Elvis 1 - Brewdog 0

The King of Rock & Roll

I see that the increasingly risible owners of Brewdog have come unstuck with the name of one of their beers, Elvis Juice. The estate of Elvis Presley had objected as they did not want anyone to assume that the beer had been endorsed by them.

In relation to a copyright case involving one of their own brands, Brewdog had previously declared on their website:

"By protecting our trademarks, when we have to, we are just looking after our business and our team. We own trademarks just like we own our buildings, our brewing equipment, and our dogs. If someone stole our dog or our bottling machine we would not be happy, intellectual property is no different."

However, when it came the Presley estate's intellectual rights they tried to brazen it out, declaring that the move was "baseless litigation" and that they had not chosen the beer's name to massage the egos of late celebrities. To support their case, the two owners both changed their names by deed poll to Elvis to 'prove' that the name was not exclusive. I'd have thought the word 'punk' was not exclusive, but that hasn't stop the duo from copyrighting the word. 

Will Brewdog ever appear on a stamp?

Furthermore, their scorn for "baseless litigation" didn't stop them from setting their lawyers earlier this year onto a Birmingham pub which had the cheek to call itself the Lone Wolf, not knowing this was the name Brewdog use for their spirits. With Brewdog, when anyone else does it, it's theft, but when they do it, they try to trample any objections under foot by a combination of gimmicky publicity and rapacious lawyers - more bully than punk, surely?

The UK's Intellectual Property Office has decided that they cannot use the name Elvis on the grounds that it is so closely associated with the King of Rock & Roll that people could wrongly conclude that it was an officially licensed product. Oliver Morris, the Trademark hearing officer, ruled: "I consider most average consumers, on seeing the name Elvis alone, are likely to conceptualise that on the basis of Elvis Presley." Brewdog have been told to pay £1500 costs.

I have no particular objection to a business protecting its copyrights, but I find it distasteful when a company demonstrates such hypocritical double standards as Brewdog have. They have the right to appeal; on previous form, I think it unlikely that they will give in gracefully.

Brewdog climb down

From a post in September 2015 about a petition against an offensive Brewdog video:

I wrote on the 3 September how Brewdog's campaign to wrest money from their fans to fund their business had caused offence: they've been accused of mocking homeless people, trans women and sex workers in their video, with the message: don't force them [i.e. Brewdog] to do such humiliating things to raise money. Despite 20,508 signatures on the petition, Brewdog are unrepentant. Their response was: "If you believe we are ridiculing [trans people, homeless people, sex workers], you are either misguided, ill-informed or out of your tiny mind."

At the time, I thought I'd like to see how that kind of defence would stand up in court: "If you think I stole that car, you are either misguided, ill-informed or out of your tiny mind." Guaranteed to win over the hearts and minds of any jury.

Brewdog have now quietly removed the offensive video from their YouTube account. They have done this without fanfare or comment - which is in itself completely out of character - to avoid the press reporting that they had backed down in response to external pressure, in this case from a petition that eventually gained 36,961 signatures. These cartoon punks don't want to be seen admitting they did anything wrong, but it's clear to me that the campaign had the desired effect.

David becomes Goliath

Now just The Wolf

In one way, it's quite funny watching BrewDog setting their lawyers onto a Birmingham pub which had the temerity to call itself the Lone Wolf, which is the name BrewDog uses for its spirits. They claimed trade mark infringement, which is what the estate of Elvis Presley claimed when BrewDog called one of its products Elvis Juice: they put two fingers up to the Elvis estate by reportedly both changing their names to Elvis by deed poll. At the time they wrote: "Here at BrewDog, we don’t take too kindly to petty pen pushers attempting to make a fast buck by discrediting our good name under the guise of copyright infringement."

They clearly hadn't anticipated the bad publicity surrounding their hypocrisy, so they changed tack in a hurry, offering to send some Lone Wolf spirits when the pub, unable to afford a legal battle, altered its name to, simply, the Wolf. The reality of this pair of very rich chancers has become clear to see: while the Guardian reported that they had backed down, I don't see it that way. They may have called off the lawyers, but they still got their own way with the name in the end.

They are punk entrepreneurs in the same way that Richard Branson is a hippy entrepreneur. When you hijack youth culture - of past youth in both of these cases, hippy and punk - the businessman will in time take over. In this case, they have blamed trigger-happy lawyers; whether that's true or not I can't be certain, but the point is that they employed these lawyers and therefore are responsible for whatever actions they take. Blaming people you pay to do a job seems somewhat spineless: it would have been more honest if they'd simply admitted without qualification, "Yes, we got this one completely wrong." But admitting they've made a mistake is not what BrewDog ever do; for example, in 2015 they completely rejected what were, in my view, well-grounded accusations of mocking homeless people, trans women and sex workers in one of their videos - I wrote about it here.

No one thinks of Branson as a hippy nowadays; similarly, does anyone, other than their loyal fans, take BrewDog's self-proclaimed punk credentials seriously?

Punk and the British Empire

Not being a royalist, I take little interest in the Birthday Honours list, so I'm rather late with this piece of news. The self-styled punks who founded the Brewdog brewery in Aberdeenshire, James Watt and Martin Dickie, have been given MBEs, which only confirms what I've always thought about these highly successful self-publicists: they're about as 'punk' as Phil Collins. The Pub Curmudgeon greeted the news with this on Twitter: So much for being punks and rebels then.

Advertisers dream of creating in the customer a feeling of personal connection with the product or a person representing the product. To varying degrees, this has been done with business people like Steve Jobs and Apple, or celebrities such as Gary Lineker with crisps. The sadness a lot of people feel when a High Street chain closes, such as Woolworth's, C&A and BHS, is another aspect of the same phenomenon of identifying with a brand.

In the case of Brewdog, it has been through irreverent and occasionally controversial (or perhaps deliberately offensive) stunts usually featuring Watt and Dickie themselves, and proclaiming they are a new kind of punk business, completely unlike anything that has gone before. It's no more than a modern twist on good old-fashioned hype really.

Facts: the Brewdog two are multimillionaires and are now Members of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Cheers, chaps!

Here are some punks who inexplicably were not honoured by her madge:

Two fingers from Brewdog

I wrote on the 3 September how Brewdog's campaign to wrest money from their fans to fund their business had caused offence: they've been accused of mocking homeless people, trans women and sex workers in their video, with the message: don't force them [i.e. Brewdog] to do such humiliating things to raise money.

Despite 20,508 signatures on the petition, Brewdog are unrepentant. Their response was: "If you believe we are ridiculing [trans people, homeless people, sex workers], you are either misguided, ill-informed or out of your tiny mind."

They're so full of themselves, they just don't get it, do they? Their intentions aren't really the point; if you cause this kind of offence inadvertently, the best thing to do is apologise. By accusing 20,508 petitioners of being misguided, ill-informed or out their tiny minds, they have shown a breath-taking arrogance, especially as I am sure they can understand why some people are upset, even if they think they are wrong to be so.

To give an analogy: I have in the past been politely stopped by women friends when I used the term 'girl' to describe a young adult woman. My response was to say sorry and correct myself. No offence intended or caused. If I had persisted in saying 'girl' in front of those women, then it would then have been clear I was deliberately trying to cause offence. This is in effect what Brewdog has done.

If they'd just said "sorry, didn't mean to upset anyone" and withdrawn the video, they'd have gained some respect for listening. As it is, they've shown what they are: arrogant wealthy businessmen who refuse to accept they may have made a mistake. This suggests to me they actually believe all their own hype, so you can add the word 'deluded' to the mix.

That tells me all I need to know about them really.

P.S at 4.22pm: 20,524 signatures now.

Capitalist 'Punks' offend again

BrewDog, officially the most irritating brewery in the world*, has offended again with their latest attempt to raise cash to the extent that a petition has been set up to demand that they withdraw it and apologise. The petition states:

BrewDog beer company claims to be "beer for punks". They claim to be ethical. Yet in their new crowdsourcing video they mock homeless people, trans women and sex workers. They say, "don't make us do this" whilst performing as offensive caricatures of people, many of whom already suffer discrimination every day. They are mocking the lives and experiences of people who real punks would be defending and helping. Worse, this is a fundraising video - they're using these images in an exploitative manner to make money.

I regard the video as rather vain and quite childish, but I can see why some people might find it offensive, so I've signed. I've done this aware that BrewDog will probably regard this petition as a badge of honour, because they claim to be punks.

Except they're not really: they are no more punks than Richard Branson is a hippy. You'd never seriously put them alongside The Clash, The Sex Pistols or Siouxsie and the Banshees, would you? There's 'iconoclastic' - and there's 'silly'. If you want to sign the petition, it's here.

* Source: Rednev's ReARM.

Move aside CAMRA

It's dangerous to begin reading too many beer blogs - I try to keep my intake to around four units a day - because you sometimes read some outrageous rubbish that you feel you have to respond to, but then a quiet voice at the back of my mind will say, "Leave them, Nev, they're not worth it!"  Mind you, I don't always take notice.

My friend Tandleman wrote a cheery post that it's the Great British Beer Festival (GBBF) next week and let's all have a good time (you can read what he wrote here).  A simple enough suggestion, you'd think, but no:  controversy raged in the comments below his post that CAMRA was stifling innovation in the beer world, that the Campaign should embrace "alternative methods of dispense" (a euphemism for keg), and whether the withdrawal of egomaniac Scottish brewery Brewdog from the GBBF was CAMRA's fault or the brewery's.  Who cares?  As I wrote myself, some beer bloggers certainly know how to party!

I've written about Brewdog and the craft keg debate before, but there was a novelty in this selection of rantings:  Tandleman pointed out a bizarre suggestion that "the GBBF is outgrowing CAMRA & their approach. Is it time someone else organised this countries [sic] flagship beer festival? I think so."  Tandleman wiped the floor with that stupid comment, pointing out that the GBBF is CAMRA's, not the country's, and it would be difficult for anyone else to organise a festival on such a scale without the army of volunteers that CAMRA can call on - he said a lot more, but you can click on the link above if you'd like to read it.

Another stupid comment was that as it's the Great British BEER Festival, CAMRA should not be selling ciders and perries, and as CAMRA promotes real ale, there should be no continental beers.  Well, as it happens, I was outraged the other week when I went into a café and discovered as well as coffee, they also served tea.  Even more damning, they even sold food.  Don't they know the word café means coffee?

In case anyone thinks there is a sensible point to be answered here:

• CAMRA has since its early days supported real ciders and perries because they are traditional British drinks which have been even more at risk than real ale.  I expect the reason why they're not included in the name CAMRA is because CAMRACAP is a bit of a mouthful, but they are clearly written into in CAMRA's aims.
• Continental beers, although they often do not conform to CAMRA's definition for British beers, are served at CAMRA festivals in a manner appropriate to their own traditions.  After all, that's all CAMRA wants for British beer:  that it be served in accordance with our beer traditions.  It is not inconsistent to respect other traditional styles.

As for all those who say CAMRA should do this, or shouldn't do that (usually not members), they misunderstand what CAMRA is:  a campaign whose policies are decided by its members, and not by certain embittered beer bloggers, of whom a few admit they rarely or never go to pubs, preferring to sup their supermarket selections of bottled beers in their own living room.  I have no problem with people enjoying a beer at home, but when that's all you do, you've reduced beer to a private pleasure, like eating a box of chocolates while watching TV.  To me, beer is not an end in itself, but is a part of my social life - quite a big part, I'd agree, but a part nonetheless.  I rarely drink beer at home.

Most beer bloggers are fine; I enjoy reading what they write, and I sometimes chuck in my own two penn'orth.  Disagreements can be fine too.  I suppose that some of the simmering rage that occasionally shows among a noisy, aggressive minority is because they know that, whatever they blog about, it won't make the slightest bit of difference to CAMRA, or the world of beer in general.  Having spent years involved in a trade union and a political party, I've learnt to accept that it's no good merely ranting about how things should be.  Either you get involved to try to change things, or you don't bore others with your impotent frustrations - in other words, put up or shut up.  Besides, don't you know that beer's supposed to be fun?

Blogs can be interesting, and there are quite a few links on the right to a variety of blogs:  the Pub Curmudgeon has three categories of blogs among his links, one of which is headed:  Beer and pub blogs (may contain nuts).  And yes, that's where he's put me!

I'm not going to the GBBF this year, but if you are, I hope you enjoy yourself - and just ignore the nitpickers and hair splitters, but if they're at home supping their bottles, I don't suppose you'll come across them.  Cheers!

Brewdog Punk IPA

Considering all the fuss that's made about Scottish brewery BrewDog (much of it by themselves), I bought a bottle of Punk IPA, currently in Tesco's for £1.39. The label describes it as a post modern classic pale ale; I've never really been sure exactly what post-modern means, and I'm even less sure how a beer can be post-modern. Still, the label goes on to say:

This is not a lowest common denominator beer. This is an aggressive beer. We don’t care if you don’t like it. We do not merely aspire to the proclaimed heady heights of conformity through neutrality and blandness. It is quite doubtful that you have the taste or the sophistication to appreciate the depth, character and quality of this premium craft-brewed beer. You probably don’t even care that this rebellious little beer contains no preservatives or additives and only the finest fresh natural ingredients. Just go back to drinking your mass-produced, bland, cheaply made, watered down lager and close the door behind you.

Amusing tongue in cheek arrogance, except this brewery's style of self-publicity is becoming slightly irritating (I have written about BrewDog previously - see the posts here).  The beer is 6%, full-flavoured and extremely hoppy, and kept its head right to the bottom. I enjoyed it, but perhaps just for a change rather than all night. Immediately afterwards I went to the Guest House where they had Liverpool Organic Brewery Liverpool Pale Ale (4%), an excellent pint that tasted to me like a rather more subdued version of the Punk IPA - there was definitely a stylistic similarity. I decided to stay on this beer, but found it had run out. Adnams tasted rather ordinary afterwards.

Strongest beer sold in real animals!

The End of History?

Master self-publicists Brewdog, a small Scottish brewery which specialises in shocks and creating moral panic, have brewed a new strongest beer in the world: it's called The End Of History, is 55% and costs £500 a bottle - only 12 bottles have been produced.  I have written before about their previous strongest beers, but this time the shock tactic is not just the strength, but the fact that the bottles are encased in stuffed animal coatings: seven dead stoats, four squirrels and one hare. You can read Brewdog's reasoning behind this beer on their website.

The beer itself has been described as a blond Belgian ale with touches of nettles and juniper berries (one of the key ingredients of gin) and in order to achieve the strength, it was created using extreme freezing techniques. 

Predictably, there have been reactions on two fronts. Firstly, the standard knee jerk reaction from the anti-alcohol campaigners, who completely miss the point that your average alcoholic isn't going to spend £500 on a bottle of beer, even if he had that kind of money to spare.

But also from an animal welfare point of view: on a good causes website I sometimes look at, someone wrote an item about this beer which has elicited 482 comments so far (far more than for more serious topics, so clearly little furry animals can cause you to lose your perspective). Many of the comments condemned the animal cruelty they assumed was involved, even though it was made clear that the animals were already dead, so no cruelty could have occurred. I commented twice that it's a publicity stunt, which has worked as they’ve all now heard of Brewdog, when they hadn’t before – but my words were swept away by a flood of horrified overreaction.

Funnily enough, the more pertinent question of bad taste never arose.

Even stronger strongest beer in the world!

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that the German-brewed 40% Schorschbock had been proclaimed as the strongest beer in the world. It seems that Brewdog, the previous holder of this pointless record, has responded with a 41% abv quadruple IPA called Sink the Bismarck!, priced at £40 for a 330ml bottle.  You can only buy it from the brewer’s website. Brewdog suggest that such beer should be enjoyed responsibly like a nice dram or a glass of fine wine: "A beer like Sink the Bismarck! should be enjoyed in spirit sized measures."

Some people have found the name of this beer offensive, objecting to jokes about the wartime sinking of the Bismarck with the loss of 1995 men (which itself had previously sunk the HMS Hood with the loss of 1418 men). But Brewdog loves controversy and I've no doubt this choice of name was deliberate, especially as they were reclaiming the record from a German brewery. My view is that this name demonstrates the same mentality as football fans who make Hitler salutes to German football teams. Surely it's about time we British stopped being so WW2-fixated?

At this price, the beer is considerably dearer than a fine malt whisky; if I wanted a drink of such strength, I know what I'd prefer to spend my cash on.

Reassuringly strong?

Expect howls of outrage from the anti-alcohol campaigners when they hear about Schorschbock, a lager from the German craft brewer Schorschbräu. At 40%, it’s as strong as Scotch and probably not for swilling, not unless you like quick sessions. It’s apparently fermented by “a rarely-used method for producing ice bock, supplemented by extended cold-lagering for a minimum of six months.” Well, I’m sure that all means something to someone.  This brew, described as "whisky-like," has gone on sale in Scotland where it sells for £10 a glass.

I tend to view the arms race of ever stronger beers to be rather like the urge of some countries to construct the tallest building in the world ~ intriguing, but ultimately pointless. Last November, Scottish brewery BrewDog caused a furore among the alco-puritans with a beer called Tactical Nuclear Penguin, which at 32% was at that time claimed to be the strongest beer ever made; it costs £35 a bottle. This is where the campaigners show they haven’t a clue: problem drinkers will never spend that much on a bottle of beer when they can get a bottle of own brand spirits for under £7, so there's really no need to get all hot under the collar about it. Out of sheer curosity I’d be interested to taste these beers, but not at such prices.

Speaking of alco-puritans, Alcohol Focus Scotland has another of its alcohol-related polls on its home page, and this one asks whether alcoholic drinks should show the calorie content on the packaging. Like most of its polls, it’s getting a response it doesn’t want with 64% of respondents currently voting "no". Oddly enough, they don’t show the results of previous polls on their website, no doubt for reasons of space.

Nanny State Mocks Puritans

Humourless alcohol puritans, Alcohol Focus Scotland, have put a poll on their website inviting people to vote on minimum pricing (which I have previously written about here).  So far, 66% have voted against, which, I would imagine, is not the response they wanted. Let's try to make that figure higher before they remove the poll through embarrassment.  You can vote here. 

Why humourless?  Read their response to the name Scottish brewery BrewDog gave to their new 1.1% beer.  They've called it Nanny State. 

I found the last link on the Southport Drinker's blog ~ thanks.