Naïve....

Or maybe “Sorry not sorry.”

Possibly “Lost yo mind.”

Almost “I can’t take no more.”

But please, “Back up.”

I suspect many of you are wondering what the hell I am chatting about this time, but true fans will recognise these quoted words as Beyoncé song titles. You see I was trying to find one as the title of this article, to try and convey my overriding, deep seated more swear word induced “WTF??” response to some of the reactions to the Beyonce “SirDavis, Whisky.”

Just to be clear, I am not sorry about writing this article. I think many people have lost their minds to the point I can’t take any more of the naïve ramblings and sycophantic musings. But let’s back up and revisit August when ‘SirDavis’ whisky was released in the UK.

I will be clear; this article is not a whisky review. Personally, I could care less about the liquid itself, but I do care about integrity, honesty and being straight up. (If you are easily offended, you may want to stop reading here, it’s been great you stayed this far, but it’s about to get a little bit “Vokins”).

Where to start? My thoughts on industry reaction to this whiskey are still a little distracted and pulling it all into a coherent prose is a bit complicated. Every single person saying the same thing, repeating the same story (the PR machine was obviously brilliant and everyone ‘understood the assignment.’)

What was missing? Questions. Integrity. No-one has questioned the narrative of this release in anyway whatsoever, or if they are, it’s not a publicly aired questioning. Are you afraid to speak out loud? Will Beyonce not like you anymore if you question it? Afraid to lose your samples and freebies. No more pr invites?

A good place for me to start (ease you in gently) is the PR story. According to all the press releases this whisky is named after Beyonce’s paternal great grandfather, Davis Hogue. Hogue was a successful moonshiner in the time of prohibition. He was so successful in fact that if you google him, you get……… absolutely nothing until the whisky was released. Nothing, zero, de nada, zilch.

Now, I am not saying the story isn’t true, I’m just saying its not supported by anything other than anything to do with this whisky*.

(*I’ve researched this for a few days. I can’t find anything. If you have something, do let me know and I will address with an edit.)

Beyonce has previously been incredibly open about family history research. Again, if you just Google ‘Beyonce family tree,’ there is a load of information out there, but its all on the maternal side. Her family history is so interesting and gives her an amazing back story. One such page is: Beyonce’s Acadian - Cajun Roots, on The French-Canadian Genealogist website (tfgc.ca). So, for me, the fact there is no documentation easily accessible about her paternal great grandfather is a little strange, especially when linking it with a product.

So, I must ask why. Why is there no information at all about such a successful moonshiner? In a world where the internet provides more information and archival access than ever before, why can’t I find anything about Davis Hogue?

Oh, and the picture associated with the letter; a reverse image search only comes up with articles or social media clips after release of the bottle. Again, anyone can do this.

I’ll leave you all to think on that.

Celebrity whiskies are regularly a source of disdain for many. Either we like the celebrity, or we don’t. We judge the whisky by the celebrity, we call out the brands for selling out. Essentially it should come down to whether of not the liquid tastes good and is value for money.

So why do companies use them? Maybe a celebrity approached them (as is allegedly in this instance). Maybe a brand wants to hit a different audience. So, whats an effective way to get a group of people to try something new? Show them someone they know, respect drinking/using a product? Show them someone they are attracted to drinking/using a product?

Yep, I went there. Humans are simple. We respond to attractiveness. So, erm, well add Sam Heughan (star of Outlander) to a whisky and yep, there is a high chance of people who find him attractive buying it. Will the same thing work with ‘Sir Davis’? When buying into a brand, we want something from it that aligns with us, or we want to align with it. So maybe people who aspire to be like Beyonce, her lifestyle, her fashion will buy into the whisky.

Here comes the part that got me annoyed.

Very quickly, sections of the whisky community were shouting about how brilliant it was that a Black woman had brought out a whisky. It’s a game changer. It will bring more (black) women to whisky…. It’s ‘the catalyst we’ve all been waiting for.’ Post after post on websites, social media about great it is.

But erm, well, let’s look at the diversity of ethnicity within the whisky industry and who came before Beyonce. In this I am also looking at those women who have spoken about drinking whisky as well, because, well that’s the point isn’t it, we see ourselves reflected; if celebrity ‘x’ likes it, then maybe I will like it.

Mila Kunis, Ukrainian Jewish. Joined Jim Beam in 2014.

Lady Gaga, a penchant for Jamesons.

Rihanna another Jamesons fan.

Hilary Clinton – in fact, there is a Rodham Rye named after her.

Christina Hendrinks, Halle Berry and more. So don’t tell me women have not been influenced before (or not as the case may be)

(source: Whiskey and Women: 8 Famous Women Who Drink Whiskey - Thrillist )

Why were these women not spoken about or highlighted previously? Did they not fit a narrative?

Then of course we have the brilliant team from Uncle Nearest.

For an idea of Uncle Nearest, have a look here at what Fawn Weaver has achieved. This Black Woman-Owned Whiskey Brand Has a Valuation of Almost $1 Billion (blackbusiness.com)

Back to my “leaves a bad taste in your mouth” behaviour from, ah sod it, I’ll say it aloud, ‘women in whisky’ (WIW) advocates.

The fact that these white women, campaigning for women to be recognised in the industry, either as consumers or working in it jumped on the coattails of the success of a Black woman, an incredibly famous Black woman, really got my back up. Anyone’s success is not yours to hijack, especially Black women. This is not allyship. This is click bait, easy work and we all know it. If it weren’t, you’d have been proclaiming love for her music, her charity work, other brands, for years beforehand, and yes, you would have been talking about all the other women, especially the non-white women mentioned above. No, this SirDavis whisky is a great launch pad to promote your own business endeavours.

But here is what makes me raise an eyebrow even more, these advocates rail against the patriarchy, and against misogyny. Well, let’s be clear, whisky is a business. It’s capitalism. Capitalism feeds patriarchy feeds capitalism… you can’t avoid it. By celebrating and promoting a business ‘partly ‘owned by a black woman, but predominately created by and owned by a man (The main shareholder of MHLV is Bernard Arnualt, leadership is Bernard Arnault and Stephane Bianchi, and yes Dr Bill Lumsden worked on the creation of SirDavis), you are feeding into the thing you are supposedly against. You are part of the problem.

(a little light reading about capitalism and patriarchy here Capitalism and Patriarchy: Two Systems that Feed off Each Other (cadtm.org) )

When you begin to look harder into the companies and some of the behaviours surrounding them, you begin to realise that they may not necessarily be good for women*.

(* ex Prada COO Sebastian Suhl was involved in a female discrimination case when hired to be Givenchy, subsidiary of MHLV, CEO Sebastian Suhl - Wikipedia ).

By promoting and celebrating an already extremely wealthy woman, you are adding to the pockets of the system you disdain.

Beyonce is a businessperson. She will make a packet from this whisky. MHLV will make a packet form this whisky. The fact it’s so well promoted by advocates for equality/equity in a male dominated industry just lines her pockets even more.

What did she say about drinking whisky?

“I’ve always been drawn to the power and confidence I feel when drinking quality whisky and wanted to invite more people to experience that feeling” – Beyonce Knowles – Carter

Well, the word ‘power’ is far more associated with the masculine, and she certainly isn’t saying this is specifically for women.

We want whisky to be inclusive, but quite frankly the ads for SirDavis are not inclusive. I don’t know many whisky drinkers who have access to a private jet, do you? Beyonce is promoting a female version of male associated luxury; private jets, extreme wealth etc… is that inclusive?

From a PR story with more holes than my nan’s broken colander to bandwagon jumping, ill-informed sycophancy under the guise of equality within the whisky industry, I’m not for or against this whisky, but I certainly don’t think it will have the effect that some claim it will.

Will the Beyonce name and brand bring whisky to a new audience? Only time will tell, but by then we will all have moved onto the next celebrity whisky, and we really won’t care anymore.

Ps. Don’t get me wrong, I personally think Beyonce is a brilliant businesswoman, philanthropist, entertainer. But she isn’t going to singlehandedly change the balance in the whisky industry.