Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Paris Too Sexy For Brazil?

By

eiffel-tower
This has the ring of false controversy all around, with a WTF! vibe thrown in just to keep us off guard. Famous for being famous person, Paris Hilton, is embroiled in yet another scandal, this time for being “too sexy” for television … in Brazil! I got wind of this yesterday when AdAge ran a story about it entitled Is Paris Hilton Too Sexy for Brazil? My initial reaction was that walking down the average street in Rio De Janiero during Carnival, she’d hardly stand out at all.

paris-devassa

Hilton is apparently involved in the entire campaign for Devassa Bem Loura — or very blonde — beer, as evidenced by her being featured on that portion of the brewery’s website. Devassa in turn is owned, at least in part, by a larger beer company, Grupo Schincariol. Grupo Schincariol is Brazil’s second largest brewer after AmBev, a division of Anheuser Busch InBev.

Devassa

The brand name itself apparently is slang for — how shall I put this? — “a loose woman” and Bem Loura, the particular flavor Hilton is endorsing, means “very blonde” in Brazilian Portuguese.

What the headlines are missing, of course, is that it’s not her “sexiness” that has the government up in arms, but the potential violations of specific bits of their advertising code that prohibit certain actions in advertising alcohol — rules few other products have to abide by. Sex, of course, is used to sell practically everything, but people get their panties in a twist when there’s alcohol involved. So apparently Brazilian “ad regulations stipulate that beer commercials cannot treat women as overtly sensual objects, though ads can show women in bikinis if they are on a beach.” Uh, having seen plenty of Brazilian beer ads, is that really enforced? A spokeswoman for the Brazilian Women’s Secretariat told London Telegraph that “It’s an ad that devalues women — in particular, blonde women.” I’m not arguing that it doesn’t, just that it seems no worse, and frankly a little tamer, than many other beer ads I’ve seen. If we’re going to go nuts again about the double standard in alcohol advertising, I’m not sure this is the best test case. Take a look below, and see if you can find this more offensive than the average beer ad. Bad? Maybe. Worst yet and having finally crossed the line? You tell me, I certainly don’t think so. Personally, I don’t find Paris Hilton all that appealing, but plenty of other men sure seem to find her sexy. While I’m not immune to a pretty face, I find brains far more sexy, and a pretty face with brains a lethal combination. That’s why I married a woman smarter and more attractive than myself. Ask anyone, it’s true.

Hilton did herself no favors when during a recent trip to Rio to promote Devassa beer, she got drunk and danced on stage. According to the Advertising Age piece I referenced earlier:

Brazil’s self-regulatory body, Conar, is investigating an ad campaign starring Paris Hilton for Devassa Bem Loura beer for being too sexually provocative, even by the racy standards of Brazilian beer ads.

According to local trade publication Meio & Mensagem, Ad Age’s partner in Brazil, Conar this week opened three different investigations into local brewer Grupo Schincariol’s launch campaign for Devassa Bem Loura (Portuguese for “Very Blonde”) beer last month during Brazil’s riotous Carnival.

US Magazine reported that “Eduardo Correia, a spokesperson for regulation company Conar, which has opened three investigations into the campaign, says the ad is particularly offensive because it doesn’t take place on a beach. ‘The problem with the ad isn’t a lack of clothing, but its sensual nature,’ Correia said. ‘A woman in a bikini on a beach isn’t necessarily sensual; it depends on the context.'” Now I don’t want to defend the ad, per se, but really? The outrage is because she’s somewhere other than on a beach? That sounds like a double standard if ever I heard one.

Another account had this to say. “This is, honestly, a bit of shock. The commercial is surprisingly tame. We’ve all seen Paris in several states of undress (many times!) throughout the years, so this is sort of yawnfest. Perfume ads incite more lust.” My thoughts exactly, a yawnfest.

Olympics & Beer

By

olympics
I may have some of the facts here wrong or may simply be missing something, but over the last week of paying some passing attention to the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver — especially Curling — an odd picture has emerged concerning beer and America at the Olympics. A few nights on the Stephen Colbert Report, Colbert visited several nation’s International Houses, places for the athletes, visitors and sponsors from individual countries to go and relax with their fellow citizens and watch the competitions they don’t have tickets to, as well. Usually, they show off part of their culture — or the sponsor’s products — and they’re also places to celebrate. For example, at the Swiss House they had fondue, the Irish House featured folk music and the Russian House had foosball hockey. After visiting several houses, Colbert ends the segment back at the Irish House, saying it was because USA House didn’t have a bar.

That’s right, even after doubling the size of USA’s hospitality and having two separate houses (one in Vancouver and one in Whistler) there was no bar for American athletes or sponsors. Now, I don’t know for certain that we’re the only international house without a bar, but it certainly wouldn’t surprise me. We’ve done our level best to separate alcohol and move it into this otherworld that’s separate from the regular world that everyone lives in. So besides the fact that every other country can handle having alcohol be a part of their celebrations, at USA Central it’s believed that sports and alcohol can’t mix. You see it in college sports. You see it in the drive to eliminate drinking at professional sporting events. It’s always motivated by the fact that because some people can’t handle themselves, so then the logic is everyone should be prohibited from enjoying themselves. I’m sure other countries have their share of people trying to ruin it for everyone else — but somehow they’ve managed to make it the problem of those individual people and not the majority who can just get on with it. I, too, cringe whenever I see a bad drunk but not because I fear for that person, but because I know that neo-prohibitionists will look at that person and extrapolate his problem to include everyone who drinks. And so one result is the American Olympic Committee concludes it’s too risky for there to be a bar in our international house, despite the fact that craft beer is something America should be justly proud of.

UK Craft Paralleling US Craft Market

By

siba
For several years now — maybe a decade? — craft beer has been growing at a faster rate than the older, big breweries. Naturally, they’re so big that even small percentage growth adds up to big dollars while craft beer, for the most part, with a smaller base has far more room to grow. As a result, this has been happening year after year without changing the overall landscape of the American beer market very much. It is changing, but very, very slowly (or at least slower than I’d like).

Perhaps more importantly, this sustained growth in the craft segment while the mainstream market continues to slip suggests a broader trend and what the future might hold, at least eventually. It certainly has worried the big brewers to some extent as they continue to test market micro-like products, niche products, buy into existing craft brewers and other actions calculated to take back some of the market share lost to the craft segment, no matter how small. It’s nothing sinister, just the way corporations operate. Perpetual growth sets the share price, and they must answer to the shareholders when sales goals are not met.

As our economy tanked this trend continued, with growth slowing in both big and small segments of the industry. While beer narrowly upheld its status as “recession-proof,” it did slow somewhat. Big beer went negative while craft continues to grow, but at a slower rate, at least in terms of volume of sales. In dollars, growth remained strong, but mostly because of higher prices. Of course, I also think that craft beer can sustain higher margins than big beer, whose drive to increase volume has seen price wars for decades. That gives craft another advantage, I think, because reaching a sustainable, profitable business model doesn’t have to involve going public, huge growth or answering to shareholders. Anchor Brewery is an excellent example of growing big enough and then sustaining that level while remaining profitable. Anchor has no desire to grow larger, and their future is entirely positive. It’s the opposite of the corporate model, and the one employed by most craft brewers. And I think it bodes well for the future of craft beer.

Today, the Society of Independent Brewers (SIBA) released a report about the state of things in the UK beer market, and there are some interesting parallels between the two markets.

Some key findings:

  • Local brewers achieved a 3.75% increase in volume sales in 2009, while the overall beer market fell 4.2%
  • Three-quarters of all local brewers recorded volume growth in 2009
  • On average, they achieved a 17% increase in sales turnover
  • Pubs continue to close, but local cask ale volumes rise by 1.27%
  • Local bottled beer production up by 16%

The entire report is available as a pdf at the bottom of the article about it in today’s Morning Advertiser. Another interesting stat not mentioned is that 22%, the highest percentage, of independent beer is sold to the consumer directly by the brewery in their shops or via their website. Second was Supermarkets (21%) and third was through independent pubs (19%).

James Beard Foundation Nominates 4 Beer Personalities

By

james-beard
The semi-finalist nominations for the prestigious James Beard Foundation awards were recently released. If you’re not familiar with the awards, here’s a description from their website.

Deemed “the Oscars of the food world,” by Time magazine, The James Beard Foundation Awards are the country’s most coveted honor for chefs; food and beverage professionals; broadcast media, journalists, and authors working on food; and restaurant architects and designers.

In the misnamed category “Outstanding Wine and Spirits Professional,” four luminaries from the world of beer made the cut. Those semi-finalists are Larry Bell (Bell’s Brewery), Sam Calagione (Dogfish Head Craft Brewery), Jim Koch (Boston Beer Co.) and Garrett Oliver (Brooklyn Brewery), any one of which deserves to win, or at least move on to the final round. Of the 20 semifinalists in each category, five final nominees will be announced March 22, and the awards themselves will be presented May 3.

At the risk of losing my own media nomination (that’s a joke BTW) isn’t it time to lose the wine and spirits bias? With 20% of the semi-finalists from the world of craft beer, wouldn’t something like “Outstanding Beverage Professional” be more appropriate and less insulting?

Ouch, ABIB Begans New Round Of Layoffs

By

abib
Ouch, according to St. Louis Today, Anheuser Busch InBev has announced layoffs of 90 key people, including four vice-presidents. Some of the people let go “included workers responsible for handling every facet of the brewer’s national sales.” Though the layoffs were spread among 25 states, HQ in Missouri lost the most — 17 — and California lost 12, the second highest number by state. An inside source told the St. Louis newspaper they believe about 450 U.S. jobs will be cut over the next few months. Current President, Dave Peacock, told reporters that the cuts were designed to make ABIB “optimally organized and as efficient as possible,” as meaningless a bit of gobbledygook business-speak as I’ve heard in quite some time. Wasn’t this exactly what InBev said they would not do when they were courting the sale? But cost-cutting is classic InBev behavior, as we saw before the sale and have continued to see afterward, too. It comes as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to their actions, and not their homilies, for the last several years. Now, with more cuts coming, you have a workforce that’s scared for their own jobs, not exactly the work environment anyone would enjoy. Maybe it will make some perform better, work harder, to save their livelihoods but in the end all it does is breed resentment and will likely be ABIB’s ultimate undoing, at least until the next bigger corporation swoops in and buys them.

Super Bowl Shut-Ins

By

football
I don’t recall who originally Tweeted this, but I believe it was one of the Alströms, either Todd or Jason, so thanks to whichever one of you passed along these interesting Super Bowl statistics. The statistics I’m talking about came from the NielsenWire, the same folks that tally who watches which TV shows. While it’s believed by most people that the Super Bowl is a huge revenue generator for alcohol, especially beer, and snack foods, it would appear that’s not actually the case. In fact, the Super Bowl weekend actually ranks seventh. According to Nielsen’s research, 9 in 10 Will Watch Super Bowl at Home; Most will Spend the Same or Less on Food and Beverages. According to the data, 90% of everyone who watches the Saints and Colts vie for the Lombardi trophy this Sunday will be either at home or a friend/relative’s house. Of those, 95% are planning on buying less beer and food. That’s welcome news for grocery stores but not so good for bars, brewpubs and restaurants.

superbowl-plan
Here’s the breakdown of where people will watch the Super Bowl.

superbowl-spend
Here’s a chart of football watching spending. Sadly, crackers outsell my beloved potato chips.

Sticker Shocking

By

under-21
It appears MADD is up to their old tricks and actually this has probably been going on for some time albeit somewhat under the radar. In 1996, MADD created a youth organization of indoctrinated kids to do their dirty work for them called Youth In Action. One of their many “projects” is called Sticker Shock, which is described on their website:

YIA teams meet with local retailers that sell alcohol and ask permission to place warning stickers on the packaging of alcohol products (primarily beer). The stickers are very visible and warn of the consequences of purchasing alcohol for people under the age of 21. This project is designed to remind adults that they can be arrested for purchasing alcohol for minors.

Thanks for the “reminder” kids, but surely you could do something more constructive with your time. Maybe it’s the old curmudgeon in me, but it’s times like these when I miss the old days when children were to be seen and not heard. Do we really need these Stepford teens to lecture adults on the law?

This practice has apparently heated up in Massachusetts, with the state chapter there conducting raids of stores that sell alcohol to sticker the beer there.
madd-sticker-ma
Happily, Todd and Jason Alstrom, from Beer Advocate, take them to task in a recent column in Boston’s Dig entitled Fascist Youth Vandalize Liquor Stores. It almost reads like a headline from The Onion, except that it’s true. After detailing MADD’s Hitler youth in action, they strike the right note of indignation, certainly the same one I had.

Shocked? No, we’re pissed off! This is wrong on so many levels! First, while we agree that selling alcohol to minors is not cool, these sticker shock campaigns are outright acts of vandalism. Who cares if the storeowner gave permission? Who cares if these neo-prohibitionists are accompanied by an adult? Who cares if the adult’s a cop? Their little stunt is still illegal: Brewers must get approval from federal agencies for all packaging, including labels. Not only do these stickers alter the packaging, but sloppy placement could cover crucial information that, by law, must be visible to consumers.

And what about that cop? C’mon, with a cop backing these kids up, it’s no wonder that storeowners are consenting. And why “primarily beer”? Show us stats proving that kids are more likely to be hitting up adults for beer than for spirits. And why sticker all the beer in stock? Why not restrict it to the brands most popular with teen drunks? And why do we, the adult consumers, need to be “reminded” that purchasing beer for minors is illegal in the first place? Who said we forgot? Who decided this crap should be shoved in our faces? The YIA site says: “YIA teams look for community solutions instead of focusing their attention on their peers” — but isn’t that exactly where the primary focus should be?

This is not “reminding,” it’s intimidation, pure and simple.

madd-sticker-nm

The stickers read “Providing Alcohol to Minors is ILLEGAL. 4th Degree Felony. 18 Months in Jail. $5000 Fine. MADD’s Youth in Action.” All true, but why stop there. Why not sticker cans of soda with warnings that they can cause obesity. Coke and Pepsi would never sit still for that. In the UK several years ago McDonald’s sued a couple of activists literally for years because they had the audacity to criticize their food in what became known as the McLibel trial. But criticizing alcohol is perfectly acceptable because law enforcement and especially politicians are afraid to be reasonable thanks to the very vocal and active temperance minority, bowing to almost their every demand.

madd-sticker-va

Jason and Todd conclude with an excellent suggestion.

So we’re challenging all true beer lovers to refuse to buy any product that has been vandalized by YIA, and to tell shop owners you’ll be boycotting their establishments until they get their beer from under MADD’s thumb — literally.

Amen to that. Don’t buy if you see the sticker. We have to start standing up to these bullies. I know in some cases the retailers had little choice in reality, but if they know there are consequences for acquiescence, ones that hit their bottom line, then they’ll begin to do the right thing, which is tell these gang of youths to go “remind” somebody else. That the police give these stunts the imprimatur of legality is quite frankly Orwellian and more than a little frightening.

Let No Good Deed Go Unpunished

By

haiti
This is one of the many reasons I loathe the neo-prohibitionist groups. Perhaps you saw the press release from Anheuser-Busch, detailing how they, along with many others, are trying to do what they can to help the people of Haiti, who were devastated by the recent earthquake that hit their country. They sent cans of water, hastily filled at one of their breweries, as they’ve done during other similar emergencies (I recall they did the same for New Orleans after hurricane Katrina). They’ve had plenty of negative publicity lately — some even from me — so I wouldn’t think anyone would begrudge them trying to win back some positive vibes for what really amounts to doing the right thing. That’s really what we hope any of us would do under the circumstances.

bud-water

Except that you’d be wrong assume that no one would begrudge them. Those jolly folks at the Marin Institute wasted no time in admonishing Anheuser-Busch InBev, not for sending the water, but for using branded cans and for issuing a press release. In their own press release issued today, Help for Haiti Should Not be Branded, they claim that “most of these generous people are not putting out press releases about their good deeds.” I don’t know if that’s true and frankly, if those same people aren’t putting out press releases, then how can the Marin Institute claim to know about them or that they constitute a majority of the donations to Haiti’s disaster relief? How can they total up the anonymous donations that are, by definition, anonymous?

But they’re not done with their scolding. Next, they say most people making donations (of goods, one presumes) “are [not] branding their donated goods with their personal monikers” and asking the leading question “why does the beer behemoth need to brand the cans of this much-needed water with its corporate logo?” Well, I can think of one very good reason. Who would drink blank cans or cans just labeled “water.” I’d want to know where the water came from, who canned it to know if it was safe, etc. That just seems to be common sense. It would be counter-productive to can water with no information about its whereabouts or origins so people could judge its safety. I don’t want to go too far here, but a logo works better when not everyone speaks the same language, too. That way, even if people can’t read the can, they may recognize the logo and feel safer opening it as a result (though they may be disappointed it isn’t beer).

But the Marin Institute then concludes by saying ABIB’s efforts are “more than a tad distasteful,” calling their simple press release “bragging,” and suggesting that doing so “really does diminish your brand.” Wow. I thought there were no new depths that they could sink to in attacking alcohol, but boy, oh boy, was I ever wrong. So here we have a beer company who switches gears and spends their own money to create and donate much-needed water to Haiti. They have the apparent temerity to tell others what they’ve done, perhaps in part to inspire others to do likewise, and they also had the apparent gall to let the people they’re helping know who the water came from. Um, excuse me, but what exactly is the problem here? They helped. They did something. What exactly did the Marin Institute do to help the people of Haiti, apart from discouraging others from doing likewise, lest they also incur your misguided wrath. Or are you better than ABIB simply because whatever donations the Marin Institute gave were among the anonymous kind, you know, the better kinds of donations.

Do you honestly think the people Haiti give a rat’s ass where the donations came from? As long as they get enough to eat and drink so they can, you know, live, what possible difference could it make to anyone. Unless of course, you’re looking for absolutely any excuse to demonize your enemies and further your agenda. You criticize ABIB for issuing a press release, but that’s exactly what you did, too, using the opportunity to galvanize your supporters. But when you do it, it’s for a good cause, right? When ABIB does it, they’re shameless. This is seriously one of the ugliest and vilest demonstrations of how off the reservation the neo-prohibitionist groups are. Criticizing a good deed because it wasn’t done in the manner you’d prefer, or more correctly, by someone you already don’t like. You ought to be ashamed of yourself and your behavior. As they say, let no good deed go unpunished.

Drinking All Over The Map

By

world-map
If you’re a regular Bulletin reader, you know I believe that the drinking age in the U.S. is too high, that the age a person can vote and fight and/or die for one’s country should also be the age he or she can drink, as well. I lived through this ridiculous hypocritical double-standard when I was in the military thirty years ago, and I still hold a grudge. It was absurd then, and it’s absurd now.

I think most of us believe that America is a progressive country where freedom is something we take for granted, that it’s the lynchpin of our society with free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, and on and on. But not when it comes to our puritanical view of alcohol, there we are nearly the most backward country in the world. When you take out the handful of countries that allow no alcohol consumption — which are all in the Middle East — only India has a drinking age higher than ours, and even that’s not nationwide, but on a state by state basis. I could talk about this ’till I’m blue in the face, but nothing shows this inequity better than a visual representation of drinking ages by country. Happily, Drinking Map went to the trouble of creating a world map showing the drinking age by country, where known. To see it larger, click through the image, then click on “all sizes.”

drinking-age-map

As you can see, the vast majority of the world is at a sensible 18, with only a few other nations (all in the Middle East, too) that are 21 like us. Japan and most of Scandinavia set the age at 20 and South Korea along with parts of Canada are at 19.

But perhaps more interesting is the map below, also by the folks at Drinking Map, called Where “Adults” Can’t Drink. This map shows the relationship between a country’s age of majority (when a person is considered an “adult”) and the age at which they are permitted to drink alcohol. Notice that for a majority of nations (in green) that age is the same, as I believe it should be. A few more (in pink), like India and most of Scandinavia, allow some drinking but with certain restrictions. Then we, along with parts of Canada and a handful of other nations (in red), stand out as having a drinking age that’s higher than the age of majority. To see it larger, click through the image, then click on “all sizes.”

age-of-majority-map

Would it not be perhaps a reasonable compromise to allow 18-year olds to drink beer, or wine and beer, but not spirits until they’re 21? Anyway, just some food for thought.

Loud Music Increases Drinking

By

volume-green
I found this interesting bit of research at the PsyBlog, run by Jeremy Dean, a Psychology researcher at the University College London. The post is entitled Why Loud Music in Bars Increases Alcohol Consumption, and concerns some recent research conducted into the relationship between volume and drinking patterns. Specifically, Dean cites two studies, one in Glasgow, Scotland and the other in France. In some ways the findings are obvious, but it does tend to confirm what you probably already guessed. The PsyBlog starts with the premise that the average bar traditionally keeps the lights dim and the music loud.

But turning the music up so loud that people are forced to shout at each other doesn’t have quite the same beneficial effect on social interactions. Because everyone is shouting, the bar becomes even noisier and soon people start to give up trying to communicate and focus on their drinking, meaning more trips to the bar, and more regrets in the morning.

Of course this is exactly what bar owners are hoping for. People sitting around quietly nursing their drinks for hours are no good for profits. Talkers aren’t the best drinkers. At least that is the received wisdom in the industry.

The first study, Sound Level of Environmental Music and Drinking Behavior: A Field Experiment With Beer Drinkers, was published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. Their results indicated “that high level volume led to increase alcohol consumption and reduced the average amount of time spent by the patrons to drink their glass.”

The second study was published in the journal Popular Music & Society, and was titled Alco-pop? The Use of Popular Music in Glasgow Pubs.

volume-to-11
Here’s a bit more as to how the research was conducted.

The level of the music was randomly manipulated to create the conditions of a true experiment. It was either at its usual volume of 72dB or turned up to 88dB. For comparison: 72db is like the sound of traffic on a busy street while 88db is like standing next to a lawnmower.

Sure enough when the music went up the beers went down, faster. On average bar-goers took 14.5 minutes to finish a 250ml (8 oz) glass of draught beer when the music was at its normal level. But this came down to just 11.5 minutes when the music was turned up. As a result, on average, during their time in the bar each participant ordered one more drink in the loud music condition than in the normal music condition.

The observers even measured the number of gulps taken to finish each drink — the level of the music was found to have no effect on this. So the faster drinking was as a result of more gulps rather than bigger gulps.

The conclusions from both studies seem to validate one another, suggesting a universal application. The results do seem to favor a causal connection between louder music and increased drinking, but what they don’t answer is why this is the case. As Dean puts it. “Some think that people drink instead of talking while others have argued that they drink more because the music creates greater levels of arousal, which then leads to more drinking.”

Personally, I prefer a bar where I can hear myself think, where pleasant conversation is encouraged, but then I prefer to sip, not gulp, my beer in almost any environment. So clearly, I’m not the target demographic, nor I suspect are most hardcore beer geeks, but it still is a fascinating peek into what makes us tick — and drink.

UPDATE: The BC Brews Blog also came across this study independently and posted about it in Loud Music = Heavier, Faster Drinking.