KimyReizeger

It was routinely reported in the whackier sections of national newspapers a couple of years back. Having been intrigued I logged on and found it to be pretty pointless. The idea was that real currency could be converted into in-game currency and vice versa. A few people got really successful inside the game, and therefore, in real life.

What sort of stuff are you writing? Got anything online?

Bizarre. It's like reading another language.

A bottle of 330ml 18% beer will get you more drunk than a bottle of 330ml 4% beer, if both are drunk over the same time scale. What you're arguing is that people wouldn't drink Tokyo over the same time scale, and in fact alter their drinking speed to suit the alcohol content. Speculation over the length of time people in the future will drink at is highly questionable. Your personal opinion on the subject is pretty worthless. I don't think drinkers rationalise as much as you say. You're still ignoring my implicit suggestion that you're an easily manipulated, senseless consumer willing to lap up anything you're told is cool, an idea which is far more interesting than your personal reflections over this ABV crap.

In essence, I just don't think drinks should be cool. The marketing of booze is so see-through: WKD 'everyone's got a wicked side', Guinness 'the craft, the art, the refinement' etc. The ritualised pouring. Tennants Football and music, 'Wherever it takes us, whatever it takes' (used on the Scotland side's world cup campaign. Carling: male chauvinism (bloke lying around all day, burd comes home and asks him to clear up yadda yadda) Strongbow: The idea of a working class Brewdog: ideas of music, philosophy, oppression. It's as if your drink choice accurately reflects your personality, politics and national identity. I think that's a bit of a sad situation to be in. I'm fine with people being connoisseurs of alcohol, but I feel uncomfortable about the powerful effects of image and advertising. Tennants, we'd possibly all agree, tastes like dishwater. However, the majority of Scottish beer drinkers drink it. Why is that? Is it because the company have worked themselves into a position of trust and accurately identify with the political and social views of their customers? That's a ridiculous reason to drink dishwater. Why do countries like Belgium and Germany offer so much more choice?

My initial reason for entering the thread was, that I was intrigued people could get so uppity about a drink. I then discovered Brewdog endow their booze with all manner of aspirational messages and associate it with things like ideas and music. The irresponsibility issue: I'm just trying to understand it, and I think the fact that strong beer is more harmful than weak beer is about as factual as you can make it. Arguing about your own drinking habits and ability to hold ale is mostly irrelevant. I still don't understand the argument, really, but I'm not going to start saying things like, 'yeah, 18% beer, yeah that's fine, that fits in well with the current state effort to reduce binge-drinking and alter attitudes towards drinking, oh yeah, totally. Peas in a pod.'

Currently reading 'Big Chief Elizabeth'. It's all about Elizabethan forays into America. It's interesting: first interaction with native Americans, treachery,deceit, abandonment. Breakdown of Anglo-Spanish relations, piracy, weak commanders, strong commanders, the recruiting of colonists fatigued by the filth, disease and crime of London, persuaded to leave by promises of status and land in the New World.

Why they don't they ban Buckfast too? There is a seriously unhealthy culture surrounding that drink. I don't think its worth getting outraged over though. I mean, the Brewdog company are getting outraged. Outraged all the way to the bank that is. All it does is re-affirm their 'alternative message'; indeed almost martyring them. Fundamentalist Brewdog drinkers will simply be consolidated in their convictions. There is only one true drink! Brewdog Akbar!

I'd say there is an element of confusion yes. Most people's conception of beer is fairly rooted in the 4-6% mark, and they may be inclined to treat any pint along those lines. I know I've drunk strong wine in the same manner as I've drunk weak wine. Though this is a fairly difficult point. I think the fact that 18% beer is more dangerous than 4% beer (same size bottle drunk over same amount of time) says more about why people were angry over Tokyo than any personal reflections of mine. Another personal anecdote: That time I drank Chimay Blue, I totally belted it down in about two gulps. We ordered them because they were the strongest. It wasn't about quiet, relaxing, sociable, safe drinking. It was about getting pissed. It's also one of the few times I've ended up at the casino.

How can my former question regarding the 330ml bottles be construed as 'an attack'? I just asked you to answer the question. I am not biased in any respect. Just trying to affirm something: An 18% beer is more dangerous than a 4% beer. Simple. Maybe that goes some way to explaining why there was a bit of an outcry about Tokyo. You can lay out all the 'oh but it's rich and expensive and people don't drink so much of it' arguments you like, but that is just personal speculation. The only fact here, is that an 18% bottle of beer is more dangerous to consume than a 4% beer. I'm not making a judgement on that. I'm just trying to affirm something. That's the thing. I never came in looking for an argument. Rather, to generate some conversation about the brand image of Brewdog. I was drawn into making comments on the irresponsibility thing. I have nothing against Brewdog. Their success or failure is irrelevant to me. I admire their ability to capture imaginations through marketing, but cannot get excited about their aspirational message and ridiculous association of a beer brand with music.

Ok: One 330ml bottle of 18% beer will get you more drunk than one 330ml bottle of 4% beer. Which bottle of beer is more dangerous?

So you feel it is wholly an individual's responsibility to not drink too much. Therefore you're against closing times for bars, curfews in nightclubs, minimum drinks prices? Personally I think it's well proven that there are lots of people who aren't able, literally aren't able to control themselves in the realm of alcohol, something which necessitates regulation. Nanny state yes, but we asked for it.

Because they feel that it is the consumer's duty to use a product correctly / not abuse it.

I know, it's an extremely confusing way in which to talk, and perhaps explains the dearth of 'outraged' responses on this thread. 18% beer is more dangerous than 4% beer. The producers of 18% beer are more irresponsible than the producers of 4% beer.

Yeah, I don't think all strong beer is objectively bad and regret suggesting otherwise. I like that Chimay Blue stuff in the Moorings. However: 18% beer is more likely to produce drunkenness than 4% beer. 18% beer could be called, I believe, on the basis of the above statement, 'less responsible' than 4% beer. This is not to suggest that Tokyo is 'irresponsible'. Simply, that it is 'less responsible' (than average strength ale). Brewdog's marketing technique also contributes something to the argument.

In some respects Brew Dog is as much a fashion accessory as a drink, clearly targeted towards a certain group of people.For example, you guys have already tried to distance yourselves from teenages, those on low-incomes, binge-drinkers and old people like me with uncool views. This simply reflects the fact that you think your drink choice really says a lot about you. Mid-20s? Have a bit of cash? Love music? take an interest in what you consume? a connoisseur of sorts? Drink BrewDog! And what the hell is wrong with me having a go at this company? Would you complain if I had a go at Starbucks? Just because I don't agree something is cool when it like totally is.

But doesn't a large part of the argument against Brewdog derive from the fact that their products are marketed towards youngsters? I'm not saying I care what other people do to themselves a great deal, just making the point that its entirely within the UK's current stance on the alcohol issue to reject strong alcohol, and the glamorisation of drinking. Drinking shouldn't be glamorous, surely? Isn't that what's got us into this mess? Why not make heroin cool too? And I presume nobody else finds the idea of punks buying shares funny. I mean, that notion just goes whooshhh over the head. Thanks for the politics and the idealism - and Fuck the Queen - but seriously, when a beverage company floats, I'm there. How much do prospective investors know about the drinks industry? How long do gimmicky newcomers last? Does the company actually make money? Is it actually being sold in many places? Do regulations pose a threat to profits? Is there a question of ethics when it comes to investing in alcohol? Liking something is not necessarily sound reason to invest real money in it.

The above Wikipedia quote does little to explain anything other than 'a strong beer was brewed somewhere else', of which no-one is disputing. I just suggested that few people find them palatable, which I think is corroborated in the fact that the most popular beers sit between 3 - 6%. I don't think anyone here goes to their local for an Eisbock very regularly.

I mean it turns the act of drinking into a focal point. If you go out looking forward more to the drink than the conversation then you're either an alcoholic or have very boring friends.

I don't think many would find 18% beer palatable. Whether or not they brag to their mates, surely drinking such strong beer is to 'make an event' out of drinking. It's publicity stunt; shock tactics. By the way I'm genuinely amazed anyone has given me negative rep for criticising a company and the practice of advertising. Would you have done so if I pointed out a few facts about Starbucks and their advertising? I'm not even criticising anyone here!

Manufacturers aren't so easily detached from responsibility over those buying their products; cars are required to conform to safety regulations set by government. At a time when we are really trying to mend what is a completely fucked up drinking culture, absurdly strong ales are simply unwelcome. I can understand that. Presumably you'd prefer a world where everyone was able to consume whatever they wanted and the consequences would be theirs alone? Should guns and heroin be legalised by the same logic? I'm not exactly keen on regulation, but 18% beer just reeks of publicity stunt, because no-one drinks it for any other reason than to get trashed and tell their mates about it.

Good points. Attractive logos and aspirational messages are exactly what brands are about. The 'you can do it too; local boys done good' thing also helps. It's attractive, sexy and seems somehow attainable. Keiran, you describe yourself as 'oblivious to the existence' of marketing spin. That's exactly what great marketing is all about! You need only have looked at the labels: 'Trashy Blonde' (which I think is a great name), 'Punk IPA', 'Zeitgeist'. It's all about appealing to a youth market where ale has never previously prospered. Regarding strength: 7.6% is, relative to the beers commonly available in this country, way higher than the average. It's Diamond White, Super Tennants, Special Brew territory. BD can certainly be classed, by your measurements, producers of 'strong' beer, if not irresponsible. That said, I'd suggest the stronger you make a beer the more likely it is to produce drunkenness, wouldn't you?

Yeah, I agree taste is a pretty sound aspect on which to base drink choice. I would question that strength and identification with 'values' are as solid. Having had conversations where people bang on about Brewdog I think the latter plays a large role. Much in the same way that companies endow whisky with all manner of mysticism and elitism, most of it is marketing spin. The question is, to what extent do you feel comfortable being influenced in such a way? Generally, people involved with music and art shy away the hallmarks of capitalism, which makes the whole 'equity for punks' thing somewhat ironic; a merger of two traditionally opposed cultures.

You'll never quash this pesky troublemaker!

I think it's irresponsible, but not to the extent that I actually care or would suggest they shouldn't have made it. Sometimes irresponsible things are good. Sometimes things that harm are also good. I think 18% beer is confusing and should be classed as something else. Also, I don't think beer should be marketed with pomp and glamour. Furthermore, it completely contradicts increasingly tight regulations on drinking. Whether or not I care is irrelevant. The word 'irresponsible' is a better way to describe it than the word 'responsible'.