I think this photo says it all...
Late on Friday, Molson announced that it was de-listing Carling Black Label Big Ten from Alberta. For those of you unfamiliar with this beer (and I expect that is most of you) this is a cheap, high alcohol (10.1%) beer that comes in a 1.18 litre bottle. It has for a long time been a favourite of street-involved people looking for a quick, cheap buzz. It certainly fit the bill. I have never tried it, but given its price point ($5.50 a bottle) you can see why it sold well among that demographic.
The decision is a response to a campaign by the Edmonton police and inner city community groups to raise awareness of the problem of cheap, high alcohol beer. Most media outlets were quick to applaud Molson for their decision.
To be sure, I am not going to criticize them for the move. No one who appreciates beer is going to miss this monstrosity. But you will forgive me for complicating the story a bit. Because I fail to see just how this does much to reduce the use of cheap beer by addicted, street-involved people.
A key element of this is that the source of this plight goes much deeper than the availability of a lousy, high-octane beer. Addressing street addiction requires looking seriously at our policies around income insecurity, housing and addiction treatment. This is a complex, troubling issue that requires far more attention than our current municipal, provincial and federal politicians have been prepared to give it – in large part because we are talking about voiceless men and women (many of them aboriginal) that are easy to ignore. Myself, I refuse to dehumanize them. They are troubled, admittedly messed up, human beings that once had potential and now need our empathy and solidarity to help them get their life back on track, which is not an easy task.
But that is not my point in this post (given that this is a beer-related site). I want to argue that Molson’s move, while laudable, is not as significant as they claim. While Carling was the champ of the high octane corn beer, there are a number of others that come just as close. Big Bear, also in a 1.2 litre bottle, clocking in at 7% and Ridin Dirty at 6.2% in a whopping 2-litre plastic bottle are two that immediately come to mind. They are all clustered in the same price point and thus will be a ready-shift for those who used Black Label Big Ten. True, neither is a Molson product (Sleeman’s and Fort Garry, respectively) so they cannot control their competitors. But they can look at the rest of their line-up, which includes a number of discount beer (such as Keystone and other Black Label brands) and a variety of packaging options, many of which encourage reckless drinking (Canadian Cold Shots, anyone?).
I also realize that even if no cheap beer was available the most addicted of consumers will switch to other substances – some even more hazardous than poorly made beer. This takes me back to my original point about the problem being complex.
I am well aware this is a problem much bigger than Molson, and I am not trying to diss them for this recent move – which is a good thing. I just want to use the small window the media coverage created to remind us all that this is a much bigger problem than high octane beer. A good chunk of the beer industry is reliant upon large sales of cheap beer in ways that are not always responsible. People buy discount beer for a variety of reasons, and I am not arguing that the discount end of the market be restricted. I do, however, have a number of questions about the marketing and promotion of beer in that category. I believe there is an embarrassing need among many brewers to promote some of their products among those who will buy large quantities of it, potentially to their detriment.
In many ways, it is the nature of capitalism – when there is a market, there will be a supplier. But it doesn’t mean I need to be happy about it and can’t call on brewers to start being part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. My hope is that this announcement sparks a debate about cheap beer and the role brewery’s play in either perpetuating or ameliorating the cycle of addiction and poverty. And maybe, just maybe, Molson’s competitors will feel some need to remove their pop-bottle sized malt liquors off the shelves, too.
February 22, 2012 at 12:11 AM
Of course this alone won’t stop street people from buying cheap alcohol.
What it does is allow Molson to say that they aren’t responsible for the problems associated with alcohol and street people. It gives them a clearer conscience, and it is deserved for turning down these sales.
And for many of us non-street people, it gives Molson a clear advantage over companies who continue to peddle firewater.
February 22, 2012 at 8:46 PM
In regards to “cheaper alternatives,” in my punk rock days, our band was staying in East Vancouver with some friends. The drink of choice was tallboys of Molson Extra Old Stock (malt liquor), which we drank like crazy for days, as it was cheap. However, after 3 days or so of indulging, our hosts were low on cash, but still wanted to party, so they switched to crack, which was cheaper than a 6-pack, and you could buy it from some dudes that were hanging outside the liquor store. Every time I walked in there (at least twice a day), these dudes would start yelling, “Who needs rock? Got some BIG ROCK right here!” like they were hawking popcorn at a baseball game.
It was pretty sad, but also downright shocking for a prairie hick like myself.
February 23, 2012 at 9:10 AM
Indeed. A good example that addictions go in many directions and pulling one beer – or one category of beer – off shelves isn’t going to fix anything in and of itself. Thanks for the story.
March 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Bummer, I live in Quebec city and I hope this doesn’t happen here. I’ve noticed lately that the Molson dry 10.1 is getting hard to find. All the other %’s are there up to 8% but the 10.1% is Missing in action. At least the Labatt Blue Dry 10.1 is always available, I hope they can pick up that share of the market if Molson bans all 10.1’s. The price is higher now too, 5.59$ per 1.18L. bottle, I remember a few years ago I would pay 4.29$ for the same exact bottle.
July 12, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Basically what we are talking about here is increasing the price of a product so that it is no longer fincially available to people who are more likely to abuse it. I do not like this aproach for several reasons.
Firstly, beer is a ligitimate and popular product that people of all levels of income enjoy. Everyone has different taste and although some particual brands or variables may be associated with a certain lifestyle, the choice belongs to the consumer and it is highly subjective. Therefore setting the price for a product higher than the open-market value, stricly for the sake of pricing some people out of the market, only punishes resposible people.
Secondly, the problem with substance abuse cannot be solved by removing one substance. People will, unfortunetly, always find drugs to abuse. If none are available they will create new ones. Its been happening as long as history has been recorded. This problem can only be solved on an individual basis. Everyone has different personal reasons for “using” and that reason is what needs to be addressed.
Finally, Molsons motives for pulling this project may not be as selfless as they seem. Molson had been receiving harsh critisizm for this brand recently. Although they may be losing some revenue in the short term I believe they were counting on this being the lesser of two evils. When the court of puplic opinion rules against a company like Molson the consequences for them can be devasting.