommend to folks. And group exchange, tasting events, and bottle splits are excellent ways to get good spirits into good hands.
Thank you very much for you comment. You and I technically agree on many things, but I'm getting hung up on the entitlement thing.
You DO like your sparkly dresses...
Deletemorlock, I just want to do another quick follow up comment because you made a number of good points. Customers should be critical thinkers, especially about big ticket items, because now whisky has become the big ticket spirit. If a person buys a car or television or tablet or fancy shoes or a suit, he should (if he cares about his purchase) do some background work before acquiring that item. So, if you're encouraging individual consumers to empower themselves rather than expecting others to do it for them, I agree. My hope is that some of us can provide them with some good info when they do start their research.
DeleteAnonymous's response below is much better than either of my attempts today. But thank you again for your comment.
@Joshua -- Yes, they must MUST be sparkly. I will not be seen in anything less than sparkly.
DeleteThere is no lack of positive commentary on whisky (or on and about whisky blogs), largely because positive comments aren’t really controversial in the sense that they disrupt anyone’s ego or revenue stream – thus there’s no lack of people, both inside the industry and out, to provide positive comments (what friends WON’T you make by telling everyone they’re great?). And where there is something that’s less than stellar to be criticised, many of these same folks, particularly the professionals (although there are some shilling amateurs as well) fall silent. In fact, I would argue that those shilling for the industry do their greatest service, not by their kind words, but by their even kinder silences in an era of rising prices, falling quality and dodgy logic. Something the industry says or does doesn’t make sense (or isn’t even consistent with what it said/did five years ago)? No comment, or “it’s controversial” (without expressing any opinion about who’s right IN the “controversy” – somehow it’s just not for these people, “acknowledged experts” all, to say) or “it’s just business” or “it’s just the producer’s job”. It’s never anything to be taken any more seriously, or given any more logical dissection, than a friendly wink to those already “in on the joke” – and does the quality of the new whisky in question really matter to these people anyway while they shrug, laugh, and return to their bunkered bottles and high-end free samples?
ReplyDeleteIf the consumer’s interests are to be expressed at all, it does fall to the bloggers to do it: the industry has teams of paid liars and magazines have teams of paid passive cheerleaders whose current general motto is “if you can’t say anything nice, try not to say anything at all”. While some bloggers may well eventually weasel their way into industry jobs by writing predominantly positive, uncritical, pap, (and that’s the only way they’ll get there, not because of what they currently write, but because of acclimatizing to what they’ll be allowed to write), it’s only the form of blogging, with its low-to-nil revenue stream, which will ever speak for the consumer. Whether he or she chooses to champion the consumer’s perspective, it’s only the average blogger, not the professional, who stands close enough to that perspective to understand and write for it.
And, all that said, morlock has a great point: take consumer action and advocate that it should be taken. If the point of this is that no one else cares about consumer interests, there are no apologies to be made for acting in those interests ourselves.
Thank you, Anonymous, for your comment. It is much clearer and better constructed than my replies today.
DeleteI wish the leading journals, specifically Advocate, had an Ombudsman to call BS and challenge the passive (or aggressive) enabling of corporate-fueled misinformation. The SWA has no interest in consumers, but instead "protects the industry" and sues those anyone who uses staves in their casks or calls vattings vattings. So is there someone who is fully paid by Big Whisky or little whisky that is an active voice of dissent? Jim Murray's sherry cask complaints don't count in this case.
No, I don’t think there is any such person, nor will there ever be because what they would write/say would create a counter-narrative to the industry’s version of events – and Jim Murray doesn’t count because his counter-narratives are mostly just about being controversial to boost his own sales and don't prevent him from WAY overscoring a lot of average and sub-average slop. The industry’s perspective is entirely overrepresented to the whisky consumer, in ways big and small, active and passive, but the most pervasive aspect of it is the idea that, whether it serves the consumer or not, it’s ONLY the industry’s perspective which has any claim to truth or validity – that it’s only the industry’s “problems”, real or imagined, which matter.
DeleteLike you, I don’t buy into the idea that the world is running out of whisky, but nor do I believe that “a company needs constant revenue growth”, while the great majority of those working for that company somehow do not and survive just fine. Regular people need just “enough” money to survive (and are constantly being told to tighten their belts as a result of competition, or, if they don’t like the conditions, “there’s the door” – and how would it go down if the stillman said he needed a raise to afford his distillery’s new overpriced release?), but companies need ever-increasing revenues or they will die (or will the overcompensated folks at the top just be fired by the shareholders)? By the same token, I don’t take it for granted that “actual distillers and blenders are working their tails off trying to create a product they can be proud of” as opposed to products they can simply make and sell within clear quality/cost parameters (to supply that all-consuming “need” for higher revenues). While all this extra effort MIGHT be true in some cases, I often just don’t taste it, and I can’t assume it in the way that I KNOW whisky marketing people are getting ever more successfully creative (although generally softening analysis and criticism is, again, helping there). I’d have some sympathy for the industry’s problem of “ingredients of lessening quality”, if there could be some acknowledgment that there’s any problem to BE identified, and that whisky’s in a quality slide as a result – but, instead, it’s always “better, not worse, and an exciting time for young whisky, new processes, and that exciting new distillery from Upper Slobovia, etc.”, all because it’s accepted that the industry HAS to lie, because that’s “just business”, and around we go again. I don’t assume from the above, by the way, that you have a predominantly “pro-industry” perspective, but I do, obviously, give the industry less benefit of the doubt.
We actually agree on quite a lot here. Before "publishing" the original post, I cut two paragraphs out regarding my anger towards the "Because Business" defense of everything in our culture. I trimmed it out because the post was already a long read, because my gripe was about something even larger(!) than whisky, and because I violated my no cussing policy a half dozen times. To understaff, to lie to and manipulate customers and employees, and to gut all expenditures at the expense of a product is not Business. It's one way to do business, but not the only way. For some reason that has become the main accepted method for corporations to operate. They take aspects of snake oil salesmanship, drug dealing, and grifting and employ those tactics to bring more profits to their executives and investors, whom they have decided are so important that they'll punish their employees and customers in the process. And I'm fucking tired of bloggers, writers, reps, and retailers using "Because Business" as a blanket defense for unacceptable parasitic behavior. I don't exactly wish failure upon the whisky industry, but if success equals more Glenlivet Alphas, more $130 10yo Glen Morays, and more Macallan M auctions then I do not wish success either. Not this version of success.
DeleteWith all that in mind, my comment that "a company needs constant revenue growth" was intended as sarcasm and to be a callback to the deleted paragraphs. But now that verb "needs" takes on its actual meaning. Maybe I need to rethink a couple of sentences to clarify my stance. I'm sorry for the confusion.
I agree that many (or most?) Master Blenders are tailoring their output to financial and marketing variables. Often these same Master Blenders do 100s of interviews, shows, and fancy tastings to promote these products. It becomes difficult to believe these individuals who so gleefully embrace the corporate dog-and-pony-show are fully personally invested in the actual quality of the products they make. My original positive thought/hope was aimed more towards the people we don't hear about, the people who aren't getting six- or seven-figure salaries, the people who have to continue to excel at their craft in fear of their (highly profitable) company downsizing again. They likely have cost or material constraints that prevent them from doing so. But I'm trying to give these employees the benefit of the doubt. I do not give their employers any benefit of the doubt whatsoever.
Thanks again for your comments. I've (hopefully) clarified a couple sentences in the post. I didn't realize that my anti-corporate ravings had been diluted by my language.
Delete"And to all bloggers, before you continue perpetuating popular whisky tales, go in and do some research. Give us facts. For instance, here's one issue: people writing extensively or repetitively that whisky prices are going up due to shortages caused by massive whisky sales over the last several years. There are tables and PDFs available via the SWA and Shanken News Dailey and Drinks Business Review as well as other (often free) spirits news sites demonstrating that growth of volume sales has not risen consistently from year to year nor has volume growth been consistent across all brands. I am not denying that whisky revenues have been up, nor that volume sales were very good in 2013. Just give some numbers and facts before contributing to the scarcity fears stoked by companies that stand to profit off of fear-based purchasing and the resulting price bloat. If your research supports the scarcity story, then that’s fine, give us the info."
ReplyDeleteBrilliant paragraph!
Funny how just today I posted something on twitter questioning the conventional wisdom that Canadian whisky is on a huge growth curve. Immediately someone chimed in about 25% growth but could not support the number when I questioned them on it. All he could do was call upon the "expert" on all things Canadian whisky to explain.
portwood
Thanks for your comment! I saw your tweet about the 25% growth reference wherein neither the article nor the interviewee cited where that measurement came from......meanwhile you displayed where the Yearbook (which does cite its sources) shows a 3% decline.
DeleteI sorta want to know more. Does that 25% reference revenue growth? If so, that means prices increased almost 29%! Or maybe it included flavored whiskies. These are important factors that often go unquestioned. I won't lose sleep over it, but it doesn't make me confident about journalism in general.
A quick search of the Statistics Canada website (link below) shows a volume drop of 1% while revenue grew 3% for 2013 vs 2012.
DeleteStats Can has a reputation as one of the best national data gatherers in the world. While their numbers may have some faults there is a HUGE disconnect between what their tables show and the 25% that has become "accepted" all over the media. A quick google search for "canadian whisky exports" returns a bunch of hits from "reputable" news sources quoting the same source (Davin de Kergommeaux) on the 25% growth number. Journalism isn't what it used to be, fact checking seems to have gone the way of the dinosaurs.
I don't know, nor do I have the time to search, for the most accurate data, but ANY growth number of 25% for an established consumable product within a mature economy is ... hard to believe. Those kind of growth number happen for new high tech products, not food or drink!
It will be interesting to see if there is a response to my two tweets outlining the above.
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cimt-cicm/topNCountries-pays?lang=eng§ionId=4&dataTransformation=0&refYr=2013&refMonth=11&freq=12&countryId=0&usaState=0&provId=1&retrieve=Retrieve&save=null&country=null&tradeType=1&topNDefault=10&monthStr=null&chapterId=22&arrayId=0§ionLabel=IV%20-%20Prepared%20foodstuffs;%20beverages,%20spirits%20and%20vinegar;%20tobacco%20and%20manufactures%20tobacco%20substitutes.&scaleValue=0&scaleQuantity=0&commodityId=220830
Cheers,
portwood
Wow, that table is pretty damning. How on Earth does one juggle those numbers and get 25% growth? That's not even spin doctoring at that point. Thank you for the link.
DeleteWe are certainly much more on the same page than I would have initially thought, and the dialogue/fact checking on growth from Portwood is very interesting - all the dodgy numbers feeding into the narrative, of course, that the whisky industry HAS to behave the way it does (higher pricing, younger/unstated ages) as it's driven by necessity without options. But, even if declining supply stocks ARE applying pressure, one idea that certainly doesn't get a lot of play is that the industry could be doing a little price gouging/product cost reduction on top of what's "necessary" to deal with the scarcity “issue”. It's as if the idea of simple greed has disappeared from mainline commentary as a possible industry motivation (yet in the “it’s all just business” model, greed is good, just not talked about) - again, reinforcing the idea that consumers don't need to look out for their own interests as the always honest industry, in looking after itself, looks after everybody in some kind of benefit "trickle down".
DeleteI've been thinking about that too. Johannes, the original Malt Madness man, tweeted something along those lines recently. (https://twitter.com/MaltMadness/status/419002299306897408)
DeleteI've been reading as many official reports that are linked via the liquor news sites as possible and I'm finding that in every single media announcement the company/lobby/organization switches back and forth between volume and revenue numbers to obscure declines or less-than-impressive growth. It's both shrewd and deceitful. If they keep projecting the image of great success, it'll get headlines and make less knowledgable investors happy. And it'll be another page in the Scarcity! story and influence further fear-based purchases.
I'm probably going to have to start doing a "Decode the Financial Reality" series one of these months soon.
Dramming's Oliver Klimek also posted something related - on the slowdown of sales growth for Diageo, particularly in Asia (http://www.dramming.com/2014/01/31/so-much-for-the-boom-in-china/), knocking the stock down by 4.7%.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the sales drop in China has been killing Remy Martin too, specifically with their cognac.
DeleteIn Oliver's link to the article in The Scotsman, there's this: "Shares in French rivals Pernod Ricard and Remy Cointreau, already hit by similar emerging market concerns, each fell about 3 per cent." And yes they're already hinting at layoffs. So basically, people lower down the chain will lose their jobs because the corporate officers made poor decisions. Sounds about par for the course.
I think Remy's financial woes have been published in Shanken, but I'm more interested in Pernod's situation since they have a much bigger stake in the whisky game.
Interesting spin/dialogue on Whisky Advocate's "DISCUS Briefing Confirms Surging Growth of American Whiskey" as well.
DeleteYeah, the guy in the comment section of WA's post makes a lot of good points. The reports do switch back and forth between volume and revenue in a purposely unclear manner. Unclear because they want to highlight the good news. Blended whisky and bottom shelf volume really isn't growing much anymore and in some cases declining. Spirits' market share is essentially treading water. They hype that export revenue is up 5%, but nowhere do they site the volume growth. And what we're seeing across the board are dramatic price increases.
DeleteBut Americans are buying more single malt. That part is true.