Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Guinness Ad #1: The Balancing Seal

By

guinness-toucan
The first poster John Gilroy did for Guinness is believed to be of a seal balancing a pint of beer. Gilroy apparently got the idea while visiting the circus. The UK Independent related the story last year, when Guinness was celebrating their 250th anniversary, and simultaneously their 80th anniversary of advertising.

The artist was reputedly visiting the circus one day when he was impressed by the sight of a sea lion balancing a ball on his nose. Gilroy, deploying the strange thought processes of great advertising creatives down the decades, conjured the image of a sea lion balancing a bottle of the black stuff and made it the subject of an iconic Guinness poster ad. From there followed a menagerie: an ostrich, a tortoise and then the famous toucan, the best-known Guinness animal.

That would have been in 1930, the year after Guinness began advertising. Gilroy continued to work on this Guinness campaign for the next 35 years.

Guinness Seal

Beer In Ads Special Edition: John Gilroy

By

guinness-white
You probably know John Gilroy’s advertising artwork, even if the name is not familiar. John Gilroy is responsible for the iconic Guinness ads that ran from 1927 through the 1960s. Featuring toucans, kangaroos, bears, ostriches and other animals along with the occasional steel-carrying strongman, lumberjack and zookeeper, the roughly fifty posters Gilroy produced are some of the most famous beer ads ever done. So many of his posters are famous that it seems a shame not to highlight them separately from the other ads I’ve been featuring during the week. So each Saturday I’ll post a new Guinness poster or ad. Gilroy is believed to have done nearly 50 of the posters and another 100 print ads for Guinness over a 35-year period working on the Guinness account, first with a firm, and later as a freelancer.

Below is a sample of what you’ll see over the coming year or two, every Saturday.

guinness-collage

For more about John Gilroy, see Wikipedia (and their page on Guinness advertising), Celtic Shamrock, Newcastle University (where Gilroy was an alum), Journal Live and especially at the Guinness Collector’s Club, which has a great biography page.

Beer In Ads #23: Le Bon Bock

By

ad-billboard
Friday’s ad is another old art poster from France. I don’t know the artist, the brewery or even the year is was created, though it was most likely in the first few decades of the last century. “Le Bon Bock” I presume is “the good beer” and Atlantique may be the brewery, or it may simply refer to beer along the Atlantic coast of France.

le-bon-bock

Texas Beer Columnist Throws Beer Under The Bus

By

health
This is strange and perplexing, especially given all the attacks on alcohol in both this country and, as I’ve recently been highlighting, in the UK as well. Beer columnist Eric Braun, who writes for the San Antonio Express-News, in his most recent column began with this incendiary headline: Beer Is Not Health Food. Except that is actually is. Braun seems peeved by that classic of slights, the imagined one. He’s bothered by the fact that during a nearby Houston conference on cancer, the program included — what to regular readers here is old news — the study that xanthohumol (a substance found in hops) is effective in combating cancer. His problem with that comes “when headlines and television announcers start touting that “’beer might actually be good for you.’”

He brings this up because there isn’t enough xanthohumol in the average glass of beer to make any difference and he’s afraid people will use this as excuse to drink more. As someone who read this study when it was first published (and countless more like it) the majority of scientists both in this specific study and those who do this type of work are very, very careful — I’d even say too careful — to NOT suggest that people should use their results to justify increased drinking. I’ve never read one of these studies or their abstracts that come even close to saying people should take their results to mean they should increase their imbibing. Not once. His fears seem misplaced to me. It’s not the scientists at fault, but shoddy journalists who go for style over substance, the “headlines and television announcers [who] start touting that ‘beer might actually be good for you.’” But instead he blames the beer, saying it’s not health food.

Buried toward the end of his piece, Braun finally admits that “[t]he good news is that beer, in moderation, is perfectly healthful for most adults and has been shown to have at least some positive health effects.” I figured he must have known that, but the damage is already done. People will see that headline, conclude what they already believe and what neo-prohibitionists have been telling them — that beer is bad for them — and never even reach the thirteenth paragraph. But it’s the conclusion where he goes off the rails.

The larger point, however, is that if you are drinking to get healthy, you’re doing it all wrong.

Beer should be how you reward yourself for a good day’s work, celebrate a victory for the home team or toast the good life.

That’s just wrong. I think it’s bad advice and nearly irresponsible, in my opinion. The fact is that beer is indeed health food, and can be good for you. The reason Braun has noticed that “several times a year a new medical study is released stating that drinking beer or wine is actually healthful,” is precisely because it is, and evidence keeps mounting to confirm what people have known since the dawn of time. Beer wasn’t called “liquid bread” throughout most of history because it was a cute name, but because it shared the same ingredients and nutritional value and furthermore was safer to drink than water. But beer is, especially good beer, a living food. Real food. That’s been true historically and today beer is far better for you than an equivalent amount of soda, which is loaded with sugar and other chemicals.

But I adamantly disagree that beer should only be a reward, a celebration or used to toast something special, as Braun concludes. That suggests it’s set apart from a healthy lifestyle. He seems to be equating it with dessert, something to have only once in a while. But the fact is that regularly drinking moderately is healthier than either abstaining altogether or drinking heavily. To me that means moderate consumption of alcohol is part of a healthy lifestyle. How could it be otherwise? Drink responsibly and you’ll live longer. How is that not a health food?

From Professor David J. Hanson’s wonderful Alcohol Problems and Solutions:

Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers. In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer hypertension or high blood pressure, peripheral artery disease, Alzheimer’s disease and the common cold.

Sensible drinking also appears to be beneficial in reducing or preventing diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, bone fractures and osteoporosis, kidney stones, digestive ailments, stress and depression, poor cognition and memory, Parkinson’s disease, hepatitis A, pancreatic cancer, macular degeneration (a major cause of blindness), angina pectoris, duodenal ulcer, erectile dysfunction, hearing loss, gallstones, liver disease and poor physical condition in elderly.

I hate to call out a fellow colleague, another beer columnist, but I just can’t figure what Braun’s angle is in this article. What point is he trying to make? Can it really be as simple as he honestly doesn’t believe beer is healthy? He can’t really be worried that someone might read those health claims, even if inflated, and actually decide to start drinking heavily, can he? Looking over some of his other recent columns, it seems like normal run-of-the-mill stuff, talking about favorite craft beers from last year or what beer to drink during the football playoffs.

But there it is, hanging in the air, “beer isn’t health food,” and me silently screaming at my computer screen. “Yes it is! What is the matter with you? Why would you say that?” I just don’t get it. Aren’t there enough attacks on alcohol already?

Stuff & Nonsense, Parts 6 Through 9

By

By now, even the casual Bulletin reader has likely noticed that I’ve been following Pete Brown’s brilliant refutation of his national health service’s attack on alcohol, beginning with, Stuff & Nonsense: The UK Health Select Committee Report On Alcohol. The first five parts of Pete’s rebuke have been published over the past few days, and overnight and this morning, west coast time, parts six through nine were posted.

In part 6, Pete tackles the assertion that Alcohol abuse costs the country £55bn a year
Today’s rebuke. In the U.S., this is claim made with alarming regularity, charging alcohol for all manner of sins, and ignoring personal responsibility, common sense and even logic. If there’s a whiff of alcohol anywhere in the vicinity, then by gum the whole thing is alky’s fault. Last year, the Marin Institute did their own study claiming in California alone alcohol costs $38 billion each year. It’s as self-serving a document you’ll ever read. In the UK report, they claim alcohol costs Britain either £20 or £55 billion pounds (which is 32.5 billion dollars or 89.5 billion dollars). This should give you some idea about who whacked our anti-alcohol folks are. The are just over 61 million people in the UK, but almost 37 million in California, yet they assert that, using the UK’s lower figure, alcohol costs more than the entire nation of Great Britain, with roughly half the number of people. It’s just so easy to lie with statistics, and, more profoundly sad, even easier to get the government and the media to swallow those lies without questioning them. But in any event, take a look at Pete’s analysis.

In part 7, the government trots out yet another old favorite, the wolf in sheep’s clothing that is the best way to reduce the harmful effects of alcohol is to reduce overall consumption. All we need to do to get rid of some people doing something we don’t like is make it illegal for everybody. Problem solved. Except that alcohol has been around since before the dawn of civilization and maybe 99.9% (full disclosure, I made that number up but the idea is that the vast majority) of people enjoy the occasional without ruining their lives, their loved ones, their careers, or even their livers. And numerous medical studies confirm a wide range of health benefits, not least of which is the fact that people who drink alcohol in moderation tend to outlive those who never touch the stuff.

In the case of the UK report, they claim to be advising just toward reducing consumption, but to where? To what level? It’s already be shown beyond doubt that the recommended levels that the UK advises were made up wholesale, pulled out of thin air. Just the notion that recommended safe amounts are the same for any two men or women is patently absurd, yet that’s the standard. The other problem I see with arguing for less overall consumption is that it’s a slippery slope. Today’s reduction is tomorrow’s outright ban. If less is more, then none must be best of all, right?

Part eight brings up to the most pernicious argument of all, and the one that always sticks in my craw. “It’s for the children,” they cry. “Doesn’t anybody think of the children.” What the UK says, is Alcohol advertising and promotion must be tightly regulated because it encourages underage drinking. While the report says the opposite, the truth is drinking is declining in the UK, and I suspect that’s true here, too. But it’s Pete’ summary that is most telling, showing the chain of absurdity.

The HSC says drinking among children is increasing. But recent official figures suggest it is falling.

The HSC simply asserts that advertising encourages young people to drink. But there is no evidence of a causal link, despite people looking very hard to try to find one.

So they imply that there is a link between awareness of alcohol brands and propensity to drink underage, because they can prove awareness. But there’s no evidence of this either.

So after having spent a long time discussing the content of alcohol ads, they then say it’s not the content, but the quantity of it that has an effect. There’s no evidence of this either.

So in the end, they disregard testimony from advertising professionals, and simply choose to believe the testimony of people who want alcohol advertising to be banned, say it is damaging to children, but can produce no evidence to back up their assertion.

Which brings us to part 9, Pubs are a problem. If alcohol is a problem, then the places where people drink it must also be dens of inequity, mustn’t they?

To sum up, if this is new to you, start with Pete Brown’s Health Select Committee Report on Alcohol. Part One (of 10) was published Sunday, Alcohol consumption in the UK is increasing. On Monday, parts two, 25% of the UK population is drinking at hazardous or harmful levels, and three, Binge drinking is increasing, were published. Tuesday saw part four: Alcohol is becoming cheaper/more affordable, and yesterday part five, Alcohol related hospital admissions — and the cost of alcohol to the NHS — are soaring, was published online. Overnight and today, part six, Alcohol abuse costs the country £55bn a year, part seven, The best way to reduce the harmful effects of alcohol is to reduce overall consumption, part eight, Alcohol advertising and promotion must be tightly regulated because it encourages underage drinking, and part nine, Pubs are a problem, went up. Once again, stay tuned. There’s one more part to go.

Beer In Ads #22: Sapporo’s At The Dance

By

ad-billboard
Thursday’s ad is from Japan, and is for Sapporo beer. The ad is from 1934 and pictures a woman sitting and enjoying a beer, presumably at a dance watching the other couples cut a rug. One oddity; is it just me or does that glass in her hand look pretty small? Or is she perhaps a giant? Either way, it seems a little out of proportion. It’s also interesting that apart from the kanji writing and the woman’s obvious ethnicity, it could be any western ad for beer.

SapporoBeer-1934

Stuff & Nonsense, Part 5

By

By now, even the casual Bulletin reader has likely noticed that I’ve been following Pete Brown’s brilliant refutation of his national health service’s attack on alcohol, beginning with, Stuff & Nonsense: The UK Health Select Committee Report On Alcohol. The first four parts of Pete’s rebuke have been published over the past few days, and now part five is up.

Today’s rebuke concerns hospital admissions and the burden on the health care system, a facetious claim made on both sides of the pond. Over here, for example, an accident where one of the passengers had been drinking is often classified as an alcohol-related accident. In the UK:

In terms of official figures, what they don’t tell you is that when they are compiled, there’s a sharp difference between hospital admission and deaths that are considered wholly attributable to alcohol, and those where alcohol is a secondary or partial factor. And guess what? Only 25% of total ‘alcohol related’ hospital admissions are judged to be entirely due to alcohol.

At best, that simply misleads the statistics, making them sound more alarming than they really are. But it gets even worse, and in some ways goes beyond what American Neo-Prohibitionsts have been willing to say, at least so far.

The Report [implies] that if you drink, you are more likely to be a rapist, a child abuser, a wifebeater, a suicide, and that the fact that you drink makes you so. As Phil [Mellows] pointed out when he addressed the rape issue, this is not only inaccurate, it is astonishingly offensive to drinkers.

We’ve had groups here use images of a syringe filled with beer, equating beer with heroin, but so far as I know, they haven’t called those of us who drink rapists … yet. But they do seem to believe that virtually every societal ill can be pinned on alcohol.

But when someone does something appalling and then says, “The drink made me do it,” they are denying personal responsibility for their actions and we tend to dismiss this as a lame excuse. The Report seems to buy it 100%.

I could go on and on, but it’s best if I just suggest at this point that you go over and read part 5, Alcohol related hospital admissions — and the cost of alcohol to the NHS — are soaring. It’s the longest so far, but definitely worth your time.

If this is new to you, start with Pete Brown’s Health Select Committee Report on Alcohol. Part One (of 10) was published Sunday, Alcohol consumption in the UK is increasing. On Monday, parts two, 25% of the UK population is drinking at hazardous or harmful levels, and three, Binge drinking is increasing, were published. Tuesday saw part four: Alcohol is becoming cheaper/more affordable, and today part five, Alcohol related hospital admissions — and the cost of alcohol to the NHS — are soaring, was published online. Once again, stay tuned.

Beer In Ads #21: Molson’s Crown & Anchor

By

ad-billboard
Wednesday’s ad is from Canada, and was published in 1955. After opening their Toronto brewery the same year, Molson debuted their first lager beer, Crown and Anchor. This ad, featuring dancing sailors, was one of the first ads for the new beer. I wonder what “sparkling light” is?

55molsonca
If you can’t read the text, either click on the ad for a larger view or read the transcription below.

If you want a gay and cheery
brew that looks brighter, tastes
lighter … and leaves a fresh
clean taste upon the tongue …
try Crown & Anchor Lager Beer.
Chances are you’ll agree,
“This light beer is the right beer for me.”

Hickenlooper Running For Governor

By

colorado
Last week, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who many believed might make a run for governor of Colorado, announced he would not run, instead endorsing Denver mayor John Hickenlooper. For several years, Hickenlooper has been urged to seek the governor’s office, but has said he didn’t want to be governor. Today, the Denver Post announced that former owner and Wynkoop Brewpub founder John Hickenlooper has changed his mind, and will run for Colorado governor.

Current Colorado governor, Democrat Bill Ritter, had earlier decided not to seek reelection, which sparked a flurry of possible democrats for the office. Ritter was on hand for Hickenlooper’s announcement, suggesting he may have the governor’s support as well. The Post also reported that “President Barack Obama called Hickenlooper last Friday to encourage him to run.”

Stuff & Nonsense, Part 4

By

If you’ve been following along from my posts the last couple of days, beginning with, Stuff & Nonsense: The UK Health Select Committee Report On Alcohol, and more specifically Pete Brown’s wonderfully telling and insightful rebuke of it all — and you should be — then I’m pleased to report that part four is now available.

Today’s rebuke is one I’d long wondered about, and it’s an argument often trotted out on our shores whenever the hue and cry goes up for more taxes on alcohol, as it inevitably and incessantly does. For me, perhaps the most annoying aspect to the neo-prohibitionist attacks is the never-ending nature of them. They’re like the psycho killer in every modern horror movie. There’s seemingly no way to make them stop. There’s no reasoning with them. They’re not susceptible to logic. California’s own version of a neo-prohibitionist Jason, state representative Jim Beall, said last year after his bill to raise beer taxes 560% was defeated. “They’ve given me a bloody nose. But I’m going to wipe it off and come back in a few weeks with something different.”

In today’s counter to the UK report’s assertion that Alcohol is becoming cheaper/more affordable, Pete leads with the following:

Well, alcohol is becoming more affordable because average household income is increasing. Alcohol is becoming more affordable because everything is becoming more affordable.

It’s my sense that’s what’s going on in the U.S., too. The “taxes haven’t been keeping pace with inflation” argument is likewise untrue for the UK.

[A]ffordability and price are being treated as the same thing — they’re not. By deliberately confusing ‘affordability’ (which is a function of rising disposable income) and price (which is a function of — well, price, but controlled chiefly by duty), you allow newspapers like the Telegraph to interpret these findings in the following syntax-strangled bullet point:

  • “69 – percentage alcohol is cheaper by than it was in 1980.”

This is a lie. Alcohol is NOT cheaper. It is already increasing by more than inflation, and in recent decades, it always has.

I’m going to have to see if that holds true here, too, though I suspect it does.

If this is new to you, start with Pete Brown’s Health Select Committee Report on Alcohol. Part One (of 10) was published yesterday, Alcohol consumption in the UK is increasing. Yesterdday, parts two, 25% of the UK population is drinking at hazardous or harmful levels, and three, Binge drinking is increasing, were published. Today, here’s part four: Alcohol is becoming cheaper/more affordable. Again, stay tuned.