Sazerac marketing debacle: happening with any bourbons or only rye?

[BigBoldBully]

Or maybe this should be titled "When Straight Becomes Crooked"

A couple of nights ago, I was in the chat and mentioned Fleishmann's Rye, which everyone understood to be a straight rye. I noted that I'd discovered the labels on my bottles actually say (in that fancy cursive that you have to stare at to read) "Mash" instead of "Straight." Mash RYE whiskey (the rye in clear caps) -- what the heck is that? Yet the Sazerac website has continued to display it as Straight. What's more, the hang-tag said the product is Fleishmann's Straight Rye Whiskey. But with a label that actually says Mash instead of Straight, can I have any real confidence about what I was sold? Checking the TTB website, you can see they were approved for the new "Mash" label a year ago. I started feeling crotchety, and sent them off an email (which appears below).

At first they promised to look into it and to send me a refund if I simply tendered my receipt. However, after I did that, they tacked on other conditions including a requirement that I first ship the bottles back to them so they could supposedly have their lab analyze the contents. (Analyze the contents? The issue brought to their attention is that their marketing does not match their subtly-changed labels). I guess they cannot tell me whether the product they are putting out is still a Straight, despite the label change they sneaked in, unless I send my particular bottles back to them. :hot: Gotta say this is starting to give me a bit of a negative association with the scores of Sazerac products in my cellar, and making me less likely to buy so many in the future. I will update with any future progress in my correspondence with the company.

So now I am wondering if anyone knows of similar bait-and-switches (or just incredibly negligent marketing campaigns) taking place amongst bourbons. Any Mash BOURBON Whiskey or the like making a stealthy appearance? Only thing I can think of at the moment is I saw some report OGD has a font for its 80 proof that they believe looks a lot like 86.

On the flip side, any companies who seem never to have engaged in such shenanigans and whose integrity is beyond reproach? :bowdown:

My email to Sazerac:

March 10, 2013

Dear Mr. Mudd/Sazerac representative:

I write to describe my experience with the marketing of your product, Fleischmann’s Rye. Recently, I purchased two bottles of this product based on my understanding that it is a straight rye whiskey and after reviewing the rebate tag hanging on it, also referring to it in clear type (and in at least two different places) as a straight rye whiskey. Yesterday, after retrieving a bottle from the cellar, I looked closely at the fancy cursive lettering on the label. It appeared that instead of "straight" the word "mash" has been substituted in its place.

Research led me to a TTB label approval from back in March 2012. Rather than the longstanding 102, straight rye whiskey code, the application for the label used code 142. Although this change was applied for and approved at that time, bottles featuring the new, subtly modified label have continued to be adorned with hang-tags that directly lead consumers to believe the product remains a straight rye whiskey--hang-tags that refer to a period significantly post-dating the label change approval. Moreover, even as of today, your website still represents the product as a straight rye whiskey, with a photo of a bottle that closely resembles mine but whose label upon inspection reads Straight RYE Whiskey.

(http://www.sazerac.com/BrandPortfolio.aspx?parent=FY&PCID=8&FID=72&NBid=5)

In short, I feel cheated. As a heretofore frequent purchaser and extoller of Buffalo Trace whiskies and other Sazerac-associated products, my sense of trust has been shaken. Therefore, I write to ask for information about what Fleischmann’s Rye currently contains, and what steps if any will be taken toward repairing damaged trust and loyalty.

Thank you for your time and attention

　

[wadewood]

Wahoo watch out the TTB will be all over this to ensure compliance........NOT.

I do agree that you where mislead in hang tag and label state contrary whiskey types.

[White Dog]

You're right! I just checked an unopened bottle that I bought in Jan. and it states 'mash' whereas a bottle purchased 6 months ago is 'straight.' hey Saz, thanks for nothing.

[squire]

I wouldn't read too much into it, there's a recent trend to drop the word 'straight' from the label because modern consumers don't know what it means. Beam does the same thing to it's Rye whisky label for the same reason. The emphasis is on the Rye.

[LostBottle]

For me, the bigger issue is Sazerac being d!©ks about the whole thing. They offered him a refund with proof of purchase (the right move) before telling him he needed to send in the bottles to have the contents analyzed by their lab (the wrong move). Analysis? Really, Sazerac?

I am betting they never intended to do a lab analysis and it was a brush off - I would call their bluff and ask them for a prepaid shipping label and a copy of the final lab report.

Edited March 13, 2013 by LostBottle

[BigBoldBully]

I wouldn't read too much into it, there's a recent trend to drop the word 'straight' from the label because modern consumers don't know what it means. Beam does the same thing to it's Rye whisky label for the same reason. The emphasis is on the Rye.

Squire, I hope your hunch is right and that they have not in fact changed the product to something that wouldn't qualify as a straight whiskey. It is unsettling to me that getting away from labeling that comes with a higher level of obligations and assurances may be a trend. I had thought the trend was actually toward more educated consumers demanding more transparence. But if you want to hear the extent of my naivete, a few years ago I expected a big increase in both organic spirits and provenance on multiple levels. (I still think it's coming, just more slowly. One of my favorite tequilas is organic, btw.)

I will post if Sazerac gets back to me about any content change.

[BigBoldBully]

For me, the bigger issue is Sazerac being d!©ks about the whole thing. They offered him a refund with proof of purchase (the right move) before telling him he needed to send in the bottles to have the contents analyzed by their lab (the wrong move). Analysis? Really, Sazerac?

I am betting they never intended to do a lab analysis and it was a brush off - I would call their bluff and ask them for a prepaid shipping label and a copy of the final lab report.

Yeah, the lab analysis thing really got me steamed. At best, it seemed they were not actually bothering to read my email and were invoking some knee jerk protocol. On that front, they have now backed down (after I sent an exasperated reply asking why it would be necessary and noting legal concerns about being involved in the interstate shipping of liquor) and are saying it will no longer be necessary to ship the bottles.

One of us really should ask them if they wouldn't mind pulling a bottle from the line, analysing it, and furnishing the lab report. That might be an interesting read!

[cowdery]

Would someone please post a photo of the label or a link to the COLA? For someone who has both, a side-by-side old and new picture would be great.

This change could just mean they want to avoid an age statement even though it's younger than 4 years. Or it may mean it's no longer rye whiskey, aged in new charred barrels, but 'whiskey distilled from rye mash,' aged in used barrels. Just be grateful they didn't make it a blended rye, like they did with Ten High (making it a blended bourbon).

You have to remember that Fleischmann's Rye is weird in that it is only sold in a small part of Wisconsin, only in 1.75 liter plastic bottles, and is very cheap. Like many of the changes we've seen lately, to proofs and age statements, this may have been done to increase profitability or cover rising costs without raising prices. Because whiskey is suddenly so valuable, producers have to cheapen their cheapest products to keep them cheap.

They didn't change the label for no reason. They changed the product too, or are planning to.

Edited March 13, 2013 by cowdery

[BigBoldBully]

"Would someone please post a photo of the label or a link to the COLA? For someone who has both, a side-by-side old and new picture would be great."

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicDisplaySearchBasic&ttbid=12060001000056

for the old label, I hereby cite your own handywork:

http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2010/09/find-it-if-you-can.html

(can't show a side-by-side as I only have the new)

[T Comp]

As to the response, call me an apologist but remember...it's harder than ever to stray from the script and most want to keep their job...unless you man the desk at Nordstrom :grin:.

[cowdery]

The response sounded like equal parts ignorance and CYA.

Thanks for the links, BBB. That Cowdery guy's blog is pretty handy.

The class/type description says rye whiskey, not straight rye whiskey. That's the change. I'm going to assume the choice of 'mash' as the substitute word was arbitrary and not intended as a proxy for 'whiskey from rye mash,' as it would probably say that under 'class/type description.'

This means it is aged in new, charred oak barrels but you have no idea for how long.

Edited March 13, 2013 by cowdery

[TheNovaMan]

Just be grateful they didn't make it a blended rye, like they did with Ten High (making it a blended bourbon).

My understanding was that Barton made that decision before they were bought by Sazerac.

[squire]

My first thought is get a case of the pre-mash label stuff and my second thought is I might not like it.

[p_elliott]

My guess would be it's not old enough to be called straight any more IMHO.

[squire]

Oh it shouldn't matter to me anyway, I only wanted it because I couldn't get it.

[higgins]

Disclaimer: This thread is not recommended for those exhibiting symptoms of Whiskirexia Nervosa.

[cowdery]

My understanding was that Barton made that decision before they were bought by Sazerac.

[cowdery]

I queried Sazerac about this and received a reply. It is pretty much as I assumed but I did learn one interesting thing. Fleischmann's was briefly discontinued but there was enough outcry in its one market that they brought it back. Here's what I wrote:

"The pitchforks are out on sb.com over the new Fleischmann’s Rye label. Instead of ‘Straight Rye Whiskey’ the label now reads ‘Mash Rye Whiskey.’

"I see on the COLA that the class/type description just says rye whiskey, not straight rye whiskey. This means it is still aged in new, charred oak barrels but we have no idea for how long. Presumably this was done not so you could start to sell it at less than two years old, but so that you would have flexibility in the minimum age and wouldn’t have to post any age statement.

"I’ve also concluded that the choice of 'mash' as the substitute word was arbitrary and not intended as a proxy for 'whiskey from rye mash,' a class/type in which the spirit could be aged in used barrels.

"How right is my interpretation and what was the reason for the change?"

They confirmed my analysis and said that flexibility, as I assumed, is the reason for the change.

[higgins]

How would the TTB distinguish between a "rye whiskey" aged just one year in new, charred oak barrels versus a "whiskey distilled from rye mash" aged in used barrels? It appears to me that they use the same code for both of these products - 142, Rye Whiskey. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but as long as it isn't a straight rye whiskey I don't see how anyone can determine the types of barrels used from the information on COLA.

For example, the High West 21 year rye whiskey that has been aged in used barrels is legally "whiskey distilled from rye mash", but uses the same 'Rye Whiskey' designation from COLA as the new Fleischmann's.

Attached for reference:

Fleischmann's - https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=12060001000056

High West - https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=08310001000255

[Brisko]

The class/type codes seem to be used semi-arbitrarily. There is a code for straight bourbon, fore example (101) and a code for bourbon bottled in bond (111), but bonds tend to be entered as 101 anyway. I have seen straight ryes listed as 142, which isn't wrong, just not as specific as 102.

Short version, you can't go by the class/type code exclusively. You have to go by what is on the label, and even then we're largely relying on the producer to label it correctly.

[BigBoldBully]

Chuck, good work in getting something of an explanation/confirmation from them as to the motive--which certainly seems likely to be accurate. Did anything happen to come up about their failure to coordinate their advertising with this significant label + category change? Personally, that is what seduced my pitchfork from the barn and set me worrying about the torch supply. I assume it will be something along the lines of "oops" although a rather convenient "oops" it is. Of course, if they follow through on their promises to me including some sort of pardonable explanation, I will be happy to return the rusty trident wannabe to its usual home.

Another thing I am wondering, though, is whether this change has opened the door to any other forms of degredation. As you mentioned on your blog when praising the "straight" designation, "it shouldn't be necessary to memorize the Federal Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits just to buy a good bottle of hooch . . . ." My hurried glance at the 2008 edition of the regs linked through wikipedia triggered lots of preliminary questions that I would rather not research at this point. Last thing I want to have to turn into is a grouchy whiskey lawyer! (That's what we rely on you for.)

[White Dog]

Here are the 2 labels. Tasting them side by side makes all this talk about flexibility and such sound like just so much Corporate Weasel-Speak.

The "straight" is leaps and bounds better that the "mash" version. In fact, the "mash" version tastes like it may be 2 years max, while the old straight version was always way better than it's price. The "mash" version is barely palatable, and I'm left wondering what to do with the rest of the bottle. This move has clearly been done so that they can sell Rye whiskey that has been aged for way less than 4 years.

When Chuck reports that most of the majors are still operating at less than full capacity, I would state that the majors continue to let the memories of the past glut guide them on a short-sighted path that will hurt them in the long run. The move towards more flavor in whiskey is not going away, just as the move towards better food is not going away either.

I was raised on white bread and canned vegetables in the 1970's, and those days are over. Do they think we're gonna go backwards on that? There's a reason that Bourbon is booming, and they should capitalize on that for god's sake.

Squire, it's a shame that you never tasted Fleischmann's Straight Rye. Knowing your tastes(at least from your posts), my guess is that you would have loved the old version.

Edited March 14, 2013 by White Dog

[cowdery]

The best explanation for the advertising is simply that it's a very small brand and things like updating the web site are a very low priority. This is common with all of the producers. They'll change a label or discontinue a product and it's not reflected on the web site until the next full redesign.

As for will we be seeing more of this sort of thing, the answer is unquestionably yes and from everybody, not uniquely Sazerac. The very lowest priced brands are where we'll see it most and, in fact, it has been going on for a couple of years now.

These options are always out there and companies use them all the time. This does not represent some new labeling strategy by Sazerac.

As for "how they know," the TTB doesn't have people who go out and inspect. They take the producer's word for it. I've suggested that "Rye Mash Whiskey" or "Mash Rye Whiskey" means the same thing as "Whiskey from Rye Mash," but TTB doesn't endorse that suggestion. They are very particular about what word follows what word, so if you have 'rye' followed immediately by 'whiskey,' then it's the <160 proof, new charred barrels requirement, even if the word 'mash' is in the mix.

Edited March 14, 2013 by cowdery

[White Dog]

I would recommend to anyone interested in this product to stay away from the "mash" version. Then Sazerac/Barton could disco the label as they wanted to do so in the first place.

Hey Sazerac, are you happy now?:hot::hot:

[compliance]

When Chuck reports that most of the majors are still operating at less than full capacity, I would state that the majors continue to let the memories of the past glut guide them on a short-sighted path that will hurt them in the long run. The move towards more flavor in whiskey is not going away, just as the move towards better food is not going away either.

I was raised on white bread and canned vegetables in the 1970's, and those days are over. Do they think we're gonna go backwards on that? There's a reason that Bourbon is booming, and they should capitalize on that for god's sake.

Well said White Dog. Consumers continue to become more informed. Put out bad product and people won't keep buying (unless your name is Jack).