Call it Pig Swig.

Ad Age reported last week that the Piggly Wiggly supermarket chain is launching a line of store brand beers under the umbrella name of Pig Swig. The line up consists of “craft style” beers – Pig Tail Ale and Pig Pen Pilsner. I suppose if your company is called Piggly Wiggly you might as well go “whole hog” (sorry about that) and name your store brands accordingly.

But I must say that charging $6.99 for a 6-pack is more than a bit piggish. (Okay I’ll stop.)

A number of retailers have launched private labels/store brands but managed to name the products intelligently if not creatively. Supervalu has Buck Range Light selling at Albertson’s and other stores in the chain; Walgreen sells Big Flats; and 7-Eleven sells Game Day beer. Costco uses the Kirkland name as it does on spirits and Kroger calls its beers Tap Room No 21 and Port Republic.

The Ad Age article also reports (via Nielsen) that private label beers account for only $23.6 million out of the total beer category of $27.4 billion. But, store brand sales are up 41% the past year versus 2.3% drop in branded sales.

That must be the inspiration for Piggly Wiggly to come up with ads and slogans telling consumers to “get your swig on,” “put some pink in your cheeks” and my favorite – “toast of the trough.”

I don’t know if it’s still around but there was a Malt Scotch Whisky called Sheep Dip. Think of the name applied to the Pig Swig line. I even have the slogan – “come wallow in our beer.”

I knew that sooner or later, I’d get to post something about Bernie Madoff and the booze business.

Morrell and Company held an online auction of his wine and spirits collection. For a swindler who lived the rich life having stolen $65 billion, his wine collection seems to me to be paltry and uninspired. But, buyers gladly overpaid for the boasting rights of owning the charlatan’s wine and spirits.

As the auction house put it, “Some of the bottles are better viewed as conversation pieces rather than valued for their contents.”

The wines went for well beyond their value. A case of 1996 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild was valued at $3,200 to $3,800 and sold for $6,800. A bottle of Chateau Lynch-Bages from 1990 went for $2,200 despite a value appraised at no more than $1,600.

But, my favorite over valued auctioned items was on the spirits side.

Four minis consisting of Bombay, Grand Marnier and Smirnoff valued at $10 to $20 went for $300. Minis?

Nine bottles that included Jack Daniel’s, Jose Cuervo and Drambuie sold for $500 versus an estimated value of around $200. (The value must have taken into account the prices billionaires have to pay for booze in midtown Manhattan or in The Hamptons.)

Included in the nine bottle lot was – drumroll please – a bottle of Seagram’s VO with the original Canadian tax stamp dated 1981. All those years trying to figure out how to make VO grow – who knew it was a collector’s item!

A personal note to Madoff:

Dear Bernie,

Happy you are rotting in prison and hope you are not doing well. While many are laughing about your choice of alcohol libations, I for one am pleased that you obviously were not “from the drinkers.” I’m also pleased that the industry did not benefit from your ill-gotten gains.

But I am curious about something. I can understand ripping off minis from an airplane or hotel room bar. But Smirnoff and Cuervo?

Well anyway, at least the victims’ fund got some money — $41,530 to be exact. I suppose it’s a rounding error in the scheme of things but I also got a posting out of it, didn’t I?

Brown Forman just announced a revised and revamped package for Jack Daniel’s. Bloggers and industry observers are starting to weigh in on the pluses and minuses, so I thought I’d jump in as well.

Once upon a time, manufacturers were frightened of package changes. Concerns about loss of heritage and denigrating the brand’s equity were always the main “don’t do it” arguments. But the most damaging concern was “what will the consumer think.” Over the years, I’ve even heard it said that a package change would suggest a product change and result in erosion of appeal among consumers.

Baloney. Well, sort of.

If a packaging shift involves walking away from the key elements of a brand’s equity then it is doomed. The best recent example of that is the fiasco with Tropicana. The main icon, an orange with a straw, was removed in favor of a nondescript glass of juice. As you may recall, the package change effort was a disaster and Pepsico reverted to the original in a hurry.

However, if a manufacturer evolves or tweaks the packaging by removing the clutter, making it less wordy and updating the message, I believe it enhances the consumer relationship and brand equity. I haven’t seen the new package as yet but from what I’ve read, the new Jack Daniel’s look does just that. Good for you for making the brave call.

One last thought — I call it the chicken soup approach to marketing. Turning a brand’s performance around based on packaging changes, major or minor, is like chicken soup when you have a cold. It may not help but it can’t hurt.

Just when you think you’ve heard of everything, every gimmick, and every ploy to sell a drink – along comes a new one.

There is a bar and club in NYC where the bartender and a “beauty vendor” have teamed up to create cocktails whose mixer ingredients are supposed to smooth skin, plump it up or otherwise enhance the appearance.

Among the cocktails is a Watermelon Kiss which mixes tequila with watermelon, “to even out skin tone,” according to a newspaper article on the club. Another drink uses kumquats and special vitamins and minerals to reduce oiliness.

You get the picture.

Call me old school but alcohol with or without a mixer can be a social lubricant, a calming influence, a road to mood change and, of course, relaxing. If I’ve had a drink or two, you probably can convince me that some products enhance the romantic moment. But, a cocktail for skin improvement? No way.

I think this is how it works – you have 3 or 4 cocktails, go to the restroom and look in the mirror. You’ll love what you see.

In any event, hats off to the owners for a novel way to sell booze. Shows that the PT Barnum adage is still alive and well.

Just thought I would take a moment to alert readers – consumers as well as those in the industry – about upcoming events of interest related to the booze industry.

First and foremost, from May 13 to 17 is the Manhattan Cocktail Classic all over NYC. It starts with a Gala at the New York Public Library and there are events all over town. Anyone who has been to previous events recommends it highly. Here’s the link www.manhattancocktailclassic.com – got to warn you, most events are sold out.

In June (28 and 29), the Javits center in NYC has the Bar and Wine Show for the on premise trade. www.newyorkbarshow.com

Finally, and not directly related to spirits and wine – there is a charity event called The Lone Star Chili Cookoff on May 21. What does this have to do with the booze business? Not much except when I think of the business I often think about Texas. You know, 6^th St. in Austin, Crown Royal and great times with the Southern region. Here’s the link. www.lonestarchilicookoff.org/about.php?club=NYAMC

Who says this blog doesn’t provide a public service?

The same group of Attorneys General that went after products like Four Loko, Sparks, Tilt and and others have set their sights on Blast by Colt 45 which is a fruity malt liquor made by Pabst Brewing Co.

What gives this effort a bit of a twist is that Blast contains 12% alcohol by volume in a 23.5-ounce can. Second, rapper Snoop Dogg is promoting the brand. So, the combination of extra octane, the fruity flavors and packaging plus the spokesperson has led the AGs to request that Pabst pull the product.

I remember Snoop when he was known as Snoop Doggy Dogg, his longer and more elegant name. We had just introduced Seagram’s Gin & Juice (basically an RTD/premix) and by coincidence Mr. Snoop had a best selling hit called “Gin & Juice” – a top 10 hit and on the charts for months. We did not pay for the “placement” and he was singing about the generic concept of mixing gin and juice, but, never mind, Seagram’s G&J flew off the shelves.

Mr. Snoop can move product either by happenstance or intent.

I don’t think that his involvement precipitated the AG action on its own. But in conjunction with the size and alcohol, bright colored cans and flavors well… Ah, the flavors – Raspberry Watermelon, Strawberry Lemonade, to name just two.

I understand the products are doing well but Pabst, with a long history and heritage of outstanding quality beers, needs to think about responsibility in its products. Brands like Blast — which is being referred to as “binge in a can” – only serves to engender the ire of regulators, the Attorneys General, the taxation folks and the self appointed anti-alcohol watchdogs.

For a company who markets such iconic brands like Stroh, Schlitz, Lone Star, Olympia, Pabst, to name a few, well, let’s just say that Blast doesn’t live up to the beer brewing legacy and class.

With or without the Snoop-ster.

Two news reports covered by the Buffalo Trace newsletter made me feel badly for Diageo.

The first, as predicted by many industry observers including yours truly, is that India’s United Spirits Ltd. has become the world’s largest liquor company by sales volume.

No big deal you say. But what about this?

The Sunday Times reports that the Beckmann family has reportedly held discussions about selling the business for shares of Diageo stock instead of cash. If correct, it would make the family the largest shareholder with 10%. That would give them the right to express opinions about how all the brands are run. Too scary to contemplate.