The always outspoken Mark Reynier turns his ire towards the plethora of Spirits awards…
These events, masquerading as consumer advice, are an out and out revenue earner for the associated magazine behind the event. With each entry being between £100 and £250, the bigger companies flood the entries with a pallet loads of samples to ensure winning something.
And Mark doesn’t stop there.
Competitions and festivals are sprouting up everywhere – they are big money – and sums that are eagerly paid by a crazed industry addicted to squandering vast amounts for more worthless medals than an African despot.
Funny. And becoming sadly true.
I think the most prestigious awards have got to be the ones handed out by the Malt Maniacs – though the Maniacs do gravitate toward more esoteric tastes – or our own Drammies…which have become the “People’s Choice awards” for the Whisky world – yet neither awards get played up as much when a single “expert” declares his favourite – usually, I think, directly associated with advertising dollars.
Eh. It is what it is.
Here’s my take on it, which I posted on my blog in March of 2008:
http://blog.maltadvocate.com/2008/03/26/medal-fatigue/
I am leaning towards Mark on this one.
Hey John, I remember reading the string on your blog and agreeing with you and not agreeing with Mr. Pacult.
The SF awards are the Special Olympics of spirits awards – but in a much more insidious way.
If a company enters their products and they DON’T win, then they are very unlikely to enter the next year. And that is $400 times X entries that the organizers won’t be getting.
Most of these awards are little more than alternative revenue streams for the organizers. But The SF (and the new crop of copycat awards) are the most egregious.
THEN they charge the “winners’ for little stickers and rights to use the symbols in marketing. Doesn’t that give the distinct impression that they are in it for the bucks?
Of course the spirits companies are complicit, in that they know the average consumer thinks Gold, Silver or Bronze actually MEANS something. It’s a mutually beneficial parasitic relationship.
Disclosure – I have been a judge in the International Wine & Spirits Competition – which has a really world-class judging panel for the various whiskies – but I agree that the “Medal” paradigm in ANY of these awards is disingenuous and designed ONLY to confuse and manipulate the consumer.
Great Post, Kevin. I have often wondered about these mysterious and proliferating medals. Heather
If spirits companies take Bruichladdich’s lead and stop entering; these contests are sure to dry up…
One other thing in the case of the San Francisco World Spirits Competition…
How do roughly 850 spirits get appropriately and fairly judged by 27 judges in 2 days?
If all 27 judges try each spirit, that’s around 53 samples an hour (assuming an 8 hour day.)
Since the time/space continuum proves that that doesn’t work, I’d like to understand the break-down of panel size and logistics.
I don’t like the fact that whisky producers have to buy themselves into a competition. The more you invest, the more medals you’re likely to get. The inflation of medals in a single cometition really is ridiculous, as John Hansell has pointed out.
Don’t competition organizers realize that they are starting to dig their own grave when awarding a medal to almost any entry?
Perhaps they should publish the scores and tasting notes of the individual panel members. Now that would be interesting.
I’ve just re-read my embarrassingly long comment about this from John’s similar thread last year – and I have to say that I still stand by every word of it.
The SF competition is the worst culprit, but even the better-respected (over her at least) IWSC shoots itself in the foot with far too many categories, leading to uncontested or barely-contested awards.
As Mark has said, the similarity of the names of the competitions and the proliferation of awards announcements over a short space of time is redundant and self-defeating. The sad thing is that genuine achievements and great whiskies that deserve praise are hidden by (or tarred with the same brush as) the more meaningless medals.
It’s always nice to get an award, but it means more when it’s from a credible and worthwhile competition. That’s why the Drammies and the MM awards are now just about the only ones worth having.
I have stopped
The IWSC DO publish tasting notes for the winners of the higher medals, and they are intersting to read.
Now to Mr Reynier. Mmm …
So how is it that Mr Reynier’s brands just won the following medals at the IWSC:
Gold (Best in Class)for Bruichladdich 18 YO, Silver(Best in Class) for Bruichladdich 2001 Resurrection, Bruichladdich 16 YO Bourbon Cask and for Bruichladdich PC 7, and a Bronze for Bruichladdich Peat Single Malt Islay Whisky.
Who entered them in the competition? The fairies? Chivas?
Own up, Mark! Do you think we accept everything you say at face value??
The MM awards are worth taking notice of, and the Drammies are fun (hey – I get to vote!). The rest is pure dross. As a punter – a whisky drinker who isn’t part of the industry – I can tell you that I disregard the awards, the medals, the competitions, all of it.
As with whisky, so with all other products: competitions and medals and awards mean very little. I’ll do my own research and experimentation, thanks.
I agree with Mark. There are few valid awards out there (The Drammies being one of the best and simplest!). Most have so many sub-catagories: Best Islay Malt Under 8 Years Old, Best Unpeated Islay Malt, Best Islay Malt to Drink While Watching the News At Ten… at Caskstrength.net we have developed the BiG Awards (Best In Glass) which aims to mirror the UK’s Mercury Music Award: A Short List of 10 – 12 with 1 overall winner. Simple. The only rule is that you have to be able to buy the whisky in a shop. No Festival Only Bottles, Duty Free Only Bottles etc. Last year, our first year, we had a short list of 12 bottles with a price rage of £22 – £800. We believe that awards should be kept nice and simple.