Brewery: BrewDog
Location: Freserburgh, Scotland
ABV: 1.1%
Version: Bottled
Source: BrewDog

Regular visitors to the beerblogosphere will most likely be familiar with the story of this beer’s creation, but in case you missed it: BrewDog were taken to task by the Portman Group and much of the mainstream media over the strength of their (exquisite, superb) Tokyo* Imperial Stout. In response, they announced the creation of Nanny State, an “Imperial Mild”, weighing in at a mere 1.1% abv but uber-hopped up to an incredible 225 theoretical IBUs (International Bitterness Units – 20-40 or so being the usual for a bitter ale). A gesture of defiance, a deliberate slap in the face of the over-bearing, over-ignorant, over-reactive powers-that-be and a beer that – in its current, young, green state at least – I’m sorry to have to report I thought was unpleasant to the point of being pretty much undrinkable.

There, I’ve said it. An undrinkable beer from Brewdog – not a phrase I ever expected to type on this blog, I have to admit. Largely as a result of BrewDog’s sterling efforts (Hardcore IPA, Punk IPA, Chaos Theory IPA) I’ve learned to love big, hoppy beers; a style I wasn’t anywhere near as keen on this time last year. I wasn’t sure what I was expecting when I opened my bottle of Nanny State, but based on the last Imperial Mild that BrewDog released – the challengingly bitter but still quite suppable How to Disappear Completely – I think I was expecting a beer I could likewise learn to love after a bottle or two, however viciously ascerbic it might turn out to be.

A faintly rank odour emanated from the bottle when I opened it – not the best omen, but understandable considering the top-heavy hop content – and although the beer poured a pleasantly deep red-brown, my first sip dispelled any notions that this would be one I could even finish, never mind drink again. It was thin to the point of being watery and the flavour was dominated by a vegetative sourness that had more to do with stewed grass clippings than a clean, hoppy-freshness. The overall impression was one of cold coffee. And not ‘cold coffee’ as in “Extra shot mocha frappacino, hold the whipped cream, please”, either. More like “How long has this cup of supermarket own-brand instant been sitting here? Three days? Oh, well, I’m sure it won’t hurt…”

Seriously. It was really, really unpleasant, to the point of being downright nasty. I struggled manfully on for another couple of sips, then headed for the kitchen sink…

Caveat time: this one could have gone off in the bottle, of course. Plus, as I mentioned, it is still a very young beer, and based on Pete Brown’s description (in Hops and Glory) of the way changes in hop-profiles can affect the flavour of beer over time, I’m planning on saving my second bottle (I bought two, just in case) for at least six months, and then I’ll re-sample and re-visit. I have no idea if a 1.1% abv beer will survive six months intact, but it can’t get much more undrinkable than it currently is, so I’m willing to give it a go.

But something about the whole situation is still bugging me and I have questions.
Assuming the bottle I opened hadn’t actually gone off, is Nanny State supposed to taste this bad? And if so, is that a gag too far? I’m a huge fan of BrewDog’s brewing and I enjoy their hugely tongue-in-cheek philosophy. I cheer every time they send a two-fingered salute in the direction of the hypocritically ineffective Portman Group and all the other engines of Nanny State-ism, because it’s fun to see them take the piss out of self-righteous, pompous kill-joys. But surely they shouldn’t also be taking the piss out of their paying customers as well?

By all means, show the Nanny Staters that you can easily brew a small beer that still tastes great (you just choose not to). And yes, if you want to, have a laugh at their expense by brewing something weak but undrinkable just for the publicity of it and then send them all free samples. But in the latter case, where’s the sense in flogging it at £2.50 a shot to your loyal fans and customers at the same time? Has the Punk attitude gone so far that BrewDog have decided they don’t need loyal fans and customers any more?

Brewdog’s own take, back when they first announced the beer, was:

“Nanny State is an extraordinary little beer. It contains more hops than any other beer we have ever brewed. There is over 60 kilos used in our tiny 20HL batch. It contains more hops than any other beer ever brewed in the UK. It has a theoretical IBU of 225. It is jam packed with our favourite hops and already tastes amazing.”

Okay, I guess I’m wrong about the deliberate nastiness. Ah well, chalk it up to my novice palate, perhaps. And anyhow, one bad experience with Nanny State isn’t going to be enough to turn me against BrewDog or their beers – I have half a beer cupboard full of BrewDogs and I’m looking forward to all of them – but I will admit I’m a little less enamoured of them than I was before I opened my bottle of Nanny State. And I’ll be taking their next gimmick-beer with a much bigger pinch of salt.

Nanny State around the Beerblogosphere

• Barm had better luck with it than me, over at I Might Have a Glass of Beer
• Mark Dredge came to pretty much the same conclusion as me and says so over at Pencil and Spoon (“…it’s just too bitter to be drinkable and the whole point of a 1.1% beer is for it to be drinkable”).
• Gunmakers landlord Jeffo wasn’t at all impressed either: “It was dark brown and flat as a witch’s tit. It tastes harsh and astringent. It wasn’t too thin – a surprise – but there wasn’t much else but that unpleasant hop flavour … So, in short, I think this is rubbish.”

Anyone else tried it yet? Please do comment…

As you may have read on maieb’s beer blog, or indeed, on the BrewDog blog itself, BrewDog’s James Watt and Martin Dickie have employed London solicitors Pitmans to demand a retraction and apology from The Portman Group.

You can read the text of the letter via the BrewDog blog link (note to Pitmans: you need to employ a better copywriter, you’ve got some horrendous typos and grammatical errors in there). They’re not actually suing the PG yet, but have threatened to do so if the aforementioned retraction and apology (plus a charitable donation) aren’t forthcoming. The wording they’re objecting to (not unreasonably) is PG spokeman David Poley’s assertion, in connection to the recent Speedball labelling hoo-hah that: “Brewdog is profiteering from the scourge of illegal drugs, mocking the misery caused by misuse.”

In the following press release, the BrewDog boys explain their reasons behind the action, seeking to establish a firm stance on the moral high-ground in the process:

MD James Watt: “This is a David v Goliath battle. It may be unheard of for a brewer to battle an industry regulator this way but we are fighting for the choice and intelligence of consumers.”

Acclaimed global brewers BrewDog has instructed the London office of internationally-renowned lawyers Pitmans to take up a defamation action against beer regulators the Portman Group for recent comments by Chief Executive David Poley about BrewDog and their product Speedball.

The legal action is described as “unprecedented” by BrewDog MD James Watt, who feels the company has to take the stand after the company’s nine-month battle with the regulator, feeling the Portman Group comments are damaging to the business.

The Portman Group recently issued a press statement which stated the alcohol industry watchdog was calling for retailers to no longer stock BrewDog beer Speedball.

The release carried a comment from David Poley, the Portman Group Chief Executive, where he said: “BrewDog is profiteering from the scourge of illegal drugs, mocking the misery caused by the issue.”

Pitmans have now taken up the case on behalf of BrewDog, claiming the comment is defamatory and damaging to the business – especially given that the area the company is based in, Fraserburgh, has been known for having a drug problem in the past.

Award-winning BrewDog is Scotland’s largest independent brewery and has gone from strength to strength in less than two years, gaining a massive following across the globe, securing deals at home to supply Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Oddbins with a range of beers, including Punk IPA. BrewDog currently produces 200,000 bottles a month.

The company is seeking a public apology, a removal of the comments, legal costs and a donation made to an alcohol abuse charity of BrewDog’s choice.

Pitmans’ Dispute Resolution Consultant Oliver Smith said: “The allegations that our clients profit from illegal drugs and mock the misery caused by the misuse (or use) of illegal drugs are untrue and factually inaccurate.

“Our clients sell legal beers and take the issue of illegal drug use seriously. Mr Poley appears to seek to justify his statement on the basis that ‘The blurring of alcohol and illicit drugs fosters unhealthy attitudes to drinking and trivialises drug misuses’.

“This is not a justification for, or legal defence to, these serious allegations against our client – which have and will continue to cause them distress and damage their personal and business reputations.”

BrewDog MD James Watt added: “Drug abuse has been a well-documented and serious problem in Fraserburgh, where we are based, and the surrounding area, so to be accused of profiteering from the misery caused by drugs is not only untrue but something that can negatively affect how people view the business.

“It’s one thing for us to portray ourselves as a couple of fun-loving guys with a company reaching out past the traditional beer drinker, it’s another – and completely beyond the pale – to portray us as profiteering from the scourge of drugs.

“The Portman Group have been fighting with us for nine months now over labeling and marketing – only to drop three of their complaints just before Christmas. Now the complaints may have been dropped but the damage was done in terms of negative publicity and reputation before Portman dropped them.

“We believe in letting adults be adults and make informed choices about the drinks they like and we will not stand by and let the Portman Group feel it can pick on companies because of one word.

“It’s incredibly saddening to think that with all the issues there are with alcohol in UK society, the Portman Group spend months chasing us over this. The Portman Group remains completely toothless in the face of the real issues and problems, which underpin irresponsible alcohol consumption in the UK.

“In a year when we are reaching out to the on-trade sector with casks and kegs available for bars and pubs, we don’t want owners being put off from taking our products because they believe we are profiteering from drugs.”

BrewDog has picked up a string of awards over the last year with the most recent accolade being the Prince’s Scottish Youth Business Trust ‘Young Entrepreneur of the Year’. The company is a success in many countries, including the USA and Sweden.

BrewDog was founded in April 2007 by James Watt and Martin Dickie with the aim of producing good quality beer with all-natural ingredients with no preservatives or additives. Key to their strategy was to promote the brand in a fun, stylish way, far removed from that of the traditional beer market, and with names like Speedball, Tokyo, Paradox, Rip Tide, Trashy Blonde, Punk IPA.

The company is also about to undertake a major expansion with casks and kegs now available, alongside bottles, for the UK on-trade industry.

Maieb thinks everyone should sit down, crack open a few beers, discuss their differences and agree to let bygones be bygones. I rather suspect that BrewDog have scented another publicity opportunity and have gone for the jugular… but to be honest, it makes me a little uneasy. By threatening legal action, aren’t they shifting the battlefield towards the Portman Group’s turf? It’s potentially a bluff that’s easily called, given the likely expense of a protracted legal case, which the PG – with its much deeper, corporately sponsored pockets – can presumably much more easily afford. And I rather fear that this is exactly what will happen next.

We’ll have to wait and see what happens, but I have a horrible suspicion that the BrewDog boys may actually have just lost the advantage of the moral high-ground. I think I’d have been much happier if they’d stayed on-message: carried on sticking two fingers up at the Portman Group in appropriate punk-rebel style, continued to brew and sell their incredible beers; winning over new fans and supporters through the strength of their high-quality products in the process. This threatening letter business feels like an unwelcome shift in focus, a lowering of BrewDog’s standards to the same sort of public sniping, bickering and bullying that the PG thrives on, indeed, exists to engage in. They definitely have a number of good points and they’re right to make a stand, but I think they were winning over more friends when they were just going about their business and proving the Portman Group wrong than they will do by trying to beat the bullies at their own game.

Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully it won’t backfire on them. Time will tell.

NewsFlash: As per Tandleman’s comment below, seems that BrewDog had already dropped the action the day before I sat down and spent half an hour of my rather precious free time putting this piece together… they just, y’know, neglected to actually announce the change of plan anywhere I might have actually seen it. Like on their own blog… thanks, guys! Ah well, my comments still stand as relevant.

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.

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.

(more…)

The Orcadian ale Skull Splitter is facing a possible threat from the Uber Nannies who enjoy telling adults what they can enjoy doing. Alcohol watchdog the Portman Group created an unfavourable report saying that the high strenght of the beer (it is an 8.5% ale) could have an ‘impact’ on the drinker. Well yes, and so can strong coffee. They went on to say that the name Skull Splitter also implied violence, despite the fact the acclaimed Orkney brewery pointed out to them that the beer is named after a seventh century Viking earl of Orkney and not an encouragement to actually commit physical violence. And, as they point out, its not sold in supermarkets so its not like underage kids can stand around on street corners sipping bottles of it under their hoods and neither is the real ale drinker the normal profile of the binge drinker who gets tanked up on super-strength rotgut then go and start a fight.

Despite this the report appears to be rather negative and threatening to the twenty year old brew. Quite how threatening an acclaimed small local brewery of quality ales is meant to help alleviate Britain’s binge drinking culture when 15 year olds can snag sweet tasting alcopops (which they’d rather drink, real ale, especially the heavy stuff, is an accquired taste for the mature palate) is beyond me… What next for the shagwits at the Portman Group? Will Bishop’s Finger get the finger because it might encourage disrespectful gestures to members of the clergy (except in the church of Scotland where we don’t have bishops)? No more Ramsbottom in case it encourages drunken bestiality? Old Peculiar banned because it might offend elderly eccentrics? Meantime on an almost daily basis I can pass chavs, neds and down and outs sitting not five minutes from the world famous Royal Mile in Edinburgh downing Buckfast and super-strength Carlsberg, but these eejits are fixated on Skull Splitter?!?!? (source: the BBC)