Wild Turkey - RR 101

[ProofPositive]

I will start out early tomorrow and see if I can find these rare turkeys....that is, if they exist. I'll get back to you at the end of the hunt. On the way back home this evening, I just thought of something. I wonder if the stores around here are closed tomorrow in observance of New Year's Day since it fell on a Sunday this year(?).

Probably not, but they were last Monday for Christmas since it fell on Sunday. If they are, I'll be delayed until Tuesday.

[TNbourbon]

Not required by Tennessee law (I work part-time in a TN liquor store), but up to the storeowner.

In any case, get 'em, dog! Good hunting!

[EricABQ]

I'd like to take a moment and actually defend Wild Turkey for a moment. I think what they did makes perfect sense. I truly believe that they are trying to get a brand into the market that is occupied by Makers Mark and Woodford Reserve. From what I can tell from other message boards I frequent that are not liquor related but that discussion of booze come up from time to time, MM and WR have positioned themselves as what are considered to be the best bourbons out there by people who do not make bourbon a hobby. They are both under 100 proof and fairly mellow as far as bourbons go. By lowering the proof on RR and hiding the words "wild turkey" on the bottle, they may be in a position to compete in that area. In fact, I think they should have "prettied up" the bottle even more, like Woodford did.

Wild Turkey does a good job of providing premium offerings to bourbon fanatics (think Rare Breed and Kentucky Spirit.) The fact that they want to use one brand to more broadly appeal to drinkers who may not be bourbon fans but will buy and drink something mellow that is perceived as classy(like MM and WR) seems like a good business decision to me. And besides, the 90 proof is still a very good bourbon in it's own right.

[NorCalBoozer]

I agree with your reasoning for the change. That being said, we are losing a great bourbon for one that is being dumbed down in a sense to be geared towards a different consumer market. not that it's bad, but us bourbon snobs would rather have the 101.

I think time will tell if it was a good business decision, as in, will people actually buy it. If not, then we'll lose it alltogether.

regarding the business side, seems like WT is a bit of a rare breed in the sense that they make great low end products and also great high end products and have a very distinct history and name recognition.

now, like you say, they probably see the high end "yuppie" market growing and are looking to get a share of it. This happens a lot in business and alot of times something that seems real easy to do, turns out hard. I feel that this could be an instance with the new RR. Yes, they have created a yuppie bourbon, but where is the marketing? If you go to the WT site right now they still had the old 101 listed and no new RR??!!!

They are going after a segment who doesn't know WT. They are going to have to really market this stuff if they expect to get it in the hands of the consumers who don't know what RR is.

I just don't think rebranding RR and putting it back on the shelf is going to magically produce volume sales. I think maybe putting a better marketing spin on the present high end stuff might work better than producing one bourbon that doesn't predominatly utilize the WT name and send it out with little or no marketing support.

I'd like to take a moment and actually defend Wild Turkey for a moment. I think what they did makes perfect sense. I truly believe that they are trying to get a brand into the market that is occupied by Makers Mark and Woodford Reserve. From what I can tell from other message boards I frequent that are not liquor related but that discussion of booze come up from time to time, MM and WR have positioned themselves as what are considered to be the best bourbons out there by people who do not make bourbon a hobby. They are both under 100 proof and fairly mellow as far as bourbons go. By lowering the proof on RR and hiding the words "wild turkey" on the bottle, they may be in a position to compete in that area. In fact, I think they should have "prettied up" the bottle even more, like Woodford did.

Wild Turkey does a good job of providing premium offerings to bourbon fanatics (think Rare Breed and Kentucky Spirit.) The fact that they want to use one brand to more broadly appeal to drinkers who may not be bourbon fans but will buy and drink something mellow that is perceived as classy(like MM and WR) seems like a good business decision to me. And besides, the 90 proof is still a very good bourbon in it's own right.

[ProofPositive]

I was running late to work this morning and unable to make it to all the shops where I hoped to find this treasure. I am soon going to lunch and will hit the last two. However, I did hit paydirt at the first stop....I think. The pic of the box you provided comes up on my screen with kind of a blue background or hue. The bottle I found this morning is in a box that looks like your box but has a beige background. Are they one in the same? In my excitement, I forgot to check the bottom of the bottle. The price was $54.99. If this is the real deal, I did OK. If not, well I guess a bottle of WT12yo in any form is a good find for the stash. I may be able to lay my hands on more in just a little while. If memory serves me correct, the store I will soon visit had several of these in the boxes....not just one as found this morning. If the box is right, and priced under $60...you recommend I grab up all I can - correct? AGAIN!

[ProofPositive]

I agree with both of you to some extent. I do not profess to be a marketing guru at all nor do I understand all the costs & sales projections in this market segment. I have nothing serious against RR90. It just does not appeal to me anything near as much as the RR101. The 101 just seems to me to be along the tried & true traditional lines of WT that we all have come to know & love. However, I can understand the appeal of a 90p version of RR with so many newer consumers preferring milder alternatives to the old traditional 100+ proofs these days.

With all that in mind, QUESTIONS: Why could WT not produce both the RR90 and RR101 so to meet the demand of both markets? Is it just not economically feasible to do so? I notice other brands doing some of that with certain offerings. If the RR90 does not fly very well, is there a chance WT would go back to the 101 product? I guess the bottom line may be that I certainly would not want to see WT taking a "GM" approach with so much product they hurt themselves with internal competition among the offerings. Further thought, debate, insight?

[TNbourbon]

LOL. If it says Wild Turkey 12yo/101, don't worry about the color of the box -- there's not a bad version, but my picture WAS pretty bad (You might take a peek inside, however, just to make sure the bottle matches the box.). $54.99 would be about what I've paid for most that I've found -- and would be glad to pay it again!

[gr8erdane]

OK, I've read the posts above and all I want to know is why they chose such a cheap looking label if they want to attract the upscale "yuppie" market? To me the label is very dull and unattractive and doesn't catch the eye sitting on the shelf. MM has the red wax that is flashy and WR the flask shape that says "slide me into the filing cabinet for later". RR 101 had the vibrant printed bottles that caught the eye while RR 90 has dull lifeless colors that say "small marketing budget" to me.

I do agree with the lack of a marketing campaign that should have accompanied the change. I don't know how much marketing WT does nationwide but I have been hearing their ads on local radio. But not for RR.

I also agree that the worst thing they could do is to add a whole range of different products which would take away from what they do best. Unlike many distilleries, they don't really have a bottom shelf product (unless you view WT 80 as bottom shelf) so they seem to be well positioned on the store shelves. And no matter how they package RR, it's going to be stocked side by side with their other products anyway. So once again, why put the newest offering in the dullest presentation in order to attract a new market share? Just doesn't add up to me.

[ProofPositive]

OK, I've read the posts above and all I want to know is why they chose such a cheap looking label if they want to attract the upscale "yuppie" market? To me the label is very dull and unattractive and doesn't catch the eye sitting on the shelf. MM has the red wax that is flashy and WR the flask shape that says "slide me into the filing cabinet for later". RR 101 had the vibrant printed bottles that caught the eye while RR 90 has dull lifeless colors that say "small marketing budget" to me.

I do agree with the lack of a marketing campaign that should have accompanied the change. I don't know how much marketing WT does nationwide but I have been hearing their ads on local radio. But not for RR.

I also agree that the worst thing they could do is to add a whole range of different products which would take away from what they do best. Unlike many distilleries, they don't really have a bottom shelf product (unless you view WT 80 as bottom shelf) so they seem to be well positioned on the store shelves. And no matter how they package RR, it's going to be stocked side by side with their other products anyway. So once again, why put the newest offering in the dullest presentation in order to attract a new market share? Just doesn't add up to me.

Very well put...I cannot say that I disagree with anything you have said. I'm glad you mentioned the packaging. Whenever I see it, I think of it as just about the last kind of bottle & label I would ever expect from WT. However, I am not a bottle historian so maybe it is a 'throwback' from the WT past....although I kind of doubt it. If that were the case, I would think they would advertise it as such and show a little pride by illustrating it in the website product line. Your point is well taken about not being what WT does best. Sometimes when a successful company deviates from what it does best, not much good comes of it. While personally lacking in my knowledge of WT history, is this their first foray into a "mid-proof" bottling? As far back as I can recall, every WT bourbon has been either 80 proof or 101 proof and higher(?).

Oh what the heck! - if RR90 is doomed for mediocrity and eventual failure, we may all be scrambling around a few years from now trying to find all of it we can.....and, the last laugh could be on us - what irony that would be! Seems like we all want something most when it is no longer available no matter how good or bad it was during its life!

[ProofPositive]

FOUND IT & GOT IT!!! @ a cost of $55 + tax. A little more cost than I recollected but from all heard on here....a good price nonetheless!

Found 1 this morning and 2 more tonite. My only complaint - and it is a very, very mild one at most, is that 1 of the 3 did not have the original box with it. The store owner said it had been on the shelf so long that he had no idea where the box went.....been several years he said. One of the boxes had dust a quarter-inch deep. Oh well, nothing is perfect but this WT comes very, very close!

After a few sips, I am having second thoughts now about keeping only one for myself! Damn! Dilemma! I was not really in a position at present to shell out that much at one time on 3 bottles of bourbon....but, there are folks on here who have spent a bunch more than that at one time I am quite sure. An example of a good problem to have. I'll take a few more sips and sleep on it! Advice anyone?

[TMH]

First of all, should WT have printed that RR101 was made the way that Jimmy Russell thought bourbon ought to be made, and then change it to a 90 proof bourbon? No. They really disrespected Jimmy. That was a low blow.

That said, I'm no marketing guru, just working on my MBA and concentrating in marketing. That being said, here's what they MIGHT have done and why we now have RR90.

1) A focus group study is conducted, where groups of drinkers who meet the requirements of the target market are asked questions about their likes and dislikes. This includes discussions about the competition.

2) Based on the findings of the focus groups different label/bottle/proof combinations are drawn up.

3) A survey is conducted, again based on certain characteristics, surveyees are given choices based on price, proof, appearance.

4) Based on the findings of #3, RR90 is determined to be the most attractive product. If #3 is done correctly, WT will know exactly how much they can charge for the proof and label, and how many consumers will pick up RR90 vs. KC or MM.

I've simplified the process and there are a lot of variables that would most likely also be considered, but this is generally how products are planned. Sometimes companies get it wrong, but if they work with experienced market researchers, it should pay off. If the switch was just a gut feeling or theory, which I highly doubt, they are morons and should lose their jobs.

I have yet to have the new RR, so I'm not going to make judgment, yet. Most of the bourbon of today, which a lot of people here like, sucks, yes sucks in comparison to what it was years ago, but people like it and buy it. Makers Mark anyone? ER 17 anyone? Regular WT101 is nothing like the old No.8 or the 8 yr, but it's a regular pour for me anyway. They've won me on price. If I want something better, I'll pick up something different and spend the extra $$$.

Bottom-line, there is no point making a mid-shelf product, which is only being consumed by 10% of the bourbon market. If WT did, they'd be out of business.

[tmas]

...but the fact is that the "bourbon fanatic" has lost a real nice 101 proof offering that is considerably less expensive than either Rare Breed or Kentucky Spirit, and as has been noted in this thread, if it's Jimmy Russel's perfect bourbon how can you just decide to change it? Once you do, the name Russel's Reserve no longer even makes any sense. Tom V

[NorCalBoozer]

Hi Tim,

all good points, especially about dissing Jimmy. I guess it all comes down to the fact that even WT isn't telling us what it is suppose to be, so that tells me that they don't have it together on this product and certainly didn't spend the time to do some of the things you outlined.

how can you sell a product you don't even list on your website???????

To me it looks like some suits got together when they saw that the RR 101 sales numbers wern't great and said "Gee, lets change the bottle, slap on a 'hip' label, keep the old UPC(cost and time saver), reduce the proof(cost saver), do little or no marketing(cost saver) and see if we randomly sell more to the yuppie drinkers market"

btw, i really like the ER17!!!

First of all, should WT have printed that RR101 was made the way that Jimmy Russell thought bourbon ought to be made, and then change it to a 90 proof bourbon? No. They really disrespected Jimmy. That was a low blow.

That said, I'm no marketing guru, just working on my MBA and concentrating in marketing. That being said, here's what they MIGHT have done and why we now have RR90.

1) A focus group study is conducted, where groups of drinkers who meet the requirements of the target market are asked questions about their likes and dislikes. This includes discussions about the competition.

2) Based on the findings of the focus groups different label/bottle/proof combinations are drawn up.

3) A survey is conducted, again based on certain characteristics, surveyees are given choices based on price, proof, appearance.

4) Based on the findings of #3, RR90 is determined to be the most attractive product. If #3 is done correctly, WT will know exactly how much they can charge for the proof and label, and how many consumers will pick up RR90 vs. KC or MM.

I've simplified the process and there are a lot of variables that would most likely also be considered, but this is generally how products are planned. Sometimes companies get it wrong, but if they work with experienced market researchers, it should pay off. If the switch was just a gut feeling or theory, which I highly doubt, they are morons and should lose their jobs.

I have yet to have the new RR, so I'm not going to make judgment, yet. Most of the bourbon of today, which a lot of people here like, sucks, yes sucks in comparison to what it was years ago, but people like it and buy it. Makers Mark anyone? ER 17 anyone? Regular WT101 is nothing like the old No.8 or the 8 yr, but it's a regular pour for me anyway. They've won me on price. If I want something better, I'll pick up something different and spend the extra $$$.

Bottom-line, there is no point making a mid-shelf product, which is only being consumed by 10% of the bourbon market. If WT did, they'd be out of business.

[ProofPositive]

Whatever the real reason(s) behind what appears to be an obvious error in judgment by WT, we will likely never know the whole story. In the meantime, as soon as my next VW acquisition is completed and I have recovered financially in a few weeks, I am planning to resume my harvesting of RR101 in my neck of the woods. Thus far, over the last 7 days I have located about 10-15 more bottles at a reasonable price range of $26-28 per bottle. I figure it is now about half the price of where it will be in a few short years - depending of course on how long it takes to exaust the current supply. From other folks out there so far, it sounds like RR101 is completely gone in some areas and scarce in others. So, as they say, grab it while you can!

[Joeluka]

I found 8 more bottle's at $23.99 here on Long Island. That will go perfectly with 6 I have bunkered already.

Joe

[BourbonJoe]

Nice find Joe. RR-101 is great stuff.

Joe

[TMH]

btw, i really like the ER17!!!

I do too, but if you compare it to the ER101, there is no comparison. Perhaps I should have said ER SB, not ER 17. They've discontinued the ER 10yr 101, but kept the ER SB 10yr 90 proof and the ER 17 90 proof. I suspect the reason for keeping the SB 90 proof is the same reason WT reduced RR to 90, most people don't want a high proof bourbon.

how can you sell a product you don't even list on your website???????

It COULD be that when the research was done, it was discovered that most consumers don't go to the WT website for information, but instead decide what to buy at the store. If this is the case, the importance is updating the website, would be low. If buying decisions are made in the store, the label/proof/price change would be the only thing WT would need to do to increase sales (assuming research showed the new label/proof/price would increase market share).

Given the competitive nature of the liquor industry, I really think a lot of thought was put into the RR change, but because SBers make up such a small % of the market, our needs for a high proof RR was overshadowed by the needs of the overall consumer market.

[chasking]

If RR was a successful product in its old form they would not have changed it. Which would you prefer: RR at a lower proof, or no RR at all? Maybe they asked Jimmy Russell that question and lo and behold, upon consideration he decided that he really prefers bourbon at 90 proof.

It must be really difficult to market a mid-level whiskey.

[TMH]

If RR was a successful product in its old form they would not have changed it.

Couldn't have said it better.

[tmas]

I totally agree. Had some RR 101 straight last night, it's real complex (some day I have to put in the effort to try and learn to put a label to all the aromas in a fine Bourbon), the different aromas just kept coming.

After the RR 101 I had some ER single Barrel, and the RR 101 blew it away in my opinion, more complex and to me the finish on the Eagle Rare is a little harsh and thinner.

I have to say though that I had the ER SB in a bar a few weeks ago and was pretty impressed with it. I think maybe the bottle I have which I purchased about a year ago is from a barrel which isn't particularly to my liking.

Has anyone else noticed a significant difference between bottles of ER SB? Tom V

[scratchline]

Got the last four bottles of RR101 at a Manhattan liquor store today and while they were checking the back for more, the owner told me that the new 90 proof will be priced 10 dollars more than the old product.

Now that just ain't right!

[tmas]

As the saying goes " something is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it"...And so it just might turn out, especially if this forum is any indication, that the folks over at WT will end up drinking lots of the new RR themselves!

I for one will not support the product. The name is now a joke and I'd feel like a bit of a sucker paying 50% more for a lesser product! Tom V

[scratchline]

I don't think that price increase is typical. I have a buddy in Nashville who bought the 90 at Christmas for around 25 a bottle. The little bit of the new RR I've seen in NYC is priced higher but only by a few bucks.

10 dollars more is just crazy. But maybe they can get that in the neighborhood I was visiting. I'll just stay with the 101. I first tried it this Christmas, and I got no complaints with the old formulation.

[tmas]

Yep, I'm with you there, I too will stick with the RR101, especially since I've managed to squirrel away about 10 bottles since I found out it was an endangered species of Turkey! Tom V

[NorCalBoozer]

Wether or not RR 90 will be more successful than the 101 remains to be seen. My hope is that WT is successful overall, because I like their products.

For all we know RR 90 could be gone in a year, then we will be back here posting about how we picked up the last 5 bottles of RR 90.

If RR was a successful product in its old form they would not have changed it. Which would you prefer: RR at a lower proof, or no RR at all? Maybe they asked Jimmy Russell that question and lo and behold, upon consideration he decided that he really prefers bourbon at 90 proof.

It must be really difficult to market a mid-level whiskey.