YOUR SHOUT: Scotch on the rocks

"Consumers recognise single malt whiskies from Scotland as symbols of quality and integrity"  Mike Keiller, ceo, Morrison Bowmore

“No more Bowmore”, that’s what my golfing friends demand regularly. I drive them mad because if any of them or any innocent passing golfer asks me what I do, they all run for cover because they know it launches me into my favourite subject – single malt whisky, and Bowmore in particular.

So, why have I got this affliction? This unflinching belief that single malts are very special? How does a conservative Scottish accountant turn into some nutter who stands up on his whisky soap box and preaches to anyone who will listen about the special virtues of Scotland’s great product? Why have I been quoted recently arguing the toss with Indians as to why their ‘whisky’ is not whisky? Why do I bash on about selling whisky too cheaply in supermarkets? Why was I involved in ensuring the rules and definitions behind Scotch were strengthened after the Cardhu incident?

Well, I need to get really serious now to tell you why we absolutely, 100%, must strengthen the rules and protection of Scotland’s great golden spirit. To explain my views, I need to use a living example of what I regard as the pinnacle of authentic Scottish single malt whisky – Bowmore. (And I’m not trying to sell you some, I promise!)

Bowmore was first distilled in 1779 on the island of Islay. It is made the same way today as it was when it started, from Scottish malted barley – much of it prepared for mashing on the original maltings floors at the distillery. Local peat is burned to give the unique Islay smokiness. 

Eventually it’s bottled and sold all round the world – it sells because consumers recognise single malt whisky from Scotland, and Islay in particular, as symbols of true quality and integrity.

I could go on and on. But I guess the point I’m making about Bowmore – and most of the distilleries in Scotland can probably tell the same story – is that it has a real history, it uses traditional production methods and it is bang smack in the middle of a real community of people and island characters. In short, it’s authentic.

Our intellectual property, built over 225 years of history, is constantly being eroded and copied by those who want the kudos of authenticity and heritage, but don’t want the responsibilities and costs that go with maintaining it.

My current  top three “pot shot” targets for this accusation include:

Our industry, selling single malt whisky in supermarkets too cheaply. Again it’s up to us to wake up. Selling products that have been carefully matured for 12 years or more at £10 off alongside “premium vodka”, which is often dearer. Are we mad?

Then there’s third party (independent) bottlers – it really gets me when the press refer to them as innovators. I have even been asked to take a table at a dinner to celebrate them – I think not! For me, they are exploiting a (temporary) oversight of the producers who historically used to reciprocate whisky to balance blends. Over time product got onto the open market and, as we had not tied down how our single malts could be used and sold, these independents have grown and spread.

Finally, there’s the Indian whisky industry – they call their products (unaged molasses spirit with added colouring) “whisky”,  and give them Scottish names, why? They don’t want Scotch to compete on an equal basis in India, why? They want the freedom to sell their product around the globe as whisky and with Scottish names, why? I doubt it’s to protect consumers.

You might wonder how UB Group’s takeover of Whyte & Mackay will affect our industry.  Well, there are actually some analogies from the past to draw upon.

My own shareholders, Suntory, bought into Scotch 15 years ago.  Like UB Group, they were the number-one domestic whisky producer and they bought MBD to protect their position in Japan – I assume – at a time when the domestic market was being opened up to free competition. There were concerns then how Suntory would act, but I would suggest they have been a very positive contributor to Scotch whisky development, with their commitment to long-term investment and quality and, importantly, I believe we are now beginning to see high quality Japanese whiskies emerge onto the global market based on very high quality production methods, expanding the whisky category interest on a high quality product platform.

We also see Beam Brands recently coming back to Scotch – again I have no doubts that foreign ownership will be good for the Scotch category, with considerable fresh investment already being committed to the brands bought by Beam.

And so to UB Group buying Whyte & Mackay. I personally think this will be a most positive change to our industry. As with the analogies above, UB will be committed to making their huge investment pay back. They will soon come to understand why Scotch whisky has such strict definitions and why we defend our high quality product so vehemently, and will accept that arguing for change from within is more effective. Equally I’m certain that we, the Scotch whisky industry, will find new ideas and learnings from our new Indian partners.

Overall though, there are basic principles that won’t change, which brings me back to my soap box politics and preaching. Those of us who run the distilleries have a responsibility to make sure the values and the history are protected at all times. Dangers lie everywhere: some obvious, some slow and all pervading.

While I have the helm at Morrison Bowmore, the slogan “No More Bowmore” will not be because there is none, it will be because I’m on that soap box again driving my golfing pals mad about the unique and authentic virtues of single malt Scotch whisky.

© db July 2007