JACK DANIEL'S: LEMONADE NEXT?

[NeoTexan]

September 28, 2004 -- JACK Daniel's has sparked outrage among serious drinkers by unceremoniously lowering the proof of its famous Tennessee Whiskey from 86 to 80. The change — which means the hooch has 3 percent less alcohol — has riled those still smarting from the "betrayal" of 15 years ago when the company lowered the strength of its 90-proof, 138-year-old original recipe, to 86 proof. Frank Kelly Rich, editor of Modern Drunkard magazine (and a contributor to The Post's Sunday books section), has taken up the cause along with "alert drunkard" Chris Sharp, who was apparently the first to notice the switch. Sharp has started an online petition and boycott with the magazine's backing "designed to right this grievous wrong." Distillery rep Roger Brashears told us, "We researched it and decided the majority of people wanted a less potent drink." Rich writes, "Jack Daniel's is, of course, a private corporation and they can do whatever the hell they want," but called the alcohol dilution "unfathomable blasphemy. They can lower the proof to zero and call it lemonade if they like. But that doesn't mean we have to drink it."

[wrbriggs]

I was quite shocked in the liquor store the other day to see bottles of JD that were only 80-proof... and that cost almost $20 per bottle! Sorry, but 750 mLs of 80-proof JD is just not worth $20... I can get EWSB '94 for that price.

[cowdery]

Distillery rep Roger Brashears told us, "We researched it and decided the majority of people wanted a less potent drink."

Who does he think he's crapping? Lowering the proof is a way to take a price increase without increasing the price, primarily because it lowers the Federal Excise Tax burden on each bottle. (The FET is based on proof.) What I'm sure they researched is the fact that most people won't notice. Happily, they can't do it again, unless they want to take the word "whiskey" off the label. Anything lower than 80 proof has to be labeled "diluted whiskey."

Of course, and we talked about this before, Jack Daniel's might be able to get away with just calling it "Jack Daniel's," period. Example: Southern Comfort, actually a liqueur but positioned and often merchandised as a whiskey, is now 70 proof.

Both brands are owned by Brown-Forman.

[wrbriggs]

Example: Southern Comfort, actually a liqueur but positioned and often merchandised as a whiskey, is now 70 proof.

Doesn't Southern Comfort still have a 100 proof version? I'm pretty sure I saw some on the shelf the other day up here in VT...

[jeff]

Yes it does. I saw some this weekend in a Virgina ABC store.

[Gillman]

Some people notice these things, I have a friend, who knows spirits in a general way (knows what is good but without technical knowledge) and he noticed the proof reduction and said on principle he won't buy it again, that it isn't the same drink. He noticed the drop from 90 proof to 86 proof a few years ago but felt a line had been crossed this time. Personally I don't feel that way, and in fact, support the move for social health reasons, but I find it interesting that some people will take that view.

Gary

[jeff]

I am not of the mind that it is the distillery's resposibility to protect people from themselves. That said, I think if that were the underlying motive for such a proof reduction, the distilleries would mount an agressive marketing campaign to explain thier actions in an attempt to capitalize on them.

[TNbourbon]

Just for the record -- and represented by various posts on various threads here over the past several months -- JD started bottling the black label at 80 proof at the beginning of this year, and it has been in stores (at least here in TN) since late-winter, early-spring. Interestingly, however, the second edition of the TN-only (domestically anyway -- I think it's already been released in Europe) "Scenes From Lynchburg" -- distributed around July 1 -- remains 86 proof. Of course, it was already commanding a higher price tag because of its limited sales.

[Gillman]

But Jack is sort of an institution, Jeff, it may stand on a different footing from other drinks (almost all other major liquor brands are 80 proof or less, I believe).

Also, even if the distillery did not intend a socially beneficial result (hence possibly lack of marketing on this point) the fact there is one is justification enough - IMO.

Gary

[musher]

What is "socially beneficial" about lower proof? If they're gonna get drunk, they'll just drink more. Its not like they've reduced it to the strength of something like wine.

The only people for whom the change is socially beneficial are the owners of the distillery.

[Gillman]

The answer is not clear-cut, but in all societies which have sought to control alcohol consumption, they have done so by limiting the strength of the drinks sold. For many years beer at 5% was not available in parts of Scandinavia, for example, and hard liquor was banned for many years in Belgium even though beer and wine continued to be sold. A drop of 3% abv. may not seem like much but if people, especially younger people, gauge their consumption by the number of units, they will drink less, all things being equal (i.e. even accounting for the different sizes of pours in different bars, etc.). Someone may say, I won't have more than 3 drinks tonight: he or she will drink less alcohol on that basis with a weaker liquor than a stronger. True, some people may have an additional drink to get the feeling they want, but I don't think most will. I guess I don't know for sure, but from a social responsibility point of view, I can't see any harm flowing from reducing the proof of a national liquor brand to 80. I don't know if Brown-Forman intended a beneficial social result, but sometimes private and public interest coincide. I had no problem with the move because I don't think the palate was significantly affected, and a higher proof Jack is available (Single Barrel) for the specialty side of their business. Just my opinion.

Gary

[Speedy_John]

Please, let's not kid ourselves. There is only one reason why JD lowered the proof. And it has nothing to do with social benefits or consumer preferences. It has to do with one thing--the bottom line. If the tax laws were changed so that <font color="green">raising </font> the proof would increase net profits, you can be sure that they would raise the proof.

[jeff]

I understand your point Gary, but I believe a more effective means of social responsibility would be to mount a responsible drinking ad campaign. What we're talking about here is a product that has certain expectations, and people pay a lot of money with those expectations in mind. Considering JD's target audience, they probably won't suffer for this, as there isn't a lot of difference in an 80 proof Jack and coke and an 86 proof Jack and coke. Time will tell I guess.

[musher]

I should also add that until the US institutes metered dispensing of liquor as is done in the UK and other countries, the 4% - 8 % difference in proof would be of very litttle relevance to the alcohol consumption of the consumer. I've seen great variance in the amount poured into the glass at bars, let alone by individuals in private settings.

[tdelling]

> Distillery rep Roger Brashears told us, "We researched it and decided the

> majority of people wanted a less potent drink."

My feeling is that this is absolutely true.

Have you ever seen Joe Sixpack drink JD? Throw back the shot, swallow,

make this terrible grimace of a face, then tell everyone how great it was.

Or sip it on ice, grimace, and tell everyone how great it is.

I've had bartenders tell me that they just can't understand how anyone

can slowly sip whiskey and savor it on the tongue. Bartenders! With years

of bartending experience!

The fact of the matter is that most people haven't cultivated a taste for

whiskey. They want to like it, but they don't want to put the effort in.

They want something that's easily approachable and universally likable.

So, as a consequence, they prefer the watered-down experience. As a matter

of fact, American consumers generally prefer the watered-down experience

in just about everything they consume: food, music, clothing, politicians,

news, movies, books... you almost can't go wrong watering things down

for American consumption.

Tim Dellinger

[OneCubeOnly]

It has to do with one thing--the bottom line.

Precisely. Simply put, water is cheaper than whiskey.

This may sound condescending, but I'm thinking if their dilution move isn't noticed by the masses, then it's a testament to how marketing prevails over substance. Their consumers might be so married to the brand that they either: 1. won't notice, or 2. won't care. That's what B-F is banking on, and it's pretty sad.

The real irony of the whole deal is JD's supposed long standing "tradition" and "heritage" they push in their ads.

[musher]

So, as a consequence, they prefer the watered-down experience. As a matter of fact, American consumers generally prefer the watered-down experience in just about everything they consume: food, music, clothing, politicians,

news, movies, books... you almost can't go wrong watering things down for American consumption.

I guess I should know this. I like (truly like!) espresso. I've never been to a coffee shop where anyone else ahead of or behind me in line has ordered an espresso. They usually order a latte, the most watered down (or milked down, as it were) of the drinks offered.

There's a reason that in Italy, an espresso with water added is called an Americano.

[OneCubeOnly]

As a matter of fact, American consumers generally prefer the watered-down experience in just about everything they consume: food, music, clothing, politicians, news, movies, books... you almost can't go wrong watering things down for American consumption.

You forgot an important one: BEER!

[cowdery]

Link to the original article in Modern Drunkard Magazine.

[musher]

I can tell from the article that they don't know a whole lot about how whiskey is made. Brown-Forman didn't alter the recipe, as they frequently alledge in the article. They are merely diluting the barrelled product more than they used to.

[wrbriggs]

I can tell from the article that they don't know a whole lot about how whiskey is made. Brown-Forman didn't alter the recipe, as they frequently alledge in the article. They are merely diluting the barrelled product more than they used to.

Well, true enough... I'm not knowledgeable enough about whiskey to know how much the dilution alters the flavor though... a "recipe" is how you combine ingredients to get a finished product. Adding 3% more water is indeed a change of the recipe... it's not a change of the mash bill, or a change of the distilling method, or even of the aging... but it IS a change in the recipe, because it could potentially create a measurable, noticeable difference in the finished product.

[musher]

Based on that line of argumentation, then, you would have to argue that they have a new recipe for a different, new product.

The old recipe was to produce a 90 proof (or 86 proof, in recent years) Tennessee Whiskey. The new recipe is for 80 proof Tennessee Whiskey.

Their true gripe is that they've dropped the old product, and have instituted a new product with its own unique "recipe".

[ratcheer]

Sadly, that is the truth.

Tim

[wrbriggs]

Their true gripe is that they've dropped the old product, and have instituted a new product with its own unique "recipe".

Yes, and all the while, they are playing up the "heritage" of Jack Daniels, and how they still use his "original recipe". At the same time, they raised the price. Ridiculous. It's their product, they can do what they want with it... but cashing in on the "heritage" of the brand is just a bunch of hooey. It's almost false advertising.

[voigtman]

Maybe the Feds should require that whiskey be at least 86 proof. Yeah, it's government regulation of "never wrong" private industry, but I'd sure support it. Personally, I think 80 proof is watered down, regardless of the type of whisk(e)y and I never add water: Stagg 2003 is perfect at 142.7 proof, Van Winkle 15 is perfect at 107 proof, etc. If anything, we need more high proof options: anyone can add all the water they want, at home. As for JD, I've never tried it and have yet to see anything written here at SB.com, or in print, that would make me want to. The JD proof was dropped only to increase profits, as many have said, and the rest is cover story BS.