"Your 'Craft' Whiskey is Probably being Tracked by SKU"

[MrAtomic]

Today The Daily Beast includes an article by Eric Felten with the straightforward title, "Your 'Craft' Rye Whiskey is Probably from a Factory Distillery in Indiana." As you might imagine, it's about MGPI and the efforts, by companies like Templeton, to obscure the origins of their product. It's an interesting read, which is enhanced by commentary from Chuck Cowdery, Clay Risen, and SKU, who is justly described as "the most obsessive tracker of MGP whiskies" (although I might substitute the word "dogged" for "obsessive," as it has less of a Fatal Attraction vibe) and an advocate for more accurate TTB label enforcement.

So, a tip of the hat to all of our members involved, and a thank-you to SKU for all the work he's done cataloging MGPI-sourced whiskies (among many other contributions to our community). It's great to see people's whiskey proficiency acknowledged in the wider press.

Here's a link:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/28/your-craft-whiskey-is-probably-from-a-factory-distillery-in-indiana.html

[The Good Sir]

Where does everyone's ire lie? With the fact that the juice is sourced or that crafts tend to front that they distilled it.

[Tony Santana]

I don't mean to speak for the group, Good Sir, but the latter seems to be the rub. Some who are upfront, Smooth Ambler and High West seem to get mentioned most often, are generally well regarded.

[bmajazz]

I think it's because the distilleries selling these products strongly imply that these are handcrafted boutique bottles, much like the microbreweries do. It's not hard to find out that Blue Moon is made by Coors, but what if Coors supplied beer to a bunch of local microbrews that have fancy beer tanks in their lobbies and pass their product off as their own. It's deliberately designed to mislead, without outright lying, to consumers.

Does that sound right?

[BigRich]

I don't mean to speak for the group, Good Sir, but the latter seems to be the rub. Some who are upfront, Smooth Ambler and High West seem to get mentioned most often, are generally well regarded.

That's a fair recap.

[Lost Pollito]

Thanks for the link. Nice read.

[P&MLiquorsEric]

This isn't just whiskey, it's the entire booze business. Brands are built on marketing dollars and romance along with some smoke and mirrors.

That cheap vodka that you think comes from the distillery with its name on the label? Chances are its distilled as Grain Neutral Spirits in St. Louis or Indiana and tanked to your favorite distillery, an additive added to call it vodka or gin. If it's a premium brand, they might redistill it once and then bottle it.

[thebwood]

Nicely researched and presented article. It is heartening to see some of the bourbon "insiders" contributing. I think as more and more people turn to the internet for information, the Templeton's will have a much harder time fleecing consumers via marketing schemes. It won't stop, but perhaps they won't be as successful.

I have no problem saying I love some non-distiller produced products. Companies like High West simply have good taste. They present great/fun whiskies.

[Harry in WashDC]

What thebwood said. I have several NDP products that are repeat purchases due to flavor so it is not the source that puts me off. Rather, it's the opportunism of suggesting I am getting one thing while I am getting something else. Not sure why I think that's bad, but I do even if I like what I'm getting.

[BootsOnTheGround]

This isn't just whiskey, it's the entire booze business. Brands are built on marketing dollars and romance along with some smoke and mirrors.

[P&MLiquorsEric]

The iPhone might not be made in an apple factory but it's design and software are all apple.

Willett does get a bit of a pass by many but I don't believe they ever deny that they used sourced whiskey.

[BootsOnTheGround]

The iPhone might not be made in an apple factory but it's design and software are all apple.

Willett does get a bit of a pass by many but I don't believe they ever deny that they used sourced whiskey.

Edited July 29, 2014 by BootsOnTheGround

[MrAtomic]

Has anyone dug up the history on the "author" yet? There's more to this than meets the eye. It's ev-re-where today. I've seen it 5 times on Fakebook. Seems like a hit piece or a coordinated effort on part of some special interest group. For real.

Also, not a single mention of Willett. Why?

Edited July 29, 2014 by MrAtomic
Too many words

[sku]

Today The Daily Beast includes an article by Eric Felten with the straightforward title, "Your 'Craft' Rye Whiskey is Probably from a Factory Distillery in Indiana." As you might imagine, it's about MGPI and the efforts, by companies like Templeton, to obscure the origins of their product. It's an interesting read, which is enhanced by commentary from Chuck Cowdery, Clay Risen, and SKU, who is justly described as "the most obsessive tracker of MGP whiskies" (although I might substitute the word "dogged" for "obsessive," as it has less of a Fatal Attraction vibe) and an advocate for more accurate TTB label enforcement.

So, a tip of the hat to all of our members involved, and a thank-you to SKU for all the work he's done cataloging MGPI-sourced whiskies (among many other contributions to our community). It's great to see people's whiskey proficiency acknowledged in the wider press.

Here's a link:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/28/your-craft-whiskey-is-probably-from-a-factory-distillery-in-indiana.html

Thanks! I was certainly flattered to be quoted in the article, especially alongside authorities like Chuck and Clay. I thought the article was well done. I spoke to the guy for a while and of course, most of what we discussed didn't make it in, but along with discussing the fakers, I repeatedly stressed (1) that there is nothing wrong with sourcing, as long as you are up front about it (which I think came through in the article), and (2) that many MGP sourced whiskeys are very good. I also send him the link to Knotter Bourbon, which is one of my favorite examples of someone who is disclosing that they source (and in a humorous way).

[garbanzobean]

Michter's was not made at Michter's because there is no Michter's distillery yet the juice in their bottles was designed and is a product of their craft - which is farming out that labor.

So did I smash my phone and scream "Foxconn!" after reading some 'article' about it? Nah. Did I pour out that Mich 20 and beat my fists in anger swearing revenge? Nope.

People just don't like to be told their favorite whatever was sold to them and they've been bamboozled. Point is: the reason why 'craft' is so popular is not because it really is but because those that buy it like to feel as though they're a part of something special. The beer snobs have this down lock and key.

Also, Willett has been transparent and they have risen to near cult status yet no mention in the article. Just thought it was interesting.

I don't necessarily disagree with the scope of your post (and am also quite interested as to why Willett's is not mentioned), but I do have a couple points of contention.

1.) Barring some contract brewing operations (Sam Adams comes to mind), most "craft" and "micro" brewers actually do brew their own beer. Whether or not that beer is superior to items available on the international, national, or respective regional market is something I leave to the eye of the beholder, but I generally tend to think all but the most unbalanced, diacetyl-ridden toilet water still beats out Bud/Miller/Coors. When one buys a local craft beer, at least one can be reasonably sure that the craft beer one consumes comes from the brewery in question. This contrasts markedly with the craft spirits industry (whiskey in particular), which is almost universally characterized by being either the aforementioned toilet water or sourced product sold by fairly deceptive marketing practices. The B/M/C of the bourbon world is generally thought to be Buffalo Trace, Heaven Hill, Wild Turkey, etc, but even their lower shelf bourbons tend to be decent. Buffalo Trace and Heaven Hill are generally just as guilty as anyone else of making up fanciful names and BS history for different quality levels and flavor profiles of the same stuff, though.

2.) In my short time on this forum, I've noticed that NDP bourbon gets dinged more for deceptive marketing practices than for anything else. I think openness about sourcing one's bourbon tends to go a long way toward making bourbon fans forget about the price premiums they pay. Smooth Ambler is a great example here. Where I live, Smooth Ambler Old Scout 10 year is $55. Compared to a lot of 10 year old 50-ish% abv products from traditional labels, that is a pretty large price premium, but people tend to chalk it up to the cost of barrel selection since the product is good. Whether or not that rationalization is valid is certainly up for debate, but it does speak volumes about what honesty in marketing can do for a brand reputation. Willett sort of falls into the same category (just with less transparency about where they source their products from, but a more established reputation for barrel selection), even though there are many on this site that avoid most other KBD products like the plague. Ultimately, transparency is ONE of several legitimate ways that craft brands can distinguish themselves from the rest, as it can help soothe concerns about both the quality/consistency of product and the ethics of the people selling folks their whiskey. I don't have any issue with a brand charging exactly what it thinks it can make people pay, but I do see signs of the beginnings of a pretty significant backlash against craft-marketed NDPs in the making, especially once the beanie baby personalities move onto whatever's next. In the meantime, I am glad that there is plenty of solid MGP distillate to go around.

Edited July 29, 2014 by garbanzobean

[P&MLiquorsEric]

You make a great point about the actual distillers being less than truthful also. How many fake distillery names have been used?

The little players are just following the big boys lead.

Lie and lie some more. When you get called on it, don't answer the question and find someone else to lie to.

[nd2005]

There's more to this than meets the eye. It's ev-re-where today. I've seen it 5 times on Fakebook. Seems like a hit piece or a coordinated effort on part of some special interest group. For real.

It's called going viral. Welcome to the internet.

I thought it was a great article so I posted it on my Facebook page. Got several likes and re-shares, and some comments from people who didn't know about the whole NDP thing. It's also being shared on several prominent bourbon related twitter feeds.

[risenc]

For what it's worth, I was pretty impressed with the author -- both in our interview and in the final product. It's always tough when an insider reads a piece intended for outsiders. We notice that Willett wasn't mentioned, but 99 percent of readers won't have even heard of the place. And aside from name-checking, would the piece have benefited from mentioning Willett, alongside Smooth Ambler and High West? Maybe. But not by much. And that also would have made the piece more complicated, on an already complicated subject.

I deal with this all the time, both as an editor and as a writer. As an editor, I'm always having to pull back my writers from geeking out on a subject, and balancing important information from relevant but cluttering details. And the writers will often come back and say, "But my colleagues will scream at me if I don't mention X alongside Y and Z!" And I have to remind them that the vast majority of readers will scream if they _do_ mention X -- and there are a lot more readers than colleagues.

So, sure, it would have been cool to see him mention Willett. But as an editor, I might have cut it anyway.

[callmeox]

Thanks for the writing industry perspective, Clay.

[squire]

Willett does get a bit of a pass by many but I don't believe they ever deny that they used sourced whiskey.

They don't now but before the internet and Whisky Boards it was a different story. Of course I don't believe they chose the name of their recently introduced 'Pot Still' whisky because of the shape of the bottle either.

[cowdery]

I agree with Clay. Eric did a good job with a difficult subject. The difficulty is evidenced by the folks, even in this very thread, who didn't get it.

[garbanzobean]

I agree with Clay. Eric did a good job with a difficult subject. The difficulty is evidenced by the folks, even in this very thread, who didn't get it.

I think the article was extremely well researched and contained a ton of information for what it was (an article, not a book). I also really liked the author's emphasis on the fact that MGP produces some pretty solid product (no need to burn the place down in anger), as well as his "age of spirit vs age of distillery" litmus test. That is something a lot of less enthusiastic folks probably wouldn't think to do offhand. Most interesting to me is the point Chuck made about the distinction between good sourcing and good distilling. I would be pretty amused to taste the results of a lot of the first attempts to come off those shiny new stills at some of the craft brands. Unless they poisoned me. Then I would not be amused. Edited July 30, 2014 by garbanzobean
spelling

[alemmo]

I'm fairly new to bourbon, only a few months under my belt but I have steered clear of most of these deceptive brands. I really enjoy High West and Willet though. Have not yet had the pleasure to try Smooth Ambler yet.

I do wonder one thing. That was sort of touched on in the article but I don't think entirely, its been a couple days since I read it.

As an example Templeton states on their website they are using an old family recipe, some of the other deceptive brands also talk about old recipes that they are using.

Does MGP/LDI make these spirits to order with specific recipes requested by these brands? Or is it just a generic mash bill menu they select from? The reason I ask is it doesn't seem possible to me that a company like Templeton could give them a specific recipe to use as it would still take years to age in the barrel with that specific recipe.

So they are either also lying about that and just using a generic recipe, or they are currently using a generic recipe and have their "recipe" aging in barrels, which means in a few years the entire profile of the whiskey could change.....

[squire]

When you think about it the MGP 95% rye recipes and their Bourbon mashbills as well were developed about 60 years ago by Seagrams that was owned by the Bronfman family so, yeah, they're old family recipes. The claims made by NDPs using sourced whisky are so tenuously untrue as to be laughable.

[luther.r]

As I got into my car to leave work today I heard Sku's golden voice discussing the article on All Things Considered.