Flower
Bevlog

Archive for the ‘malt beverage’ Category

Trampy Beer and Wine, and a Vigorous Defense Thereof

Some of the Clown Shoes beer labels, such as Tramp Stamp and Lubrication, are leading to lots of controversy. This got us to reading about the graphic designer for both. While we reserve judgment about the labels at issue, the blog post by the label designer for Clown Shoes is so good and vigorous that we wanted to cover it here. The designer of the label on the left is Stacey George. She is based in Massachusetts, and she talks about the issues in a July 6, 2011 post entitled “Sometimes, a Pipe is Just a Pipe.”

“Are Clown Shoes’ labels offensive?” Sure. Why not? Offensive is a subjective term. If you look at the labels and find yourself offended, there you go. Do you have the right to say so? Abso-friggin-lutely! Shout it from the highest mountain, or your Twitter account, or your brothers’ website, whatever your bullhorn is, use it, loud and proud. Here, let me loan you a sandwich board and a bell, you can be offended Town-Crier style, I got your back.

My labels for Clown Shoes—which were named Best Craft Beer Art of 2011 by PourCurator.com—are not illustrated with a sexist intent. For instance, a Tramp Stamp is a tattoo placed on the lower back of a woman to emphasize her sexuality. In Germany, they call it, Arschgeweih, meaning, “Ass Antlers.” Can you imagine if we had named a beer Ass Antlers!? We have nicknames for these tattoos because they have a purpose. The woman who has one is confident in her sexuality and she is enticing the viewer to appreciate her. A woman who is comfortable in her own skin and likes how she looks is a sexy woman. Sexy is not sexist. In fact, sexist is rarely sexy.

As a woman, and an artist, I have a hard time with [the] images being labeled chauvinistic. Chauvinism is an attitude of superiority over the opposite sex. I’m not designing women who are inferior, I’m designing women who celebrate who they are. So, who is bringing the inferiority? The viewer? The offended? It’s a complicated question.

Stacey George probably did not design the wine label on the right. But while we are appreciating Stacey’s work, and thinking about tramps, we wanted to include at least one more tramp-related label. Stamp du Tramp is bottled by Greg & Greg, Inc. of Sebastopol, California.

Are Clown Shoes’ labels offensive?” Sure. Why not? Offensive is a subjective term. If you look at the labels and find yourself offended, there you go. Do you have the right to say so? Abso-friggin-lutely! Shout it from the highest mountain, or your Twitter account, or your brothers’ website, whatever your bullhorn is, use it, loud and proud. Here, let me loan you a sandwich board and a bell, you can be offended Town-Crier style, I got your back.

Related Posts:

Tags:

,

Posted in:

malt beverage, wine


Email This Post Email This Post     |    Print This Post Print This Post     |    


Risque Beer

These brands may be sophomoric, but apparently they are not illegal. The first is bottled by Minhas Craft Brewery of Monroe, Wisconsin. The second is bottled by Arcadia Brewing Company of Battle Creek, Michigan. If it’s tough to imagine who would buy or drink these beers, or where are the limits, just try to imagine the opposite adjective.

For a lively discussion of whether such labels go too far, follow these links about Lubrication (by Clown Shoes).

Related Posts:

Tags:

, ,

Posted in:

malt beverage


Email This Post Email This Post     |    Print This Post Print This Post     |    


Witness the Chickness

Here is a lot of chickness. Witness it. Chick light beer is brewed and bottled by Minhas Craft Brewery of Monroe, Wisconsin. The website explains that Chick Beer is:  “The beer for women.  A premium light American lager, Chick is the only beer brand designed for women, who drink 25% of all beer sold in the U.S.”

Over on the right is Skinnygirl which of course is Tequila with natural flavors. Forbes says Beam paid Bethenny Frankel an “eyebrow-singeing $100 million” for the brand a few months ago:

That deal, which features a multi-year payout along with sales from her ever-expanding line of Skinnygirl products, bolstered Frankel’s bank account by an estimated $55 million in the past 12 months, according to sources close to Frankel (she won’t comment on the numbers); TV, we figure, earned her a mere $700,000.

The Chick has about 97 calories per 12 ounces of beer, according to the label. And the Skinnygirl has about the same number of calories, per 4 ounces. Neither appears to have any fat.

Related Posts:

Tags:

Posted in:

distilled spirits specialty, malt beverage


Email This Post Email This Post     |    Print This Post Print This Post     |    


Functional Packages, Part 5

A long way from painted urns, or ink on paper, here is another example of innovative, functional, modern, social(?) beverage packaging. My Bud Light encourages the consumer to modify the labeling a little bit. Bud’s press release says:

Message On A Bottle: Bud Light Introduces ‘My Bud Light’ Packaging
New Package Allows Consumers to Add Personal Message on Bottle’s Label

ST. LOUIS (April 1, 2011) – Bud Light, the world’s best-selling beer, is introducing a new way for beer drinkers to personalize their bottles with the brand’s latest packaging innovation, “My Bud Light.”

Beginning April 4, Bud Light 12-oz. bottles will feature the My Bud Light label, which allows adult beer drinkers the unique opportunity to add their own personal touch to the bottle. Using a key or coin, consumers can “write” a message or draw an image on the label.

“This new bottle is one of the many ways we can bring Bud Light’s fun personality to life,” said Mike Sundet, senior director, Bud Light. “Bud Light drinkers are always looking for fun, quirky ways to express themselves, and the My Bud Light bottle offers them a canvas to do just that.”

A Chicago purveyor of other beer-personalization-paraphernalia hastens to add:  “Following BeerTAG’s footprint, the new innovation from Budweiser further confirms the consumer demand for a great beer identification solution.”

Related Posts:

Tags:

, ,

Posted in:

malt beverage


Email This Post Email This Post     |    Print This Post Print This Post     |    


Raging Beer Controversy in Michigan

On or about September 17, 2009, Flying Dog Brewery requested permission to sell Raging Bitch beer in Michigan. About two months later, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission denied the application, asserting: “The Commission finds that the proposed label which includes the brand name ‘Raging Bitch’ contains such language deemed detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public.”

Flying Dog filed a lawsuit last month, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. In a later post, we’ll review the state’s rationale. But for today, we highlight a few of the juiciest portions from the pleadings submitted by Flying Dog (and attorney Alan Gura). The complaint asserts:

Regrettably, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission and its members have taken it upon themselves to control not merely alcoholic beverages, but speech as well. Acting as a censorial board, Defendants wield state authority to impose their personal tastes as a prior restraint against core First Amendment expression that happens to be placed on beer labels.

The supporting memorandum goes on to cite the Staub case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court said:

It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which … makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.

The memorandum argues that the ban is too broad; “preventing all adults from all access to Raging Bitch [in order to protect some children] is hardly a narrowly tailored restriction.” The Butler case calls back from 54 years ago to remind us “by quarantining the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown men and women in order to shield juvenile innocence. … Surely, this is to burn the house to roast the pig.” The brewer’s memorandum concludes:

The First Amendment is incompatible with the notion that government regulators may sit in judgment of a beer label, scrutinizing it for conformance to their personal views on what sort of expression might disturb delicate sensibilities.

If your tender sensibilities are not yet disturbed, you can find other such labels here.

Related Posts:

Tags:

, , , , ,

Posted in:

malt beverage


Email This Post Email This Post     |    Print This Post Print This Post     |    


Feedburner Get bevlog via email. Enter email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

RSS Subscribe to the RSS feed


This blog has been enhanced by WeFixWP