Jump to content

Wt: Wtf?


mrviognier
This topic has been inactive for at least 365 days, and is now closed. Please feel free to start a new thread on the subject! 

Recommended Posts

I think we can take them Oscar. We're old but we're big and we just don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still waiting as neither new label has appeared in my part of New Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I like it.

I like it a lot.

So go ahead and pile on SB.com'ers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oscar is supporting/recommending a low proofer????? WTF?

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the difference between the 81 and 101, other than proof?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.... sounds like it's just watered down 101 to me. I'll try it, of course... but I don't see why I'd choose it over the 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oscar, I thought you should know that it is because of you that I recently became a first time owner of a RR 90 (old label) so I ain't joining any pile. That RR 90 is good too and I'll certainly be drinking the WT 81 soon also.

Same here. Thanks, Oscar. Saw some RR90 for $19.99 a bottle and picked one up. I concur that 10 year old Turkey is good stuff, even if it's not 101 proof. I'm sure the 81 proof has it's place too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that it's "just watered down 101" is actually good news. The current 80 proof is younger whiskey and simply not a very good profile. A watered-down 101 is a big improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that it's "just watered down 101" is actually good news. The current 80 proof is younger whiskey and simply not a very good profile. A watered-down 101 is a big improvement.

I'm not following you, Chuck. Are you saying that watered down 101 (81) is better than standard 101? If you are saying it's better than the younger 80 proof, I understand that, but why would you bother with the 81 if the 101 is right beside it on the shelf?

Why not just add a little water the regular 101 if you want something a bit tamer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just add a little water the regular 101 if you want something a bit tamer?

People who like lower proof whiskey but don't really know about the process would rather buy the 81 proof than water down the 101 since "it comes that way".

They don't understand that a higher proof expression of the same spirit is the equivalent of whiskey concentrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck is saying that WT81 >>> WT80.

One more. It goes to 81!

Guess I didn't make myself clear. 81=good. 80=sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And one more. 81 is $2 less than the 101, at least here at Binny's pricing. I'd expect many non enthusiast whiskey drinkers or the 99.99 % of the buying public will prefer the 81 proof. Aren't the most popular spirits at 80 proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what percentage of the general public buys based on proof?

I'd guess that many more buy based on price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the average whiskey buyer is more loyal to a brand, a trend or a taste profile than proof. If proof was important to the masses, Brown-Forman would have had a $hitstorm of pissed off customers when they lowered the proof of JD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the average whiskey buyer is more loyal to a brand, a trend or a taste profile than proof. If proof was important to the masses, Brown-Forman would have had a $hitstorm of pissed off customers when they lowered the proof of JD.

There is no doubt about this but with the introduction of the 81 not only are they playing off the 1 as with the 101 but I believe they are seeking that segment of folks who are leery, maybe even scared , of a higher proof product. They have decided to grow the product by making the whiskey better because their marketing research shows that's what enough people want at a lower proof. I think it is a smart move on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In radio and TV ads are the distilleries required to state the ABV?

Yes. It's usually in very small type at the bottom of the screen at the very end of the commercial, in the case of TV, or said quickly at the end of the radio ad. They have to say the product name, official classification, place of business and abv. Sometimes it's more specific. Vodkas, for example, can't say "vodka." They have to say "grain neutral spirit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In radio and TV ads are the distilleries required to state the ABV?

Jack Daniels is a sponsor of Sirius NASCAR radio and they give the "40%" spiel at the end of their ads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

When Wade and I had dinner with Jimmy Russell in New Orleans last week, he went into great detail about the new WT 81 product and their new advertising campaigns. The genesis for the 81 was that Eddie didn't think the 80 proofer was very good.....too young. So he increased the average age of the whiskey to about 6 years (from 4 years) and added the proof point to distinguish the difference from the 80 without going to age statements. He added that the front line salespeople continue to report that it is hard to get 100 proof and higher products into bars. So they wanted a good tasting Wild Turkey below 100 proof.

I asked if Campari was behind the "Give them the bird" ads. He responded "You must have seen some of Campari's ads haven't you?" We then discussed some of Campari's ads which either push the envelope or go straight to sexual overtones. Remember the Campari ad where Elizabeth Ashly discusses her first time.......on an airplane.....etc....and her second time was better than the first....blah blah blah. Apparently, the "Give them the bird" won't be that last atypical bourbon ad from WT.

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randy,

Did Jimmy say anything about the lawsuit from Jim Beam? I talked with Wild Turkey's Lawyers the other day and they were only a little happy about what I had to tell them and seem to be placing their hopes on trademark abandonment on Old Crow's part.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Mike....no mention of the lawsuit by Jimmy. I was aware of it but he didn't bring it up. He appeared to have a "the marketers do their job and I do my job" attitude about the ads.

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.