This Doesn't Add Up

Scotland on Sunday had a long piece yesterday titled "The SNP's Drink Problem". This discussed minimum unit pricing of alcohol as a means of limiting binge drinking and associated social problems. There wasn't that much new in it and of course, it was mainly about the internal politicking that accompanies such things. One thing struck me about it though. The current unit price of alcohol - some kind of average I assume - is stated to be 43p for off sales. For cider it is 20p. The unit price over a bar is currently £1.31. I imagine the figures for England and Wales won't differ that much.

Now I usually leave this kind of thing to Mudgie, as he is much better at it, but it seems to me that any organisation or individual supporting increasing the minimum price in an effort to curtail anything is way off beam. Those for whom alcohol looms too large in their lives will still find ways to get smashed, probably at the expense of their family and own well being, or by illicit hooch or whatever, while those that have little by way of dosh, but drink responsibly at home, will get duffed in the purse to no good effect. I know these are points Mudgie has made before.

Turning to pubs, it would seem pretty damn obvious, that minimum pricing will not save a single pub.  I'm all for saving pubs though and like CAMRA, who support minimum pricing, I believe the pub is the most appropriate place to drink alcohol responsibly, but is this really the way to go about it? Maybe if minimum pricing had been considered long ago, before the gap got out of hand, a case for minimum pricing could be made, but now it just seems the wrong policy at the wrong time.   A case for supporting a ban on below cost selling of alcohol could certainly be made and could probably be supported, but minimum pricing is a dangerous Trojan Horse and support for it  seems to place CAMRA a little too close to the anti alcohol camp, a place where surely an organisation dedicated to beer drinking ought not to be?

The prohibitionists already have a foot in the door and minimum pricing wedges it open further.  It is no means certain that it will be to the advantage of pub drinkers and pubs as Mudgie points out. CAMRA as an organisation needs to think again.

One of the reasons given by CAMRA is to stop below cost selling, but that could be achieved through other means.  Their document to the Scottish Government conflates, wrongly I believe, the issues of minimum pricing and below cost sales.

Kiss and Tell

A lot of people reckon you shouldn't tell it how it is, on blogs, even as a snapshot, when commenting on beer or pubs. The arguments for this approach go along a lot of rather tortuous routes, including " It isn't fair to mention a one off experience", "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything", "It was fine when I had it in the Strangler's Arms eight years ago" and "I just had a bottle of it and they are great brewers." There are many more, but you get my drift I reckon. Gazza Prescott, the ticker and now brewer, calls it "Cheery Beery" with more than a little contempt.

What prompted this subject was a note by Tyson on his blog and on Twitter about the beer in the Marble Arch not being on top form and a criticism of Thornbridge Black IPA as a mess of good ingredients. (I can't say on this one, but if I get the chance to try it I will and call it as I see it.)

The brewing industry and the pub trade can be sensitive to even the mildest of criticism, no matter how constructively put or well intended. I can recall falling out with a Head Brewer over bad batches of beer, which I knew for a fact had been pulled from pub cellars by a special dray team. He was offended that I said so and stated that there was nothing wrong with the beer. My reply was that he was treating his customers with contempt, in that he expected them to drink the same beer in the pub night after night and year after year and then, not notice when there was something wrong with it.

Pubs have similar issues when a customer feels a beer isn't right. Too often he or she is told that there is "nothing wrong with it" or the classic "Everyone else is drinking it" and the equally poor response "Well that's how it's meant to taste". Another anecdote illustrates how it can be done much better, though I do admit it was an unusual bit of customer care. Once in the Prince of Wales in Foxfield, we complained about a beer. The landlady said she'd been in a hurry and hadn't tried it. She had some, turned the pumpclip round, picked up the GBG, phoned the brewer and told him the beer was undrinkable. "Action this day" indeed, but while not calling for that, is it too much to expect beer that isn't right never to reach the public?

I have digressed more than a little here, but my point is that bloggers of all people should call it as it is. Didn't we all start blogs to say our piece and offer opinion? Pubs and brewers should be as comfortable with constructive criticism as they are with praise and the beer industry should take a leaf out of the supermarkets book, where a dodgy product is met with horror rather than denial.

The hidden costs of customer dissatisfaction are even more and any bad experience in the pub or with beer costs the customer just as much as a good one, which is a fairly good reason to speak out.

I'm putting a little poll on. Have a go at it.