Sorry, I got caught up in the Thanksgiving holiday and lost track of this thread. To expand and elucidate on my original comment: the choice was not simply binary. I said that the consumer can mostly only buy, or not buy, and encourage others to do likewise.. So long as other consumers (presumably those not reached by the encouragement) continue to buy higher-priced bottlings, there is little incentive for companies to change that practice.

However, I did say “mostly.” The storm over Cardhu comes to mind as one example where something other than “mostly” took place. It’s not impossible; but it’s not easy or commonplace, either. I’ve had an effect on American craft brewing through my blog, bringing some attention to bear on flavorful, lower-alcohol beers that had been largely ignored, so I know personally that it’s possible. It takes passion, but it also takes a large measure of persistence.

Better said? I don’t think we disagree. The main problem was that I went off with my family to a place where there was no Internet service, and left the conversation.

One of the things that really frustrates me is that this is a really nice whisky and over the past 20 years in the U.S. it has been very hard to find. If only the owners had ramped up its distribution and marketing efforts, this distillery would be thriving right now.

I remember being approached by a member of the owning company a few (now several?) years back. He told me that they were going to be introducing a line extension here in the U.S. to go with the 10 year old and that I was going to be getting some advanced review samples. Well, I never got those samples and I was told that the project was being discontinued.

Now I really want to drink a Tamdhu. And wouldn’t you know it? I don’t even have one! I gotta fix that oversight.

Sad times.

As to the “whisky criticism” conversation, if the discussion is to continue, I’d love to hear from others too as I think I’ve probably laid one too many “manful thwacks against this dead equine” (with apologies to P.J. O’Rourke).

Since, however, this thread is about Edrington’s decision to close Tamdhu, and since it is Thanksgiving, I think lots of folks who might otherwise have something to add are no longer reading this thread or are busy with holiday related festivities. So it might be more usefully picked up in a new thread…

Red (#26), at this point I can’t help but think that you are making way too much out of Lew’s comments in #11, but then maybe I just don’t get it. I can sometimes be a tad thick that way.

Tom (#27), if, as you suggest, you have some connection to Edrington or Tamdhu, please consider adding a word or two to Joshua’s concerns in #25 regarding the consequences of Tamdhu’s being taken off line. I think everyone would be interested in hearing a little more from someone close to it all.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

I encourage everyone to take a second look at Lew’s striking idea @11 about the universality of consumerism and the limitations this implies for the discussion of whisky.

What stands out about it is that it breaks it’s own rules. It claims that people can “only do two things,” but it itslef does neither. Instead, it claims to present a genuine insight and one with consequences.

It is precisely this kind of writing that I wish to defend against the demand for economic relevance, against itself.

I would like to continue the discussion on whiskey criticism, because I think it’s interesting and important, but I’d also like to hear more detailed thoughts on the void that will be left with the (hopefully temporary) stop of Tamdhu production, both in terms of its use in blends and it’s unique qualities as a single malt.

Where are they going to get all the malt?

It’s sad to have this happen at this time of year as well. I wish for the best for those affected at the distillery and maltings, hopefully, we’ll see them reopen as the economy recovers.

Tamdhu is my official Turkey Day dram!

Critical perspectives are important, but the old saw that “actions speak louder than words” is directly relevant here. Until pontification of this sort affects sales, there isn’t space for it on most Excel spreadsheets. That isn’t, perhaps the way it OUGHT to be, but it IS, at present, a fact.

The “put your money where your mouth is” attitude that only big market players are qualified to have critical perspectives on events like the closure of a Tamdhu is positively villainous.

Anyways, you all don’t know me, but I am in fact a billionaire tycoon. If I wanted to reopen Tamdhu I could. But I’m not going to. Instead I’m going to do a bunch of things that you won’t like with my money and you had all better recognize that you can’t do anything about it and refrain from discussing or criticizing me at all.

JK guys, it’s all good

Joshua (from post #17), I actually agree with much of what you say, though I think you’ve glossed over one profound aspect of your point. I think we do all agree that deeper engagement with whisky, through discourse like this, and through taking a “thoughtful, critical stance on the state of the whisky industry is important in its own right.” Indeed, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

On the economic side though, I think your examples of John Glazer and John Hansell are spot on, but in support of a slightly more nuanced point.

The binary choice of “buy” or “not buy” is not a limitation of the capacity of the individual; it is a reality of consumerism. That is what a consumer does – buy or not buy from among competing products. It is not that consumerism is passive – far from it actually, which is why competition can be so fierce and, in part, why the marketing industry emerged. But in economic terms, the product engagement of blogging, talking passionately to one’s friends and acquaintances, reading up on every little factoid, etc., amounts to little more than “static” or background noise except insofar as such voices can shift consumer preferences. This is a part of why marketing exists – and why whisky brand ambassadors and the like help craft pre-packaged stories and present sometimes simplified, air-brushed histories for us to savor. It is soft attempt to manipulate our natural tendency to positively engage and to form preferences out of such positive engagement.

What makes John Glazer or John Hansell different is that they effectively decided to not limit themselves to playing the role of “consumer,” but to enter the market with product – Glazer with whisky, Hansell with whisky media. That is, they elevated their interest from the limited consumer role to one of active market participant. This is a different, more dynamic role than the consumer.

Like I said before, “non-economic static by whisky aficionados” will not dramatically affect the market, but becoming a viable market player is different and can, indeed, change the market. Glazer not only added competition with some damn fine whiskies, but he also brought a dynamic and passionate entrepreneurialism that the more conservative SWA members were not wholly prepared for (e.g., the Smoke Tree controversy). The whole process adds greatly to the whisky industry, whether everyone likes it or not.

Likewise, John Hansell isn’t merely an anonymous whisky aficionado who started a blog; he is an entrepreneur who started a magazine which offers a constructive, honest and independent voice. Likewise his putting together of WhiskyFest offers a social/economic forum which helps to bridge the gap between consumer and producer, and allows us greater or expanded access to products – and we all have a great time in the process of this engagement. This blog, like WhiskyFest, is a direct extension of the market role he has built. It is because John (and Lew and the rest of the Malt Advocate team) maintain this role with such vibrancy and positive energy that the industry has responded accordingly with embrace rather than rejection or avoidance. Thus our discourse on this blog, more than on most blogs, is read by industry folks because of their engagement with John Hansell and the Malt Advocate

So yes, individuals can make a HUGE difference, even to the Scotch whisky trade. Market actors do so with economically viable activity. Consumers do so by voting with their pocketbooks — whether it is with or without passion is more immediately important to the consumer than it is to the boardroom executive (who generally has only spreadsheets, market research and gut instincts for guidance).

Phew! OK, enough from me for now. Another dram of Tamdhu is in order.