Is The Image of Bourbon Changing?

[EllenJ]

Many Thanks Professor Veach! It is what I do best.

I'll second that.

And your down-and-dirty quick listing (since I know you could have covered at least three times that many with your same trademark finesse) is as good a thumbnail description as I've ever read of the brands that have been the most influential in creating the current status of bourbon whiskey. A status which holds bourbon as not only socially acceptable but even socially prominent.

In other words, now even rich people can admit to enjoying a glass of bourbon now and then.

That is, provided it's very expensive and ordinary riff-raff people can't obtain it.

Of course, as specialists in old bourbon and rye whiskey, the Goddess and I often enjoy product that can't be found on the shelves of liquor stores today. And yes, in most cases (there are some notable exceptions) they often taste better than you can buy -- in liquor stores. But they're nowhere near as expensive as one might think (usually less than some currently available bourbons) and certainly not unavailable to riff-raff, as we consider ourselves proud to be members of that community.

If you are an avid reader of the motorcar mags, you can't help but think that only $50,000+ European sports cars (and Hondas, for some reason) are worthy to be driven. Readers of photography magazines (which I know you are) are presented only with the most exclusive examples. There is a tendancy to equate "popular" with "ordinary" and "failing to present the image of wealth and success that I would like to project". In the world of American whiskey, Maker's Mark seems to have been relegated to this role. Thank you, Linn, for pointing out the importance of Bill Samuels (and probably more Bill Jr. than Sr.) to the development bourbon's more socially prominent image. Mike notes that what Samuels did with Maker's Mark was what was suggested to him by Pappy Van Winkle of Stitzel-Weller, but the fact is that Stitzel-Weller is an abandoned ghost today, while Maker's is found all over the place. For most Americans, the bourbon universe consists of Jim Beam and Jack Daniels, with the premium product either Wild Turkey (mainly because it's got more alky-haul, or at least it did when their daddy drank it) or Maker's Mark (because it costs more, so it must be better). Maker's Mark is associated with Tuxedos and fine cigars. So was Old Fitzgerald, of course, but that brand was barely known outside of Kentucky, while Maker's is known all over the country (maybe all over the world). And for those who prefer a bourbon with very little offensive (or any other kind of) flavor, it's every bit the quality product their marketing suggests. And even though both you and I (and Mike and others) agree that we'd be likely to select just about any premium bourbon (and quite of few standard ones, too) ahead of Maker's Mark, it's importance cannot be overlooked in describing how bourbon's image came to its current state.

Especially coming from you, that is remarkable. It also shows how much your range of bourbon appreciation has grown over the years. For those who are too new to be familar with Linn, there was a time when this Stitzel-Weller connoisseur could not find a kind word in his vocabulary for any wheated bourbon. And that was especially true of Maker's Mark, which, for Linn, held no redeeming features whatsoever. So, new readers, if you find yourself to be totally intolerant of a particular type of bourbon, or of a particular brand, take heart from the Da Bunghole's example that you, too, may someday find something worthwhile in that brand (do note, however, that Linn only praised the importance of Makers' Mark, not its flavor)

[Brewer]

For some time, I've been thinking of getting peoples' views on this subject.

Distillers are offering ever-increasing numbers of premium brands to satisfy (or lead?) the market.

Bourbon has undergone periodic waves of revival and increased sales before.

Is it different this time? If so, what is behind the change? Will it last?

Gary

This has been a very interesting thread with lots of good points. One I'd like to touch on a bit futher is the success of Single Malt Scotch in relation to the increasing popularity in Bourbon & Rye. The popularity and cult status of many Single Malts raised (I believe) the awareness and interest in whisk(e)y in general. People enjoyed the different flavors from the different regions of Scotland, and appreciated the fact that they weren't like the relatively bland blends. I think we have to remember that the success of the Single Malts is also relatively new. Scotland had its years of hard times, with the closing of many distilleries. But, the sudden popularity of Single Malts, along with the promotion from Michael Jackson, Malt Advocate (and their WhiskyFests) naturally brought along renewed interest in bourbon and rye. I think that as people that enjoy whisk(e)y got to explore bourbon and rye, they became aware of the fact that we had a great spirit right here in the US, and it cost a hell of a lot less money than the imported Single Malts. The fact that the American distilleries have great product available now while the American public is interested in it; while simultaneously the distilleries are producing great new products, will keep the public interested in, and continuing to buy, bourbon and rye for a long time to come. So, although there are the fickle, trendy folks that hop onto the newest and latest craze, I do think that the current interest in bourbon/rye is not just a flash in the pan.

[gillmang]

Good points Bob.

Another point I would add to those identified by the forum is that exports of bourbon rose dramatically from the later 1980's until today. E.g., between 1987 and 1999 alone they tripled (see the discussion by Sam Cecil in his book, The Evolution of the Bourbon Whiskey Industry In Kentucky, in the chapter on the Kentucky Distillers Association. Cecil pointed out that this was the result of a very specific strategy, of which the KDA was a spearhead).

Of that growth, a lot of it occurred in Japan, the U.K. and Germany. These countries are well-known amongst devotees in the U.S. as having many similar-minded fans.

Now, why would export success rebound in the U.S.?

For many reasons. First, influential foreign writers such as Michael Jackson and Jim Murray and media such as Whisky Magazine gave copious and respectful coverage to bourbon. This writing created a new awareness at home. In the case of straight rye, it almost singlehandedly rescued the category, in my opinion. And while still very small, the interest in quality rye creates a mirror interest in related whiskey segments, bourbon foremost. (What's next? Quality American whiskey blends? Phillips Union is trying and good for them, there is potential there).

Second, foreign demand for particular types of straight whiskey, for e.g., extra-old rye whiskey - Japan famously asked for some and this impelled Julian Van Winkle amongst others to supply the need - resulted in some of this product, or like product, being made available here. In the process, many people realised that such products were a return to an older indigenous tradition. (Getz' book has circa-1900 ads for 14-17 year old rye and other straight whiskeys).

Success begets success, one might say.

But to return to Bob's point, in this case, the world-wide growth and prestige of malt whisky brought fine bourbon and rye more into its orbit. In a previous era (1933-1990) scotch whisky sales seemed to have the opposite effect. (Remember, we are talking about the image of bourbon). Now, the categories are grouping together more, for the benefit of all. As Linn said, premium vodka and tequila have attracted adherents too.

In general, as Michael Jackson has pointed out, in the modern globalised world, a concern for craft-style quality creates a similar demand amongst other consumer producrs. The success of the craft wine movement helped kickstart the craft beer movement, both helped to set the fine coffee movement on its path, and then bottled water, and so on.

On the broadest plane, the international interest in and (relatively) wide availability of these products is an example of the success of the globalised liberal economy. There is a downside - e.g., a traditional producer is bought up and the product is changed - but on balance that is a price worth paying.

Gary

[bunghole]

Many Thanks Professor Veach! It is what I do best.

I'll second that.

And your down-and-dirty quick listing (since I know you could have covered at least three times that many with your same trademark finesse) is as good a thumbnail description as I've ever read of the brands that have been the most influential in creating the current status of bourbon whiskey. A status which holds bourbon as not only socially acceptable but even socially prominent....


There is a tendancy to equate "popular" with "ordinary" and "failing to present the image of wealth and success that I would like to project". In the world of American whiskey, Maker's Mark seems to have been relegated to this role. Thank you, Linn, for pointing out the importance of Bill Samuels (and probably more Bill Jr. than Sr.) to the development bourbon's more socially prominent image... it's importance cannot be overlooked in describing how bourbon's image came to its current state.

Especially coming from you, that is remarkable. It also shows how much your range of bourbon appreciation has grown over the years. For those who are too new to be familar with Linn, there was a time when this Stitzel-Weller connoisseur could not find a kind word in his vocabulary for any wheated bourbon. And that was especially true of Maker's Mark, which, for Linn, held no redeeming features whatsoever. So, new readers, if you find yourself to be totally intolerant of a particular type of bourbon, or of a particular brand, take heart from the Da Bunghole's example that you, too, may someday find something worthwhile in that brand (do note, however, that Linn only praised the importance of Makers' Mark, not its flavor)

Thank you John! I do appreciate your kind comments. I don't post much anymore, but this thread was too important a topic to just blow it off. I was dissatisfied with my first answer, and ripped the second one off the top of my head fairly quickly as I wanted something more concrete.

As for actually drinking Maker's Mark ummm no, I don't do that.

Linn

[bourbonv]

Gary,
Just a side note on your exports of bourbon. You are correct that bourbon took off in the late 1980's. A major factor here was also the fall of communism in eastern Europe and the fact that anything American was popular. The brands of bourbon and American whiskey that we worked on at U D in the early 90's was all for this new market. James E Pepper, American Pride, Kentucky Oaks and Rx were all for the Eastern Bloc countries of Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania. The fact is if it was from the U S, you could sell it in those countries at that time. Bourbon simply road the wagon along with other products.

[gillmang]

I don't doubt it but Cecil says that the KDA made some specific efforts in different parts of the world to sell bourbon using e.g., sales seminars, trade fairs.

Gary

[bunghole]

... the success of Single Malt Scotch in relation to the increasing popularity in Bourbon & Rye. The popularity and cult status of many Single Malts raised (I believe) the awareness and interest in whisk(e)y in general. People enjoyed the different flavors from the different regions of Scotland, and appreciated the fact that they weren't like the relatively bland blends. I think we have to remember that the success of the Single Malts is also relatively new. Scotland had its years of hard times, with the closing of many distilleries. But, the sudden popularity of Single Malts, along with the promotion from Michael Jackson, Malt Advocate (and their WhiskyFests) naturally brought along renewed interest in bourbon and rye. I think that as people that enjoy whisk(e)y got to explore bourbon and rye, they became aware of the fact that we had a great spirit right here in the US, and it cost a hell of a lot less money than the imported Single Malts. The fact that the American distilleries have great product available now while the American public is interested in it; while simultaneously the distilleries are producing great new products, will keep the public interested in, and continuing to buy, bourbon and rye for a long time to come. So, although there are the fickle, trendy folks that hop onto the newest and latest craze, I do think that the current interest in bourbon/rye is not just a flash in the pan.

Bob you are a confusing writter. When I first read this post I just dismissed it out of hand as you being confused. Because I happen to know that you are a smart guy I went back and disected your post to see that you do have a couple of good points on Scottish single malt whiskies.

Things I would like to know are:

1) What was the total decilne of sales & production of Scottish whiskies during the whisk(e)y glut of the 1970's? I'd like to see this compared and contrasted with the same stats of the decline in American whiskies over the same time frame.

2) Prior to 1970 how many single malt brands were there? Were they widely available on a global basis, or just in Great Britian? How many were intoduced between 1970 & 1980?

3) How many new single malts were introduced after 1985, but before 1990?

4) Discounting all blended whiskies, what were the total global sales volumes for all single and vatted malts in 1980? 1985? 1990? 1995? 2005?

My reasoning is that I have never seen any truely reliable facts or figures for this time frame of world wide decline in whisky sales and it's rebound and revival in the late 1980's.

Linn

[bunghole]

I don't doubt it but Cecil says that the KDA made some specific efforts in different parts of the world to sell bourbon using e.g., sales seminars, trade fairs.

Gary

Hey Gary! What about DISCUS? What were they doing if anything to increase sales of American whiskey?

Linn

[cowdery]

The export phenomenon started in Japan and pretty much started on its own. A younger generation (i.e., the post WWII generation), raised on baseball, Levi's and rock-and-roll, wanted something other than what their parents drank (scotch or scotch-like Japanese whisky) and bourbon started to take off there. This emboldened the companies to get a little more aggressive about promoting bourbon in other countries. Some of the other early adopters were Thailand, Australia, England and Germany. Then the federal government made some grant money available for the promotion of uniquely-American products overseas. The KDA (and DISCUS) got some of it and that's when they started bringing over journalists and stuff like that. I got some of it (through KDA) to produce "Made and Bottled in Kentucky." That was in 1991. The KDA has been kind of moribund in recent years but DISCUS has picked up the torch, with the GW distillery, the whiskey trail and other things. DISCUS has been around forever and I'm not privy to their strategic thinking, but I can tell you that 20 years ago they did very little to promote distilled spirits. They were mostly involved with lobbying regarding taxation and sales restrictions, which they still do, but now they also try to present the industry and its products in a positive light. It could be that globalization has made everyone more sensitive to unique products of particular cultures versus commodities. Vodka, no matter how fancy you make the bottle, is a commodity. It can be produced anywhere. There's nothing to be gained by promoting yours, but whiskey tends to be tied to places and that's a good thing, because if the world decides it wants bourbon, they have to come here to get it.

[gillmang]

Can't offer anything really on DISCUS, but Chuck has answered it well I think.

In Canada, similar organisations have kept a low profile because their main concern has been to keep the industry going and not offend the people who directly or otherwise would affect their sales (the drunk driving groups, advertising standards groups, public health authorities, etc.).

Restaurant/bar and retail sales have opened up here for generations. But the Sabbatarian and other Church-inspired disapproval of alcohol sales and promotion, while largely gone in its original form, has been reinvented. It now operates in the guise of a multi-headed secular movement to control alcohol (and this is not all bad of course). The industry has to watch its toes and it has been (I find) very conservative as a result. By the way this may explain in part the few new releases we see here and the little promotional attention given to the new products that do emerge.

As in the U.S., the main focus of the industry associations has been to keep taxes down and open up whatever new ad opportunities are available. E.g. I think some tv advertising of liquor is now possible again in Canada, under various controls of course. It sounds like the government assisted the U.S. industry to do some boosting and information dissemination. That has been true in Canada too, e.g., the recent Liquor Control Board of Ontario's retail whisky promotion and involvement with the recent Whisky Live exhibition here. But I suspect the major government role is to assist Canadian whisky sales elsewhere (always a major market for distillers here).

To my knowledge, the main group in Canada is Canadian Distillers Association headed by a former senior Ontario government politician, Jan Westcott. It has a website (easy to find by a search) which offers some basic product information and stats but it maintains otherwise, from what I can see, a low profile.

Gary

[EllenJ]

Chuck,
Excellent paragraph on DISCUS and KDA, their origins, and their changing roles in taking the promotion of American spirits global. Especially bourbon, although DISCUS appears to be making some strong moves relative to rye as well, as its popularity begins to accelerate. In fact, DISCUS' recognition of rye whiskey (even if only as an outgrowth of the GW project) may well BE a contributor to industry acceptance of rye's potential, and the current jockeying for position in what some anticipate as the next "hot" item in the whiskey world.

Vodka, no matter how fancy you make the bottle, is a commodity. It can be produced anywhere. There's nothing to be gained by promoting yours...

Not so, Mon Frere!
Of course vodka is a commodity. So's water. But that hasn't prevented DISCUS, the KDA, and every bourbon distiller that there ever was from insisting that the reason their bourbon is better than the rest is due entirely to THE WATER. And while organizations like DISCUS (and every distillery's tourist video, as well as "Made and Bottled...") speak reverently of the Kentucky aquafier (as if it ended at the state line), most individual distilleries will point out that it's the water SPECIFIC TO THE LOCATION OF THEIR PARTICULAR DISTILLERY that has rightfully earned their special bourbon all those gold medals, and is why you should buy it. The same puff-job works for vodka, too. OF COURSE, people who understand aren't swayed by such pap, but they aren't the ones whose overpriced purchases of Grey Goose and Absolut (not to mention Vox, Rain, Effen, Finlandia, and Burnett's) allow us to enjoy some of the world's best whiskey at forty bucks a (tall, fancy) bottle, either. Long live connoisseurs of fine premium vodka, distilled from only the purest rainwater, and bearing the distinctive flavor of a designer bottle!

By the way, as you certainly know, the bourbon biz is no stranger to fancy bottles. Despite a relatively recent tendency to choose bourbon bottles and labels that look rustic and handmade, fancy bottles have been very, very good to bourbon. And I mean glass bottles; the porcelain collectors' decanters so popular in the sixties and seventies are another subject all to themselves. Old Charter, Grand Dad, Forester, Fitzgerald, I.W. Harper (I recently posted a photo in another discussion thread), even no-nonsense Barton, have all released designer bottles to make their product look more special than whatever else was sharing a shelf with it. Including their very same product in a normal bottle with a lower pricetag.

One of the first of the "modern" luxury brands , the original single-barrel Blanton's, got (and still gets) a lot of mileage from its own fancy bottle -- which it lifted outright from a container being used by Glenmore at the time for their Kentucky Tavern brand.

To quote a late California senator, "and the beat goes on...."

[cowdery]

You're right, John, and after I made that statement about vodka I realized it probably was over-broad. What I meant to say was that, relative to whiskey, the barrier to entry for vodkas is low and if someone comes up with a good (i.e., successful) concept, whether it be naming or packaging or water source, it's pretty easy for competitors to quickly duplicate it. For evidence, I present the vodka shelf and the surfeit of brands, many launched the day before yesterday.

[bourbonv]

The point I get from Chuck's statement about Vodka is the fact that it has no regional ties - it can be made anywhere. If there were people with money and the desire to create such a product, they would have to push hard for sub-categories such as "Polish Vodka" and Russian Vodka". The problem there is that it would still all taste the same since by definition, Vodka is an alcohol with an absence of taste and smell. Hard to say that no taste from Russia is different than no taste from Poland.

[gillmang]

All true. But in times past (and probably still to a degree) there were regional distinctions. Polish commercial vodkas used to be mostly flavored. Russian, and Ukrainian vodkas, were sold mostly unflavored. If people wanted flavor in these latter kinds, they did it at home by adding lemon, sugar, orange or a wide range of spices and other flavorings.

Also, at one time, each country was associated probably with a specific grain type and in a time of earlier efficiencies (or lack thereof) probably regional styles emerged. Rye was associated always with fine Polish vodka. Potato less so. Wheat was associated with Scandinavian styles.

Sometimes almost imperceptibly and for no very evident reasons, a local taste develops and while it can be duplicated elsewhere, often it isn't, or not in the same way. I've never had a bangers (sausages) and mashed potatos outside England that tasted like the ones there. Their bread has a certain taste too (never mind their beer), and so forth.

But I take the larger point, vodka has no clear-cut modern regional style like Bourbon represents or even Canadian whisky does. It can and has been made everywhere and brands have been created that were successful far from its native lands, notable Grey Goose, which might properly have been called Golden Goose.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
Here is the trap that the bourbon distillers seem to be on the verge of falling into - with vodka it is all about packaging. Attractive packaging is what sells the product, not the taste. With bourbon attractive packaging can help sell the product, but if it does not have the quality taste, then there are not the repeat sells. The bad part about that is that then the consumer becomes suspicious of all attractive packages for bourbons thinking that they are not worth the price and its all marketing hype.

The Thedfords and McKendricks are prime examples of packaging a low quality product in an expensive looking package and charging a high price. Consumers took one taste and backed off. They then kept in their mind, "It looks good, but so did that mesquite crap". For bourbon to retain its improving image, it needs to keep in mind attractive packages had better include a good product.