EllenJ wrote:In addition (or perhaps as an extension) to all great information he provides here on BourbonEnthusiast, Mike Veach (BourbonV for y'all newbies) has been working (off and on, since he has a legitimate archivist job that requires most of his attention) for nearly three years now on an actual book, a bourbon history, to be published by the University Press of Kentucky. From time to time he sends me drafts of what he's adding. A few days ago I had the privelege of reading some of what he has to say about the repeal of Prohibition and the turmoil of re-inventing the entire beverage alcohol industry. Although Mike's overall focus is on bourbon, specifically Kentucky bourbon, what he expresses can be considered an appropriate microcosm for American distillers in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois, and other states.
Mike brings up some really interesting points of view, many of which I understand and agree with completely. Some I disagree with, at least to the extent of my own knowledge. And there are quite a few that I feel raise some interesting questions that beg for more detail. I asked Mike if he would mind my bringing a few of these to the forum, in order to get discussions going and he graciously said that would be fine.
I hope these points are taken in the spirit in which I've written them. That is, as an attempt to provide conversational "sparks" to promote further participation -- and not just among us old regulars who already know Mike and everything there is know about bourbon history already. And who knows? Maybe Mike will pick up that spark from someone's response and add that viewpoint to his growing chapter.
6. Mike writes about some of self-imposed restrictions the newly-formed whiskey marketers promoted, in hopes that prostrating themselves might stave off a repeal of the repeal. And there was certainly some justification for that, as many states, including those who ratified repeal, maintained complex and petty lists of restrictions. At least some of these were obviously aimed at making the revival of the alcohol bevereage industry so difficult and expensive as to fail, at least in their state. As an example, Mike quotes a list of advertising restrictions from a Frankfort Distilling Company's book published in 1946:
a) Drinking scenes. This restriction stems from a belief in the minds of some commissioners
that the pictures of people enjoying our products would encourage some non-drinkers
to become drinkers. In general, the liquor industry is supposed to confine its appeal to
people who already use some type of distilled spirits.
b) Price advertising. Several states forbid either the listing of bottle prices or any mention
of price, value or economy. The commissioners in these states feel that such advertising
encourages buying by people who can’t afford a luxury product, and also that price
advertising stimulates price wars in the trade.
c) Testimonials. Some authorities feel that a man’s choice of a whiskey brand has little to
do with his success as a businessman, actor or social leader and that it is unfair to imply
that it does by means of endorsements and testimonials.
d) Recipes. The ban on telling people how to make mixed drinks is apparently based on a
belief that recipe ads make drinking appear more attractive and therefore encourage
greater consumption. Most state commissioners feel that their job is to regulate rather
than to help promote the sale of liquor.
e) Holiday advertising. Few distillers would have the bad taste to use pictures of Santa
Claus or religious symbols in their advertising, but many of them use some form of
seasonal copy to promote their brands as Christmas gifts. In a number of states,
however, any use of the word “Christmas” is a serious violation of regulations, and in
some states an illustration of a Christmas tree, holly or mistletoe is also forbidden.
f) Display material. Federal regulations prohibits a distiller from having more than $10.00
worth of display material in use to advertise his brands at any one time in a single retail
establishment. Therefore expensive and attractive display devices frequently employed
by advertisers in other lines of business can not be used to promote Frankfort brands if
the cost exceeds the Federal limit of $10.00. In addition to this Federal restriction on the
value of the display material, some states limit the cost even further and many limit the
size of the display piece.In support of that, I can personally testify that in 1976 in my former life as a "folksinger" in small East-coast country taverns, my advertising flyers could not occupy the same posting board as anything mentioning liquor, not even beer. The common custom of "Happy Hour" existed, and many taverns had signs saying that Happy Hour was, say, from 5:00 to 7:00. But the signs could not say what "Happy Hour" actually was, nor could it state what the prices were during Happy Hour, nor even that they were reduced. No alcohol beverage could be mentioned on the Happy Hour sign. I know of at least two places that were closed by the dreaded State Liquor Control Board for not heeding that. The charge? Willfullly enticing customers to drink.
The only place you could legally buy a bottle of whiskey was (and still is) from a state-licensed dispensary. Owned and operated as branches of the liquor control institution, they were called "Liquor Store", but they were not like any "store" you've ever seen. Really, they were a standalone version of the pharmacy department such as we see in a drugstore or supermarket. Except that the liquor store allowed no advertising material, nor even mention of the product. Exactly like a pharmacy, the customer approached the counter and gave their order to the dispensing agent (pharmacist?), who then went into the storage room and returned with the product, wrapped in plain brown paper. I imagine that was the same as during prohibition, the only difference being that under the Volstead laws the customer needed a prescription. In the 1970s, the customer didn't need a prescription, but could only order by catalog number. There was a printed catalog available at the counter, listing the available liquors and their numbers, and the "store" operator was not allowed to fulfill a request by name or other description. He was also not allowed to recommend a particular brand, nor to provide any information at all, including the stock number, that would assist the customer in their decision to purchase (self-prescribe) alcohol. Pennsylvania liquor stores today are more modern and offer self-service from displayed bottles and promotional materials just like other stores. But they are still owned and operated by the state government, a position that has been consistantly reinforced by the voters in election after election. The "enforced semi-temperance" concept is not an imposition of Big Government in Pennsylvania; time and again the voters have proven that it is what the people want.
In the 1980's, the congress of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania voted to raise significantly the price of wine in the state-run liquor stores. Not ALL wine was affected, however, only the very cheapest wines, plus some select fortified wines. The lawmakers proudly applauded themselves for this act, the SOLE PURPOSE of which was to make cheap wine less affordable for those for whom it was deemed inappropriate to be allowed to drink alcohol. I believe that rationale is still in place today.