There has been a good deal of press and buzz about marshmallow and whipped cream flavored vodkas from Smirnoff. Today’s Buffalo Trace Newsletter has a story from the Chicago Tribune that suggests, or at least predicts, the success of these products.

The newspaper also has a story about a burglar and an interesting new twist to an old excuse.

Charged with felony burglary (among other related offenses), the gentleman in question broke into a home, stole some property and a foot race with police ensued. When he thought he had escaped, he broke into another home but this time lay down on the couch, took his shoes off and went to sleep. The homeowner found him the next morning and promptly called the police.

He told the police that he didn’t know how he got there and the last thing he remembers was drinking marshmallow-flavored vodka.

They should throw the book at him – mainly for his bad taste in booze.

I came across an article in USA Today indicating that US alcohol consumption hit a 25-yeat high. Americans drank the most wine on record (2.3 gallons per person). Spirits grew by 18% to 1.5 gallons. But, beer dropped 7 percent to 20.7 gallons according to the Beer Institute.

The report brought to mind an article in Wine & Spirits Daily back in October. Speaking to the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Tom Long of MillerCoors, indicated that the beer industry could learn a thing or two from spirits marketing.

To further illustrate the problem, according to Ad Age, AB InBev spent $555 million in measured media last year and still managed to lose a full share point. MillerCoors spent just under $400 million and lost half a share point. How does that work? Together they spent nearly a billion and lost market share. Is it the creative? Is it the media? Is it that consumer alcohol tastes are shifting to craft beers and spirits/wine? Probably all of the above.

Read more…

Buffalo Trace Newsletter had a reprinted story today from an Australian newspaper (Perth Now) that really is one for the books.

Here’s the headline:

THREE WA (Western Australia) men suffered horrific burns after branding themselves with novelty branding irons given away as part of a Jack Daniel’s promotion.

Apparently these geniuses branded their backsides with the words “Old No. 7 Brand” which was part of a barbeque promotion. Not surprisingly they ended up in the hospital for surgery and emergency skin grafts.

Also not surprisingly, The Royal Perth Hospital surgeon called the promotion “an irresponsible cocktail for disaster.” The event also engendered a series of calls for legislation to “halt irresponsible alcohol promotions.” I suppose that they think that before launching the promotion, the Brown Forman Australia folks sat around saying, “I wonder how many idiots we can get to burn themselves with the branding irons.”

It reminds me of the case in Texas where someone drank a 750 ML of Jack Daniel’s in one sitting and then died of alcohol toxicity. The family sued. The courts said something like, if you are dumb enough to drink so much alcohol in so short a period of time, no warning label will stop you.

In Australia, a government official said, “…At the end of the day, how can we legislate against that level of stupidity.”

The branding iron has a warning sticker that says – this can cause serious skin burns; do not touch metal parts with fingers, skin or any flammable material; branding iron will remain hot long after being heated.

They forgot one important warning:

ONLY A BLOODY IDIOT WOULD BRAND THEIR ARSE, SO BE CAREFUL

The culprit

I went to Mongolia at the invitation of the APU Company and at the suggestion of James Espey who works with them. The purpose of the visit was to provide marketing training.

APU is the biggest alcohol and beverage company on the Mongolian Stock exchange. In the marketplace, they are the dominant factor in vodka and beer – certainly in volume and, in my view, in terms of product quality as well. (The vodkas are the best I’ve ever tasted and the beers were equally outstanding.)

APU Vodkas.

The company was established in 1924 as a state monopoly (with Soviet influence), became a joint stock company partly owned by the state and partly private in 1992 and today is totally privately owned and a top player. You’d think that such a market leader would rest on its laurels. No way.

Golden Gobi Beer.

In some respects it reminded me of Seagram before the show businesses crazies and greed set in. The people in marketing and sales are arguably the best in the Mongolian business and still continue to strive for excellence without arrogance. The production operation is top notch – I have never seen a plant and manufacturing facility so state-of-the-art. While I was there they had just received their ISO Certificate of Quality for soft drink and beer production. So, add world class to the mix.

Other similarities included concerns about social responsibility, customer service, debates about brand spending as a cost or investment, marketing and sales issues, and many other things the Seagram alumni will readily recall.

I found it interesting that governmental concern (and hypocrisy) about alcohol consumption is universal. In the US, prohibition failed because the government needed the tax and tariff revenue on alcohol. In Mongolia, the government gives APU an enormous award for being among the top five tax revenue producers (see photo below) yet, lobbies the public to drink soft drinks on New Year’s Eve.

I was so impressed with the management and team that I initially worried about whether I could meet their expectations and add value. Based on their knowledge of marketing and sales, what was supposed to be a training session, turned into discussions of beverage and alcohol marketing issues and case studies.

All in all, the people I encountered, except for the language difference, could be sales and marketing executives from any leading company in the world. I would have hired any one of them.

After the factory tour, wearing a required clothing cover. Note the huge award on top of the showcase.

My fellow marketers.

It was an experience of a lifetime.

My only complaint — I should have brought more vodka home.

My new favorite vodka.

The flight to Ulaanbaatar (or Ulan Bator or UB) from New York is long and tiring and even business class only partly eases the burden. But, for this experience, it was well worth the effort.

Stepping out of the airport and into Mongolia for the first time, there were a number of prominent impressions. First, it’s cold. It’s November 13^th and it’s already below zero. I could care less if it’s Celsius or Fahrenheit it’s cold! Oddly enough, by the end of the week I’m used to it. I also came to realize that people who can endure such weather extremes can also endure whatever life and history throws at them.

Second, the pollution is strong. No worse than major eastern European, South American or Asian cities but somehow different. There is an odor I can’t identify that I later learn is from coal. The city has a very large ger district where the residents use coal for heat. (A ger is a felt-lined tent covered in durable, waterproof, white canvas. While modern and expensive homes are being built in UB, many rural Mongolians have retained their traditional lifestyle, of which the ger is an integral part.) The situation is not helped by UB’s topography – it’s almost completely surrounded by low mountains that trap the air until a strong wind can blow it away. Kind of like Los Angeles.

The third impression that starts as soon as I land is about the people. While waiting for my luggage I look around and realize that I could be anywhere in the world. There are lots of westerners (British, Canadians, Americans, Germans) some coming home and many here on business. But what strikes me the most is the pleasant demeanor of the Mongolians. Despite the time and the anxiety of baggage claim (or is that just me?) all I see are smiling, happy people. To a large extent, the strongest and most favorable impression of the country is the people – warm, friendly, industrious and very smart. So much so that I begin to wonder how I can be effective as a marketing lecturer. But I’ll come back to that another time.

Finally, the city of Ulaanbaatar makes me think of Paris in the reverse. I love Paris but I’m not crazy about the people. In UB, I love the people but the infrastructure needs some work. The roads are always congested and I think of Sao Paolo where a red light is only a suggestion. But, UB is no worse, and certainly much safer.

The problem is clear – the infrastructure has not kept pace with the growing affluence and economic well being. Further, the weather wrecks havoc with the streets and roads and I’ll never complain about NYC potholes again.

The weather also inhibits construction. All around the city there are buildings going up but I didn’t see anyone working on them. It seems that due to the sub-zero weather, construction stops in the fall and resumes in the spring. I suppose it has something to do with the cement and concrete versus the weather.

Leaving that aside, UB is an interesting, bustling metropolis with shops, restaurants and culture reflective of Mongolia’s past and present. I didn’t have time for much shopping or sightseeing but I can attest to the fact that the food was very good. Let me put it to you this way — whether Mongolian, Japanese, German, Korean, or French — I didn’t meet a meal I didn’t like. But then again, it might just have been because of the people I ate with more than the food.

Buuz, a traditional Mongolian dish

Next post – My hosts…

As mentioned in my last post, I was in Mongolia for a week consulting with the largest beverage company there and this will be the first of a number of blogs on the country and my travels.

How and why I got there will be the subject of a future post. For now, I’d like to provide some first impressions. Particularly since most people have only a vague and hazy image of Mongolia. Myself included, before I went there.

Why bother you, you ask. Because, in my view, despite its size and only a few decades of free market economics, the country will take it’s place among the most important emerging nations in the world. As a colleague who has been there observed, “They should put up a billboard over the country saying, ‘watch this space.’”

I like to think of the Mongolia as a “sleeping beauty.” Put to sleep by an evil empire for 70 years and whose recent awakening foreshadows a strong new beginning.

When one thinks of Mongolia, chances are that the first thing that comes to mind is the Mongol Empire and “Genghis” Khan. (In fact it’s pronounced Chinggis; Arabs could not pronounce the ch sound and that’s how it became a g sound.). By the way, the Mongol Empire had the largest contiguous land empire in history, 22% of the Earth’s total land area.

This small country that once ruled much of the world became the Mongolian People’s Republic in 1924 and was subjected to Soviet rule. Suddenly in 1991, with the collapse of the evil empire, Mongolia was on its own. What followed was roughly a decade of restructuring, embrace of free market economics and unfortunately, a deep recessionary period.

Fast-forward ten years. Despite ups and downs, the country gets on its feet and by 2009 analysts are referring to it as the Mongolian Wolf – “Untapped mineral deposits and a bourgeoning financial system could make Mongolia the next Asian tiger, analysts say.” Further, on his trip to Asia this past summer, Vice President Biden visited China, Japan and – you guessed it – Mongolia. That ought to tell you something.

Consider this – not only is Mongolia land locked, it is the only country I can think of that is surrounded by two super powers (Russia and China) and is dependent on them for trade and access to the world. Yet, the GDP growth is among the fastest in the world.

Roughly half the population lives in the capital of Ulaanbaatar (Ulan Bator), a bustling, sprawling city struggling to keep up with the growth of the economy. As my Texan friends would say, “too many tires and not enough road.” It’s a city in transition with contrasts between vestiges of the Soviet days alongside modern skyscrapers.

The other contrast is the perception versus the reality. I think visitors are surprised to see the burgeoning affluence and the palpable level of optimism and aspiration. The roads are full (perhaps too full) of late model cars, supermarket shelves are stocked with choices more extensive than many places in the States and the modern department stores were already crowded with Holiday shoppers.

At one of my training sessions, we were discussing brand awareness and the importance of top-of-mind recall. I asked for people to call out the names of automobiles that first came to mind. I fully expected to hear Toyota and Hyundai thinking that these everyday brands would top the list. Instead, I got rousing choruses of Mercedes and BMW with a few Bentleys thrown in.

That, my friends, is aspiration.

Next – the people, culture and my hosts.

I’ve been “off the air” because I am in Ulaanbaatar (or Ulan Bator) the capital and principle city of Mongolia. I’m here to lecture and consult with an alcohol beverage company with some very interesting products.

Please stay tuned…

I was meeting with my favorite, most knowledgeable wine and spirits guy the other day and we got to talking about the state of the whisk(e)y market. We decided that the world is changing for brown spirits except for the products from Scotland.

According to the Scotch Whisky Association, scotch grew in value and volume in the first half of 2011. But if you look closely at the data provided by Shanken News Daily, of the top brands, only Johnnie Walker and The Glenlivet showed growth.

When I look at other whiskies, I see real sustained growth. Jameson in particular, and the Irish whiskey category, in general, is on fire. I think it’s based on the imagery of the brand, the absence of the smoke/peat taste of blended scotch and, of course, its use in cocktails and as a shot.

Looking at American whiskies, the emergence of flavored products speaks to new users and new usage occasions. I think it will attract a new generation of consumers and contribute to growth in the long run.

To be fair, Scotch distillers have tried to innovate their products by increased aging and changes in barrel storage. While this may be of appeal to the current market, it is probably not likely to bring in a new cohort of drinkers. Although, what I like about Last Drop Distillers is that they have taken the age route to the ultimate with over-age products. Not just aged scotch and cognac but products that reflect category heritage.

If you go to an event or tasting involving scotch, you always see some distillers dressed in kilts. It’s like a metaphor for being trapped in a time warp and reluctance to contemporize the category.

However, two recent news reports show that there are people out there looking to take new approaches to scotch. Wine and Spirits Daily reported last week a company “will start selling single grain and blended Scotch whisky aged 3 years, in a can.” I’m not sure if it is aged in the can or aged then packaged in a can. But don’t worry; the can will be recyclable aluminum. That will attract new scotch users who are environmentally conscience.

Or how about this one: According to the Daily Mail via the Buffalo Trace Newsletter, a company has developed the world’s first “halal whisky” made without alcohol designed to appeal to non-alcohol drinking consumers. The SWA is, not surprisingly, upset. The taste of scotch without the alcohol sounds to me like all pain, no benefit.

Scotch in a can and halal whisky do not fit my notion of innovativeness and contemporizing the category. Better off sticking to kilts.

By the way, that reminds me of something I heard while in Ireland at a distillery some time ago. One of the plant managers, over a few drinks, told me the following:

“You know, the Irish taught the Scots three things – how to make whiskey, how to play bagpipes and the wearing of kilts. But… we forgot to tell them that the last one was a joke.”

An interesting aspect of publishing a blog is using Google Analytics to get to know where your readers are from. According to Google, readers of this blog are from all 50 states. The State of Washington is # 15 in number of readers; ten times as many come from CA and TX and 15 times as many from NY.

Okay, so there aren’t that many of you from Washington. Too bad. I wish I could stop you from making a big mistake by voting in favor of a Costco initiative that will change the way you buy liquor and wine.

According to Wine and Spirits Daily, “It looks like Costco’s Initiative 1183 is gaining traction in Washington after all, according to the most recent Elway Research poll. Fifty-three percent of the 407 voters surveyed say they support the measure, compared to 46% in September and 50% in August.”

If you scroll down to the October 4^th posting you’ll see why I think voting for I-1183 is wrong. Here are some other reasons.

Costco has spent $22 million to support this initiative. According to the Seattle Times that’s a record for the state. Last time, they spent $4.8 million and saw the initiative fail so they’ve upped the ante. Come on people, when a box store shells out $22 million, it isn’t based on civic or community concern.

The Governor of Washington is opposed to the initiative. Wonder what she knows that the 53% in the poll don’t know.

Here’s what will happen if the initiative passes. Prices will not go down and may even rise – if Costco buys products for less, do you expect them to pass on the savings? Remember, they have a $22 million investment in 1183. Your liquor and wine choices will be reduced and subject to the vagaries of the Costco buyers. Small businesses will be hurt because of the 10,000 square foot minimum for stores selling liquor. Above all, the small craft and artisanal producers will have a tougher time making a go of it.

So go ahead Washington, don’t listen to me… Costco knows best about what’s good for your state.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Both Diageo and Brown Forman have been in the news lately with some minor battles with local officials and citizens about taxation.

Let’s start with Brown Forman. Government officials in Moore County Tennessee, made famous by BF and their Lynchburg distillery, want to tax the company for each barrel of whiskey they produce. According to what I read in Wine and Spirits Daily and elsewhere, Lynchburg gets 250,000 visitors a year and still Moore County wants to tax BF $10 per barrel.

As one of my readers put it, “Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden egg…there’s many other ways to fix their budget problem by taxing visitors…They have problems with roads in and out of Lynchburg? Let them put in toll roads.”

The tax would amount to around $4 million, not a great deal in the scheme of things but there are some factors the county officials are overlooking. According to a BF spokesperson, they already pay high property taxes and have a dominant role in the area’s economy including the creation of jobs.

In case you didn’t know, Moore County Tennessee, home of the world famous Jack Daniel’s distillery, is dry.

Some 840 miles to the east in the state of Connecticut, my friends at Diageo are under attack from a group called Connecticut Working Families. This is a coalition of community organizations, labor unions and activists who are protesting “corporate giveaways” to companies like Diageo.

According to their press release:

“Diageo has been a major beneficiary of public subsidies. The company received a $40 million tax break on the promise it would create 300 new jobs in Connecticut. Today, however, according to the latest data from the Department of Economic and Community Development, the company has 29 fewer jobs in Norwalk than when it got the tax break in 2004.

“Diageo, based in the United Kingdom, earned $3.7 billion in global pre-tax profits in 2010. According to Reuters, Diageo CEO Paul Walsh was compensated $4.8 million.”

So let me see if I got this straight. Brown Forman has created jobs in Moore County and attracted 250,000 visitors a year to a small town no one would otherwise drive through, much less visit, and the folks who run the government want to pinch $4 million out of them. Diageo gets a $40 million tax break that was meant for job creation but has cut jobs instead. How does that work?

Maybe Brown Forman should move its Jack Daniel’s production to Connecticut.

If you’ve been a Booze Business follower, you know that I like to keep close tabs on Diageo and follow the good, the bad and the “close but no cigars” assessment of their actions.

This past week or so provided lots of press worth commenting upon.

India

As part of their global strategy, Diageo seems to be concentrating on gaining a presence in emerging markets. To do that, they have developed relationships in various countries, focusing on local spirits, at least initially. They have ventures or are selling such locally made products as Raki in Turkey, Baiju in China and local vodka in Vietnam.

This week brought the news that they are launching a local Indian whisky aimed at the country’s middle-income drinkers. Considering the fact that the spirits market in India is 234 million 9-liter cases (2^nd only to china and Russia in volume) and growing at a compounded rate of 20% the last five years – I’d say it’s a good move.

But it won’t be easy, given the tough advertising rules for liquor. According to my friend and publisher Bishan Kumar (I write a monthly column for his magazine in India called Spiritz), the pathway to promotion of liquor is centered on point of sale and event sponsorship.

Diageo will also have to confront other past issues. It had a local product (Gilbey’s Green Label) but sold it in 2002 to concentrate on global brands. Now it wants to go back to concentrating on local brands. I suppose time and management changes allow for course adjustments.

Also, in July the US SEC charged the company with violating the Corrupt Practices Act in part for illicit payments made to Indian officials between 2003 and 2009. I read that Diageo agreed to pay more than $16 million to settle the charges. I guess they figured point of sale and event promotions are more effective brand building tools.

ESPN

In another recent move, Diageo signed a deal to become “presenting sponsor” on two shows and – get this – on both the English and Spanish versions of the broadcasts. It’s a smart move to reach different types of audiences with a consistent message.

On the other hand, their initial choice of brands includes Captain Morgan. That made me smile. Some time ago in doing some research on brand potential among Latino consumers, a focus group moderator asked a group of consumers with a Caribbean background how they felt about the brand. One respondent said something like, “Captain Morgan… wasn’t he the dude that sailed all over the Caribbean burning and pillaging? You want me to buy his rum? For all I know he destroyed my great-great-great grandfather’s village.”

Talk about dumb

Diageo announced last week that they are moving production of the US supply of Red Stripe beer from Jamaica to the US.

One of my readers sent me an email on the subject that just about sums it up. “They’ve got to be kidding! They’re not just moving bottling, but production itself. Do they think that consumers are stupid?”

I wrote back and told him not to get too excited. They thought it would be okay since the new facility will also be in Jamaica… Queens.

Besides, if you’re going to take a chance on moving the production of Captain Morgan from one place to another when the brand faces stiff competition, changing Red Stripe production is a trifling matter.

I have a new slogan for them – At Diageo, Our Accountants Rule.

My favorite event of the week

I don’t know how much Diageo’s deal with P Diddy is worth – some give the number in 8 digits or even 9 digit millions – but he sure has done good things for the brand.

Last week, however, he lost it in a club in Atlanta and had to spend much of his time apologizing for what some have referred to as a “foul-mouthed vodka rant.”

Apparently he saw some guy drinking Grey Goose rather than Ciroc and decided to defend his brand by 1) throwing ice at him 2) calling him the “N” word and 3) maligning the guy’s sexual persuasion.

An online blog called Hollywood Gossip quoted him as tweeting, “I’m sorry for the ignorant way I represented myself … I have backslid and regressed. Forgive me for my ignorance. Pray for me pls.”

Don’t apologize Mr. Diddy, Diageo could care less. Your contract is safe. As for me, I just want you to know that you’re my kind of brand ambassador.

The initiative in the state of Washington, called I-1183, seeks to “get state government out of the liquor business.”

I find the Control State situation a tough one to deal with in developing a point of view. Opponents say that it’s an anachronism reflecting prohibition-based values; government doesn’t belong in private enterprise; the world has changed in the 75 years since prohibition and there are ample other regulatory means to control the sale of alcohol; and on and on.

I feel differently about Washington.

First, I-1183 gets the state out of the liquor business and opens it up to stores measuring at least 10,000 square feet. The exceptions would be underserved areas and existing state run stores. But small boutique/specialty liquor stores will not exist.

Second, the initiative would make Washington the only state to allow retailers to buy directly from the distillers. In effect, the wholesaler role in the mandatory 3-tier system would change if not end. Guess who is pushing I-1183 and spending millions to promote it? Costco. (Their headquarters are in the state of Washington.)

That’s what bothers me. Don’t get me wrong, we love to shop at Costco and get all those juicy bargains. And, who knows, maybe one day in this decade we’ll finally use up the paper products that live in our spare bedroom. But Costco in the booze business isn’t all good.

Sure, the prices are terrific, so long as you buy what they want to sell in 1.75 liters (half gallon sizes). You don’t go to Costco for selection. Often, you don’t get the same brand twice. It depends on how badly they beat up the distiller in that time period. When I was at Seagram, we didn’t mind the abuse by Costco’s buyers, we got to move a lot of volume and even a few closeouts.

If Costco dominates the state’s liquor business what happens to the smaller brands? The northwest is the spiritual home of artisanal alcohol products. Small distillers in Washington are growing and their local liquor stores have a great selection of spirits. I would expect that to end if Costco starts running the show in the state.

Ironically, the initiative in Washington replaces the monopoly of state run stores with the oligopoly of the large distillers and the power and clout of Costco. I don’t think that’s a good thing.

Quite a bit of press about social media in general and Facebook in particular this week. All of which, of course, relates to the booze business.

First, in the US, DISCUS (Distilled Spirits Council of the United States) has rolled out new guidelines for marketing on social media sites and digital platforms. According to what I read in Wine and Spirits Daily, the European Forum for Responsible Drinking has joined DISCUS in that initiative. Among other things, the DISCUS code requires that 71.6% of the audience be of legal drinking age.

Guess what? Nielsen data shows that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have legal drinking age audiences in excess of 80%. Nevertheless, the DISCUS guidelines (code of responsible practices) are clear and push hard in favor of responsibility. Those of us in the industry understand a basic principle in such matters – the appearance of impropriety is as bad as the impropriety itself. There are steps including “age gating,” monitoring of content and other restrictions. Good for you, DISCUS.

Next, we learned this week that Diageo and Facebook have worked out a multimillion-dollar deal to work together and share skills and resources for mutual benefit. The Guardian quotes a Diageo spokesperson as saying the deal will “drive unprecedented levels of integration and joint business planning and experimentation between the two companies.”

Translation – this is still a new medium and we can learn a lot from each other.

(This is one of those rare moments when I tip my hat to Diageo and applaud their initiative. Although, there was one item in the press that caught my eye and made me laugh. It was something like Diageo wants to tap Facebook’s large audience in markets like Brazil, where the two companies occupy the same office building in Sao Paolo. Oh, and if they were in a different part of town, no deal?)

In any event, in the UK, this new relationship did not go over well. From what I read online, the negative reaction ranged from “serious concerns” from the British Medical Association to “torches and pitchfork” rants from the anti-alcohol forces.

Come on people, Facebook and Diageo can target legal drinking age consumers and put up safe guards to keep young people out. You can’t do that with billboards or newspapers. Perhaps manufacturers should hand out blindfolds in front of every billboard in the UK where a young person is likely to walk past.

Finally, Facebook announced new features this week that include sharing more than just informing. They hope to become a “taste maker” and influencer of products and services. The reaction has been mixed with pundits and bloggers weighing in on both sides. An unscientific poll among Mashable readers indicates as much as 75% hate the news feed changes.

Time will tell whether the relationship between Facebook and Diageo is a smart move for both, or, Facebook will become the next social media darling to wane in its appeal. But with well over 300 million users worldwide, I continue to think that Diageo’s move was right on the money – despite how much it pains me to say that.

This week’s issue of Advertising Age has a story about flavored whiskey with the headline “Brown liquors get shot of flavor as distillers look to broaden audience.” The sub headline – “Can cherry bourbon and Tabasco SoCo woo women without scaring off men?”

Right off the bat, a few things bothered me. Brown liquors? Careful Ad Age, your bias is showing.

As to the appeal to women, I suppose that’s correct but the real story is innovating the whiskey category to broaden its appeal – to all audiences, not just women – and to expand usage occasions as well.

Ad Age also forgot the brand that created the category in the first place – Wild Turkey American Honey that was launched in 2006 and has been a big seller since then.

Here’s my view on the flavored whiskey category.

When Beam introduced Red Stag by Jim Beam (Black Cherry), many people (myself included) didn’t think it would work. But I at least gave them credit for a brand extension rather than a line extension. What’s the difference? As my friends at Absolut used to say, if you add an extension, it must feed the brand not eat the brand. Extend usage and consumers without cannibalizing the core franchise.

Launched in 2009, Red Stag sold 100,000 cases that year and 190,000 in 2010. I’m told that by the end of 2011 the brand will have sold 500,000 cases since the launch. Further, according to Nielsen data, Red Stag accounted for 15% of all the growth in the Bourbon category in 2010. That, my friends, is feeding the brand.

The attractive thing about Red Stag is that it’s “Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Infused with Natural Flavors.” At 80 proof, it’s whiskey not a liqueur. It’s the only one on the market that’s whiskey according to the regulations.

Based on the success, the race is on.

Brown Forman has two entries in the market both interesting, but more whiskey specialty and liqueur than Beam’s entry. Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Honey is a 70 proof product, has great reviews and is more expensive than Red Stag. Gutsy pricing move.

Even gutsier is the Southern Comfort entry – Southern Comfort Fiery Pepper. It’s a liqueur (like the base brand and the Lime extension) at 70 proof. As the name suggests, it’s certainly not fruity and is co-branded with Tabasco hot sauce.

The Evan Williams folks (Heaven Hill) introduced Evan Williams Honey Reserve and are launching a Cherry Reserve. Both at 70 proof, they are classified as liqueurs.

In addition to brands, the race seems to be between cherry and honey.

Which brings me to the Seagram’s 7 Crown entries – Dark Honey and Stone Cherry. (Can someone tell me what a stone cherry is? How is it different from a cherry without a stone? Sounds like a brand manager hoping consumers will add a “d” to the word stone.)

This one is worthy of some further comments, as though I could resist.

First, it’s probably a good idea – what do they have to lose and 7 Crown could use the face-lift. Second, the brands are 71 proof, not 70. That’s probably because the flavorings have alcohol and those amounts are not taxable. I think it’s called draw back credit. Third, it sells for $19.99 or about the same price as Red Stag. That’s more than gutsy — that’s chutzpah.

Flavored whiskeys could be just the ticket to revise and grow the whiskey market. It changes perceptions, increases usage and brings non-whiskey drinkers into the mix.

Somewhere, Mr. Sam (founder of Seagram) is spinning in his grave.

In my constant search for interesting/entertaining news about the business of alcohol, I came across a posting titled World’s Weirdest Spirits at The Daily meal. You can find it here.

The list includes a mishmash of strange booze where “logic” caused the creation of a bottled concoction. For example, people love bacon so there is Bakon Vodka; how about smoked salmon flavored vodka? The logic applies to a Yogurt liqueur as well, called Yogurito.

What would a viable spirits brand be without a story, a legend or an “inspiration?” There is Copil Licor de Tuna – no, not fish tasting, that’s the salmon vodka. This one is distilled from cactus pears and has something to do with an Aztec legend about blood and the creation of the cactus. (I couldn’t make that up, folks.)

There is also a spirit called Root that includes botanicals, birch bark, wintergreen and a bunch of other stuff. The story is that the recipe was Native American, passed down to colonial settlers and was served to Pennsylvania coal miners. Might have to take this one seriously – it’s gotten some hype and seems to have a potential following.

Now we come to my two favorites… drumroll please… Products I like to call “purposive” – spirits with a purpose and that help to “make things happen.”

One of them is Mamajuana, apparently also known as Dominican Viagra. It’s made from herbs, sticks, wood, honey, wine, rum and who-knows-what else. All the ingredients are steeped together for a few weeks. Don’t ask me how you drink it but I suspect it comes with tweezers to remove the splinters. But hey, it’s an aphrodisiac.

The other is a product called Kierewiet Liqueur – billed as a digestif, it has a green color, a bold marijuana leaf on the label and is said to be a Cannabis Liqueur. I’m told it’s served in many places in Amsterdam, of course. This was bound to have happened but I would have suggested a bit more subtlety in packaging execution.

Well, there you have it. In an industry where such products as dessert and cake vodkas, spiked chocolate milk, chocolate and cabernet products are on the ascendancy – these may well be the trends of the future.

(I’m kind of hoping the cannabis one makes it – I have a concept and marketing plan already laid out.)

I came across an article from The Guardian (via Mark Brown’s Buffalo Trace Newsletter) with the headline – The Rise of Binge Drinking in China. The sub-headline was even more intriguing:

Binge drinking is increasingly common for Chinese professionals – often it’s even in the job description.

We’re not talking about people in the booze business either.

It reminded me of my brief sojourn as head of marketing for Asia Pacific/ Global Duty Free.

The assignment was, as they say, good news and bad news. On the one hand, it was my first head of marketing position, global in scope and in a new frontier – Asia. A dream come true, what’s not to like?

Plenty.

While there were offices throughout Asia, headquarters was in New York. No relocation, but when you travel to the markets you’re not going for a week at a time. No… more like 2 to 3 weeks (and weekends) a month away from home.

The guy running the operation was a smart executive but very strange. Let’s leave it at that, for now.

Two strikes but easily offset, at least initially, by the terrific people and the excitement of the new frontier. The drinking was another matter. Let’s go back to the article:

Drinking to develop and cement relationships has a long history in China. “When one drinks with a friend, a thousand cups are not enough,” runs one traditional saying.

I would not have put it so elegantly when I was there. For me it was fear of the words Yam Sing that literally mean, “Dry your cup” or “Bottoms up.” Oh, how I hated those words!

The big push in China at the time was Martell Cognac recently acquired by Seagram. The presence of Cognac in the portfolio, then as now, is important for business development in China. And, man oh man; our people loved their Cognac. At dinners, we had Cognac as cocktails (straight) with dinner (no wine) and of course after dinner. Every glass was accompanied by those two dreaded words – Yam Sing. Someone would stand up, raise a glass, say some words in Mandarin or Cantonese and end with the fearful Yam Sing. It was bad face not to drain your glass/tumbler even if it had been filled to the brim. No sniffing, no swirling, no gazing at the golden hues – just down the hatch.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Cognac in small amounts, in a snifter, maybe by a fireplace on a cold winter night after an exceptional meal. Down the hatch or bottoms up are not the ways in which I enjoy it. After a few weeks of this, the migraines set in.

I asked my colleagues in the region why Cognac before and with meals. The answers were not helpful. They ranged from “strong food needs a strong drink,” or “Cognac is very western and very masculine,” and the all time favorite (said with a wink of the eye) “excellent aphrodisiac.” All the time I was thinking in response to each reason 1) Chinese food is best with good beer 2) western and macho means cowboys and whiskey and 3) what good is an aphrodisiac when you have a throbbing headache.

Finally one day the solution occurred to me.

At most dinners I made it a point to sit near a potted plant, pretend to take a drink when no one seemed to be looking and down the hatch was the plant’s problem. Must have destroyed more plants than any disease had ever done. Hey, I’m not proud of it, but it was either a headache or the plant.

Fortunately, a few months later, the US head of marketing position came up and it was Joi gin from this Gwailo.

A winery on Long Island, Lieb Family Cellars, has introduced a 9/11 Wine. The wine sells for $19.11 and “benefits the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum.” Apparently the foundation has approved it and a paltry amount of the sales (10%) will go to the foundation if you buy direct from the winery.

Outrageous. But I can’t decide who the moronic villain is… who gets the award for stupidity combined with greed? The winery and the fool who came up with the idea? The person on the foundation who said yes? The restaurant or retailer who stocks it? The person who buys it?

If you are shameless enough to do this why not at least give all the net proceeds to the foundation?

The answer is, no matter what lipstick they try to put on this pig of an idea, it’s still a pig.

This piece from salon.com just says it all:

On Sunday, Anthony Bourdain summed up his response on Twitter, noting, “What kind of piece of shit would create such a product?” And speaking to the New York Daily News, Ben Glascoe, whose firefighter son died on 9/11, called the effort “distasteful.”

Unless you’ve spent the last ten years in a cave, you’re aware of social media and it’s impact. You may not be a fan or use Facebook, Twitter and the like, but it certainly has changed the way we communicate and interact. In marketing, social media can readily build or damage brands.

My friend Joan Treistman of The Treistman Group alerted me to an interesting piece of market research dealing with the importance of brand discussions on social media. I think it’s worth sharing.

A study sponsored by a company called Performics and reported in the Center for Media Research, indicates that 52% of those surveyed believe that voicing opinions on social networking sites can influence brand or company business decisions.

More importantly, the survey goes on to describe the influence of social media on consumers in various product categories. For example, nearly three quarters of respondents who purchase entertainment products discuss them on social networks.

The influence of social networks on alcohol is strong as well – 43% discuss purchases on social networks; 15% claim to have actually made a purchase as a result of social network content. The reasons for discussing alcohol beverages are based on brand loyalty (36%) to compare prices (25%) and to give advice (18%).

Most interesting of all, the reasons for following the alcohol beverage category, among half of the respondents, is that they are loyal customers of a particular  brand.

I couldn’t find a single major brand of spirits that didn’t have a Facebook page created by the brand and/or consumers. But presence is not the same as impact. If you Google Top Facebook Pages and Why They’re Successful, you won’t find a booze brand but you will find Red Bull, Coca Cola and even Jones Soda.

Obviously the industry has to deal with audience age composition issues that may put it at a disadvantage versus other brands. But who said it was easy? It’s called creativity.

Last week most of the advertising industry trade magazines had articles about Bernbach on the centennial of his birthday. I thought I would contribute by relating the story of him, Edgar M. Bronfman and Chivas Regal.

Before I do, however, for those of you who are unfamiliar with him, here is some background on the man who revolutionized creativity in advertising – no, make that brand and product selling.

Bill Bernbach’s style of advertising changed brand communication. He was the anti “Mad Men” focusing on compelling messages that broke through the clutter and resonated with consumers. “The difference between the forgettable and the endurable is artistry,” was how he put it. So think about such ads as Avis “We Try Harder” or Volkswagen “Think Small” or “You don’t have to be Jewish to love Levy’s real Jewish rye bread.”

His effort on behalf of Chivas Regal is an interesting story as described by Edgar M. Bronfman in his book Good Spirits, and by Paul Pacult in A Double Scotch – How Chivas Regal and The Glenlivet Became Global Icons.

In the 1960’s after the acquisition of Chivas, the brand began to languish in the face of competition from such lighter scotches as Cutty Sark and J&B Rare. Edgar managed to convince his father that changes needed to be made to stem the sales declines. These included product reformulation, new packaging and a new ad campaign. Enter Bill Bernbach.

As the story goes, when Bernbach showed the new ads to Edgar there was one ad at the bottom of the pile that he kept hiding. When pushed by Bronfman to reveal it, Bernbach pointed out that it was intended as an introductory ad for the new package and that he was concerned that Edgar wouldn’t dare run it.

The headline read “What Idiot Changed the Chivas Regal Package?” To his credit, Bronfman saw the benefits of the brashness and self-mocking tone and, to make a long story short, the ad ran.

The team at Doyle, Dane and Bernbach went on to change the brand’s fortune by understanding consumers and reaching them through challenges and taunts that were fun and resonated well. My favorite – “If you can’t taste the difference in Chivas Regal, save the extra two dollars.” And, the classic, “The Chivas Regal of Scotches.”

In addition to the central print campaign, the agency created a cartoon campaign, which picked up on the theme. A particularly memorable one showed a ship leaving the dock with a case of Chivas left behind. The caption read, “They’ll be back. They forgot the Chivas.”

Did the creativity translate into brand sell? According to the Pacult book, when DDB took over in 1962, the brand was selling around 135,000 cases. By 1979, sales had risen to 1.1 million.

All I can close with is a rewording of another great Bernbach ad – “Mama Mia, that’s effective advertising.”

No, there’s no such thing. But the idea almost got me fired.

I read in Drink Spirits that they selected a Scottish gin among the best new spirits introduced at Tales of the Cocktail. Caorunn Small Batch Scottish Gin joins Hendricks as Scottish made. The brand is made from the traditional botanical mix plus distinctly Scottish botanicals.

So here’s the Chivas gin story.

When I ran new products at Seagram, as I’m sure you’ve noticed from the tequila postings, filling gaps in the portfolio was a top item on the agenda. Oh sure, we had the top seller in domestic gin but with the exception of Boodles, we did not have an imported brand to compete with Beefeater’s, Tanqueray, Bombay and others.

Our research revealed that a strong overlap in preferences existed among scotch and gin drinkers. A scotch drinker was most likely to drink gin as a second choice and vice versa.

Based on this insight and lots of concept development work, my friend Sam Ellias recommended a Chivas Gin. Before I could say a word, he quickly added that it would not be Chivas Regal Gin, but rather, a gin from Chivas Brothers. The brand would use the Chivas heritage of distilling expertise and skill and apply it to a “white goods” product. Further, his research showed that attitudes toward Chivas Regal Scotch itself improved as a result of the more contemporary gin brand idea. Trust me, at that time, Chivas Regal could use all the help it could get.

I was convinced.

At the next new products review meeting we put the idea on the table for discussion and approval to proceed to the next development stage. There was strong support but something wasn’t right. Those in the room with doctorate degrees in “Owner Anger Detection” (OAD) became uneasy. I couldn’t understand it but knew enough to drop the subject based on instinct.

But not Sam Ellias.

A number of years later when I was running marketing and he was in charge of new products, he brought up the subject of a gin by Chivas Brothers once again. Not only was the research even more compelling but he also found a name that made the product clearly by Chivas. All he wanted was a real world test market with an action standard that if this gin product failed to improve Chivas’ sales, the idea would be dropped. Reasonable.

While I still didn’t have a PHD in OAD, I had a Master’s and strong survival instincts. I approached the subject gingerly and discussed it with a family confidante/consultant to gauge the reaction. Instead of debating the merits or concerns, he must have gone to the head owner complaining about the idea.

The next thing I know, I get a poison pen email from the owner, the content of which I will never forget:

“If I ever hear the words Chivas and gin used again in the same sentence, heads will roll, starting with yours.”

This missive came from the same office that had pushed such brilliant new product ideas as Von Konig Silberwasser (I think it was supposed to be a vodka), Bourbon Street Bourbon (billed as a New Orleans style bourbon, whatever that is), and my personal favorite, Chivas Danu, whose relationship to scotch continues to elude me.

Despite the amused reaction from my management, who assured me not to be concerned, the dispatch rankled me and I avoided new products and Sam for some time afterward.

The Gallup folks conduct an annual survey on drinking alcohol and have measured the top choices (wine, beer, liquor) since 1992.

Bottom-line: Nearly as many US drinkers name wine (35%) as beer (36%) as their most often choice in alcohol. Liquor is third at 23% and close to its highest level.

The choice of beer as America’s favorite drink has declined over the past two decades and it was accelerated this year with a five-point drop in mentions of beer, down from 41% to 36%. Among young adults, the preference for beer fell from 51% in 2010 to 39% this year.

I no sooner finished reading the Gallup poll when I noticed another ominous sign on the horizon for beer.

A number of media sources have reported a growth in wine on tap. In some of the restaurants and bars dispensing red, white and rosé, the taps have a sign saying “Warning: Wine Not Beer.” Uh – oh…is there a trend in the making?

Looks like Augie Busch got out just in time.

The caller was annoyed and had a threatening tone in his voice. He got right to the point and informed me that he was a business manager for Jimmy Buffett. He quickly added that we had infringed on trademark and other intellectual property rights – I can’t recall the full extent of our alleged/supposed violations but I was intrigued.

When I politely asked, “What the hell are you talking about?” he explained that Parrot Bay Rum by Captain Morgan, which had recently been introduced, infringed on their established use of the term Parrott Head, the commonly used nickname for fans of Jimmy Buffett. (I remember thinking, “Is he nuts?” How do you trademark the term parrot?)

I knew who Buffett was and associated him with the song Margaritaville, but I was far from a fan, much less an aficionado. I knew he had a strong and loyal following but that was about it.

Instinct told me this gentleman had more on his mind than a lawsuit so I pushed back.

“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” I countered. “Two floors below there are offices chocked full of lawyers who spend their time dealing with real and frivolous issues, so I suggest you take your best shot and do what you need to do.” There was silence but I could hear him blink. “Now, do you want to tell me why you’re really calling?”

He went on to explain that they’d like to have private label tequila for their restaurants and, since we didn’t have a viable brand (that hurt), would we be interested in producing one for them.

“Listen… private label tequila is not a good idea … you’ll make a nickel and we’ll make a dime. It won’t be anything more than a well brand… Tell you what … let’s talk about licensing Jimmy Buffett’s name for a tequila.”

The glee in his voice told me that I had just been played but, no matter, we needed a tequila brand and this might just be the ticket.

He informed me that they would prefer to use the name Margaritaville but the look and feel would be totally Buffett.

It didn’t take long to consider, particularly since a friend and wholesaler, one of the best and smartest in the business, recommended him to us. The deal was done, so far as I was concerned. Getting approval from management (not the owners this time) was another matter. It took a while.

Buffett’s man lived up to his end of the deal – wouldn’t you if you got a hefty royalty off the top? As for me, I became whatever the word is that goes beyond an admirer of Buffett, his music (made my kids so crazy by playing it constantly that they refused to ride in the car with me), his business and, of course, going to his concerts.

The biggest issue in the development was to capture the essence of the Jimmy Buffett brand. The next thing I know, the man himself appears at the office and lets us know that he is there to help with the back label copy. In twenty minutes, he produced the most incredible story that was totally Buffett. He is an amazing guy, top of the game performer, highly recognized and accomplished author and a decent, down to earth person.

In the few years that Seagram had it before the lights went out, the brand went from 5,000 to 50,000 cases. Afterward, it continued to grow but was bounced from company to company without, in my opinion, any significant focus or direction.

There is a happy ending however. Margaritaville is now part of the Sazarac Company and in good hands. In addition to the original tequila brands, they have rum and prepared cocktails including a skinny margarita mix.

Reminds me of his song, Changes in Latitude, Changes in Attitude – nothing remains quite the same.

At lunch the other day with an old friend, who worked on Seagram new products and packaging design, I was reminded of the Coyote Tequila story and the supremacy of product over imagery. It is also a story of how logic and formulae don’t work in new product development.

When I was running new products, the single-minded goal was to fill holes in the overall portfolio. There was no larger hole than the absence of tequila.

Oh sure, there were 2 wannabe brands in the company’s history. One was Olmeca and the other was Mariachi, both now owned by Pernod Ricard. Not sure how well or poorly they are doing now, but at the time they were in the “brand hospice” division of the company. So the mission was to create a tequila brand that could compete with the dominant Jose Cuervo in a category that at the time showed the promise that has since come to fruition. (This was pre-Patron.)

The project was launched with gusto, intensity and with the best team and intentions. No effort was spared; no resource (in or out of the company) was held back; it was full steam ahead.

First step on the journey was to develop a concept. One that could make the new brand stand out from the others on the market and perhaps do for tequila what Captain Morgan did for rum. After all, it was argued, Bacardi dominates rum much the same way as Cuervo does in tequila and the extra-added attraction of a flavored product could separate the new tequila from the rest. Hmmm, sounded logical to me.

But what’s the name and imagery? Coyote, of course… as in southwest, as in rough and tough, as in sneaks up on you and steals your cattle, as in – you get the picture.

To further borrow a page from the Captain Morgan playbook, a howling pedestal was conceived and produced for bars. Each time a bottle was taken off the pedestal a button was released and activated the sound of a howling Coyote. The trade loved it. It reminded all of us of the highly successful Captain mirrors that bars clamored for. It cost a bloody fortune but who cared, this was Seagram and we’re taking on tequila. We’ll make it up on volume, as the saying goes. (See Nov. 30, 2010 posting Great Tchotchkes (Swag) I Have Known.)

Now for the formulation. What we learned was that most people at the time thought the taste of tequila was awful and that’s why the Margarita was invented. For the rest, the awful taste was a badge of courage that would be forgotten after a few rounds of shots by the machismo.

As a result, someone in R&D came up with the notion that Coyote needed to be harsh, even harsher that Cuervo – a taste that replicated the southwest concept and was truly macho, as in fiery. So this ‘tequila with natural flavors’ was “spiced” with hot peppers. Might have been a billion on the Scoville chili peppers heat scale for all I know. Whatever, it was doomed from the outset. I can’t blame R&D as much as the marketing team and myself for jumping to the wrong conclusion and letting this happen.

On the one hand we had consumers and the trade loving the idea and the brand. That is, until they tasted it. No matter how hard we tried to get the heat down, it still tasted like crap and over time the damage was done.

Lessons learned: What works in one instance doesn’t necessarily work in another. There are no formulas to success in spirits marketing or in any category. Further, no matter how good the packaging, name and proposition is, if it tastes awful – remember the expression “lipstick on a pig.” Unless, of course, an awful taste is the concept.

By the way, Seagram never really got tequila right. In addition to Olmeca, Mariachi and Coyote, there were ill-fated efforts with Herradura and Patron. Margaritaville, the last attempt, ended when the lights went out.

But that’s another story.

Here we go again.

The press about initiatives concerning the privatization of alcohol sales has started to heat up once more. Looks like the Washington initiative will be back on the ballot; Ohio is pushing across the board privatization, not just alcohol; and Pennsylvania lawmakers are expected to file legislation that would auction off the state’s wine and spirits wholesale operations and liquor stores to private vendors.

But wait a minute… Didn’t I just read that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board  (PLCB) just reported record sales and contributions to the state treasury?

In fact, the control board hit $1.9 billion in sales (up 4%) and claims to be the largest buyer of wine and spirits in the US. The sales volume generated some $500 million in sales tax and profit transfers.

It seems to me that, in addition to being a monopoly, they have tried to use marketing efforts more like a private enterprise than government. They run ads (print, billboards and even radio); lots of price promotions; and have initiatives like an online store and supermarket wine and spirits kiosks.

But it’s a government enterprise and, as such, I’m not sure they speak marketing. Their ads are okay but hardly comparable to those run by large private enterprise retailers. Despite the blasé nature of their communication, the PLCB still gets criticized for running ads. Imagine how much louder the criticism would be if the ads were compelling.

Their retail initiatives are worth applauding even if Wegmans ultimately rejected the kiosk idea because of customer complaints.  According to Bloomberg Business Week, “customers who use the kiosks insert their identification, and a state worker at a remote location verifies it. The wine buyer must then use a breath machine to prove their blood-alcohol level is below 0.02.”

Where I come from all of this is referred to as “close, but no cigars.”

I don’t mean to be harsh, but government running a private enterprise – no matter how well intentioned and creative the employees are – just doesn’t measure up. The obstacles are too numerous and strong.

I read an article today that the wineries in New York have appealed to Sen. Schumer because the federal government is hurting business by taking too long to approve new labels for wine bottles. Schumer said, “Often, when wineries finally do receive feedback, it is with a rejected label and the necessary corrections. And, at that point, labels must be resubmitted and the process must begin again.” He went on to point out that delayed label approval means delayed sales that in turn means less tax dollars.

Maybe the folks in Pennsylvania should work for the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).

The news that fast-food chains are selling alcohol sent me scurrying to the Internet to gauge the reaction among the public and pundits. After all, “demon rum” could be polluting the American haute cuisine realm and worse, is Ronald McDonald going to turn into a boozer? Will people fear that a McBeer will replace a shake? Do you typically pair your Whopper with a nice lager or with a zinfandel?

According to USA Today (and reprinted by Mark Brown’s newsletter), Burger King and Sonic will join Pizza Hut and Starbuck’s in offering alcoholic beverages along with fast food. Clearly, the move into alcohol is designed to compete with casual dining chains and to increase the cash register ring.

So, my Internet journey revealed mainly neutral to favorable reactions plus some interesting insights.

A number of blog postings (Chowhound, for example) referenced the differences between American and European attitudes toward alcohol, such as:

“There is a simple cultural difference between the US and the far more relaxed attitude many Europeans have towards beer. We seem to think that we need to regulate alcohol wherever we can, Europeans seem to think that adults are generally capable of making the right decision without the state telling them what to do.”

The gourmets also waded (or is it weighted) in:

“I would very much like a glass of Sangiovese with a Baracoa plate at Chipotle, or a Gewurtz with some good Tacos Al Pastor.”

I found this interesting item about Louisiana:

“…Not only drive-thru daiquiris, but doughnut shops with liquor licenses, too. Video poker is legal in Louisiana, but to get a gaming license, the operator has to have a liquor license (logically, if you check IDs for alcohol, you’ll check them for video poker). So damn near every corner cafe, sandwich shop, po’boy joint, doughnut and coffee place, serves alcohol and has video poker.”

Finally, the doom and gloom, anti-alcohol folks had their say: “Fast food plus fast alcohol equals fast drunks.” That’s obviously from someone who has never experienced the therapeutic benefit of a burger and fries at the end of the night or the day after.