Cowardly Update: Since this post is still receiving angry comments a week in, I thought I’d go ahead and wrap it up. I was going to go with “Never apologize, never explain”, but there seems to be a slight misunderstanding about the situation. Jamie himself stated that most of the bottles he would be reviewing this holiday season were sent to him by PR firms (see the first quote), and I was irked that he seemed not to acknowledge this fact. But in his later comment he says that he was never sent any of these bottles of Scotch as PR samples, which I accept. As I’m not interested in picking fights on the internet, I’m going to leave it at that, but I’ll be leaving the comments open for anyone who has something else to add.
Ah, drink blogging. Most glamorous of pastimes. Avid readers know, of course, that sometimes those of us lucky enough to opine for free on the internet get sent things by publicity-hungry companies, asking us to exchange our ethics for a free bottle of the good stuff – an exchange we’re all pretty glad to make. Plus, assuming we’re upfront about where we got the liquor, and honest about our opinions, everyone wins. I’m capitalist enough (barely) to see that there’s a definite advantage to some good, old-fashioned, honest, quid-pro-quo.
Which brings me to today’s dilemma. Early this morning (late last night?), Jamie Boudreau, famed (and really more qualified than I am) bartender and proprietor of Spirits and Cocktails posted a gift list for scotch lovers, called “Xmas Scotch“. I’m a researcher, and so I know the big liquor companies. Every scotch on his list was from a distillery owned by Diageo – in fact, every scotch on the list was from Classic Malts, a company (also owned by Diageo) that distributes high-end scotches made by the same. This peeved me a little, because I hate consolidation, and, while all of the scotches he posted about are probably really good (I, for one, love me some Lagavulin, although I don’t have enough money to try the Port Ellen), he didn’t really give any description of them, just some stuff which, if I’m not mistaken, is straight marketing copy. You’ve got to provide more than that if you’re gonna sell me (or anyone, really) on whiskeys with a mean average price of over $150/bottle.
So I asked him, politely, “Are there any non-Diageo Scotches you’d recommend?“. Erik Ellestad was also curious about some more wallet-friendly options. I kind of got more than I’d bargained for as a response, though:
drinksnob:
I don’t know, or care, who the latest owners of spirit companies or distilleries are: it has little to no bearing on the product for me. I was never one to attempt to keep up to date on the passing off of distilleries from one year to the next, and quite frankly am baffled when anyone attempts to attach meaning to such business transactions (unless, of course, it affects the liquid in the bottle). Diageo owns a lot: and I don’t have the time (or even care) to find out what they own (or don’t). You will be seeing a number of spirit reviews in the next month, and while the majority of the bottles were sent to me by various PR firms, I don’t have a clue who their umbrella companies are (or care, as it is irrelevant).Erik:
If $59 SRP is too rich (and SRP usually means that you can get it substantially cheaper online) then perhaps scotch is not the spirit you should be looking at.
Wow.
Finally, a fourth party questioned Jamie about his allegiance to Classic Malts, making me feel less like a crazy troll (I swear I comment almost never because of that fear). I was going to post a quick follow-up about FTC rules regarding free product endorsements and just let the whole silly thing drop, but when I tried to post, I saw that Jamie had closed the thread.
Sure, that’s not an admission of guilt.
Remember, kids, getting a free product and then recommending it without acknowledging its provenance is unethical (duh) and potentially illegal, carrying a fine of more money than I make in six months. Anyway, I thought I’d post about it because I don’t like it when people are jerks to me, but I especially don’t like it when people are jerks to Erik Ellestad. Jamie could have recommended, for example, the Tamdhu 10-year or the Highland Park 12-year (neither of which I have ever been given a free bottle of). But he piled insult on injury (quite literally, in this case) by telling Erik to get out of the scotch game. Dick move, man. Dick move.
FYI:
I did not receive a dime or drop of liquor from the bottles listed. All the products are good names, regardless of what company/s own them and AGAIN, I don’t know or care what companies own them. AGAIN, this will be but one of many gift suggestions/reviews over the next month. I don’t receive money or even place ads on my site. My deal with PR firms (I almost never deal with the liquor companies themselves), is if you give me a product I’ll write about it if I like it and if I don’t I won’t mention it.
As for me closing the comments, I have nothing more to comment on regarding that the list (which will be one of many over the next month) may or may not be owned by one company–which AGAIN I cannot be more clear in stating that I don’t follow or care who owns what, as long as they are good spirits.
As for Erik, I know him, and he would surely admit that he missed the $50 scotch which is why I teased him, because really, how many good unusual single malts is one getting for under $50? (not many in WA I can assure you). As to your suggestions, they are rather common place (being in every bar that I have worked, and being spirits thatI can assure you Erik is familiar with) which defeated the purpose of the suggestions provided by the post. If I was to do a piece on Murray McDavid bottles, would you have such animosity? (Perhaps, now that I think of it, for they may be under the umbrella of Diageo, a fact that, again, is irrelevant and unknown to me.)
I feel that the real issue here is that some people have an issue with Diageo (a rumour that I have heard in the past), which fortunately for me has never been an issue, as I was never one who cared who owned a particular product, provided that the product was good.
As for you accusing me of accepting money or bribes for that post: dick move man.
Gotta call for Jamie getting a pass on this one. Diageo seems to be in the market for every good single malt producer they can buy. In fact, of the 8 bottles I believe I have at home at the moment, I was surprised when I discovered that most are Diageo brands. It’s not allegiance (I plain didn’t know or care when I bought or was gifted any of them); it’s just the state of the industry. This seems like kvetching over all the craft breweries that AB/In-Bev owns a 51% stake in. Hint, if you can get them at a baseball park, they probably are owned by AB. But you probably know that; you’re a researcher.
Also, the Highland 12-year is nice, but that’s not really a special release scotch, which seemed to be focus on Jamie’s list.
On top of that, Erik’s comment was dumb. Single Malt Scotch costs. I’ve never seen a fifth for under $45 (I’m in Oregon). It makes it sound like Erik either doesn’t know the difference between single malts and blends, or never buys scotch by the bottle. Jamie disabused Erik of a misconception with a very light ribbing. That’s not a dick move, that’s personality, something that is generally good in writing.
I’m going to chime in on Jamie’s behalf, too. I have two different messages in my inbox right now, plugging the Classic Malts Selections. Yes, Jamie used the marketing language in his post, and he’s not the only blogger who’s crossed my RSS reader with that content republished verbatim. Should he have disclosed that? Maybe; I can see you making a case for that, but it doesn’t concern me that he didn’t.
There’s nothing in either email that says the Classic Malts are from Diageo, so I believe that he didn’t know it.
Neither email offers me samples of the products. Sometimes, when a PR message hits my inbox, it offers me a sample of the product being touted; sometimes not. Sometimes I take them up on it, and sometimes I don’t. I have to be pretty interested in either the product or the category before I’ll ask for a sample.
I’ve only asked once for a sample of something when the PR firm wasn’t offering samples. I was ignored. I know people who’ve asked and been declined. I don’t know anyone who’s asked (when the firm wasn’t freely offering) and been sent one.
In this case, it’s your word against Jamie’s. You claim he got free product; he says he didn’t. I know for certain that the PR firm wasn’t offering. I also know that it’s rare for me to get whiskey samples at all. It’s too expensive to hand out freely. When I do, it’s usually nips. What I get offered most frequently are unaged spirits and liqueurs.
So again, I believe Jamie on this. The PR firm wasn’t offering samples and very likely wouldn’t have sent samples had anyone asked.
Honestly, I’m not certain why you jumped to the conclusion that he was given free product. I’ve seen press releases time and again hit my inbox and within hours start showing up on blogs. I assume it’s fodder for the blogger to drive more eyes to ads (not that Jamie had that motivation, since he doesn’t even run ads); I don’t assume they got product samples for their time.
As for his response to Erik, I took that in the light-hearted manner in which he intended it. I know Erik (as a disclaimer, I know Jamie, too), and I doubt he was offended. Have you asked him whether he was?
Sorry, I have to agree with the posters above. I don’t get your seemingly out-of-nowhere attack on this guy. Is there some history there?
He reviewed some booze. On a booze blog. If you search his posts for the last few years you will see a lot of reviews. Are they all the same brand? I’m confused. It was ONE POST.
I found your website after reading your comment on his blog (which I read periodically). Although you claim you “politely” asked a question, it read to me as being very accusatory. Yes, I know, we shouldn’t infer tone from emails and such-but there you go.
If he gets sent some booze, and doesn’t like it-he won’t write about it. He could trash it, but chooses not to. I commend him for that.
Your “about” section says you’re angry. Clearly.
Happy Holidays!