Industry Matters/News | Booze Business: A Blog Dedicated to the Business of Spirits and Wine

Blast, Snoop Dogg and Attorneys General

May 9, 2011 No Comments

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.

Tough day for Diageo

May 3, 2011 No Comments

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.

Mommy Wine?

April 25, 2011 1 Comment

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.