That’s right, folks. Following their total volte-face just before Xmas, those self-appointed guardians of the drinks industry’s moral high-ground, The Portman Group, have decided to come back for a second pop at those Scots ale-anarchists, the Boys from BrewDog. What, again? They must have run out of feet in which to shoot themselves by now, surely? Well, apparently not…

Two versions of the story are doing in the rounds. In #1, as quoted on Pete Brown’s blog, the PG makes the same sort of spurious assumptions and sweeping generalisations that they did the first time around, and have issued a recommendation (note: only a recommendation) that BrewDog’s Speedball be removed from the shelves forthwith, because it’s name might somehow be confused with some sort of drugs cocktail. A PG spokesman declaimed:

“BrewDog is profiteering from the scourge of illegal drugs, mocking the misery caused by misuse. We are taking urgent action to protect the public from exposure to such negligent marketing.”

The second version, circulated in a BrewDog press release earlier in the week, puts it a little differently:

“The Portman Group has attacked us for our marketing instead of going after the companies who are mass-selling products cheaply and causing the nation’s alcohol problems.

“The beer was marketed in a backlash over the unfounded allegations that our three best selling beers were being sold promoting aggressive behaviour, allegations that have since been over ruled.

“Technically, the name fits within the product. The ingredients are natural stimulants including guarana and kola nuts with natural depressants Californian poppy and hops, so it is a speedball of a combination.”

A few points I’d like to make here:

1) I’d never actually heard of the drugs-connotation version of ‘speedball’ before the Portman Group mentioned it. I’ve lived quite a sheltered life – honestly, I didn’t know a ‘hash-brown’ was anything but a small, greasy, fried potato-cake – always preferring a nice drop of quality beer to class-A narcotics. But now I am aware that this illicit cocktail of pharmaceuticals exists, thanks to the efforts of the Portman Group to bring it to the attention of the British public. And whilst I’m not in any way eager to sample it, I wonder how many impressionable kids will be as a direct result? Shame on you, Portman Group. Shame!

2) However, I’m now really, really determined to seek out a bottle of Speedball, sample it and write up the Tasting Notes, if only to stick it to the Portman Group. Whereas previously I’d probably have only tried it if I happened across it in a specialist beer retailer somewhere. Which, given the limited original production run, would probably have been quite unlikely.

3) I’ll pass you back over to BrewDog’s press release to highlight the essential ridiculousness (yet again) of the Portman Group’s case: “This is a drink which, in the UK, had a release of 1,184 bottles and cost GBP3 a bottle, so Speedball is for those who enjoy a quality beer responsibly and enjoy a premium drink at a premium price.” So, not exactly tramp-and-hoodie fare, then. Not like those 24 packs of cooking lager priced under a tenner that litter the supermarket aisles, eh?

4) Which once again demonstrated how massively hypocritical the Portman Group is, for all the reasons that I talked about in my previous post on the subject.

All in all, the Portman Group seem to have done a great job of making themselves look foolishly redundant (surely a dangerous thing to do in this economic climate?) whilst advertising the product to a core, quality beer-drinking audience on BrewDog’s behalf. Well done, Portman Group!

I’d also like to point out maieb’s post, summing up the arguments far more succinctly than I just did:

“Admittedly the BrewDog boys don’t shy from a fight and maybe they shouldn’t provoke the poor loves so much, but when are the old fuddy duddies going to get a sense of humour?”

Absolutely right. There’s far too much hand-wringing, finger-pointing and nanny-stating going on and there are far more important issues to tackle. Lighten up, Portman Group, before your drinks industry pay-masters decide you’re becoming a liability and use the credit crunch as an excuse to drop this embarrassing expenditure line from their balance books. Or even better: demonstrate some genuine credibility and do something about the flood of cheap, nasty booze that’s drowning the UK’s pub trade and turning the nation’s youth into massed gangs of mindless, alcohol-fuelled thugs, why don’t you?

On the other hand, Pete Brown does question the wisdom of BrewDog’s deliberately seeking disapprobation by an industry body – even a self-appointed, self-interested quango like the Portman Group – in order to turn it into a marketing opportunity, saying:

“Love the beer, love the brewery. Agree with the point the lads are making. But at the same time, I’m not sure it was a great idea to launch this beer with the specific intention of getting this result. Yes, it gives them an opportunity to put a case forward, but in an attention-deficient age where most people read the headline and skim the rest of a story, I worry that if you just get the barest facts or read reports like this one half way, then you’re going to walk away on Portman’s side.”

Possibly. But then I’d suggest that the sort of people who are most likely to end up on the Portman Group’s side are already the least likely to buy BrewDog’s beer. Whereas folks like me, who prefer crafted quality to factory-produced quantity and love to see the under-dog having its day, will be cheering for BrewDog even harder (as long as they don’t over-play their hand). I think the marketing benefits in terms of increasing brand-loyalty among BrewDog’s core customer base will far outweigh the risk of putting off possible (but probably unlikely) passing trade. Cult followings aren’t built on mass-appeal, after all.

Edit 30.01.09: BrewDog have announced the demise of Speedball (or rather, the 100% success of Speedball – I think I’m right in saying that they’ve actually sold out of the limited run of the brew rather than caved to any external pressure, although you wouldn’t know that from the opening paragraph…) and have taken the opportunity to take a righteous swipe at The Portman Group’s more obvious inconsistencies at the same time.