Looking for the original Bar Towel blog? You can find it at www.thebartowel.com.

We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.

Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!

Sexism in beer labels in Ontario

Discuss anything and everything about craft brewers from Ontario here.

Moderators: Craig, Cass

atomeyes
Beer Superstar
Posts: 2153
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by atomeyes »

CoolB wrote:Trying to move on. Scanned the post and saw lots of sarcasm and examples of glb art work. Seemed rather witch huntish. If not then I apologize for that but as I said trying to move on so gave a quick reply and moved onto another subject....... Such as how good NB beer is.
no witch hunt against you or GLB or NB. just a few of us expressing our concerns. and there was sarcasms - from me, from you, from others. people tend to take an asshole tone when it comes to sexism. we're just tired of it.

anyways, hope you understand our point of view, even just slightly. or consider it. i definitely understand yours and i see what you're saying. i just disagree :)

portwood
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Markham
Contact:

Post by portwood »

atomeyes wrote:anyways, hope you understand our point of view, even just slightly. or consider it. i definitely understand yours and i see what you're saying. i just disagree :)
Good to see this discussion led you to reconsider what you were using as a signature - in response to someone else whose views you disagreed with :D
@markhamwhisky

User avatar
boney
Seasoned Drinker
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:49 pm
Location: Hamilton

Post by boney »

I think Atomeyes assessment of the context surrounding the NB cans is pretty balanced and even. Can't really add much more to it. Well done on a hangover. Ha.

CoolB: I'm not calling you out personally. You are entitled to your own opinion. We obviously disagree. That's fine. I'm not trying to stiffle you or anyone. I'm more interested in having a discussion and learning why we disagree than getting into an ad hominem name calling session.

I used your "Drama Queen" comment as an example of an ad hominem attack that was a personal insult that had little to do honestly discussing the topic at hand simply because it was one of the first in the thread. I could use others, but I'm honestly not keeping track. All I was saying is "lets all be civil". Sorry to make it seem it was only directed at you.

I definitely did not insinuate that you were unethical. All I said was that sales and ethics are not the same. Which, I still contend they are not. People are not "unethical" but they may have opinions on matters of ethics that they need to defend, or at least think about critically. No one is perfect and we all have inherent biases. All I try to do is do my best to aknowlwdge my own biases and be open to persuasive arguments that may make me rethink my own personal stances. I think that's what Atomeyes is saying to a certain extent too. And let me be clear, I am not saying you aren't thinking about things critically or that you have a poor ethical compass. If you do think ethics and sales are the same, build an argument to convince me otherwise.

On the other hand, ethics is indeed what this entire thread is about. Are NB cans misogynistic? If so, do they have an obligation to change them? I obviously have an opinion, but I could logically argue ether side. I'm interested in how both sides argue it, free of insults. Disagreeing with you, as I have done, is not insulting you, it's debating.

I also contend that Democracy and ethics are not the same thing and no one needs to just "deal with it" when something is ethically unjust in a democratic society. Democracy is a political system. Ethics are moral principles. There's definitely overlap between political and moral systems and they help to inform each other, but they are not equivilant. Many democratic countries outlaw all sorts of things (like homosexuality) and in doing so clearly act in an ethically repugnant fashion. Tyranny of the majority is unethical in whatever political system is present......but this is now getting far afield. I'm not suggesting NB cans are that serious. Just that if they are mysogenistic, how much of a stand should we take, if any at all (open question and up for debate).

OK, I'm done. Be warned though, if this thread keeps on keeping on, you all already know I'm a verbose ass with no TL:DR function :)

atomeyes
Beer Superstar
Posts: 2153
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by atomeyes »

the Ontario beer market is so incredibly crowded. 2017 will be the year that we get hammered from new Ontario breweries and crazy pushes from the larger US craft breweries. you'll see the Lagunitas and Goose Island battle. I expect Sierra Nevada to make a push. i think we'll get Dale's Pils on tap soon as well.

if i ran a restaurant or bar, i'd definitely make the decision to not carry NB's cans that are offensive. and even though it's a great stout, i fucking HATE Sawdust's ...Uranus. that name's so juvenile. you don't see good restaurants carrying stupidly-named wines on their menu.

so why would a brewery like Nickelbrook, who must be hella in debt, want to stir any controversy and have a beer that's slightly sexist and possibly alienate potential customers?

User avatar
darmokandjalad
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:04 pm
Location: Ridgetown, ON

Post by darmokandjalad »

atomeyes wrote:so why would a brewery like Nickelbrook, who must be hella in debt, want to stir any controversy and have a beer that's slightly sexist and possibly alienate potential customers?
I'd consider the possibility that NB believes most consumers don't really care about beer labels as much as some BTers seem to. I'd agree with that.

The label might draw new consumers in for one purchase, or even repel one on occasion. But labels are basically irrelevant wrt repeat buyers; no one buys a beer more than once (or by the case) because they like the label art. It's what's inside that matters to most.

They probably have piles of ready-to-use NN and immodest cans in the warehouse and they aren't going to throw them away just because someone on the Internet is offended. The internet arguing needs to translate into an actual drop in sales or negative media attention before they have any reason to give three quarters of a shit.

CoolB
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 3:40 pm

Post by CoolB »

boney wrote:If you do think ethics and sales are the same, build an argument to convince me otherwise.
In this specific case until you become the majority your argument is essentially moot. The only way nickle brook knows you're the majority is a drop in sales that they can tie specifically to complaints regarding their labels or a change in laws/regulations. I don't need to convince you otherwise. Technically I already have the majority. You need to convince politicians, law makers and a majority of the voting public of your argument and why laws or regulations would need to be created to eliminate things such as potentially offensive beer labels. You can put pressure on the brewer directly with petitions or protests but again in my opinion that is actually an unethical route because you don't go in as the majority yet still expect a privately owned company to change because of your personal pressure/opinion/viewpoint.

Call me black and white all you want but I'm part of the group that thinks these things need to be decided as a whole and not in individual special interest groups. I don't feel any privately owned companies should be forced to do anything because of public pressure, unless that public pressure actually leads to a a drop in sales and an impact on the bottom line. Or in worst case scenario a gluttony of media pressure that can be forecasted to be detrimental to the future of their business.

That's a lot of hurdles to jump but if you succeed then good for you (not facetiously) for working hard to bring an issue you believe important enough to change laws to the limelight. Until then you'll need to do a lot more convincing to get me to jump on that bandwagon.
You know what I have in my cellar? Dust, I have dust in my cellar.

atomeyes
Beer Superstar
Posts: 2153
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by atomeyes »

CoolB wrote:
boney wrote:If you do think ethics and sales are the same, build an argument to convince me otherwise.
In this specific case until you become the majority your argument is essentially moot. The only way nickle brook knows you're the majority is a drop in sales that they can tie specifically to complaints regarding their labels or a change in laws/regulations. I don't need to convince you otherwise. Technically I already have the majority. You need to convince politicians, law makers and a majority of the voting public of your argument and why laws or regulations would need to be created to eliminate things such as potentially offensive beer labels. You can put pressure on the brewer directly with petitions or protests but again in my opinion that is actually an unethical route because you don't go in as the majority yet still expect a privately owned company to change because of your personal pressure/opinion/viewpoint.

Call me black and white all you want but I'm part of the group that thinks these things need to be decided as a whole and not in individual special interest groups. I don't feel any privately owned companies should be forced to do anything because of public pressure, unless that public pressure actually leads to a a drop in sales and an impact on the bottom line. Or in worst case scenario a gluttony of media pressure that can be forecasted to be detrimental to the future of their business.

That's a lot of hurdles to jump but if you succeed then good for you (not facetiously) for working hard to bring an issue you believe important enough to change laws to the limelight. Until then you'll need to do a lot more convincing to get me to jump on that bandwagon.
most of what you say is not wrong.
but companies should have a moral obligation in how they operate. as we see south of the 49th, just because the majority of the population agrees on something, it doesn't make it right. in government, that's why we, in Canada, have the Senate. a sober second look, as they say. and one would hope that Nickel Brook et al. would have a sober second look at their beer names and labels before they went out.

a good example? Great Lakes put out a beer called "Busted Leg Tranny". don't worry, guys. there's a really good inside joke as to why that beer was named that. and they actually sold kegs to bars with the beer names as such. I was one of the people who complained to GLB. they clearly didn't have a sober second look at the name and put out something that is offensive. i'm no "special interest group." I'm just a straight, white male who has a pretty decent moral compass and wants to help clean up shit in the industry that doesn't belong. to their credit, GLB changed the name, sort of (calling it "BLT" isn't cleaning it up all together, but hey, it's something). The thing is, GLB had an employee that was bisexual and she complained about the name prior to the release and GLB chose to ignore her complaints. they're lucky she didn't file an official complaint.

another example? Holy Chuck had a burger that was called, I believe, "Half Breed" or "Drunken Half Breed"? It was a burger that had 2 different types of meat patties. I'm not First Nations and, to be honest, i saw the name and it didn't register with me. but after a year or so of having that burger listed, someone complained. loudly. and, from what i recall, after initially refusing to listen and saying "you're wrong, not us. you're too sensitive!", Holy Chuck did the right thing and re-named the burger.

as a business, you can't walk around offending people. there's a line you cross. and, as a business, i would hope that you had some sense of social responsibility. Be profitable while doing the right thing.

and that includes not having cans with tits or sexual innuendo or archaic sexual stereotypes on your can.

CoolB
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 3:40 pm

Post by CoolB »

Everything is offensive in one way or another to specific groups.

Why was it the right thing to change the name of a burger? I don't agree with you at all. Half breed? really? I'm a freakin mut and I don't give a rats rear end. Why was it right for that business to give into a complaint that has equal non complaints?

The GLB example is just dumb. Not you, just the tacky idea and name but a a pin up girl on a beer is not in the same league.

I post on an american beer forum. I've asked them for opinions and not 1 single person finds the can or bottle images offensive. I'm sorry but this all seems like a fabricated offence to make people feel like they are doing the right thing. I have no interest in turning molehills into mountains. If you don't like the can move on but by no means does NB have any obligation to change their business around some unwritten handbook of possible offensive materiel.
You know what I have in my cellar? Dust, I have dust in my cellar.

User avatar
boney
Seasoned Drinker
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:49 pm
Location: Hamilton

Post by boney »

Just because I think that a can is misogenistic, doesn't necessarily mean it is. Same goes for others who share my opinion.

Just because you can't possibly fathom why a can is offensive and has wider societal impocations, doesn't mean it doesn't. Same goes for others who share your opinion.

Much like most complex issues in life, it's not black or white, but shades of grey. That's why we discuss things and it shows that we aren't aren't afraid to think about things critically.

"Everyone finds something offensive" is a dismisive argument that fails to aknowledge the merits of discussing an issue, not the conponents of the issue itself, and refuses to aknowlege the possibility of grey areas.

You are right. NB has no formal obligation. It doesn't mean it's not a potentially real issue and we shouldn't keep discussing it.

atomeyes
Beer Superstar
Posts: 2153
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by atomeyes »

boney wrote: "Everyone finds something offensive" is a dismisive argument that fails to aknowledge the merits of discussing an issue, not the conponents of the issue itself, and refuses to aknowlege the possibility of grey areas.

You are right. NB has no formal obligation. It doesn't mean it's not a potentially real issue and we shouldn't keep discussing it.
yup and yup.

"my feelings are hurt by what you said."

"no they aren't."

User avatar
Tapsucker
Seasoned Drinker
Posts: 1910
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:21 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by Tapsucker »

I'm glad this was broken off into a new thread. It's a bigger topic than just NB's labels and whether or not you agree with their 'marketing', I think it's best discussed in a bigger sense. So here are my 2 sense :wink:

I never gave much thought to NB's packaging, since I don't even recall coming across it at the LCBO. I have enjoyed their beers many times on tap and at festivals. It was actually this thread that made me think, "hmm, does my local LCBO stock this and what do those cans actually look like". So I went to check it out.

So here is what I found. Yes they are juvenile in my opinion. I have complete immunity to being offended by anything, but I could see how they are demeaning to some and pretty dumb to me. Would I shut them down over this? No, but I didn't buy any when I was there either.

However, just as they are juvenile (sorry to offend younger readers here), they are also terrible graphic design.

It actually took me quite a while to find and differentiate NB's products from a number of others in the cooler. (perhaps that's why I haven't bought any cans from them before), Why? Shitty package design, offensive graphics are only a small part of the problem.

I guess I never noticed this problem creep into Ontario until this situation. When I travel to the US (where this is a particular problem) and visit beer stores to check out what's local and new, I so often find myself staring at display cases of illegible packaging with overwrought amateurish graphics. Who made the beer? What's it called? What style? Where is it from? All questions hard to discern from the kids doodles on the packaging.

I now see so much more of this garbage in Ontario. NB is definitely in need of better graphic design and well, obviously, an adult conversation about symbolism. I understand they are on a good growth curve, most likely driven by product quality, but this amateurish mess of labeling, offensive and frat/funny or not, will hold them back when potential customers are looking at a wall of products in a store.

This question applies to more than just them. Flying Monkey's made their doodle scribble labeling work for them, mostly by adopting it ahead of the others, using wild cartoon colors and of course, constancy. You can also make out the brand and the product name on their packages relatively easily. NB just blends in with the rest of the messy labels on the shelf.

I guess what I'm trying to say as a privileged middle aged, middle classed white guy is, while I may be a shrinking part of your 'demo'. I'm still part of it and if you want MY business, grow up and drop the misogyny, make good beer and for crapsake make legible and identifiable labels, especially for us old blind farts.

Also, fellow BTRs, please stop the hate...
Brands are for cattle.
Fans are cash cows.
The herd will consume until consumed.

bradb
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:30 pm
Location: Waterloo

Post by bradb »

On one hand, I really do enjoy Immodest, look forward to it every spring, stock up on a hefty amount of it, etc etc. On the other hand, there are other beers in the marketplace that I specifically avoid due to their misogynism. It honestly doesn't sell the beer for me. Immodest has gotten a "free pass" from me (up until now) because, damn, it's a fine tasting beer.

It's a lot of work to change the branding. I think it's worth while. The beer in the can is stellar, but I really don't wish to be lumped into the crowd of people that let's this type of stuff perpetuate. Branding is important, but it never sold me on the beer in the first place. Put me down for as a (subsequent) repeat purchaser once you figure it out NB.

atomeyes
Beer Superstar
Posts: 2153
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by atomeyes »

what's also interesting is that the supposedly hypervigilant LCBO doesn't seem to have an issue with the Nickel Brook labels.
this is the corporation that made Aphrodisiaque change its name in Ontario. lol.
if someone lodged a complaint, i wonder if the LCBO would investigate it? (not suggesting that someone does, but i'm curious about their thinking. maybe their standards are archaic, like Sammiclaus and Aphrodisiaque have shown)

tyler90
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Yes

Post by tyler90 »

atomeyes wrote: so why would a brewery like Nickelbrook, who must be hella in debt, want to stir any controversy and have a beer that's slightly sexist and possibly alienate potential customers?
Just off-hand, how do we know they're in debt? Just an assumption that all/most craft breweries are?

atomeyes
Beer Superstar
Posts: 2153
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by atomeyes »

tyler90 wrote:
atomeyes wrote: so why would a brewery like Nickelbrook, who must be hella in debt, want to stir any controversy and have a beer that's slightly sexist and possibly alienate potential customers?
Just off-hand, how do we know they're in debt? Just an assumption that all/most craft breweries are?
it's an assumption based on the nature of the business and their relatively recent expansion.
a business with usually amortize debt. also, breweries always seem to want to expand. you finish paying for one debt and you tend to take on another.

Post Reply