Ripples shot across the pond of the Australian distilling industry this week when the PC brigade flexed its outraged muscles and seemingly strong-armed a distillery’s marketing department into an awkward about-face.
The distillery in question produces a range of spectacular and award-winning spirits – whisky (both malted barley and rye variants), gins, vodka, and more. Subscribers to their mailouts and e-newsletters were informed this week about the exciting release of a new smoked gin. The smoked water needed for the gin was produced by melting ice into water in a wood-fired oven that burned ironbark – an iconic, native Australian hardwood timber. The newsletter informed that the gin would shortly be available, bottled under the name “Bushfires and Barbecues”. In the distillery’s words, the gin “…brings to life the sense and character of our most iconic, yet challenging season, serving as a bookend to our Summer Gin series.”
So far, so good. Then fuel was thrown on the fire. The following day, just 19 hours later, a second email arrived from the distillery with the subject heading “Our sincere apologies”. The email explained that they had received some feedback about the gin’s name and went on to state, “We appreciate this touched some of you directly and are very sorry for this insensitive misstep. We’ve taken your feedback on board and will be repackaging this product to reflect the essence of what it actually is – an experimental gin that features ironbark smoked water, alongside botanical distillates of juniper, caraway, wattleseed and native thyme, reflecting our exploration of the Australian bush and summer.”
Did you spot the issue? The inference is that some individuals amongst the readership took offence to the word “bushfire”. A bushfire is a natural event (notwithstanding those deliberately lit by arsonists) and are regular occurrences, particularly in the Australian summer, when our hot, dry climate creates the perfect conditions. “Bushfire” seems to be a uniquely Australian term, and it’s the term we use to describe fires that light, burn, and spread through the Australian bush and national parks. Other countries typically refer to them as “wildfires” or “forest fires”.
So here’s the crux of the piece: Bushfire is not an offensive word. It’s not racist, it’s not derogatory, and it’s not discriminatory. We know where that line lies, and it’s pretty clear which side of the line bushfire sits. Now there’s no denying that bushfires can be destructive, devastating events and, sadly, they’re responsible for loss of property (homes are lost to Australians each year) and, occasionally, loss of life. But earthquakes, storms, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados, landslides, and avalanches are also responsible for destruction and loss of life. That does not – or should not – make these terms offensive. Nor does it mean that they should subsequently be blacklisted when it comes to naming or marketing consumer products. These words are descriptors of natural events, they are not verbal weapons nor pejorative terms. I acknowledge that some in our community have been adversely affected by bushfires, but that does not grant them power or privilege to hold the word hostage or to insist that others refrain from using the word forever and hereafter.
Not surprisingly, social media commentary ignited as ferociously as a bushfire itself. There was subsequent outrage against the outrage as the anti-PC brigade countered by expressing both amazement and disgust at what had unfolded. To be fair to both sides, it’s true that, at the time of the product announcement, devastating bushfires were tearing through parts of the country in Tasmania and Victoria. Of course, this could not have been foreseen by the distillery when they conceived the product and its name many months earlier. So was it a case of being insensitive, or just unfortunate timing?
Whether you agree with the small minority that felt “bushfires” was inappropriate for the product’s name, or whether you feel the incident is yet another example of political correctness gone mad, the primary issue here – and the point I’d like to make – is where does such word association start and stop? When and where is it safe to disassociate a word from any possible negative connotation? Particularly in the case of beer, wine, and spirits producers who – quite rightly – wish to draw on simple, well-understood, evocative and relatable terms to describe and market their products?
Plenty of people have been injured and killed through accidents and mishaps with barbecues. In this context, what makes barbecues any less insensitive in a gin’s name than bushfires? Must Diageo now re-badge its Talisker Storm whisky, in sympathy to those who’ve lost property or loved ones in a storm? Should Bruichladdich have been hauled over the coals back when they released Bruichladdich Waves? After all, so many people drown at surf beaches each year – surely Bruichladdich should have been cognisant of this? Is Jura Superstition now in the crosshairs for potentially upsetting religious groups? Or does it swing the other way and Jura has instead attracted the ire of the supernatural sceptics? Many people die each year from smoke inhalation from fires; not to mention the hundreds of thousands who die each year from lung cancer as a result of smoking. Must Ian Macleod now issue an apology for their insensitive misstep in calling their whisky Smokehead? Should Compass Box feel guilty for the dual association with both forest fires and heart disease with their Flaming Heart release? If you think I’m now clutching at straws or pushing the ridiculous, then the same could have been said about Bushfires & Barbecues…yet look at what happened.
The other concern and question here is to what extent a brand must pander to a vocal minority? It’s a universal truth that you can’t please 100% of the people 100% of the time. In this age of faux moral outrage and the subsequent trial (and death) by social media, it seems that you can’t say or do anything without upsetting someone, somewhere, somehow. But does the vocal murmuring of the outraged few contain such power that a brand has to apologise and re-manouevre each and every time one affronted person puts their hand up? Did the distillery really take an “insensitive misstep”? No, I don’t think so. But what would I know? After all, this isn’t Gin & Wisdom.
Cheers,
AD
PS – For the record, the distillery has my sympathy and support. Keep up the good work, guys & gals.
I thought the original title was quite smart, and indeed I placed an order for a bottle just on the whim.
Perhaps the distillery should offer two labels – one Bushfires & Barbeques and the other ‘B&B for the PCs’
There’s a difference between something being offensive and something being insensitive. If your friend had just lost a loved one to a three car pile-up, it would be insensitive to say that you just saw suicide squad and it was a “car crash of a movie”. Not because car crashes are offensive, but because it would be a hurtful and careless thing to say.
Should Talisker rename Storm because people have died in storms? Of course not.
Would it be insensitive for Talisker to release a whisky named Storm in the same week that a vicious hurricane was causing tremendous loss of property and life in, say, Ireland? Yes. That would be an insensitive decision, and you’d like to believe a company run by caring, thoughtful people would decide not to release the whisky under that name.
In this case, you don’t know the content or nature of the feedback that Archie Rose received. What you do know is that they decided, as a company, to make an expensive decision because of what they themselves termed an “insensitive misstep”. Having met several members of the team, I assume it’s because they are kind and passionate people, not because of some pandering to a “vocal minority”.
Best not to jump to conclusions, though.