Is The Image of Bourbon Changing?

[gillmang]

For some time, I've been thinking of getting peoples' views on this subject.

Years back, bourbon in general had a downscale or folksy image. As John said, there were exceptions: e.g., bourbon in its regional homeland was a drink of some of the gentry and emblem of the "gracious old South".

In general though, I think Americans and others regarded it as a popular spirit of no great distinction. E.g., I can't recall the author from Scotland writing on malt whisky only a few years ago, he said most bourbon was "pretty crude stuff". That was a generalised view then, and not just overseas.

Due to a wave of informed consumer interest (exemplified e.g., by fora such as this board and serious interest amongst some food, wine and whiskey writers), Bourbon seems to have a new, upscale image.

I don't say that in large parts of the country the old image does not persist. But look at the tastemaking circles: the big cities where influential retailers like Sam's or LeNells operate, where the clubs and restaurants are that serve the latest thing, and where the critics write for the media. Bourbon seems on a major uptick in these areas.

Distillers are offering ever-increasing numbers of premium brands to satisfy (or lead?) the market.

Bourbon has undergone periodic waves of revival and increased sales before.

Is it different this time? If so, what is behind the change? Will it last?

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
This is an interesting question. Thanks for asking it because I too will be interested in the answers. I could also ask what is your image of bourbon? Particularly overseas in Europe, Australia and Asia. I know when I was at United Distillers IW Harper had the "bowing man" image of big city sophistication with classic limos and black tie affairs, but I am not sure that was the image of all bourbons.

I am not sure the image is changing as far as old south gentry and horse racing with mint juleps, but I do think the images are more respected. That I think may be as much a part of the changing image of the south in general as more northerners are retiring to the south and cities such as Atlanta are attracting more business that recruit across the country and bringing in new people to experience the south.

Bourbon advertising of today still uses the same images to sell the product. When watching a distillery video, how many of them have the same themes of rolling hills, bluegrass and horses? Think about it. These images are the same you will find in advertisements from the 50's or the 40's or even back into the 19th century.

What has changed is that there has been an effort by the distilleries to take that imagery and make super-premium products that they can use to compete against other more expensive imports. Single barrel products, small batch products, extra-aged products are all attempts to push bourbon to the next level of marketing. These fine bourbons have always been here (Very Old Fitzgerald Bottled-in-bond for example) but never placed to sell to people other than those who knew fine whiskey and were happy to keep the good stuff for themselves. There was an exclusiveness back then to the high end products that really does not exist today.

These are just some quick thoughts and I am sure there is plenty of room for expanding theme and adding to them. Once again Gary, thanks for asking an interesting question.

[gillmang]

Thanks Mike.

In answering your question about bourbon's image in Canada (or Europe, where I have spent some time socially - the U.K. basically) I would say, the image is it is a popular drink. Recently a person I know who likes wine and malt whisky asked me if that bourbon I like to drink really can be special. Like many people, she thought bourbon was an inexpensive, mixing drink and also like many Canadians she views it as "sweet".

This is not MY image of bourbon because I have known for 30 years it is a major world spirit but many people (the average person who takes an interest in drink) thinks that here.

However this is changing. In big cities, there is growing interest in fine bourbon. We have had whisky festivals here and other events to promote knowledge in good bourbon. Many bar and restaurant owners take pride in their offerings of fine straight whiskey.

I think the penny dropped for a number of reasons. People finally saw that much blended scotch was not very good, at least in relation to a traditional straight or single drink like bourbon whiskey. Second, the availability here (limited as the selection is) of products like Booker's and Woodford Reserve has made people realise there is more to bourbon than Beam White or JD.

But I have another explanation, and it goes back to the master, Michael Jackson. In his 1988 World Guide to Whisky he bemoaned that America, as a relatively young country still showing the insecurity associated with such status, let its fine ryes die in its native provinces of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. He observed sorrowfully that some brands subsisted in "exile" (in Kentucky), true then as now.

He wondered when America would acquire the confidence to vaunt its specialities in drink the way France has done for Cognac, or Scotland for its whisky.

Well, a lot has happened to the U.S. in almost 20 years. It has evolved and matured as a society and polity, partly as a result of evil forces and threats beyond its borders.

In this process it has become more solicitous for its native specialties and is acquiring the confidence to bruit them to itself and the world, without, that is, apology.

Gary

[bunghole]

Being a son of the south, I cannot recall anytime when bourbon was not held in high esteem among drinkers of ardent spirits. Bourbon has always been a very middle class liquor, and as such is a dignified accoutrement of America's greatest social strata.

One needs only to observe bourbon's rise in the mid 1980's with the introduction of Blanton's and the rebirth of the single barrel bourbon to see middle class America returning to her very deep social acceptance of bourbon as a spirit of choice equal to or better than any imported whisky. The macro socio-economic data all indicate that bourbon is being embraced by both the upper middle and lower upper class drinkers of spirits that choose whiskey. Very expensive high end vodkas and tequilas are also quite popular within this same social strata. A quick look at any cigar magazine or other upscale lifstyle publication will show you that single barrel & small batch bourbons are held in high esteem as a worthy choice. Even wine publications will sometimes talk about bourbon, and often in glowing terms. It wasn't all that long ago that most winebibbers were all just a bunch of holier-than-thou snobs if they were well to do, or cheap drunks/winos if they were poor.

This shift to high end spirits is a social movement on a macro scale involving economic factors in that you have to be able to have the requisite disposable income to be able to afford to drink this way. This trend will continue for as we all know bourbon is a life long passion.

Linn

[gillmang]

That's a good point Linn and I know that in the 1800's, bourbon whiskey was a prized product, in America and internationally, and never was regarded as cheap or inferior.

Studies have shown that the real cost of whiskey was much higher then than now, another index of its value.

However after Repeal, I think the image changed, partly because bourbon was a victim of its own success: mass production lowered the price and while as you say much of the middle class held to it, I think the socially aspirant (and much of this was sheer snobbery) felt it more fashionable to drink scotch or Canadian. The upper reaches of society, except in parts of the south and southwest, went for the expensive scotch blends from the 1930's on (Scotch being little known in America before 1919), brandies, wines. With wine, it took years for domestic production to be accepted and vaunted. Much the same thing is happening to bourbon.

This is not to say certain bourbon brands were not always associated with a high social level (e.g. I.W. Harper as Mike noted).

I don't disagree with you but I think what is happening is a return to a tradition that, in the nation's earlier times, was natural and unforced. Only when the nation acquired middle age - perhaps like some who enter and rise in the middle class and become unsure of their position - did bourbon lose, in my view, the cachet it had in the 1800's. Certainly it was a fine city drink then (think of its apparent New Orleans origins), certainly it was viewed as superior to corn whiskey (a pure country drink), and in a funny way we are returning to that today. It is being fueled in part by prosperity but also by the kinds of social and cultural factors I have alluded to (interest by critics, a newly found confidence in native products, etc.).

The reason I say "in part" by prosperity is, the nation is beginning to have the confidence to praise whiskey (where deserved) regardless of its price.

I have studied whiskey for 30 years and I don't give a darn what anyone says or thinks: I KNOW that a product like the current Wild Turkey rye is one of the best spirits in America or the world, worth many times its cost. One can name many other brands that are in this class, that cost even less. I will no longer be intimidated by a fancy price or label. (This is not to say many expensive liquors are not valuable and do not have their place). In this my views (or rather my approach) are shared I know by many on this board and by many critics who are well-respected, e.g., Michael Jackson, Jim Murray.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary and Linn,
You both makes some interesting points. But Gary, I am going to put a fly in your ointment here. I said in Japan, I W Harper had a sophisticated image. Under Bernheim Bros. it was marketed to the African-American market and did not have the high society image by any stretch of the imagination, even though it won all of those awards. It was Schenley in the 1940's that created the "bowing man" and "always a pleasure" slogan and took the brand worldwide, mostly because it was still haunted by the African-American market image. In the segregated south of the 1940's and 50's that was a bad image to have for your brand.

I think that Jackson's thoughts are well taken. The industry had to convince itself that it was as good as any import before things could improve. They had that confidence before prohibition, but lost it during the dry years and it took tham about 50 years to get the confidence back. I am talking about the industry as a whole, not individuals or companies. I think Pappy Van Winkle knew his product was as good as any scotch whisky or cognac, but the big boys (Schenley, National, Seagram, Hiram Walker) all had as many imports and Canadians in their portfolio as they did bourbons or ryes. They all insisted upon diversifying and adding scotches and rums and tequilas and vodkas and gins and cordials and beers because they thought they could not make it with bourbon alone. To an extent they were right but that condition was actually worsened by their own attitude.

[gillmang]

Mike, regarding I.W. Harper, look at the full-page color advertisement for the BIB reproduced in Sam Cecil's book. It appears a few pages from the end of the book.

It reads simply, "Present It Proudly". It shows a man's well-clothed arm (white shirt cuffs and pearl cufflinks shown) receiving the bottle from a similarly clothed arm. The colors and graphic elements show this to be from the 1950's or late 40's. The men (as little of them as is shown) appear to be top businessmen or society people of some kind.

Also, I once had friends in North Carolina (senior business people) who told me Harper was the businessman's Bourbon.

I don't doubt what you say (I know how much work you have done on the history of whiskey advertising) but I guess from such sources I always assumed I.W. Harper had this market. Maybe it had a number of markets, at the same time, different times, or even overlapping.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
The ads you refer to are from the 50's under Schenley. As I said it was the Bernheim Bros who up to prohibition, marketed the product to the African-American market. The slogan alone should give you a hint as to what Schenley was trying to counter - "Serve it Proudly". They were saying that it was nothing to be ashamed of to serve I W Harper and obviously there were people who did think that they should be ashamed of serving Harper because that is the whiskey the lower classes and blacks drank in the segregated south. They had some success but not enough to convince them to keep it in the United States when it became popular in Japan with a whole other image.

It is interesting in that I think bourbon had a split image and it really depended more upon the brand image than bourbon's image as to the status of the drink. Old Fitzgerald always had a very high quality image. Old Taylor is another product with a highly respected image. Other brands shared this image as top notch whiskey but others did not. Think of the image Heaven Hill has and most think paper bag or coke. The Heaven Hilll brand has that cheap whiskey sold to bums and teenagers to mix with coke at the football game image. Yet Heaven Hill 10yo bonded is one of my favorite drinks neat while watching a game.

So Gary, I will ask you now - What is more important, bourbon's image or the brand image?

[gillmang]

Well, I can't gainsay what you said about the pre-Schenley era (you have the facts and I don't!), but the 50's are, Mike, 50 years ago! That is a long time in the life of a product. In my lifetime I have always considered I.W. Harper a premium product (taste, image, market). Chuck Cowdery notes in his book it won a gold medal in 1885 and several subsequently, so clearly it was a quality product from the beginning.

I feel that sometime after Repeal, Bourbon lost the high image it had before Prohibition, only to regain it slowly and now with momentum.

We have to recall there was very little Scotch whisky and Irish whisky in America before Prohibition. The figures are cited in the 1933 article in Fortune magazine on the forthcoming end of Prohibition, they were miniscule.

Thus, straight rye and bourbon were where it was at in America. Most people who took whiskey bought it who could afford the best.

As Linn has noted, the large bulk of the middle class never lost the attachment. But my sense is that after Prohibition, those who could buy imported liquor did so. Scotch became THE business drink (if not gin); wine became the society fetish before migrating to the population at large (first the fancy imports, then the superb American produce). Bourbon was in the background.

Why did this happen? For reasons we know well. Those who could pay during the Roaring Twenties acquired a taste for Scotch, or Canadian. Or for cocktails where the liquor taste was diluted. Bathtub hooch and the cocktail craze did not do any good for straight whiskey. Neither did the fact (as pointed out by Sam Cecil) that in the mid-30's the Bourbon and rye on the market was, much of it, too young. In these crucial rebuilding years Bourbon and rye had to play catch-up.

Also, as America became more "sophisticated", its elites I think in general started to disdain the native produce. This happens in all countries. It started (shucks) as early as Thomas Jefferson's infatuation with French wines (a book has just been published on that subject alone). And elites have a certain influence on the population at large...

So, and as much as one can generalise, I think bourbon was relegated to the broad middle classes who (good for them) aren't embarrassed to drink, or eat, something good even though it comes from the good old U.S.A.

However in the tastemaking circles I mentioned earlier, bourbon was, I think, almost forgotten - but it has made a comeback. Partly this is acquiring the confidence to appraise native and local products without prejudice, which is part of the maturation of the nation, partly it is the result of boards like this one, frankly, and also the Kentucky Bourbon Festival. Brand marketing too has gotten more sophisticated and so producers are looking to introduce niche products (single barrel for example) which is really just bringing bourbon back to its roots.

This is not to say different brands didn't have different markets and images, but overall I think the position is as outlined above, at least from my perspective as (for convenience) what might be called a North East urbanite.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
You make some excellent points as always. I will say that I W Harper was an excellent product before prohibition that was marketed to the African-American market. Bernheim was one of the good rectifiers that believed in a good product of quality. That still did not help the fact Schenley inherited a lot of baggage with the brand and it took many years for people to forget that image. You speak of its high quality image, but remember, for the most part you are recalling the Japanese image and the image that Schenley created in the 40's. Your grandfather probably had a very different image of Harper.

Bourbon's image is improving and I agree with your quote from Jackson about confidence in the product by its producers being the factor lifting the image. As far as your comment about the Bourbon Festival, I will disagree because the people there are more interested in promoting Bardstown Tourism than bourbon and any improvement of image is more accidental than planned. I will give credit to the internet though. This site, Straightbourbon.com as well as individual's websites like John Lipman, MikeK and others have done more to improve the image than the Bardstown Tourism Festival with a bourbon theme, paid for by the distilleries. The availability of information the web provides as well the ability to get people together with similar interest has been a positive factor in bourbon's (and rye's) improved sales. The fact that Malt Advocate and the Bourbon Country Reader both predate the popularity and maybe even the existance of the Bourbon Festival illustrate that this added interest was around before the festival.

If I had to say whenthe image of bourbon changed, I would say it was in the mid 1980's when Age International went independent and they created the concept of the modern single barrel bourbon. The fact that it worked gave the distilleries confidence thay could compete with anyone as a quality product and created the will to do other new things like small batch bourbons and extra aged bourbons. Julian's first release of Pappy 20 was very shortly after the release of Blantons. He took his business from mostly selling decanters to selling a super-premium product with a super-premium price and profit. This was on the heels of the Single Barrel Success and about the same time as the first Booker's.

[bunghole]

I guess that I should actually answer the question "Is the image of bourbon changing?". Emphatically, yes! It has already changed and will continue to do so in a positive manner for the foreseeable future.

For the benefit of the casual reader, please allow me to delineate my position which is that the surge in ultra-premium bourbons and American whiskey in general is part and parcel of a broadly based social trend towards upscale spirits to include high end; vodkas, tequilas, single malt whiskies, and bourbons.

1) One could argue that Bill Samuels Jr. started the whole thing with Maker's Mark; it's presentation (unique bottle and signature red wax hand dipped seal), marketing concept, and making his Star Hill Distillery into a showplace. I remember first seeing Maker's Mark ads in the Wall Street Journal. My favorites were the smallish black & white photos of just the bottle, and sometimes only the neck and seal without any ad copy. These were sprinkled throughout the stock and bond quote section on every other page or so. It gave Maker's Mark social status in that if the folks that made their living in the stock and bond markets drank Maker's Mark then it must be good. Plus Maker's Mark was one of the the most expensive bourbons on the shelf at that time. I would say that the Maker's Mark marketing theme helped to legitimize bourbon as an upscale whiskey of choice and an alternative to Scotch, which was the power drink of the business world in the 1970's.

2) Blanton's Single Barrel Bourbon - Enter the "Holy Hand Granade of Bourbon" and the revival of single barrel bourbon that was commonplace in the 1800's when bourbon was either bought by the barrel or by the jug from a single barrel. I think Blanton's was introduced in 1985, but if not it was very close to that year. This was very exclusive indeed. Not readily available everywhere and expensive when it could be found. It was pretty in it's handsome decanter bottle with throughbred stopper in a beautiful warm brown velveteen embroadered pouch in a gleeming green foil box with raised gold racing throughbreds on the box. It reeked of quality. Bourbon would never be the same again!

3) Beam's "Small Batch" Collection - When was this? 1990? Anyway it doesn't matter exactly when, just that it did. From this point on other small batch bourbons and also many other single barrel bourbons were introduced in rapid succession from just about every distillery and the great Ultra-Premium Bourbon explosion was on! Look out Scotland! Kentucky's eating your lunch!

4) Woodford Reserve - Brown-Forman pumps mega-millions of dollars into the old Oscar Pepper distillery on Glen's Creek, and turns it into a showplace micro distillery complete with a trio of Forsyth pot-stills imported from Scotland. Woodford Reserve Distiller's Select bourbon gains super star status almost overnight.

5) Buffalo Trace - Sazerac pumps a million bucks into the old Ancient Age Distilley and launches a new flagship bourbon to go with it's new name. Also new single barrel bourbons are launched and Old Charter and W.L. Weller brands purchased from Diageo. This is a landmark in the great leap of bourbon from folksy American stalwart to international super-star status. How many times has Buffalo Trace been named "Distillery of Year" by various publications? Her whiskies have garnered many double gold, gold, and silver awards all well earned. Her Sazerac Rye and George T. Stagg bourbon have won "Whiskey of the Year" awards!

6) Media coverage - There is now plenty of it and almost always positive to include electronic media such as this webste. When did Malt Advocate and Whisk(e)y Mag come into existance?

7) Books! Yes entire books devoted to American whiskey! Now that's a good indication of broad acceptance. Even in books primary aimed at drinkers of Scottish whisky, Amercian whiskey is getting some decent coverage, and that elevates it's status globally.

I could go on, but this is more than enough to make my point. I would also point out that there are now young adult drinkers just entering the Ultra-Premium spirits market that have never known a time when such wonderful high end and delicious bourbons were not available. They have never known a time when bourbon was not held in high esteem by knowledgable whisk(e)y lovers. This is a good thing, and too much of a good thing is never enough!

Linn

[JH]

The large increase in price for single malt scotch has some friends, me included, switching to single barrel bourbons, + having relatives in Lexington . I drank Lagavulin for many years, but refuse to pay $80+ for a 1/5th of it, not when I used to get a liter for $30 at the duty free only a few years ago.
Single malt scotch became very popular, & since it takes 10-20 years to make, supply & demand pricing kicked in. Hopefully the same thing doesn't happen to good bourbon.
** Interesting reading here for a good bourbon newbie.

[gillmang]

Very well put, Mike and Linn, thanks!

It is salutary to recall in particular the role played as delineated by Linn of Maker's Mark. Ironically though, Maker's (the whiskey) is not what it was, as I saw when Mike gave me a taste of his late 60's bottle a couple of months ago at Gayle Hack's house. (The price of success?!).

I think we need to include too Elijah Craig 12 year old (which I think lays claim to being the first modern super-premium Bourbon) and following that the EW vintage dated series.

Regarding KBF, remember though at the Gala, in recent years, only top products are at the bars, e.g., at Barton's bar, it was just 1792 last year. That does influence peoples' perceptions/buying habits and a lot of people move through those bars (and the ones at the smaller events during KBF).

Anyway, we have to have (I know most here do) the confidence to laud products that are great but are (thanks be) still sold for a reasonable price. Of the many products in this category, I include WT rye, OF 100 proof, the current Weller 107 proof (without Antique on the label), Triple A (in the opinion of many), Rittenhouse BIB and EC 12 years old (well priced for a premium-aged product). I will say, without undue immodesty I hope, that I was the first to point out to a large group of people (on another web site) the historical background and quality of Rittenhouse rye whiskey. But that is taking too much credit. The real credit belongs to Michael Jackson who singlehandedly in my opinion, in his 1988 World Guide To Whiskey, set the stage for the revival of serious interest in rye, and he did a pretty good job for Bourbon in that book, too.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Linn's point about Maker's Mark is a very good one. Bill Samuels Sr. was simply following the advice of his friend Pappy Van Winkle when he created Maker's Mark as an exclusive, well made premium bourbon to be sold in limited markets at a very good profit. Pappy had tried to do that to some extent with Old Fitzgerald but never had the success of Maker's. I think that is because Maker's was a stand alone brand and that added to the mystic appeal of the brand.

Linns other points are also very good and I have touched upon some of them already, but I do want to hit upon his point about books. He is right in more ways thatn I can say here with this point, except that he really does need to expand it to the written media and include magazine and newspaper articles. There is a respectablity to the written media that is not found in the other forms of media because it is the media that is easiest to keep and re-use for future reference. You do not need a wall outlet to re-read a review in a magazine or book. When bourbon started to get the good press, it became more respectable. It image improved and sales increased across the board.

Once again Gary, Thanks for starting this great thread. And Linn, these nuggets of wisdom show why I have always respected you opinion and thouhgts. Great work!

[bunghole]

Linn's point about Maker's Mark is a very good one... Linns other points are also very good ... And Linn, these nuggets of wisdom show why I have always respected you opinion and thouhgts. Great work!

Many Thanks Professor Veach! It is what I do best.

Linn - 2007