How serious are they?

Last week I posted about the new campaign from Cricket Australia, supported by Fosters, Diageo and Channel 9, called ‘Know when to declare”. While supporting the campaign, I did highlight some of the challenges that a company that profits from selling alcohol faces in being taken seriously selling the healthy drinking message. Last Sunday night on the Beer Show we had Troy Hey, Fosters General Manager-Media and Reputation, on to talk about the campaign. Troy spoke about the campaign and its aims and made good points about the role a business like Foster’s has to play in changing societal perceptions about alcohol. It’s obviously an issue that, at least on some level, the business is serious about.

Then today, I’m strolling through the local bottlo and see the latest promotion for Carlton Mid, Ken’s Bucks. With the tagline, “We made up a man so you can go to his Bucks”.

Google “Ken’s Bucks” and the first return is:'

Now, what is the first thing that you think of when you think of a buck’s party? (Ok, maybe the second..after boobs and before the shaved eyebrows and one-way train tickets). But it’s certainly not moderation or responsible drinking.

To quote comedian Robin Williams out of context, sticking the ‘enjoy responsibly’ logo on a promotion that ties beer with a buck’s night is like trying to stop a Ferrari with a tissue.

A couple of weeks ago, Foster’s national sponsorship manager, Chris Maxwell, admitted the company was wrong to feature David Boon as part of their talking doll campaign because it could be seen promoting binge drinking.

The issue with Boonie is a hard one. He is a great Australian, and he has personally never sought to promote or glamorise his inflight ‘achievement’. As a recent article about it recounted:

When asked a few years ago to discuss it, his blunt reply was: "Never have, never will." When he penned his life story soon after his retirement he didn't even mention it.

But, fairly or not, he will forever be associated with the 52 cans on a flight to London and associating him with a beer campaign is a nudge and a wink in that direction.

In admitting the error, Chris Maxwell said:

"Looking back, we have decided that was the wrong thing to do. We didn't have the foresight to see that this issue was going to be so significant. And in glorifying that behaviour we have added to the issue of the normalisation of binge-drinking in Australia.

''The difference is now we realise we have a responsibility to the community to promote our products in a responsible way. Therefore, we think a lot more deeply about how we use ambassadors, how we use our messages, and the potential impact down the track."

When I put this to Troy, he replied:

The promotion is for midstrength beer, aimed at spending time with your mates with the prize a 5 star accommodation, meal, nightclub entry and grand canyon helicopter and white water rafting adventure.

There’s nothing in the promotion that encourages abuse of alcohol and instead, it plays to the modern incarnation of the bucks party - as the ultimate leave pass for the bloke who finds it tough to get time away to do ‘stuff’ i.e. golf, go-cart racing, fishing, fly to LA and white water raft etc.)

All reasonable, except the competition isn’t called “The Ultimate Leave Pass” competition.

The “Know when to declare” message is a positive one, but it seems to be inconsistent with and undermined by the very same brewery tying a campaign to buck's parties.

What's the first thing you think about when you think buck's nights?

Sip, slop, slap

I have an article in today’s The Punch (complete with the perfect picture to illustrate the concept) arguing that, despite what certain anti-drink campaigners would like to think, having a beer is more like going to the beach than smoking…so cover up and don’t get burnt this weekend.

Let me know what you think.

Somebody slap that bitch, please

I find myself getting cranky a lot these days. I recently turned forty and I hope my crankiness is not due to getting old, but I can’t think what else it could be. I know that it’s not because I’m turning into a wowser, because the precise reason I’m getting cranky is that I WANT to drink. As I have said often, I love beer. I love to drink it. I want to drink the beers that I love when I want to, where I want to and how I want to.

I don’t want to be made to drink beer in plastic cups, or only before 10pm, or only drink beer with less that 4 per cent alcohol.

I want to drink a beer and not have it labelled with pictures of withered and spotty livers, or pictures of bleeding bodies littered around a car smashed by a drunk driver.

I want to be able to drink a beer and not to have to wait until the children are in bed and then sneak out to the back yard for a quick beer and then hide the bottle. Hell, I want my daughters to get the same pleasure out of pouring a beer properly for their hard-to-please dad that I did when I was growing up. Actually, I even want to be able to say that previous sentence without being accused of modelling unhealthy alcohol use and getting dragged into Children’s Services to explain myself.

Because of all of this I wrote an article for The Punch arguing the thesis that:

• Times are changing, the levels of alcohol consumption that are considered healthy are lowering and community attitudes to alcohol are changing too.
• What are considered the visible effects of alcohol – street violence and alcohol induced crime, all grouped under the heading ‘binge-drinking’ - are increasingly becoming hysterical front page fodder for the media.
• The hysteria will force governments to act or at least be seen to act to quickly solve what is a problem developed over a generation. When government acts in this way it acts badly.
• The upshot will be that people who enjoy beer (or wine or spirits) and do so responsibly will be subject to the same ridiculous “anti alcohol” rules and restrictions as the relatively small but visible problem group.

As a result I took a shot at the trend amongst the big breweries to chase the 18 –30 market, raised on fruit juice and sweet soft drinks, that are moving away from “bitter” beer (i.e. most beers) and opting instead for sweetened alcopops. The result is that brewers have gradually been lowering the body and bitterness of new beers to try and attract this demographic. Of course, one of the attractions of these beers is that they are “sessionable” – marketing speak for there being no flavour to leave you feeling like you’ve had enough to drink, no matter how many you have. (Ironically, they also tend to use the description “thirst-quenching” and “satisfying” even though the beers are designed not to quench or sate a thirst - the brewers don’t want you stopping after just one or two.)

Despite the above, one thing that can be said for these beers is that they have also been edging down on their alcohol content. Even XXXX’s beer-like Summer Bright Lager is “full-strength” at 4.2%.

While I think these beers pander to a certain type of drinker, they oddly do it in a sort of semi-responsible way…if that’s possible. And that’s exactly why someone should slap Bitch Beer before they ruin it for the rest of us.

This is a beer that has been designed to fill a gap in the market that didn’t need filling – the market for higher alcohol, lower flavoured beers. Their marketing basically brags about being brewed for effect, unashamedly chasing the market that is in the anti-alcohol crosshairs – young people who drink for effect.

Despite the compulsory, but feeble, ‘Bitch is potent stuff. Please drink responsibly’ the rest of the marketing spiel is a single-entendre.

Why BITCH? Simply because we'd had a guts full of beers made for old men. And BITCH embodied our non-conformist, play hard attitude to life.

Sure, we could have brewed it with less alcohol. And we probably could have made it not taste as good, but then we'd be just like the sh*t loads of ordinary beers made for old men that are already out there.

Packing 6.0% alcohol, it has a bit of kick. The extra alcohol adds a slightly sweet flavour. Unlike many high alcohol beers, BITCH is an unexpectedly fresh, easy drinking Aussie beer.

Swigged extra cold straight from the bottle, it's crisp, clean and gob-smackingly refreshing. Like a Mexican beer, you can add a slice of lemon or lime to put a twist on the flavour. Goes really well with food, or without food, which makes it perfect for every occasion, or not occasion.

This is basically just a malt liquor.

Again, it’s not a wowser thing. As I write this, I have a glass of Flying Dog Barley Wine beside me weighing in at 10 per cent…but it has so much flavour that I’ll probably have written another 1000 words before the glass is empty. (And it is satisfying, I won’t want another.)

This sort of cynical-half-smart-marketing-concept-cash in-contract-brewed (not that there’s anything wrong with contract brewing as a rule) garbage only hurts the beer industry and, I fear, will end up making it harder for people who want to drink beer (not just consume alcohol) to enjoy it. It will tar all higher alcohol beers with the same brush. The hysteria around BrewDog’s Tokyo shows that when it comes to a good frenzy, logic and facts will not calm things down (even if the frenzy was probably self-generated). The big brewers are already shy of putting out higher alcohol beers, even from their craft arms, lest there be public outcry. With branding and marketing like this on a product designed for one thing, these clowns are just painting a huge target on the back of all beer and the rest of the industry should call code red. Failing that, bars that stock it are pretty much signalling that they’re high risk and should start ordering the plastic cups and extra security now as well as putting the lawyers on stand-by.

And don’t get me started on Skinny Bitch, their planned low carb offering…

Ban glasses?

I have been thinking a lot about drinking lately (as opposed to beer), primarily fuelled by the intensity of the debate about ‘binge drinking’ that has rapidly been deteriorating into farce and hysteria. The most recent example of this came over he weekend when the Courier Mail ran a story headlined, “Woman on assault charges for glassing and punching” after a women threw a glass at a bloke. I don’t mean to make light of it, but is this a ‘glassing’? Call me old-fashioned, but even last week wasn’t a glassing when you would break a glass and slash someone with it, or break it over them cutting them in the process? This story is just a garden variety assault, not the extension of the terror on our modern streets. I’d even settle for that old favourite ‘alcohol-fuelled violence’ over ‘glassing’ in this case. When the media has the bit between its teeth there’s no stopping them…which is why the hotel and alcohol industries need to look carefully at their backyard. Alcohol is a cause célèbre at the moment and every media-worthy incident just sharpens the spotlight on alcohol and pushes the government harder to act – and the government has no ability to act precisely. Anything the government does won’t just affect the worst clubs and pubs, it will affect everyone. This was amply demonstrated when the Federal Government responded to malt-based alcopops by changing the definition of beer. Because one section of the alcohol industry wanted to act in a way that was clearly contrary to the excise laws, the brewing industry has been subjected to a change of the very definition of beer. Of course, it’s not a change that will hurt the big brewers – but it was a chance that will affect the small brewers who don’t have the ability to assay their bitterness or their sugar content, or just face greater compliance costs to prove they meet the requirements.

Returning to the Courier Mail story, forcing pubs to use plastic glasses wouldn’t have prevented this assault I suspect. If she wanted to hit someone, she would just as likely have thrown whatever was in her hand – even a plastic cup, used a pool cue or her bottle of vodka cruiser (I’m guessing here…call it a stereotype, but I’d be willing to bet that most pub assaults by women are caused by alcopop and cheap cocktail drinkers. I can’t remember the last time that a saison or robust porter was implicated in an assault).

Still, I have no real problem with the government mandating the use of plastic in places that have a demonstrable problem with alcohol-related incidents. I don’t think the plastic will do much – there are more problems caused by blokes getting into a fight and kicking each other in the head – but maybe the threat of having to use plastic and the potential loss of business that may come of it will get a subsection of irresponsible publicans to actually enforce the Responsible Service of Alcohol, rather than pour cheap, flavourless alcohol down their patrons throats and count the cash afterwards.