Did I miss a meeting? The malt beverages that are flavored with something else — fruit, essence of liquor or whatever — have been called by many names. Alcopop is always the one that first leaps to mind, even though that’s supposedly a derogatory term. Why? Apparently adding “pop” makes it for the kiddies, something the watchdogs can’t abide. Because anything that’s meant to be fun for adults but just might also possibly appeal to kids is strictly verboten in their addled minds. Of course, people have been calling beer “barley pop” for decades, if not longer, so I don’t see why it’s such a big deal. It’s like the seasonal beers with Santa Claus on the labels they find so offensive, as if adults aren’t allowed to like St. Nick, too.
Other names they’ve been called include FABs (Flavored Alcoholic Beverage), FMBs (Flavored Malt Beverage), Malternatives and RTD (Ready To Drink), at least in Australia and New Zealand. Sadly, thanks to the anti-alcohol bunch, the industry never uses the fun term Alcopops lest anyone be accused of actually having fun with them. Personally, I’ll keeping calling them Alcopops because I see nothing wrong with that name. I say we take it back. They’re alcoholic and they’re sweet, alco and pop. So what?
In the business world, Alcopops are, or at least were, usually referred to as FMBs, or Flavored Malt Beverages. Though a fairly bland name, it at least fairly describes what they are: malt-based beverages that have been flavored with something.
But in looking through the SymphonyIRI charts for the previous post, I kept noticing a line for PABs. What on earth are PABs, I wondered? How could I possibly have missed an entire new category? It turns out PABs are an abbreviation for yet another new term for Alcopops. A highly unscientific Google search reveals the term’s been around at least since 2007, though mentions of PABs increase dramatically in 2008-2009.
But PAB might be the worst one of all. It stands for “Progressive Adult Beverages.” So yes, they’re beverages and they’re meant for adults, obviously. But what the hell is progressive about them? I suppose it’s no worse than premium or sub-premium, but at least that’s a quality. Even if I laugh at its inaccuracy, premium at least describes where it fits in a hierarchy. Progressive? That’s about as meaningless a name as you could attach to a drink or class of drinks.
And let me stop you before you start. I know this is a silly or stupid or whatever thing to get worked up about. But bear in mind I’m a writer, a language geek and I do believe words have power. What we call things does make a difference. That’s why corporations pay huge sums to come up with new product names, testing them in focus groups, getting the graphics just so, trying to invoke the right response they want from potential customers.
To me, they’ll always be Alcopops.
Many different studies have shown that people who drink alcohol in moderation liver longer than binge drinkers and abstainers. Anti-alcohol groups, and especially AA, have petulantly insisted the reason that abstainers show up in the data as having shorter lifespans than moderate drinkers is because they are all former heavy drinkers who stopped drinking after the damage was done. A new study finally puts that self-serving lie to rest.
Late-Life Alcohol Consumption and 20-Year Mortality was recently published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. The study examined “the association between alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality over 20 years among 1,824 older adults, controlling for a wide range of potential confounding factors associated with abstention.” The results, according to the abstract were the following;
Controlling only for age and gender, compared to moderate drinkers, abstainers had a more than 2 times increased mortality risk, heavy drinkers had 70% increased risk, and light drinkers had 23% increased risk. A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems, and key sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors, as well as for age and gender, substantially reduced the mortality effect for abstainers compared to moderate drinkers. However, even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers.
And here it is again in a handy chart I made:
See, drinking is good for you. It is part of a healthy lifestyle. Drinking moderately is the best choice you can make to lead a healthier life. It’s better for you than drinking only occasionally, drinking heavily or not at all.
Here’s how Time Magazine put it.
But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who had never been drinkers, second-highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.
They conclude:
These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. As I pointed out last year, nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.
That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.
Of course, the researchers bend over backwards to make sure no one thinks they might be advocating for drinking. Heaven forbid. That’s been pretty much SOP for academic papers that have findings at odds with the anti-alcohol community for as long as I can remember. If they discovered tomorrow that chocolate cured cancer, do you think there would be warnings about the dangers of obesity attached to it? My point is everything has consequences but it seems that alcohol continues to carry a stigma that most others do not.
Still, this is great news.
Gizmodo has an interesting article on Friday speculating that Canned Beer Is The Future of Good Beer. Like most Gizmodo articles, it’s in-your-face opinionated (especially in the comments, where it turns decidedly loopy) but makes most of the points we all know about that are advantages for canned beer.
I don’t believe cans will ever replace bottles entirely, but cans should command a greater market share as the craft segment of the industry continues to grow. Cans will continue to be place-driven and occasion-driven, at least in large part. But we don’t always spend our time camping, swimming or on the golf course so the real trick in marketing cans is to convince everyone that they’re ideal for the home, too, which is in fact often the case. But I continue to believe that as we also try to raise the perception of beer as a sophisticated beverage worthy of white-table fine dining, that bottles will continue to be seen as the superior package at least from that perspective. In the same way we all know that screw-top wine can be every bit as good as wine sealed with a cork, the perception remains tilted toward corks as an indicator of quality. I should hasten to add that I love craft beer in cans and support the idea whenever I can, I just don’t think it will ever be an all one package world, nor do I think it ever should be. Both packages are good from different points of view, and so I think most likely both will also remain viable for years to come.
If you’re a member of the Brewers Association, a trade organization for small breweries, you have the opportunity to listen in on the bi-monthly Power Hour, an on-line, interactive teleconference series. This morning’s topic was “Craft Brewing & Mid-Year Category Sales Review.” I didn’t listen in to this one, but happily Ray Daniels, he of the Cicerone program, was kind enough to tweet a number of the statistics quoted in the talk by Dan Wandel, with the Symphony IRI Group, and better still, Todd Alstrom, posted Ray’s tweets on Beer Advocate where they can live forever instead of being lost in the ether. Below is just a few of the more interesting tidbits.
- First half of 2010 sales data — Craft volume up 11.9%!
- Symphony IRI Group show craft beer being 8.7% of the total beer market in H1 2010
- Sales of craft beer 22 oz bottles up 28% in 2010 vs. 2009 in supermarkets.
- 3 of top 10 new brands are IPAs
- 8 of the top 15 new craft brands this year are IPAs.
- What recession? First half craft sales showing best growth of any year since 2007.
- Top 10 major brewer brands DOWN more than 5 million cases so far this year.
- 511 craft beer UPCs (products) being sold in California.
- More households in the US now purchasing craft beer versus a year ago—better than any other segment.
- Dan Wandel from SIG says craft beer the “shining star” of US beer market, on track for 6th (I think he said) year of >10% growth.
You can see the rest of Ray Daniels’ tweets here. Thanks again to Todd for saving me the trouble of having to go back and grab Ray’s tweets individually.
| 
| 
Flickr/Brookston
Facebook/Brookston
Linkedin/Jay Brooks
Twitter/Brookston
YouTube/jbrookston
Del.icio.us/jbrookston
Wishlist/jbrookston
GMail/Jay.Brooks
Technorati/Brookston
Tumblr/Brookston
