Seems as though everywhere you go in NYC, you run into an ad for Malibu Black. It’s a new entry that according to the owners seeks to combine the smooth coconut flavor that you love with higher proof and less sweetness for a bolder taste of the Caribbean.

Translation: We’ve been watching the Flavored Rum category and finally noticed that Sailor Jerry was changing the Rum game so we thought we would follow along.

In fact, higher-proof, dark and spiced Rums are doing well. According to Shanken News Daily, Sailor Jerry (92 proof) grew by 59% in 2010 to 635,000 cases. The team that invented it now runs Proximo and their recent entry, Kraken (94 proof) sold 75,000 cases in its first year. The other three or four new entries in this sub-category are still trying to gain traction.

A few observations:

Seems to me, the 6 million case gorilla known as Captain Morgan, is stuck at the dock (including the 100 proof entry) while the flotilla sails off. Admiral Nelson and others are growing at the expense of the base brand and the line extensions don’t seem to be helping. Someone needs to walk the plank.

Malibu Black? Higher proof at 70? It’s still a coconut Rum without an image likely to appeal to the Sailor Jerry or Kraken drinker. Can’t you just hear the conversation leading up to the launch – “let’s make a dark rum, up the proof a bit and call it Black… a sure winner…well gotta run, don’t want to miss the 5:40.”

I had a number of conversations with James Espey about Malibu over the years. James, along with Tom Jago and Peter Fleck, created the brand. (Currently they also are the owners of Last Drop Distillers Limited.)

James has written an interesting article called The True Story of Malibu. The article raises some interesting concepts on the creation of Malibu that are still applicable to the brand and new entries in general. (Send me an email or hit the comment box if you’d like a copy.)

James points out that Malibu succeeded because the product innovation was bold and outside the box. That was facilitated by an entrepreneurial spirit and effort that managed to overcome corporate obstacles. Above all, instinct and tenacity were key elements rather than studying the concept to death.

These elements apply to Sailor Jerry and to Kraken, in my view. Which helps to explain why the spirits industry giants are better at buying new brands than creating them.

In case you don’t know, my first produced play will be running in an off, off Broadway theatre this weekend.

It’s a short comedy called Stuck and has nothing to do with the booze business.

That play is still in development.

Looks like the last posting on “What’s in a name – Bartender vs. Mixologist?” got some folks annoyed. Most of the people I heard from were anti-mixologist terminology in sentiment.

(By the way, see the word ‘comment’ at the top of the post, beneath the headline? That’s so you can put something up directly without sending an email. Anyway, happy to hear from you.)

Here is a sample of the comments:

Ray Foley, publisher of Bartender Magazine, wanted me to know that in a recent survey he took of his readers, more than two-thirds described themselves as a bartender. As Ray put it, it depends on the questions and the sample of those who participate. But I love this line he used in the email, “I never heard anyone at a bar say ‘Hey Mixologist’ can I have a drink?”

Kyle Branche, a professional/private bartender from LA who has a blog at www.LABartender.wordpress.com, feels that “there are…individuals saying they’re a so-called or self-titled ‘Mixologist’ just so they can take advantage of a wave…as a cocktail personality…without any actual experience behind a live bar.”

And, this one from a good friend who knows very little about the alcohol industry and, other than an occasional libation, could care less – “I’ve never heard or saw the term mixologist before… And I actually think that it is one of the dumber things I’ve ever heard.”

Any mixologists out there who care to step in?

Some folks I know are planning a multi-client research service to measure and understand the views of the key players in the alcohol industry – bartenders, wait staff, sommeliers, servers and on premise management.

The project will be run by Kevin Moran from MSS, Multi-Sponsored Studies LLC with extensive experience in the spirits and wine industry and Paul Braun owner of Braun Research Inc. a leading data collection company with a broad panel of people “behind the bar.” Together they are launching a syndicated extension to their powerful on premise multi-sponsored research and solutions service.

To start the ball rolling they polled the bartender database on a number of key and timely issues. The first one I wanted to share was the question of whether the term mixologist is taking hold.

Moran and Braun surveyed 500 bartenders from a national sample that reflected gender, geography, type of establishment and so on. They asked two questions related to bartender vs. mixologist – how do on premise people describe themselves and whether the term mixologist is here to stay or a fad.

Nearly half (48%) of the bartenders surveyed described themselves as a bartender. But, a third (33%) referred to themselves as a mixologist. Interestingly, the rest – 20% — saw themselves as bartenders who want to become mixologists. So while the self-descriptions split 50/50, it seems that the term mixologist has taken hold. For many, it’s becoming an aspiration.

If you have any doubts, here are the results of “Is the term mixologist a fad that will go away in the future or a real change in what bartenders do and will grow in importance?”

Nearly 2 out of 3 (64%) of those surveyed felt that the term mixologist is here to stay and reflects their changing role. By the way, those who live and work in the western States supported the permanence of the term at the 72% level.

My takeaway from this finding is that too often manufacturers think in terms of the “star” factor and feel that the creation of drinks and cocktails can only reside among a few. Guess what, more and more bartenders seem to be embracing the idea of creating a drink in addition to just serving it.

Maybe its just nomenclature, but I detect from these results and personal experience that bartending as a “way station” or day job while waiting to be discovered is giving way to a broader view of the profession. The idea of quickly making and serving drinks does not preclude the ability to create — quantity and quality of effort are not mutually exclusive.

I think suppliers might want to reexamine their notion of the power behind the bar.

Next: Views about the 3-tier system.

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.

There have been a few reports in the press recently about a trademark dispute over the use of the word “mommy” in conjunction with a wine brand.

You read it right – Mommy. As in a wine brand called Mommy’s Time Out and another called Mommy Juice. It gets even more interesting (perhaps a bit bizarre) since they are in court fighting over the trademark rights to the word Mommy. I wouldn’t have thought that you can trademark that word, but I guess it’s for the court to decide.

I don’t know what to make of it.

On one hand, it’s a brand name that reflects a usage occasion. As in, after a hard day as a mom and the kids are in bed, relax and have a glass of wine. In fact, one of the brands suggests on their website “you deserve a break, take a mommy timeout” and the other says, “…so tuck your kids into bed, sit down and have a glass …because you deserve it.”

I suppose too, that in a world of cluttered wine choices where the supply seems to overshadow demand, an interesting brand name allows a product to stand out. Which is why we have such clever, thoughtful and aptly named brands like Fat Bastard, Cleavage Creek, a rooster on a bottle called Big Red Pecker, Oops and, my favorite, Le Vin de Merde (if your French is not too good, you might want to translate it).

So I get it.

But I wonder what consumers think? Are they saying something like, “Oh, here’s an interesting wine that actually gives me permission as a mother to have some when I’m off duty.” Or, are they saying, “If I want a glass of wine to relax after a hard day as a multitasking mother, I’ll find my own wine, thank you.” Perhaps they’re saying, “Hey, wine is wine and that one is cute and worth a smile…I’ll buy it.”

Some might even suggest that a mom is never off duty and a product that carries these names are not appropriate. Neither is the usage occasion.

I have no idea and the real test will come in the stores. The fact that there are two brands suggests that the suppliers know something I don’t know.

One thing is clear to me. The moment they co-pack the wine with a Sippy cup, I’m going to hurt someone.

“India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. Our most valuable materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only!”

Mark Twain

Last month I was contacted by Mr. Bishan Kumar the Group Editor of an Indian magazine focusing on the liquor trade called Spiritz. Mr. Kumar is my type of editor/publisher, someone with a passion for his publication and his readers. We hit it off from the outset and the next thing you know, I’m writing a monthly column called Booze Abroad.

It made me think how little most Americans know about India. From an alcohol industry perspective, India is the subject of many misperceptions and, until recently, you could have included me in that criticism.

Things you might want to know about India and why I’m thrilled to have an audience there  –

Their spirits business is the 3^rd largest in the world (236 million cases) and ahead of the US, which is # 4. The industry is dominated by brown spirits and growing at the rate of 18 to 20% per year.

United Spirits Limited (USL) run by Dr. Vijay Mallya, is the major company in the market. It’s the second largest spirits company in the world…and growing. Lookout Diageo.

The dominant factor in the market is Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and all the major global players have a presence in the country. In fact, the # 2 player in the market is Pernod Ricard India Ltd, which had an 8% volume share of spirits in 2010. (By the way, that company was previously Seagram India Ltd. Enough said.)

The future outlook for spirits is quite good based on a number of factors — rising income levels and a growing middle class; a youthful population; international travel and exposure to premium products. All that is fueling a demand for imported products like tequila/mezcal and bourbon/other US whiskies. Currently, whisky, vodka and rum dominate the market.

Oh, and it’s not just about liquor. Beer is flying off the shelves and the wine business, while still small, is growing.

All in all, it’s a fascinating country with a robust and interesting booze industry. With all my international travel, I’m sorry to say I’ve never been to India – a situation I hope will soon change.

I was troubled on many levels today when I saw a story in USA Today (April 15) about two restaurant chains accidentally and mistakenly serving drinks to toddlers that had alcohol.

Here’s the lead:

This week, two of the nation’s largest casual dining chains — Applebee’s and Olive Garden — found themselves very uncomfortably trying to explain how alcohol ended up in kids’ drinks.

Tuesday, at an Applebee’s in Madison Heights, Mich., a 15-month-old boy’s sippy cup was supposed to be filled with apple juice but was filled with margarita mix and alcohol. On March 31, at an Olive Garden in Lakeland, Fla., a 2-year-old was served alcoholic sangria, not orange juice.

At one level, as a part of the alcohol industry, I recognize that these are extremely rare occurrences. But, as a consumer and grandparent of a toddler, even one in a billion or trillion is too much.

What were the servers thinking? Are they so bored, uninterested or lazy that they didn’t look carefully at what they were serving? How about the managers at the restaurants, is this how they train their staff?

Another part of the USA Today story got me further annoyed:

Leaders at Applebee’s, Olive Garden and the National Restaurant Association all declined interviews on Thursday, deferring to public relations departments and statements. Applebee’s cited pending litigation.

Come on, I know that corporate lawyers rule, but this is a moral and public confidence issue. Instead of hiding behind PR and counsels, senior management needs to be out there explaining what happened and what it intends to do to prevent this in the future.

This is not the first time. In 2006, a New York City Applebee’s admitted to accidentally serving a 5-year-old a Long Island iced tea instead of apple juice. A California restaurant experienced a similar incident to the one in Detroit in 2007.

So my advice to the brass at these chains is to forget about “damage control” and hiding behind the lawyers. Kick some butt and regain public confidence. The food service business is rebounding, why do you want to shoot yourself in the foot?

For those of us in the alcohol industry, the accidents (or acts of carelessness) add another arrow in the quiver of the anti-alcohol forces.

This week’s Ad Age had a story and insert about trends from the 2010 census. I found the information and learning interesting as a snapshot of the US market in general and my favorite industry in particular.

If you look closely at Ad Age’s analysis and spend some time with the census results itself, the “story” is about the shifting population. Not a new trend, by any means, but some interesting twists and turns that continue to affect marketing.

First, it should come as no surprise that the US is becoming more diverse — the minority populations grew 8 times faster than the majority white, non-Hispanic population.

Interestingly though, the news about Hispanics is that the population and growth is concentrated, with nearly half of all US Hispanics living in just two states – you guessed it – California and Texas. And, three quarters live in just eight states.

The Asian population is growing even faster and is more highly concentrated. Since 2000, the population has grown by 43%. New York and California have the largest concentrations.

Among African Americans, the Census data reported by Ad Age indicates, “many are moving to the suburbs and to the South…a sign of better job prospects and increasing affluence.”

I think the implications of these shifts are clear. The consumer and the spirits and wine marketplace is anything but homogeneous. Strategies, plans, brand building and related marketing/sales factors that don’t take this into account are simply worthless.

I also think that as affluence and acculturation take hold, the old rules of who drinks what need to be re-examined. As demographics change, over time, so do attitudes, life styles and purchase behavior.

Oh, one more piece of information from Ad Age caught my eye that I wanted to share. In an analysis of Boomers sponsored by AARP, it seems that older Boomers (55 to 65 years) spend as much on alcohol as the general population. But, younger Boomers (45 to 55 years) spend 15% more than the population in general.

No surprise to me…I used to think it was because the empty nest means more entertaining and food and beverage occasions. I now know better. It is not because of the empty nest – it’s more drinking because the kids have come back home.

I was chatting with James Espey the other day and the subject of Baileys Irish Cream came up. For those of you who don’t know him or of him, suffice to say that James is a legend in the spirits industry as a very senior manager that has successfully run companies, categories and brands. In addition to creating the Keepers of the Quaich (see Sept. 28, 2010 posting) James’ innovation history includes the invention of Malibu, significant involvement in Baileys and much more.

He is still at it with a range of new and unique ventures including Last Drop Distillers among other ventures.

Anyway, the subject turned to what it takes for a brand to withstand the naysayers (generally corporate types who are risk adverse and would rather buy than create) and the prognosticators (the self proclaimed experts at prediction of success and failure). James told me the story of a well known industry observer who took one look at the Baileys idea and proclaimed, “that s**t will never sell.” Well, the forecast was wrong but never mind, that gent went on to make millions in the industry anyhow.

The Baileys story I had heard came from the late Jerry Mann (former Seagram CEO) right after I took over new products. His advice began with a typical Jerry Mann comment. “Listen pal,” he said between puffs, “in this business, you just never know what will sell and what won’t.”

It seems that when Jerry was running a distributor operation in California a friend called and asked for a favor, which was to buy some 5,000 cases of this new cream liqueur. He thought it was doomed for failure but a friend asked a favor and Jerry complied. As he put it, “we stuck the crap in the back of the warehouse and forgot all about it.” Then one day out of the blue, a sales manager called and informed him that retailers were clamoring for “that crap at the back of the warehouse.”

7 million cases per year later, despite ups and downs, lower priced knock-offs and diet and weight concerns, Baileys is still going strong and a true global brand.

According to James, it was launched using a well thought out new product approach, a strong dedicated team, management commitment and an understanding of consumer needs and wants. Which I believe gave the brand its momentum. Once you get momentum, boys and girls, even a large bureaucratic behemoth can’t slow you down.

Just ask Seagram’s 7 Crown.

I no sooner posted the piece below on South America when my inbox lit up with stories about the possible sale of Jose Cuervo International.

(In case you don’t know, the brand(s) are owned by the Beckmann family and distributed worldwide by Diageo.)

Both Buffalo Trace Newsletter and Wine and Spirits Daily had special additions on Sunday reporting that the Beckmann family was in talks to appoint Barclays to explore a possible $2 billion sale of all or part of the Jose Cuervo brand.

I heard from a wide range of people who know the brand and the players well. Their opinions on the matter were all over the place, but very interesting.

Some wondered about the low price…

“As recently as a few years ago, they bragged about a $5 billion price tag …$2 billion must be for part and not the production or for limited worldwide distribution…seems crazy.”

The more cynical views had to do with the historic combative nature of the relationship between Cuervo and Diageo…

“I once heard a senior Diageo executive say that if Patron were available, they would gladly overpay for it in order not to have to deal with the Beckmanns any longer.”

“Diageo’s recent poor performance on the brand now looks like a strategy to keep the value low in order to buy the Beckmanns out.”

My own view is that it could be (as WSD suggests) based on a preemptive move against the possible sale of Sauza, although count me among those who think Beam Global will remain in tact and flourish in the future. Perhaps it’s a warning shot to Diageo to pick up the pace since their contract comes to an end in a few years.

What I can’t understand is where Proximo (also owned by Beckmann family members) fits in the equation. They are doing well and could easily handle the addition of Cuervo to the portfolio. But, their strength is strictly in the US. So, perhaps the low price tag is for international distribution.

One thing for sure is that the Beckmanns are shrewd and unpredictable so who knows what they have in mind.

When the music stopped during the never-ending corporate version of musical chairs, he found himself with the glorious (or was it to be inglorious?) title of Executive Vice President Marketing and Strategy, Americas. A mouthful. Sounds better than it was.

From Canada to Chile, as he liked to say, he learned about the international side of the business, cultural differences, people and working style differences. In fact, Canada was a dream. Despite the business and profitability constraints, the Canadian operation was top of the game.

South America was another matter.

The Americas was run by a South American ex-pat who was smart and hard working but a micro manager with an occasional reluctance to pull the trigger. In other words, tough to work for.

But, all in all, the experience was terrific. Where else but in Latin America are the following expressions a life principle?

It’s better to apologize than ask permission.

A red traffic light is merely a suggestion.

All things are possible (said while rubbing the thumb, index and middle fingers).

But then, and even more so now, security while traveling was an important issue. On one of the first trips, for example, he was met by a driver/security person just outside of immigration who chastised him for putting his passport into the breast pocket of his jacket. He was informed that he wouldn’t get out of the building without having his pocket picked.

Big deal he thought. A friend had his wallet picked on the streets of Paris.

He heard about a French colleague mugged during daylight in Sao Paulo. Another had his computer ripped out of his hands in Mexico City. Most of his South American associates lived in gated communities but, unlike the US, the gatekeepers had machine guns.

So what, he thought, I grew up in Brownsville, Brooklyn, NYC and the world is a tough place. “Don’t rain on my ‘salad days,’”[1] was his motto.

Then one fine day he got a wake up call.

The Swedish partners decided to concentrate on expanding the business in Latin America and wanted to have a conference to discuss brand development issues in the continent.  The marketing folks wanted the meeting to be held in Bogota, Columbia. He wasn’t pleased but, whatever… never been there, how bad could it be?

To go there he needed a visa and had to go through Corporate to get things arranged. That’s where the story begins…

He comes into his office one day and Mary, his assistant, says, “You can’t go to Bogota because Leo won’t let you go.”

The scene shifts to Leo McGillicudy – the nicest and most decent person he had ever met at the company. Head of security and a former former FBI agent, Leo was a friend and someone he respected and admired.

“What the hell?” he said to Mary. “I’ll call him,” knowing full well if Leo said no, it was no.

He: “’Hi Leo. How’s the family?” (Pause) “Great…listen Leo, what’s this about my not being able to go to Bogota?”

Leo: “Are you nuts? Do you read the papers? It isn’t safe and I can’t let you go.”

He: “ Come on, it’s my job, how bad can it be?”

Leo: “Are you listening? The last thing I need at this point in my life is to go to Bogota and save your sorry ass.”

He: “What am I am suppose to tell my boss…”

Leo: “Whatever you want. You aren’t going.”

He: “But he’s from Latin America and I’m new on his staff…what’s he going to think when I tell him I’m not going?”

Leo: “I don’t give a s**t. Tell him I said he can’t go either.”

The meeting was held in Aruba.

---

[1] Refers to a person’s heyday when somebody was at the peak of his/her abilities

And now, on to the foremost industry show of the year, at least in my opinion. The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) 68^th annual convention is in Orlando at the beginning of April. Once upon a time this was a key meeting point between suppliers and wholesalers. Speakers, exhibitors, award presentations were all a sideshow to the supplier-wholesaler hospitality suite meetings and dinners. Brands and lines were awarded and lost at this event. Friendships were made and solidified. Animosities were seeded and blossomed. All in all, it was one of the events that drove the business.

But there may be problems this year.

Last week, Wine and Spirits Daily reported as follows:

“WSD had heard rumblings that some DISCUS members will not be attending the WSWA’s annual convention this year. Initially we supposed this was due to disagreements over the CARE Act, but a number of distiller sources we have spoken to say the issues are unrelated and that it is a commercial decision.”

A commercial decision?  WSD closed the piece with:

“Our conclusion?  While we don’t doubt DISCUS’ reasoning for bowing out, it’s likely that disagreements over the CARE Act sped up the process.”

Ah, the CARE Act (aka H.R. 5034) – let me see if I can simplify the issue.

The CARE Act aims to clarify that states have primary authority to regulate alcohol. I can go on and on with details about letters to congress, lobbying rationales, assorted fine print gobbledygook and each side’s arguments and counter arguments.  But it’s simple — the wholesalers want to protect and solidify the three-tier system and the suppliers want to make inroads and cause some erosion.

So, back to the WSWA –

I don’t believe the attendance will be down. I also don’t buy the argument that “we see the wholesalers on a frequent basis already so why go to the event?” Because, it’s called relationship building. Because, the size of the line alone is not the answer for “winning the hearts and minds” of distributors and their salespeople.

As for the wholesalers, if the big boys don’t show in the same numbers as in the past, perhaps they will spend more time in the exhibit area and get to know the smaller suppliers and the new brands and players that may become the powerhouses of the future.

It’s fascinating to see each of the oligopolies battle each other. I guess it’s called the “irresistible force” meets the “immovable object.”

The Nightclub and Bar Show opens this week in Las Vegas. It’s considered by many to be the foremost trade (on premise) show in the business. That is, for those who can recollect what transpired while they were at the show.

Seriously, my own experiences with the show have been good. From a supplier’s standpoint, it’s an opportunity to showcase new products, new drinks and other innovations. It’s also a chance to see and mingle with the trade and get a first hand sense of the state of the bar business and what’s on their mind.

So, a supplier’s presence among the nation’s bar and nightclub owners and managers is a bit like chicken soup – it may not help the business but it certainly won’t hurt. There’s much to be said for a presence at this event. Probably explains why there are more large suppliers there this year.

In any event it’s “Vegas,baby.”

Which brings me to a show I attended last week at the Javits Center in NYC, The 3^rd Annual New York Wine Expo. It’s a wine tasting event for consumers who paid roughly $75 for admission, less with a discount. Regardless of what they spent, all attendees were determined to get their money’s worth in sips.

I’m amazed that it survived the first 2 years. Consumers, who staggered from exhibitor to exhibitor, seemed less interested in learning about the wines shown than in comparing the alcohol effects from one country to another. So I couldn’t understand why the wines bothered to exhibit. “It’s about the last day and the trade,” one exhibitor told me. So I went on the last day and to my surprise, it seemed like some business was being done. Lesson learned for me – only go to trade shows.

Next posting: The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) convention. Any stories to share?

In my never-ending desire to bring items of interest to the attention of my readers (all 3 of you), here are a few things I came across in the news about the industry.

From Mark Brown’s Buffalo Trace Newsletter….

Former ‘MADD’ Chapter President Busted for DUI

Source: KTLA, February 25, 2011

The former president of a Gainesville, Fla. chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, is facing DUI charges, according to the Gainesville Sun.

48-year-old Debra Oberlin was pulled over last week after officers reportedly spotted her driving erratically.

She blew a .234 and a .239 on a pair of breathalyzer tests, the Sun reports, well over Florida’s .08 legal limit.

Oberlin apparently told officers she’d had four beers.

Oberlin has not commented.

She was the president of Gainesville’s MADD chapter for three years. The chapter closed in 1996 due to a lack of funds.

All I care to say is that 3 times over the limit on 4 beers? I’ll leave the other punch lines to you.

____________________________________________

From boozenews.com (no relation)….

A Tangle of Corkage Laws Around The Nation

Virginia and Maryland debate whether to overturn bans on restaurant BYO; a Wine Spectator survey finds laws around the country remain a confusing tangle.

As more Americans drink wine regularly with meals, more are asking their favorite restaurants that perennial question: Can I bring my own bottle? Like most practices created in the aftermath of Prohibition, corkage laws are a jigsaw puzzle of arcane, contradictory and confusing rules that vary from state to state and even from town to town. But whether they call it “corkage,” “BYOB” or “brown-bagging,” most wine drinkers want the freedom to bring a bottle of wine from their personal collection into a restaurant.

This year, some states with longstanding corkage bans have begun to reconsider. Last week the Virginia state Senate passed a bill allowing corkage; the House is voting on it today. Groups in Maryland are pushing to end their state’s ban as well.

A Wine Spectator survey of all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, found that 25 of these allow corkage in restaurants with a license to sell wine; some also permit the practice in unlicensed restaurants, though individual municipalities—and, of course, individual restaurants—can often elect to outlaw or limit the practice. Fifteen states forbid corkage outright, and an additional 12 have more convoluted regulations.

Everyone clear on these rules and regulations?

__________________________________________

And, finally, Mike Bacco brought this to my attention….

Coke to ramp up Seagram’s distribution

Atlanta Business Chronicle, February 28, 2011

The Coca-Cola Co. is looking to capitalize on a partnership with Seagram’s made back in 2002.

Atlanta-based Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) said it is expanding availability for the full line of Seagram’s Ginger Ale and mixers across the country. Coca-Cola gained the rights to the Seagram’s business in 2002, but distribution for Seagram’s brands has been limited within the Coca-Cola system. Now, Coca-Cola Refreshments and other bottlers are combining the Seagram’s brand with the Coca-Cola distribution system to boost availability of Seagram’s Ginger Ale, Club Soda, Seltzer and Tonic Water in retail outlets.

See…brands do have a life of their own. I guess after nearly 10 years they thought it was a safe thing to do.

He was very excited about the new job. Head of marketing for Asia Pacific and Global Duty Free. The wild west of the spirits business and destined to grow in importance.

He would soon find out that it wasn’t all that great a position for lots of reasons, not least of which was spending 2-3 weeks a month away from home. But the first reaction was total excitement.

First order of business – take the physical and get some shots.

So, off he goes to the medical office, a visit to Dr. Goldfinger and Nurse Crotchet. The Doc is pleasant enough (albeit enjoying the exam a bit too much) and he passes with flying colors.

Nurse Crotched is another story. Very competent, very capable but dour… we’re talking beyond focused — a combination of resolute and sour. On top of it, think of the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live. But, she was well intentioned.

“Okay,” she says to him, “You need shots before you can go to Asia.”

“What kind of shots?” he asks. He’s not afraid of needles but what the hell?

“Well, tetanus, malaria, a series of hepatitis, cholera, all sorts of disease preventatives.”

“Is this really necessary?” he asks.

“Yes, you never can tell what you’ll encounter…where you will be…what you’ll be eating.” Then with a little glee in her voice, “Besides, it’s company policy.”

Some time later, she finishes and he gets off the table and ready to leave.

“Just one more thing,” she says. “Here’s a Dopp Kit[*]. It contains items you may need while traveling.”

He looks inside and sees a bizarre assortment of stuff – a pack of analgesics, Band-Aids, iodine, Alka Seltzer and assorted travel related items. Things he already travels with.

But there at the bottom of the kit, is a condom. He can’t resist mentioning it.

He takes it out of the kit and holds it up. “What’s this for,” he asks.

The nurse turns crimson and says angrily, “You know full well what it’s for.”

“Yes,” he answers, “But why only one?”

She storms off. Good thing he got the shots first.

---

[*]First produced by Charles Doppelt, a leather goods designer who emigrated to the U.S. from Germany in the early 1900s. In World War II the U.S. Army issued them to recruits by the millions. Who says this blog is not educational?

I generally don’t post jokes but I thought this one was worthy of wide distribution. Besides, it’s the one-year anniversary of this blog and I wanted to say thanks for reading by providing a smile. Stop me if you’ve heard it.

Four retired guys are walking down a street in Scottsdale, Arizona.

They turn a corner and see a sign that says, Old Timers Bar – All Drinks 10 cents. They look at each other and decide to go in, thinking this is too good to be true. Got to be a catch.

As they enter, the bartender, an older gentleman as well, says in a voice that carries across the room, “Come on in and let me pour you one! What’ll it be, Gents?”

The bar was well stocked and each of them ordered their favorite drink – a couple of martinis, a whiskey on the rocks and a gin and tonic. The bartender, using only top shelf brands, serves the drinks and says, “That’ll be 40 cents please.”

The four friends look at each other. They smile and can’t believe their good luck. They finish their drinks, there is no hassle, no scam, nothing but a fun time. They decide to order another round.

Again, four drinks are served and the bartender says, “That’s 40 cents, please.’”

They pay the 40 cents, but their curiosity is more than they can stand. Two rounds of drinks for less than a dollar. Finally one of the men says to the bartender, “We don’t get it…how can you afford a nice place like this and serve great drinks for only10 cents a drink.”

“Well,” says the bartender, “I’m a retired tailor from Phoenix and I always wanted to own a bar. Last year I hit the lottery for $125 million and decided to open this place. Every drink costs a dime — wine, liquor or beer – it’s all the same price. Best part is I get to meet and chat with interesting folks like you guys.”

“Wow,” they say to each other. “That’s quite a story,” one of them says to the bartender.

As they’re on the second round, they notice a group of seven people at the other end of the bar who don’t have drinks in front of them and hadn’t ordered anything the whole time they’ve been there.

One of the men in the group gestures at the seven at the end of the bar and asks the bartender, “What’s the story with those guys?

The bartender says, “Oh, those guys are all retired New York snowbirds who usually go to Florida for the winter… They’re waiting for Happy Hour when drinks are half price.”

So by now, you’re over the game (pretty exciting by super bowl standards) and you’re tired of hearing the ad and marketing pundits give their views on the bad, the worst and the ugliest.

Got time for one more opinion — one that relates to the booze business?

In the past, the Budweiser ads were often more interesting than the game. Not this year.

Is it just me or has the quality, and therefore the effectiveness, of Budweiser advertising declined ever since InBev took over? I used to think that the international owners just didn’t understand the US market and that cost reductions were more important than brand building. I think I was wrong. The Budweiser ads were expensive to produce and cost a fortune to run. So it has to be something other than the owners.

Ad Age reviewed the Super Bowl ads and gave 3½ stars to a Motorola ad and none to A-B. Yet, both came from the same agency, Anomaly. So either Motorola got the better creative team or the marketing folks there are sharper.

There’s a company called Ace Metrix, which uses online panels of TV watchers to score the ads based on metrics such as persuasiveness and likeability, among others. They reported that the Dorito ad was #1 with 662 points (out of a possible 950) and Bud Light was #23 with 567.

So here’s my takeaway/insight – in the beer category, as in many others, consumers select brands on price, promotion and “group brand loyalty.” Inclusion in the group is based on many things, including image as a byproduct of communication or advertising.

Seems to me that the opportunity to reach the single largest audience at one time would compel a beer marketer to present ads that capture the audience’s attention and generate positive word of mouth.

But, then again, what do I know. I’m a spirits and wine guy. We can’t afford to advertise on the Super Bowl.

As a group, spirits and wine distributors are among the smartest business people I know.

But there are exceptions.

Back when Metro New York had many distributors and wholesalers, there was one operation whose owner was – how should I put it? – the runt of the litter intellectually.

On one occasion, or so the story goes, a sales manager was having difficulty meeting the NYC plan for Chivas Regal. He paid a visit to this particular distributor and I imagine the conversation went like this.

Sales person: Listen XXXXX, we’re having problems making the numbers on Chivas and I need you to increase your inventory.

Distributor (in a slow whiny voice): But, YYYYY, I already have a warehouse full of Chivas. It’s moving slowly. How can I take more?

Sales person: I don’t care. We need to increase our shipments.

Distributor (in an even whinier voice): Well, what should I do with the cases I currently have.

Sales person (getting angry): Listen to me. I don’t give a damn what you do with the goods in the warehouse – sell it, give it away, spill it out, burn it, whatever….

Distributor (now very confused): Slow down, slowdown, I want to make sure I got it…you said sell it, burn it, what else?

Rumor has it that the distributor is now a supplier.