 |
| Pouring Smooth Ambler at Whisky Fest NYC October, 2013 - Photo courtesy of Greenie McGee (in my pocket) (@greenietravels) |
What I've been doing is pouring whisky (and whiskey) at events and at tastings - sometimes in the apparent role of Brand Ambassador. I've brought home samples of the whiskies I've poured and I have every intention of writing up critical tasting notes and then posting them to this blog as if I were an impartial and honest whisky blogger. Impartial - yet on one or more particular evenings I've stood behind a table and poured these same whiskies and schmoozed them to a the paying public. And, in a few cases, I've received an hourly payment for doing so. The payment was considerably less than I usually make for working and given the work and incidentals wasn't very lucrative and certainly wasn't why I did it. In most of the rest I've received the dregs bottles. That's nice - but it's also not why I did it. Personally I have quite a bit of whisky and I'm way behind in my tasting and writing. Believe it not, a bag full of half full bottles aren't a compelling reason for me to spend several hours on my aching feet after a full work day while tons of people pack in and hold their glasses out. I did it for a complex of reasons that center around the following:
 |
| Pouring Gordon & MacPhail at the Whisky Guild "Whisky on the Hudson" cruise Fall, 2012. I'm nervously talking up a really awesome Mortlach cask strength to Malt Maniac Peter Silver (right) & Dr. Brian Silverman Photo courtesy of Greene McGee (@greenietravels) |
1) I wanted to see what it feels like to be on the other side of the table. Part of me thinks it might be kind of interesting from a journalistic perspective - like George Plimpton pretending to be a QB in the NFL in order to write an "insider's perspective piece.
2) I wanted to feel an "insider's" sense of belonging in the whisky community. The industry people have a tremendous esprit de corps and sense of belonging. I wanted to feel that too. Indeed, since I've poured and done events, I have been accepted by industry people to a much larger extent than I was formerly. That feels good - and it also gives me access and insight into their ways and their world. This has been fun and gratifying. It's also grist for the blog. I want to party in the scene to so I can kiss and tell. (Granted I'm way behind in telling these stories).
3) I really enjoy talking about whisky with people. Pouring at shows has been a blast because I get to teach people about whisky and share some of the passion from an implied position of authority (because I was the one doing the pouring).
But the burning question I must address here and now is whether this stuff compromises my ethics as blogger. Will this lead me to write some puff ball reviews of the whiskies sold by the people in my #whiskyfabric?
3) I really enjoy talking about whisky with people. Pouring at shows has been a blast because I get to teach people about whisky and share some of the passion from an implied position of authority (because I was the one doing the pouring).
But the burning question I must address here and now is whether this stuff compromises my ethics as blogger. Will this lead me to write some puff ball reviews of the whiskies sold by the people in my #whiskyfabric?
The issue of the ethics of whisky blogging has been a hot topic lately. On October 2, 2010, Oliver Klimek of Dramming wrote a manifesto called:
The Ethics of Whisky Blogging
In brief - the commandments were:
1. I will not accept free offers that require or expect me to bend my opinion.2. My future writing will not be influenced by free offers of the past or advertising money
3. I will not ask for free offers
4. I will tell you when I write about something I received for free
5. I will plug my own blog only if I have something worthwhile to contribute
6. I will not ask for links to my blog
I read this post early on, was influenced by it, and have attempted to honor its tenets in all my actions. Nothing in this list prevents me from pouring whisky as a pretend Brand Ambassador. But when I put the question bluntly to Oliver Klimek he was clear and unequivocal in his reply:
" I guess we all agree that bloggers should not be industry whores. But how close is too close? It seems ["Preacher'] thinks that any visible connection to the industry already compromises the writer. I would not go that far, the real issue is how you deal with it in your writing. How honest you are and how strong you are to also express criticism about products of someone you are close to. But there is also the public perception. People may think you are corrupted just because you are actively endorsing a brand. It is a very fine line. And my personal opinion is that For a blogger it may be better to keep a visible distance to that line to avoid any misonterpretations. For example I would never pour for a company on a public event."
" I guess we all agree that bloggers should not be industry whores. But how close is too close? It seems ["Preacher'] thinks that any visible connection to the industry already compromises the writer. I would not go that far, the real issue is how you deal with it in your writing. How honest you are and how strong you are to also express criticism about products of someone you are close to. But there is also the public perception. People may think you are corrupted just because you are actively endorsing a brand. It is a very fine line. And my personal opinion is that For a blogger it may be better to keep a visible distance to that line to avoid any misonterpretations. For example I would never pour for a company on a public event."
But Oliver is a Malt Maniac. He's also a judge at the Malt Maniac awards. He can't afford to be too cozy. I'm not under those same constraints. But I am under some very real constraints and this was brought home to me forcefully in a comment made by a friend of mine, Tim Read, blogger of Scotch & Ice Cream, in the comments section below an important and potentially influential post about whisky blogger ethics written by a different friend - the blogger of My Annoying Opinions, who prefers to remain anonymous, and who I call publicly by the nickname "Preacher". Here is the meat of Preacher's argument:
"Lifestyle journalists can’t question the industry very much because the publications they write for (mostly on a contract basis) are deeply reliant on the industry for advertising, materials etc.. Whisky journalism therefore functions mostly as a celebration of the whisky industry and everyone’s happy with the quality and quantity of reciprocal backscratching (or wanking, if you prefer).
But this is precisely where I think bloggers have the opportunity to open up room for critique that the industry–the distillery owners/marketers and the major publications–cannot or will not give us; to write about issues, and from perspectives, that don’t align with those of the industry. I’m not suggesting that this is what bloggers should write about all the time–I myself spend all my time writing fussy tasting notes that a handful of people read; but keeping the theoretical space open seems important. This independence and potential critical perspective is what it seems to me gets lost very quickly when bloggers so happily jump in the pool with the professionals; and indeed many bloggers seem happy to be co-opted in this way, it seems proof of their success that the industry acknowledges and “rewards” them with access."
http://www.myannoyingopinions.com/2013/10/23/annoying-whisky-bloggers/#comment-3850
In this context, my recent spate of pretend Brand Ambassador gigs, and cosying up to industry folks makes me guilty of this specific form of whisky blogging ethics treason. (The following brilliant image is taken from Shane Helmick's brilliant review of Cromwell's Royal Box Scotch Whisky - which is guilty of the sacrilege of being a Scotch Whisky in a box) I've borrowed it here to represent my heresy):
"Lifestyle journalists can’t question the industry very much because the publications they write for (mostly on a contract basis) are deeply reliant on the industry for advertising, materials etc.. Whisky journalism therefore functions mostly as a celebration of the whisky industry and everyone’s happy with the quality and quantity of reciprocal backscratching (or wanking, if you prefer).
But this is precisely where I think bloggers have the opportunity to open up room for critique that the industry–the distillery owners/marketers and the major publications–cannot or will not give us; to write about issues, and from perspectives, that don’t align with those of the industry. I’m not suggesting that this is what bloggers should write about all the time–I myself spend all my time writing fussy tasting notes that a handful of people read; but keeping the theoretical space open seems important. This independence and potential critical perspective is what it seems to me gets lost very quickly when bloggers so happily jump in the pool with the professionals; and indeed many bloggers seem happy to be co-opted in this way, it seems proof of their success that the industry acknowledges and “rewards” them with access."
http://www.myannoyingopinions.com/2013/10/23/annoying-whisky-bloggers/#comment-3850
In this context, my recent spate of pretend Brand Ambassador gigs, and cosying up to industry folks makes me guilty of this specific form of whisky blogging ethics treason. (The following brilliant image is taken from Shane Helmick's brilliant review of Cromwell's Royal Box Scotch Whisky - which is guilty of the sacrilege of being a Scotch Whisky in a box) I've borrowed it here to represent my heresy):
 |
| SACRILEGE - Blurred Lines association on Shane Helmick's "How to Drink Whisky" blog. http://www.howtodrinkwhisky.com/cromwells-royal-de-luxe-scotch-whisky-40/ |
 |
| Josh Feldman (left), Ellie (of nycwhisky.com) and John Little, Master Distiller Photo courtesy of Greenie McGee - WhiskyFest NYC 2013 |
Here’s the problem I as a consumer have with suspending my disbelief. I know you have a basic contract you have to sign and you’re acting as a representative for the company. No one’s going to want the brand ambassador who, as he’s pouring the mainline NAS release, says to the recipient, “This is a mess and it’s a real shame the distillery has made this their primary entry-level whisky.” Presumably, given your professed desire to stay involved in this promotional capacity, you’re going to broadly make nice. I don’t personally have a problem with it – IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS KNOWN TO THE READER. You gave Smooth Ambler’s year-old bourbon high marks, and then a few weeks later, there’s a photo of you in an Ambler shirt pouring at an event. Boy, I wish I’d known that you were cultivating or had a relationship with these guys."
To which I replied:
"I wrote the Smooth Ambler blog post several weeks prior to agreeing to pour for Smooth Ambler. I fully disclose my warm personal relationship with John Little in the Smooth Ambler blog post. At the time I wrote the post that’s as far as it went. If I had a pre-existing relationship with Smooth Ambler I would have divulged it. Later on, I asked John Little if needed help at Whisky Fest. He agreed to put me on the list. I poured Smooth Ambler and took a dregs bottle of Old Scout 10. Other than that dregs bottle and admission to Whisky Fest (which I saw little of, between pouring and having my sister in town) I was otherwise not compensated. When I review the Old Scout 10 I’ll divulge the source of my sample."
I won't tell you that didn't sting a little. But it was important for me to hear and to rebut. I reiterate: I've never signed any contracts or made any assertions or agreements that I'd give anything a good review in exchange for anything. I haven't - and I never will. That said, the fact that Tim jumped to those conclusions is proof of Oliver's warning that "People may think you are corrupted just because you are actively endorsing a brand." Oliver was right, and Preacher was right too. The warning and the issue in general is clearly valid. My response is to try to counter with clarity and some statements of good intentions:
1) I'm going to abide by Oliver's Klimek's 6 points of whisky blogging ethics.
2) I'm going to stand up here and now and promise to myself and to you that I'm going to tell the unvarnished truth about any and every whisky I blog about. I will not soft ball whiskies I don't like just because I have a relationship with the importer, distiller, or ambassador.
 |
| Pouring Purple Valley Imports at The Casker's Showcase, November 2013 - Photo with my own camera by the Casker's event staff photographer (while I held his camera) |
3) I'm going to review my dregs bottles and I'm going to be completely honest where the whisky came from - just as I have been very honest about the source of all the whiskies I've reviewed so far. If I've been given a sample or if I swapped for it I say so. If I don't bother to say where I got it - it's because I bought it in a store.
4) If and when I pour whisky at a show and you happen to walk up to me, I'll tell you the truth about the whiskies I pour. Ask anyone who has come up to me at a show and had me pour them whisky. I tell the truth about what I'm pouring. There have been some whiskies that aren't as good as the others and I've said so. However, the rare times I pour, I pour whisky that I'm interested in because I think it's good or I think it has some redeeming feature that makes it worth trying.
 |
| Photo courtesy of Wes @wmoe1 |
5) I will not let personal relationships interfere with my telling the truth about whisky. I'm going to post a lot of reviews in the coming months and years and I'm going to describe what's in the glass to the best of my ability in each case - no matter what my relationship to the person(s) who brought the whisky into being.
6) And, finally, I won't let any of the aforementioned get in the way of me doing whatever the !@#$ I want to do. And if I want to hang with whisky people and maybe even pour their stuff that's what I'm going to do. If I start judging for the Malt Maniacs awards I may reconsider this position.
So, what's it like pouring whisky at a big event? It's loud, frenetic, often repetitive - telling the same story about what you're pouring over and over again, and involves hours standing in a way that makes your feet tired. It's also a wonderful opportunity to geek out with a huge cross section of the whisky community. I get to meet and discuss whisky with bloggers and passionate insiders, and also beginners and partiers and sometimes obnoxious inebriated people. It's a fascinating experience being on the other side of the table. It makes you feel a kinship with the whisky that you don't normally experience. Now, the challenge will be seeing if that feeling of kinship affects my ability to write about these whiskies impartially. I say "no". Check back and find out. And don't be afraid to call me on it if I seem to be straying into "bogus".
Disclaimer: Now, I generally write pretty positive reviews. That's because I love whisky and can find the good aspects in a whole lot of it. I suspect that part isn't going to change.