Whisky consumers right now are spoiled for choice. Most of the distilleries that bottle their own malt now offer a vast selection of different bottlings at a range of prices so that there’s something for everyone. Most brands now offer one or more No Age Statement expressions in their portfolio, together with, say, a 10yo or 12yo, a 15yo, 18yo, 21yo, and so on. Other brands just come out with a myriad of different bottlings under different names to pad out a broad – and, it must be said, complicated – portfolio….Highland Park and Macallan being two good examples. But is all this diversity actually good for the consumer? More critically, what does it mean for quality? Is the quality of whisky suffering as a result?
This all came home to me recently when I stumbled across an old article I wrote for Johnnie Walker over 15 years ago when they launched their then-new Green Label. At that point in time, Johnnie Walker had a very simple portfolio that consisted of just four products: Red Label, Black Label, Gold Label, and Blue Label. What this meant is that Diageo’s stock inventory and its team of Master Blenders only had to focus on getting four products “right”.
Today, in stark contrast, the Johnnie Walker portfolio has exploded. Red Label remains Red Label, but Black Label now has a number of variants (e.g. Double Black and Sherry); Gold Label split into numerous variations of Platinum, Gold Reserve, and 18yo age statements, and Blue Label expanded to incorporate the likes of Blue Label, King George V, the Casks edition, and the Ghost & Rare series. Not to labour the point, but Green Label also took on additional variants (e.g. the Islands), and we now also have the Blenders Batch series; the Exclusive Blend range (currently with eight different offerings); and a host of Limited Edition whiskies as well. (Click here for the full Johnnie Walker range).
Now put yourself in the shoes of a Diageo Master Blender. Where once you had to worry about trying to get just four products right, you now have to worry about getting at least 15 products right! Each blend (and the blender behind it) has to compete amongst their own stock and their colleagues to get “the good casks” or the desirable stock. I can imagine the blender behind one particular product in the range having a fight with one of the other blenders responsible for another whisky as they battle over the same casks that they each feel will complete the missing piece in their masterpiece. Only one can win. Surely it is no mere coincidence when long-term fans of the brand lament that Red Label is not a patch on what it used to be.
Whilst I’ve used Johnnie Walker as a possibly exaggerated example, the principal remains the same. Twenty years ago, when the portfolio of each single malt brand was much smaller, the master blenders behind each expression – be it a 10yo, or a 15yo, or an 18yo – had a much easier time of it. Put simply, there was less competition from within and more room to move. And there are plenty of links and parallels we can draw when it comes to quality:
- The larger your range of products, the harder it is to maintain quality. It’s easy to produce one, great expression of whisky…..it’s much harder to consistently produce (say) six or seven great expressions of whisky when your base stock is the same.
- As an extension of the above, the simple increase in casks and stock being required for these expanding ranges of whiskies means that quality cannot be maintained.
I remember reading an article back in 2005 that focussed on the vintage year-dated releases being put out by Glenrothes at that time, which changed that year when they introduced their first non-vintage release, the Select. I can’t readily find the exact quote, but the production manager said words to the effect of, “A few years back, for every 100 casks we produced, we’d pick out the best three or four to bottle as single malts. With increased demand now, we’re having to pick out the top 20.” It stands to reason that as your product range increases and requires you to draw upon an ever increasing number of casks, it is statistically and scientifically impossible to maintain the same quality.
And this, ladies and gents, is the thrust of this little piece. All this diversity and increased choice at your local liquor outlet might seem great on the surface, and fans of certain distilleries now have many different expressions they can taste as they explore their favourite brand. But are our tastebuds really better off? Just because an expression is different and new, does that make it good?
There’s a lot of chatter in numerous whisky forums and a general undertone of dissatisfaction amongst many drinkers as they continue to be underwhelmed by certain new releases or particular NAS expressions. Perhaps this is one of the driving causes? Is diversity driving down whisky quality? Or will people just blindly continue to get excited about what’s shiny and new?
It’s an interesting challenge and I’m keen to hear peoples’ thoughts in the comments below. If you’re a fan of a particularly distillery, would you prefer to have six or seven expressions in the portfolio to explore, albeit of slightly lower quality, or just two or three expressions where the quality of whisky is ace?
Cheers,
AD
P.S….you may also appreciate this article: Is whisky better or worse today than it was 20 years ago?
Interesting. For me, a great classic or two from a small range is good.
But there is certainly part of me that likes trying something ‘different’. It seems that more and more distilleries are broadening their styles, trying different casks etc. I am assuming they are trying to meet demand from whisky drinkers that want something more ’boutique’.
Has demand grown over the past 15 years? (how much bigger is the whisky market now?). Is JW for example selling more of its core range than ever before, with special releases just ‘bonus’ volume? Or are these other styles eating into the core volume they used to sell?
I now completely stay away from a lot of particular brands as i can’t get my head around the amount or reason for so much choice…or the need for it for that matter. I dislike NAS releases and jumed up naming…i prefer simple sge statement and type of cask maturation…Brands that stick to that seem more commited to quality and not demeaning the oroduct purely for product and promotion of product.
The reasoning is sound and the proof is in the market, but demand for whisky is high, and there’ll always be consumers to buy the sub-par whisky.
Enthusiasts have to be more picky and knowledgeable – there’s also a large supply of good whisky, just need to know what you’re getting.
Life’s too short to drink bad whisky!!!
I like to see different expressions and taste some of the more unique cask finishes. However some of the NAS expressions a very average, and not worth the price they need to put on them to cover the marketing hype. Macallan I would especially put in this group. Every time a pass through duty free there is another option… is it good? I just don’t find the spend worthwhile. As I prepare to open a new whisky bar and collect a great range of whisky, I lean more towards buying multiple of whiskies I think are brilliant, rather than taking a punt.
Really good article Andrew… random thoughts here… it’s the elephant in the room really as distillery parent companies strive to be all things to all people. Which of their range suffers to expand into new areas?? Does it need to suffer? No, not if long range planning happens, but sometimes competitors simply steal a march on you and you have to jump to and meet the challenge and there is a cost if you have to take the good wood casks from your existing production. The example of Glenrothes separating the top few casks in every 100 to provide for the single malt lovers, is going to affect the core entry level range once 20 casks are taken… unless they have planned this (one assumes that it has not been a knee jerk)! Or will they tell you they are producing ‘more’ to be able to provide for the ever expanding single malt demand. We all know you cant just ramp up production and expect the same quality in the same proportion. The smart distiller should not touch the existing production but should go to market and choose the casks (the good wood) for the additional demand in single malt…Glenfiddich’s new offerings over the past two years seem to have an orderly roll-out, and this smacks of good planning… totally expected of the market leader in single malts. What do you know of the changes they have been making to their core ranges? Cant remember if you have done a story on them recently but they could be a real threat to other brands if they do to the new releases as they done to establish their core range (which are all massive sellers).
Great article Andrew and sooooo true. I am also fed up with the trend towards exotic casks like rhum to “finish” the whisky. If a whisky is good, it does not need to be finished! Read disguised!!!!! The mentioned Highland Park and Macallan are examples but there are many more. My favourite distillery now is Springbank. They differentiate by peating time or lack thereof between Longrow, Springbank and Hazelburn then just add ages. They also tell on their web site when the cask mixture changes for a certain product. I am fortunate to be able to go to a couple distilleries each year in Scotland. I listen carefully.
They also make excellent whisky in rum casks…
Love Springbank as well, but the do finish their whisky sometimes – see Longrow red, wood series, and have NAS bottles (CV, Longrow peated).