Whisky marketing is a funny beast – its goal is to entice newcomers into the category or to encourage established whisky drinkers to try something new. For a product that is geared towards our senses of taste and smell, it’s amazing how little whisky’s current marketing methods actually speak to those senses – instead relying on sight and persuasion. But it wasn’t always this way…
Think about the bottles of whisky you’ve purchased in the last 6-12 months. Can you recall what prompted or urged you to buy those whiskies? Ignoring any financial incentive (i.e. it was on special or part of a discount deal) here’s a list of possible triggers that may have prompted your purchase…
• You saw a promo for it in a newspaper advertisement or lift-out.
• You attended a tasting event put on by the brand which was presented by the brand ambassador.
• You tried a dram of it at a bar or a whisky expo show and were impressed enough to grab a bottle for yourself.
• You saw some “chatter” and noise about it in an online whisky group (e.g. a forum or Facebook group).
• You read an online review of it by a whisky blogger.
• You watched a YouTube video review of it that was shot and uploaded by an amateur/enthusiast.
• You were “influenced” by an Instagram post.
At various different times in recent history, each of the above was considered “best practice” for whisky marketing. Those of you with either a few years under your belt or a bit of marketing experience may have noticed that the above list was presented in a particular order. Generally speaking, the above list started with more traditional, “old school” marketing methods and transitioned to more “new school” marketing methods. You may also have cynically (but accurately) observed that the list is in order of most expensive to least expensive, in terms of how much a brand must spend to market and promote their product. And therein lies the rub…
Before the advent of social media and when internet resources were still relatively basic, brands would reach out to potential customers by presenting something incredibly quaint and old-fashioned known as a “tasting event”. They would hire a function venue, advertise in printed media, take bookings (via fax or over the phone), and the brand ambassador would stand before the seated crowd and present a classic masterclass-style tasting…occasionally utilising some new technology called “Powerpoint”. Sometimes these tastings were free; sometimes they had a small ticket price; and sometimes they were subsidised by a retailer or distributer who would facilitate the event and get the benefit of any bottle sales then and there on the night. Importantly, these tasting events were fun, they were informative, they were educational, and they were tasty.
Brand ambassadors were hired not for their good looks, or their bar experience, or their ability to take and manipulate photos or create reels – they were hired because they could project their voice in a room, and entertain and hold an audience. In many cases, experience and knowledge about the whisky industry outside their own brand was considered a bonus or an optional extra.
Those events were relatively expensive to put on, and marketing budgets were chewed into by pouring product out for the masses, but they achieved something that would subsequently get lost for quite a few years: The ability to engage directly with customers and consumers; to pour whisky out for them; to bring the brand to them face-to-face; and – most critically – to include everyone. That inclusiveness is also something that would get lost as whisky marketing changed tack…
The well-known whisky personality, Ralfy, recently posted a video to his YouTube channel in which he defined and detailed the difference between a whisky consumer and a whisky customer. (Some readers might suggest there’s little difference and that we’re all just purchasers…but it would be fair to say that some of us purchase more enthusiastically and at a deeper level of involvement than others!) If there is a widening gulf between the two, I’d suggest that the changing face of whisky marketing and the current methods of marketing whisky are driving the wedge.
But what led brands to shy away from putting on their own tastings and engaging on a more personal level with their customers? One of the first steps down this path was the rise in the mid-2000’s of the whisky expo (e.g. Whisky Live and any number of similarly-named and similarly-formatted variants). Suddenly, from the brands’ point of view, there was a forum where a third-party promoter would take on the risk and organise the event, and the consumers would come to them! The number of instore and independent venue tastings began to decline, with brands relying on the whisky expos to be their main avenue for customer contact.
However, even this golden egg began to tarnish over time: An increasing number of these expos, shows, festivals and fairs started popping up, and brand account managers found themselves being endlessly approached to (i) provide tasting stock for the events and (ii) supply ambassadors/advocates to man the stands. With many of these expo-style shows having sessions across Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, the commitment was not insignificant. Multiply this by multi-city events (such as happens in Australia, where the organisers aim to present the show in various capital cities around the country), and many brands began to either decline the opportunity to participate, or would drastically cut back on the range of stock made available for the event.
Not surprisingly, whisky customers (as opposed to consumers…if I may borrow from Ralfy’s theme) rapidly lost interest in these events – growing tired of paying high ticket prices to attend events that largely featured just ubiquitous, garden-variety whiskies, and with the stands being manned by “rent-a-pourer” ring-ins who actually had no official connection with the brand (and little requisite knowledge). This style of whisky event – whilst still popular amongst newcomers to the category – effectively consumed itself, as support and endorsement waned from the big brands. Witness how many of these shows now have to rely on showcasing other spirits (e.g. rum, cognac, etc) at the event to offer a sufficient “menu” for the punters.
With social media now in full swing, a seismic shift occurred from around 2014 onwards with the rise of the so-called “influencer”. Whisky blogs started to emerge in rapidly increasing numbers (ahem); Twitter became the voice of many; and Instagram would demonstrate that a picture truly does tell a thousand words. And it was during this time, say from 2014 to pre-COVID, that – in the opinion of this writer – many brands started to lose direct touch with their customer base and, critically, the whisky enthusiast. The inclusive touch was lost, as many marketing campaigns became exclusive.
Where once a brand might have put on a public, ticketed event for one and all, many brands now simply hand over the reins to a PR firm. The PR firm then arranges a private event for just 15 or so carefully invited influencers, and then relies on those attendees to spread the word for them via their social media channels. For many whisky drinkers, it is no longer a case of trying the whisky for themselves at a tasting, but instead reading someone else’s endorsement of it.
From a financial perspective, and in the context of a brand’s “reach”, you can hardly blame the brands or their PR firms. They’re spending significantly less on events; they’re sacrificing less stock; and yet their message arguably reaches more people. (Although one questions if some influencers’ audiences are actually the target demographic?) Social media marketing – particularly when others are doing it for you – is effectively free and unlimited. Such strategy was (and remains) a no-brainer.
But we lost something along the way. Countries and markets outside the UK were blessed in the 2000’s to regularly have luminaries from Scotland and other global brand ambassadors frequently visit their shores to host tasting events, promote the brand, speak to the punters, and pour out their whiskies. There was a tangible connection between brand and customer. As marketing has transitioned to social media and virtual tastings, we’re no longer seeing as many of those industry figureheads and luminaries travel overseas to spread the word. (Notwithstanding travel shutdowns during the COVID pandemic, obviously). And if a country or market is lucky enough to actually get a global brand ambassadors or industry luminary come to their shores, they present to the influencer crowd, rather than to the purchasing masses. I have attended many such events where I’ve sat next to someone with absolutely no interest (or liking) for whisky whatsoever, but they were invited by the PR firm to attend because of their large following on Instagram, rather than their relevance or association with whisky.
Yannick Douzals, a Perth-based account manager for a spirits/drinks importer and distributor, who also boasts an impressive CV in the bar and on-premise scene, has some insight and an accurate capture on the current state of play: “The line between the sales and ambassador roles has blurred, with salespeople putting on events that would traditionally be held by a dedicated ambassador, and brand ambassadors – even those directly employed by the producer – now need to meet sales targets. The days of the rockstar Brand Ambassador who spends their days in hotel rooms and nights getting tanked with the public are all but gone. In the current climate, in most cases, the distributor would prefer the producer to send them bonus stock, rather than a brand ambassador.”
But how did we get here? What reasoning or drivers are behind the current status quo? Douzals elaborates: “I’d say the biggest reason for this is the crunch in the industry. As much as we don’t want to hear it, the wholesale price of liquor is probably too low. Between the constant battering of excise increases, massive increases in freight costs, inflation as a whole, and venues still wanting premium spirits for under $40 a bottle, margins are bloody tight.” Real, live events with a brand ambassador that engage the public and give us all a chance to taste the whisky thus fall by the wayside. In this environment, whisky marketing via social media comes to the fore.
While we’re on the medium of Instagram, let’s not ignore that sex sells. It should come as no surprise that many of the influencers being courted by the PR firms are young, glamorous, attractive, and often female. With no disrespect or undue commentary to anyone involved, witness the number of Instagram whisky accounts that showcase the bottle of whisky along with some skin. Yes, those accounts have a huge number of followers – but I wouldn’t be the first to question how many of the followers are actually in it for the whisky pics. For the PR firms or distributors that only need to report back to their clients about the level of engagement, such scrutiny is seemingly unnecessary.
There was recent chatter or conjecture in many circles that the era of the influencer is in decline, and that consumers were seeing through the insincerity of some Instagram accounts that were clearly receiving significant incentives to spruik for the brands. Instagram countered this by introducing a paid-partnership feature that at least declares such arrangements – but many remain sceptical. While it should be a self-evident truth that “likes” on social media don’t necessarily correlate to sales at the local liquor store, bottle sales typically aren’t part of a PR firm’s remit or one of their KPI’s. They need only demonstrate “reach” and “engagement”. Walking into your liquor store and buying a bottle of whisky the day after seeing an Instagram post is a level of engagement the PR firms can’t actually measure. And remember: Sales and marketing within a business are usually two different departments!
It will be interesting to see how the whisky companies and distributors respond in a post-pandemic marketplace. The 2020/2021 years of COVID demonstrated that the world can still function reasonably effectively with us all staying at home. In an ironic yet fortuitous development, distributors and retailers started presenting virtual tastings, with accompanying tasting kits delivered to your door. Providing someone is able to prepare all the sample bottles and send them out in the mail, customers and consumers are now once more tasting the product again as part of the whisky marketing experience. Will brand ambassadors get back out on the road again as the pandemic recedes, or will tastings remain largely in the virtual space? How and where will brands see value, and what value do they put on real, inclusive, engagement?
For some whisky brands now, re-engagement is not just a strategy but a necessity. The recent explosion of so many different expressions, releases, distilleries, and brands on offer has been a two-edged sword: We’re now spoiled for choice, but it’s also bred a culture of “try before you buy”. No longer content to take a punt on an untried brand or a NAS release costing $90 or more, consumers want confidence and experience before committing their cash to a whole bottle. (This, in turn, has also contributed to the practice of “bottle splits”, sample swaps, and unofficial whisky sample subscription services. Although as we explored in this article here, those practices aren’t necessarily good for the industry.)
The digital age of marketing ain’t disappearing anytime soon, and consumers will continue to scour online reviews; engage in discussions on social media; and read the stories and posts on Instagram. Live, online tastings; live streams; virtual gatherings; real gatherings; tastings, expos, shows, and masterclasses…the brands that play their cards wisely can have the best of both worlds. And so, too, can the customers.
Cheers,
AD
PS: You also might like our article, “The challenges of starting a new whisky brand“.
PPS: You might also find these other relevant articles interesting:
The highs and lows of being a whisky brand ambassador
Five whisky buzzwords you need to know right now
Did you enjoy this article or get something out of it? You might like to check this page here, which lists Whisky & Wisdom’s best and most popular, widely read, liked and shared articles.
I find the whole consumer/customer debate rather divisive.
Without consumers – who provide the whiskey companies with their bread & butter profits – there would be no fancy higher end product for those smug customers to brag about.
I don’t believe it’s the fault of the whiskey companies or the methods of delivery to the purchaser – it’s more a conversation furthered by those thinking purchasing a €100+ bottle somehow makes them better than someone else picking up a €22 bottle in Lidl.
The same whiskey companies make both products.
I’ll continue to buy my whiskey at Lidl & I know what I’m purchasing having an WSET Level 2 Spirits course.
We are all purchasers of product.
Your blog is furthering a false division.
Hmmm…perhaps I’m not making as clear a distinction between the two as Ralfy defined them. Have you watched the video (linked in the article) where he defines them? Would the article be any different if we made a distinction between “passive purchaser” and “whisky enthusiast”? You’re certainly correct that it’s the same company making the 22 Euro product as the 100 Euro product. But you’d surely agree that the purchasers of each respective product are being marketed to differently, and certainly in ways that are different to how they might have been approached in the past. And THAT is the point of the article…not to advance a division, whether it exists or not. (BTW….would you agree that a passive purchaser is unlikely to read this blog, but a whisk(e)y enthusiast is?) 😉
Yourself & Ralfy – I watched the video – appear to me to be dividing whiskey purchasers into different categories which personally I find rather insulting.
If the pair of you wish to down play passive consumers then so be it.
Anyone that buys a whiskey I’d welcome them – regardless of their knowledge.
Without them whiskey will become an expensive elitist sect – which would be a horrible outcome.
Whiskey purchasers absolutely need to be divided into different categories from a marketing perspective. No category is better or more important than another, but they do require different things.
My bread and butter is the consumer who is willing to spend $10/bottle more than the cheapest spirit on the shelf. To those people, the marketing message needs to be focused on lifestyle, value for money, and finding a bit of luxury in your everyday tipple. Mentioning that our brands are 100% family owned, and run and that we’re running sustainably and responsibly, are a nice bonus, but not the core message.
The customer that is willing to spend $130-$440 on a bottle needs to know that they’re buying something special. They’re probably more interested by things like provenance, scarcity, human handling, and cost of production. They’re more expensive to market to, but also likely only buying one bottle, so from a brand perspective we need to turn them into someone who will spread our message to their friends.
Sometimes, the same person is buying from both categories, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are separate categories and need to be treated as such. It doesn’t come from a place of elitism, but a place of showing products to people for whom they’re relevant. When I’m chasing a case of tequila for margaritas, I still want something tasty, but I don’t need to be shown the single village mezcals. Those bottles are for when I need an excuse to catch up with a mate on a weeknight.
As a person who is buying from both categories, I’m of the opinion that it is not necessarily a consumer/costumer debate, it is just the facts that you can easily observe from your viewpoint after being in the game for a certain period of time. I’ll go to a tasting event because I want to get my hand on that fine dram of 80s’ Caol Ila Moon Import poured directly from an original bottle, not for joining the elitists. I’ll also go to a supermarket and pick up a bottle of Bushmills Blackbush for a night of good fun because I’m guaranteed about its consistency in quality at an affordable price – at this range single malt or vatted malt doesn’t really matter. But for sure, I would never go after a whisky because it was endorsed by celebs – they’re here to entertain, not to define your taste.