A Good Beer Blog


Have you read The Unbearable Nonsense of Craft Beer - A Rant in Nine Acts by Alan and Max yet? It's out on Kindle as well as Lulu.

Maureen Ogle said this about the book: "... immensely readable, sometimes slightly surreal rumination on beer in general and craft beer in particular. Funny, witty, but most important: Smart. The beer geeks will likely get all cranky about it, but Alan and Max are the masters of cranky..."

Ron Pattinson said: "I'm in a rather odd situation. Because I appear in the book. A fictional version of me. It's a weird feeling."


Comments are locked. No additional comments may be posted.

dave -

Whatever the cost it is to replace the albino branding (from the article there was a glass, but there might be more, I've never been to an Earls) is the point of when it takes precedence. If it would cost $10,000 to replace the branding, Earls would need to loose the equivalent or more in paying customers for them to act.

Alan -

There are other costs. Reputational risk. Damages awarded against them through a hearing. Legal costs.

dave -

I was lumping reputational in with lost customer, but the legal/damages would need to be factored in.

Along with replacing the branding would be the associated cost of "educating the consumer" (or whatever the marketing people call it) that the new replacement is the same as the old thing (actually marketers would probably say it is better, even if it was the same).

Is "albino" a brand of beer or just the name of one beer at Earls?

Alan -

Looks like just one to me.

Ben -

Okay, so help me understand this...I know that there are "hate speech" laws in Canada, but do they actually usurp the right of free speech? Is it really illegal to offend someone in Canada? I don't think one has to be libertarian to feel upset by this; one only has to have some sense of history. However well intentioned, it is a very dangerous thing to allow the government to regulate speech in this way.

Alan -

I think what we would say, Ben, is that it is a balanced and not an absolute right. In the core of our constitution we have this section 7 thing that is not in the US constitution.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

As a result, everything that is a government oversight subject matter can be brought into this sort of balancing of rights. Because freedom of speech carries no trump card anywhere no matter what people think.

So, if freedom of speech (not yet taking in to account a company can't "speak" as a human can) is a liberty, that liberty can be constrained "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

We do have hate speech laws but I think this would not be directly about that. It is more in line with perpetrating a falsehood even if not intentional. We do not have many place names with forms of racial slur in them any more and I suspect that a restaurant would not be able to use brand names that slur people of the certain cultures. Similarly, we are not prone to using words around classes of disability as adjectives used in branding.

But is it a human right to be free from this or is it good manners and not a legal issue? An interesting case and, frankly, an interesting opportunity for the business to change a small bit of its branding now that the offense has been identified.

Knut -

I would say it's a matter of good manners.
If they changed it to White Rhino, would it still be offensive?