Brewery: BrewDog
Location: Fraserburgh, Scotland
ABV: 5.5%
Version: 330ml bottle
Source: The Vineyard, NI

As I said in my Brooklyn Lager post, lager is not a style that gets much coverage here, for the reasons highlighted in that piece. I do tend to pick up any new lagers I see, all in the interests of finding the very good ones, but invariably I approach the tasting with little enthusiasm and come away predictably disappointed by the unadventurous blandness of them. With Hop Rocker from BrewDog however it was different. I was fairly sure the boys wouldn’t be producing such mediocrity, I doubt the word is even in their brewing dictionary, and that this would be one to file in the “lager worth drinking” box.

Hop Rocker is a deep golden/amber colour, no washed out pale yellow here, with a quite tame aroma, hints of citrusy hops, honey and some floral herby notes. The taste however is not so restrained. Appropriately named, there’s plenty of hops, giving a citrusy grapefruit flavour, with a hint of toffee maltiness adding a touch of smoothness, before giving way to a dry finish with more grapefruit. This is a fine, lively lager (like the Brooklyn offering it’s closer to an IPA) and admirably lives up to its “statuesque” description. Another winner from BrewDog. If only all lagers were this good.

As reported on the BrewDog website yesterday, the The Portman Group have announced a dramatic reversal of their earlier findings with regard to the wording of BrewDog’s Punk IPA, Rip Tide Stout and Hop Rocker labels (which saves you from having to plough through another essay-length rant from me, at least…)

The BrewDog press release sums up the lads’ reaction to the decision:

“It is a victory for common sense, the intelligence of the consumer, small independent producers and freedom of speech; it is a victory that BrewDog had to fight tooth and nail for. We refused to roll-over and be bullied into changing our packaging by what is basically a cartel funded by our larger competitors. We were determined and stood our ground to keep our dream and our business alive.”

Let’s hope that a similar announcement will be forthcoming regarding the Sinclair’s Orkney Brewery’s Skull Splitter vs Portman Group case before too long, eh? Nothing on the Orkney Brewery news page just yet (or on Google News), but they might be slow in posting.

Back to BrewDog’s outspoken spokesman James Watt for a further comment on the situation:

“A few weeks ago I (James Watt) publicly called for the Portman Group to be permanently disbanded and banished into Room 101. I feel that their misguided, catastrophic campaign against us only serves to strengthen that call.”

I think James is right… and I think it will be the drinks industry giants – the corporate members of the Portman Group – that will pull the plug.

It seems to me that this whole farcical situation has been an absolutely classic example of a twentieth century bureaucracy completely failing to grasp the realities of the modern era. In the past, I’m sure the Portman Group was able to confidently throw its weight around against targets both legitimate and scapegoat without much fear of comeback or reprisal. But now they’re having to come to terms with opinion power on a hitherto unprecedented scale, conveyed via social media.

In the past the best a small brewery could probably hope for was a standard protest against the Portman Group’s decision, knowing that this wouldn’t really help them because that protest would be controlled and contained within the strictures laid down by the Portman Group’s own procedures. But now, that same small brewery is able to take that protest to an external and sympathetic audience; to amplify its voice by gathering support from across the globe, from fans and customers, from experts, from lobby groups such as CAMRA.

What’s more, that process of opinion gathering and protest amplification can serve to turn the spotlight back onto the Portman Group’s own corporate members and the inherent hypocrisy of their own business practices. Suddenly the industry cartel’s own pressure group becomes a lens through which attention is focused back on the cartel’s own activities. So for that reason alone, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Portman Group wasn’t quietly disbanded at some point in the next twelve months and its demise conveniently blamed on the credit crunch.

I was bitterly disappointed to read on the BrewDog blog the other week that The Portman Group’s complaint against BrewDog’s packaging has been upheld. There’s plenty of background information via the link above, although of course we only have BrewDog’s side of the story at the moment: a quick glance at the Portman Group’s press release page shows that they still haven’t posted anything relevant to the case.

Anyhow, looking at the excerpts from the complaint that have been quoted (and vigorously contradicted) by BrewDog, it’s clear that it’s just one specific area of the marketing of BrewDog’s products that the Portman Group are objecting to. And as a marketer by trade, I feel reasonably qualified to comment on that sort of thing, so I shall.

The first thing to note is that it’s not the graphic design of the packaging, or the shape of the bottles, or even the name of the product that the Portman Group is objecting to, merely the wording on the labels (and the back-labels, at that). Neither – to the best of the available knowledge to-date – have they produced any actual data or statistical evidence that supports their claim: that the wording on the back-labels of BrewDog’s bottles leads to the sort of anti-social behaviour that the Portman Group is apparently (apparently…) so keen on stamping out.

Here’s the sort of thing the Portman Group is objecting to, and their reasoning for doing so:

(according to BrewDog) the Portman Group claims that the phrase “aggressive beer” on the Punk IPA label “is more likely to be seen applying to the drinker rather than the drink”.

How does that work, then? As a consumer and beer drinker, I for one would assume that the phrase “this is an aggressive beer” (to use the full phrasing from the label) would apply to the flavour and character of the beer itself; not that by drinking it I am likely in turn to become aggressive. In fact I rather object to the Portman Group’s implication that I lack the self-control and social graces to remain in control of my temper after however many bottles of beer.

The assertion made by the Portman Group is an entirely subjective and (as BrewDog point out), linguistically and grammatically incorrect one. Okay, obviously if someone drinks enough of the stuff – if someone drinks enough alcohol, full-stop – then there’s a chance they may become aggressive. But I hardly think using the descriptive term ‘aggressive’ (and quite specifially: to describe the beer itself) can count as an incitement to deliberate aggression, can it? No, I didn’t think so.

Next: the Portman Group’s assertion (again, according to BrewDog’s coverage and with regard to the labelling on Hop Rocker) that:

“phrases such as ‘nourishing food stuff’ and ‘magic is still there to be extracted from this drink’ implies it could enhance mental and physical capabilities”

Again, how so, exactly? As a consumer and beer drinker, I would assume that this was descriptive hyperbole from the brewer; a little light word-play to engage the imagination of the potential purchaser and convey a sense of the beer’s character and flavour. I certainly wouldn’t take BrewDog to task if I chose to drink nothing but Hop Rocker for a month and by doing so failed to be properly nourished and / or develop Harry Potter’s magical powers. Why? Because I’m not a complete bloody idiot and again I rather resent the Portman Group’s implication that I might be.

Listen, when I see a gang of yobs hanging around on street-corners with bottles of a micro-brewed craft ale like Punk IPA or Skull Splitter in their grubby mitts, instead of cans of Special Brew or litres of cheap, industrial-grade vodka, then I’ll acknowledge that perhaps they’ve been lead astray by the wording on the back of a BrewDog label. Until then, the Portman Group needs to gain a much-needed sense of perspective.

Let’s face it, it’s all just bloody stupid, isn’t it? As if the wording on a bottle of real ale is going to have any effect whatsoever on the anti-social behaviour and other medical and social ills caused by alcohol abuse. The sort of alcohol abuse that’s – it’s largely acknowledged – is only encouraged and worsened by cheap supermarket deals, the attractiveness of alcopops (such as Beverage Brands UK’s WKD) and pre-mixed vodka drinks (like Diageo’s Smirnoff Ice) to teenagers, or the mass-production of super-strength lagers such as Carlsberg’s Special Brew or Tennent’s Extra (made by Inbev).

The thing is, though, the likes of Beverage Brands UK, Diageo, Carlsberg UK and Inbev are all members of The Portman Group. So in short: the Portman Group is an organisation that lives in a very big glass house, but whose job it is to throw stones…

But rather than go after the very genuine problems caused by their own members’ products, of course they’re picking on the smaller guys, the independent brewers who lack the financial muscle or clout with the retailers to fight back. Presumably, they think that they can occupy the moral high-ground and – more importantly from their point of view – can be seen to be doing something to justify their own existence, without suffering too much in the way of opposition and without upsetting or attacking their corporate members.

Now, I’m sure all the group members’ products will have been very carefully vetted to ensure that their advertising toes the Code of Conduct line, but there are larger, more important social issues at stake here, and if the Portman Group really wants to make a difference, then they should look to put their own house in order first.

For a start, how about encouraging their own members to remove all those alcopops and discount-price, extra-strong lager from the shelves and turn over the spare production lines to more civilised, refined beverages instead? And how about they spent more time and energy genuinely promoting sensible drinking among teens (although that, of course, is counter-intuitive, business-wise… a teen drunk on alcopops is bad for PR but great for the bottom-line, after all) rather than pursuing frankly ludicrous complaints against small, independent breweries, whose customers are intelligent enough to know that they’re not going to turn into the Hulk by drinking a bottle of IPA? That way the Portman Group might rediscover a sense of purpose and be able to do some genuine, long-term good. Not, of course, that I think for a moment that doing long-term good is actually part of the Portman Group’s purpose. But they’re welcome to prove me wrong. And actions always speak louder than words…

Instead though, I fully expect the glass-house-dwelling Portman Group to continue to throw their stones, And this time, they might just have picked on the wrong target. That BrewDog blog piece ends with some characteristically ebullient fighting-talk:

“At the end of the day the Portman Group is funded by companies concerned about BrewDog infringing on their market share. They are acting like a cartel – in clear breach of EU laws on competition and freedom of speech. I intend to fight them every step of the way. We will take this to the courts, we will take this to the press, and we will take this to parliament. Can one determined little brewer bring about their demise? Possibly.”

A hopeless, David-and-Goliath battle? It might well be. But I for one think it’s one that’s worth fighting.

So, who don’t you your support, in the best possible way? Visit the BrewDog webstore and order a crate of their generally rather excellent beers. I did, and I’ll tell you all about them once I’ve had a chance to set up a sampling session.

Addendum: I dropped CAMRA’s press office a line to ask them whether any action was being taken with regard to the situation and the Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Mr Jonathan Mail (who was more than happy to be quoted here), said:

We have written to the Portman Group to express our dissatisfaction. The Portman Group are not fully taking into account the target audience of a product and whether any harm will result when enforcing its code. This is inappropriate and ultimately undermines the credibility of the code.

CAMRA’s Chief Executive Mike Benner is meeting with the Portman Group to discuss our concerns. Following this meeting we will consider what further pressure needs to be brought to bear on the Portman Group.

Which is very good to hear. Well done, CAMRA. I’ll bring further updates if I hear anything else from Jonathan or his colleagues in the press office.