MM Proof Change

[Vosgar]

C'mon Cliff, or Gary, give us a blind tasting!

Can you tell which is which, and which did you prefer?

Gary

I would Gary, but out of all the bottles of bourbon I have, not one of them is a 90 proof MM (and I don't plan on adding one)

[ILLfarmboy]

I know there are those who don't care about "all the drama" we even have a thread dedicated to why, but those people should note that perhaps this will serve as a cautionary tale to other distillers.

As Gary sort of roundabout said when he mentioned that perhaps Brown-Forman's decision to drop the proof of Jack, yet again, may have met with more consumer resistance today than it did some years back before social media had matured.

[Gillman]

One famous pre-social media precedent where the producer reversed course is Coke after it introduced New Coke. But you can argue that was different since Coke is such a world-famous brand and has been for so long, so the feedback did affect the company's course even though it was before the era of great ease to reach a producer. With JD, one can only speculate since its change occurred long before social media matured as you said. Jack might be a different case because it enjoys great brand loyalty and devotion, but in a way where the consumers seem to cut the company a lot of slack. An example may be the swift sales (or so I have heard) of the new rye, a white spirit selling for good coin yet people still want the product. So perhaps if JD was still 86 proof and the company had moved to 80 today, the result would be different for them. Still, the overall lesson from the MM situation is that producers do need to keep their ear to the ground viz consumer reaction, certainly for venerable brands which enjoy a good degree of visibility and loyalty.

Gary

Edited February 20, 2013 by Gillman

[T Comp]

One famous pre-social media precedent where the producer reversed course is Coke after it introduced New Coke. But you can argue that was different since Coke is such a world-famous brand and has been for so long, so the feedback did affect the company's course even though it was before the era of great ease to reach a producer. With JD, one can only speculate since its change occurred long before social media matured as you said. Jack might be a different case because it enjoys great brand loyalty and devotion, but in a way where the consumers seem to cut the company a lot of slack. An example may be the swift sales (or so I have heard) of the new rye, a white spirit selling for good coin yet people still want the product. So perhaps if JD was still 86 proof and the company had moved to 80 today, the result would be different for them. Still, the overall lesson from the MM situation is that producers do need to keep their ear to the ground viz consumer reaction, certainly for venerable brands which enjoy a good degree of visibility and loyalty.

Gary

There is no doubt that the current information age in all of its manifestations was crucial. But it was the front page of the Wall Street Journal, back in 1980, that was the MM catapult and there is some class effect, even if small, that remains and is part of this.

[smokinjoe]

The thing that sticks out to me on the whole thing, is how the first inkling most of us had was Dale's post on February 8. Of course Dale and probably others know before, but the change was kept under wraps remarkably well. Obviously, they decided on the change, had labels made, were dumping and proofing the whiskey, and bottling, and nothing leaked? I wonder if the average MM worker was even aware? Heck, bottles were showing up at retailers when the news hit the major wires. Speaking of the new digital/social media age, that's a lot of motion without anybody hearing about it. Then everything else, as documented here, happened with lightening speed.

[squire]

If it happens in the Bourbon world it's quickly reported here.

[Gillman]

Thad, do you mean that MM has always had a certain (upper echelon) image and that the change would more likely get picked up in the mainstream and business press than for other products? This makes sense to me, that the company would be more likely to react when the issue became noticed in the mainstream media. Probably it was a bit of both.

I think Jack Daniels also got a big push, in the early 50's with a major story in the press or a national magazine. Of course that was a long time ago.

By the way I was reading an interview with a brewer from AB-InBev (formerly Anheuser Busch) a propos the company's release of Black Crown, a craft-oriented brand that resulted from a group of beers brewed by different AB brewers trying to come up with something different, I think the project was called Project 12 (12 beers of which one would be chosen for a new launch). He said when talking to consumers at sessions where the beers were being tasted and commented on, tested in effect, he was surprised how much they knew about beer and the questions they asked. I believe distillers have said similar things after attending festivals and the like. Of course, in the craft beer world, this is old hat, but he was perceiving, from the vantage point of a huge brewer, how the public is far more informed than it used to be and is interested to provide its input. This is part of what MM ran into IMO, these are not decisions that are exempt from consumer notice and comment as in decades past - barring again extraordinary cases likes that of Coca-Cola.

Gary

Edited February 20, 2013 by Gillman

[squire]

I believe the JD story appeared in Esquire magazine in 1954, coincidentally about the time Brown-Forman bought them out.

Edited February 20, 2013 by squire

[barturtle]

The thing that sticks out to me on the whole thing, is how the first inkling most of us had was Dale's post on February 8. Of course Dale and probably others know before, but the change was kept under wraps remarkably well. Obviously, they decided on the change, had labels made, were dumping and proofing the whiskey, and bottling, and nothing leaked?

I find it interesting that there are no 42% labels in the TTB database for Maker's...

[barturtle]

I will say, after reading Dale's post, I was the first person to mention it on the fb Maker's Ambassador's Group Page. I then spent a lot of time rallying the troops, there as well as on Maker's business page and several other places around fb, twitter, etc.

In all honesty, Maker's themselves had long before organized the troops, through their Ambassadors Program, but probably never foresaw their own troops being used against them.

[callmeox]

I find it interesting that there are no 42% labels in the TTB database for Maker's...

ABV changes on spirits labels don't require TTB approval unless it changes the class/type.

[ChainWhip]

In all honesty, Maker's themselves had long before organized the troops, through their Ambassadors Program, but probably never foresaw their own troops being used against them.

[barturtle]

One could make the argument that the Ambassadors performed their function and protected the product from the maker.

[stevegoz]

Re: the "instant collectible" talk around the 84 proof, Binny's just sent out an email extolling us to get it while we can....

[squire]

Frankly, I'm not surprised.

[MauiSon]

Too bad they didn't use pink wax (diluted from their copy-protected red) - then it would REALLY qualify as a collector's item.

Anyone ready to close this thread yet?

Edited February 21, 2013 by MauiSon

[squire]

Nah, let's see how long it lasts.

[Kalessin]

I find it interesting that there are no 42% labels in the TTB database for Maker's...

Changing the stated proof of the spirit to reflect the contents in the bottle doesn't require a new COLA.

There's a list of allowable changes to an approved label (artwork, colors, fonts, contents, etc.) at the TTB:

http://www.ttb.gov/labeling/allowable_revisions.shtml

[soad]

Anyone ready to close this thread yet?

NO....'cause MM hasn't answered if there is SW juice in the newest release or not!!

[callmeox]

Changing the stated proof of the spirit to reflect the contents in the bottle doesn't require a new COLA.

There's a list of allowable changes to an approved label (artwork, colors, fonts, contents, etc.) at the TTB:

http://www.ttb.gov/labeling/allowable_revisions.shtml

There's an echo in here.

[squire]

Hey, you don't get what you don't ask for.

[cowdery]

Are you kidding? I'm constantly getting things I didn't ask for.

[squire]

Guess you've got one of those magnetic personalities that attract stuff.

[smokinjoe]

I've been present to a couple of impromptu conversations over the last week or so regarding the MM proof change. Firstly, I am very surprised at how many people, including non bourbon drinkers, are aware of the controversy. It seems to be big news, even outside of our own snow globe, here. Several folks have mentioned it to me, or I have been near a conversation about it. Maybe, it's that they mention it because they know I'm a bourbon guy...:crazy:...But, the thing that has resonated with me upon hearing the talk, is the idea that MM was doing something..."bad" in lowering the proof. Even from non-drinkers. The statement I keep hearing is "watering down" the whiskey. And, it is being said in a derogotory manner, as if there was some hanky-panky going on. I think, even to the average Joe, "watering down" whiskey, or "watering down" anything, for that matter, ain't good. And, that seems to be how a lot of folks see Maker's, in their attempt to address their issues.

[Meruck]

I know I am not the first to think or mention it, but it the whole thing was a marketing ploy, it worked. As smokinjoe said even non-bourbon drinkers know about it. Genius, pure genius.