Give it up already Dept: Another "true" Navy rum?

Now's here's the real stuff - traditional, cleans your socks on the way down. Unlike the Royal Navy, the pirates drank while eating, sailing and fighting - the first multitaskers. Here's to Port Royal, the Port of Orgies! Say it loud and say it plowed!
Post Reply
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Give it up already Dept: Another "true" Navy rum?

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Will the marketing monkeys ever give up?


. . . . . . .Image


Nope. This time the attempt is made by a Swedish company promoting what they call "Gunroom Navy Rum", with a faux-label that tries to appear authentic, and subheaded by the phrase at "Gunpowder Proof" (>54.5% ABV). Their site makes every attempt to imply that this concoction is a "true" Navy rum, to wit:
"Gunroom Navy Rum is like all true navy rums a blend of different origins of rum. The rums going into the blend are of different ages, some even unaged, the majority is copper pot still "heavy" rums. A good part of the rum is Demerara rum from Guyana. This specific rum is distilled using 19th-century stills once used by the Royal Navy. This gives the final blend it's powerful character. The rums are gently blended together and left to "marry" on vats before being bottled."

“The final blend should include rums of different origins, primarily of british style rums. Guyana rum is here a key ingredient . The origins of Gunrrom Navy Rum is: Guyana, Barbados, Trinidad, Jamaica and Secret origin"

"The Royal Navy gave its sailors a daily rum ration, known as a "tot" since the mid 17th century until the practice was abolished after July 31, 1970."
Essentially this marketing tripe does everything it can to imply but not actually say this is official, er "true", BRN rum. Of course it isn't, and never was. This is marketing by implication, with the smug assurance the unwashed masses of ordinary buyers are easily fooled. They are. Even Tiare buys in and dutifully repeats their misrepresentation, but at least we get some pretty pics and a nice review:

http://www.amountainofcrushedice.com/?p ... hed+Ice%29
User avatar
The Black Tot
Admiral
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK

Post by The Black Tot »

I've got mixed feelings about it, Jimbo. I think in this case you might be going too hard on 'em.

I mean, even Pusser's itself tastes better if you squint your vision shut on the marketing and brand promotion side of things.

In the UK I'm seeing Woods 100, Lamb's Navy Rum. All been around for a long time with cheesy sailors and nautical regalia all over 'em. None of these have been the Royal Navy formula either.

Also, if they're trying to take the world by rum-soaked cannon ball marketing fire, they're not exactly exploding onto the world stage - this rum is only available in Sweden through their state monopoly distribution. It would take me a lot of work to get some, and I don't think I want to pull those kinds of favor strings for this.

I think "Navy Rum" has become an identifiable style, and this one appears at first read to conform to it - high proof, dark rum with a guyanan base and Caribbean pot still blending.

I say style here because I mean style, and not strict category.

I read in that great Demerara article you linked recently (I got through the whole thing and have to read it a few more times once the cranial sieve gets drained enough) that the old navy dark Demeraras didn't ford the generation gap very well. Let me find the quote...

http://barrel-aged-thoughts.blogspot.de ... glish.html

Ah here it is, about 40% down, under the heading "The Change Of The Rum Market (An Opinion)"

"So how are Seagram and URM tackling the problem of a declining market? Seagram's UK marketing manager for spirits, John Cornish, describes the problem: 'If you look at the dark rum market place, it's being drunk by predominantly older and is concentrated into a relatively small proportion of heavy users. That's fine at the moment, but you are looking at the next ten years. That market is going to disappear and you haven't got the same level of heavy usage in the age group 25 to 45.' These long term problems have led both companies to pitch for younger drinkers in the past. Their quandary is how to attract the young without alienating the old. However, dark rum's youth appeal has thus far failed to emerge"

Is this rum Pusser's, who have acquired the blend recipe fair and square, with a tip of the hat, a code of silence, and a percentage of profits to the British seaman's fund? No...

...Woods 100 and Lamb's aren't either. But those labels have "navy" written on 'em and things are looking pretty nautical to me...

Does this new rum have a fun name that will appeal to today's youth, and therefore hopefully stimulate the next generation of demand for dark and higher proof blended pot still rums? Looks like it.

I think the bigger question is is this rum unfutzed with? Is it an honest blend without additives? The Secret Origin does give me pause...

But it might be really good, damn it all! :)

I don't think the Kraken is worried about it's namesake being cheapened by campus marketing practices? I kid...

In a year when Pusser's itself announced it would be further downproofing it's US release blue label in order to bring it into compliance with naval base liquor proof restrictions (CRAP!), I for one am happy to see a new Caribbean pot still blend above 130 proof, allowing me to add my own water.

Provided it's not got any additives and it's as tasty as Tiare indicates, it could be a very positive addition to the market. The Swedish market, anyway. I'll buy one if it makes it to the UK or the US.

It could ratchet the hooey factor down a notch by saying "navy style" instead of "navy rum", for example. I agree.

But even Pusser's itself is guilty of errors of intentional omission, and "imagination spacing" in its story.

At this point in rum history I'll take whatever branding nonsense leads to the success of a stiff dark unsugared blend that isn't from the US Virgin Islands.

(I'll also need them to get the bottle size up to 750ml if we're going to do this thing. 500mL don't cut any ice with this buyer)

Not saying that's what this is confirmed to be yet - but at this stage, my fingers are not pointing, but are crossed instead.[/url]
Last edited by The Black Tot on Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:07 am, edited 3 times in total.
Hassouni
Minor God
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 5:58 pm

Post by Hassouni »

I second everything Señor Tot said.

I think we are now seeing a "navy style" emerge alongside our longstanding Bajan, JA, cane juice, etc styles. They, and the other relatively recent products, are not claiming to be the original recipe.

Woods is now my favorite easily-available (globally) Demerara rum, and it calls itself Navy. It tastes nothing like Pusser's, but at least it's 57% ABV. Furthermore, re: Pusser's, just because they have the recipe, who's to say the current product really mimics the original, unless they were in the Royal Navy pre 1970, or...as we're trying to do...have sampled the Black Tot rum?

For what it's worth the Systembolaget doesn't have sugar content listed but does list it as being Jamaican. Interesting...

Also, this rum in question is 65% ABV, well above gunpowder proof. To paraphrase Ralfy - proof is flavor!
User avatar
The Black Tot
Admiral
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK

Post by The Black Tot »

As a Pusser's devotee I can tell you that Pusser's doesn't even mimic Pusser's anymore...

I have some older dusties of Pusser's and have sbs'd them with recent stuff. They're not the same animal anymore.

Taken in concert with the fact that the US hasn't ever had the 109 proof expression in the first place (think the first ones were 95.5 proof, and the present one is 84, soon to be 80 [BOO AGAIN!])

An aside, the pusser's website has this to say about proof:

"Why Pusser’s Rum is 95.5 Proof. For the more than 300 years that the rum was served in Great Britain’s Royal Navy, one could only appreciate the strength of the spirit issued in those early days before the hydrometer was invented. We know that it was something close to 95 proof even though it was impossible to establish the proof (or strength) of naval rum accurately until 1816 when the Sykes’ hydrometer was invented. For many years prior to this, the ship's purser (or 'pusser' as he was called) was responsible for testing and issuing the rum at proof by a rough rule-of-thumb method said to have been invented at the Royal Arsenal. Pure rum was mixed with a little water to which was added a few black gunpowder grains, so that when the sun heated the mixture through a burning glass, the gunpowder just ignited but did no more. Too weak a mixture failed to ignite, and the purser could be punished for watering the rum. In 1816 when the Sykes’ hydrometer came into use, the navy undertook a test to establish the proof at which the rum should be issued. They mixed 100 samples with gunpowder in the old way, and then accurately measured the proof of each sample using a hydrometer. The average was 95.5, which became one of the specifications of the rum that Pusser's is sold at today. "

Firstly, 95.5 proof Pusser's ISN'T sold today, and hasn't been for years.

Europe gets 109 proof Blue Label, and continental Europe gets a 151.

Second, a little romp to Wikipedia gets to the heart of the matter:

"From the 18th century until 1 January 1980, the UK measured alcohol content in terms of "proof spirit", which was defined as spirit with a gravity of 12/13 that of water, or 923 kg/m3, and equivalent to 57.15% ABV.[1] The term originated in the 16th century, when payments to British sailors included rations of rum.[2] To ensure that the rum had not been watered down, it was "proved" by dousing gunpowder with it and then testing to see if the gunpowder would ignite. If it did not, then the rum contained too much water and was considered to be "under proof".[3] Gunpowder would not burn in rum that contained less than 57.15% ABV. Therefore, rum that contained this percentage of alcohol was defined to have "100° (one hundred degrees) proof".[4] The gunpowder test was officially replaced by a specific gravity test in 1816.[3]"

So no gunpowder is burning properly at 95.5 US proof, which is nearly a full 10% alcohol less than ignition standard. Much less at US 84 proof, and if the proof keeps dropping further and further, we'll soon be putting OUT fires with it.

Even Europe's Blue Label at 109 is 54.5% alcohol (they use US proof to make it look higher).

If we're going to hold Pusser's to an exclusive standard of naval purity, let's also call out that they themselves are full of it, a lot of the time.

Wood's 100 is named for the 100 UK proof, which comes out to 114 US proof, now stated on the label. I can forgive Wood's the 0.15% missing alcohol...THIS ONCE - sort it out, William Grant & Sons (of Glenfiddich fame, refreshingly not Diageo)

So of the many "navy style" rums out there, Wood's is closest to likely historical accuracy on the proof point (if probably little else, as Wood's isn't as complex or sophisticated a blend).

But back to changes in the blend:

I don't fault Pusser's for this - given the general erosion of the industry over the recent decades, I expect they have been forced to try to hold onto a profile despite changes in source distilleries, stills AT said distilleries, different cane/molasses sources, amalgamated fermentation strategies and yeast strains, etc. It's a miracle it's still making it to the shelves.

FURTHER, the 151 blend is suspicious to me. In order to get a blend up that high, all of your elements have to be only slightly below or above this proof, in order to balance out. I don't know about you, but I'm suspicious that all the best Pusser's elements are available in barrels at an average of 151 proof.

As I recall reading it, the older stills had a hard time getting distillate up to the higher proofs, and aging doesn't always raise the proof of a spirit, sometimes it goes down. Maybe not in the Caribbean - I have more to learn and discuss with you all, since at present my barrel aging factoids come from the bourbon world.

(One of the points) is, I'm not sure how Pusser's can be blended to a consistent 151 strength using the classic stills. I'm ordering some next month and will dilute and compare it.

So, this ramble concludes with Pusser's is a very strange sort of "(d)evolving benchmark". One that is dependent on a healthy Caribbean, which we know we don't have for the most part, a consistent formula, which is unlikely given the former, a consistent and historically accurate proof, which is the most glaringly obvious thing we don't have, and a bunch of other malarkey in their own marketing.

The Black Tot is 108.6 US proof, or 54.3% alcohol.

Anyone for a painkiller?
Hassouni
Minor God
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 5:58 pm

Post by Hassouni »

The Black Tot wrote:
Anyone for a painkiller?
No thanks. Not enough acidity, too insipid.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

None of which obviates a few things...


But first, a big thanks to all for the all the interesting and informative posts - this is what the Project is all about. Respectful and informed dialogue, thanks much.


1. To me, there is no question that "Gunroom Rum" is making every attempt to claim there is a "true" navy rum, and to imply that theirs is such a thing.

2. The only true "Navy" rum in the minds of most is that of the British Royal Navy, where it was blended by the E. F. Mann Company - in secret - in a guarded warehouse in Britain. Only Pussers has, owns and is committed to that formula. Pusser's price was to donate a significant share of profits to the British Seaman's Fund.

3. "Gunpowder Room" marketing department works very hard to strongly imply that they (avoiding even the name of Pussers), that they are are the "true" navy rum (not style) by naming the Royal Navy, using the word "secret" and referring obliquely to the same famous ED stills used by Pussers for the Demeraran component.

As a former marketing guy, I know a rip off campaign when I see one. This goes WAY beyond promoting a navy "style" but want you believe that their "Gunroom Rum" is a/the "true navy rum". It isn't, never was, they do not have or use the official secret British formula. The only thing they do have in common is - maybe - the Guyanan stills. A cheap and despicable campaign.

4. Dissing Pussers for changes in proof or taste carries not much weight with me as Pussers has very little control over the slow but steady changes by the distillers over which they have minimal control, not to mention changes in the law and the demands of accomodating public demand. Frankly, even the real BRN rums surely changed somewhat over the many years. Still I have no doubt that Pussers has and will continue to do their best to be as authentic as possible with the distillates that are being produced - in accord with their contractual agreement with the government, while managing to sell product and stay in business. The alternative is to close shop.

I'm sure none of us would welcome that.

To buy into and praise the faux "Gunpowder Room" as "true" while simulataneously accusing Pussers of deception (for their more authentic product and knowledge) is hard to follow. If Pussers had not worked so hard and so long - in conjunction with the British government - to preserve the genre and to benefit the British sailors to this day - then cheap competitors like "Gunroom" would have no product or success to try to copy and rip off.

Trust me though, these attempts will continue only as long as Pussers continues as a successful benchmark. From a honest marketing standpoint (there is such thing), Gunroom would do better to refer to an "improved navy style", rather than trying to claim they are a/the "true navy rum". This is entirely possible. There can be only one true BRN rum, and Pussers is as close as one can or will get, short of spending $900. \

Surely I am not the only Pusser's drinker who is offended by such blatant and misleading efforts. I for one, do not want a faux, navy "style" rum. While strength was of much more consequence and concern in those olden days, "gunpowder" strength is not a common selling point with other than so-called "navy" rums. Most experienced whisky drinkers and reviewers feel that something in the vicinity of around 85% is the sweet spot for sipping. Stronger blends are desired by some more for their value (and personal dilution) than for their strength per se. Accofdingly Gunpowder strength" lives on mostly in minds of the marketeers in finding yet another obscure sales point.

Such is life.
User avatar
The Black Tot
Admiral
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK

Post by The Black Tot »

Amen to the respectful dialogue. Mutually appreciated.

The phrase they used is "like every true navy rum", and they followed it with it's a blend of Caribbean rums, which is likely factually correct. They are not making every effort to call themselves a true navy rum, they are saying they "are like" a true navy rum. You know that's not the same thing.

Why are you being so hard on Gunroom and yet you are not up in arms about Wood's and Lamb's, who also have the word Navy on their labels, and imply British naval culture at least as much as Gunroom, if not more? Do you get to call yourself a legitimate naval rum only if you've been doing it a long time? It's hypocritical.

We all see the marketing implications. But all in all, it's done quite tamely in my opinion. Nothing out of the usual. And they don't refer obliquely to the still, they state they're using rum from that still - which is probably the truth. There's nothing wrong with mentioning you've used rum from that still in your blend, and it was also used by the producers of navy rum. Those are probably all factually correct. Do we have a problem with correct and factual?
El Dorado themselves reference the Admiralty - are they also out of line?

Look, I love Pusser's, but nobody gets a free pass. Pusser's may not have control of the blend's elements (I acknowledged that myself), but they do have control over saying 95 proof is gunpowder proof, when it absolutely is not. That's not an implication or a stylish tribute, a la Gunroom, that's just a bald-faced lie. Americans are not made aware that there is a 109 proof version across the pond. They are basically sold "this is what the navy sailors had", when The Black Tot pretty much confirms that at the tradition's demise, the formula finished at ~109 proof. There is no minimal control involved in that factual inconsistency. They would have cut it in Britain if there weren't actual British navy personnel living there who would have known to call that fact out.

I'm sure there's a lot more wrong with the back story on the Pusser's website, but I don't read it because I know not to trust it.

They make a great blend and it's my one absolute must-have on my bar. I appreciate their product. That doesn't make them invulnerable to legitimate criticism. You're coming off as extremely biased here, allowing the company you favor to lie outright without responsibility and crucifying another company for true statements that add up to an implication.

"As authentic as possible" is not the same as "authentic". And Pusser's does not state they are "As authentic as possible". They say they've got this fancy gas chromatography kit which ensures they will stay the real thing. That insults my (unusually) informed awareness that no degree of lab equipment has kept the flavor intact vs the old stuff.

Regarding the rip off campaign - again, Wood's and Lamb's, but they don't say they use the "secret British formula". They say one of their sources is secret, it's a blend ("like" the British Admiralty rum was a blend of rums from this region), and it's bottled above gunpowder proof (actually true in this case[and Woods'], unlike Pusser's themselves), hence their name Gunroom. I don't see them saying a single incorrect thing in this copy. While I do understand the language of inference and I understand exactly what you are driving at with your advertising experience, in order for something to break my rules, a statement actually has to be incorrect to offend me as false advertising. Like 95 US proof being gunpowder proof, for example.

None of us would welcome the closure of Pusser's - I agree wholeheartedly. In it's present form, I am still a regular drinker of it and there will always be one open on my bar.

But all of us should welcome the introduction of a high proof, honestly-blended Caribbean rum with a solid Demerara backbone that is not limited to conforming to the original (and likely inconsistent throughout history, as you rightly acknowledge ) Admiralty recipe, which after several plant/still/plantation closures may be as much a millstone necklace today as it was a benefit in yesteryear.

Again, we haven't tried Gunroom and we don't know if it's got additives or whatever. But if it is what we hope it is, it's welcome as all hell in this day and age.

Pusser's wasn't going to give these Swedes a 130 proof version the way they wanted it. Good on these enthusiasts for sorting themselves out and now sharing it.

Perhaps Pusser's needs to migrate away from adherence to the recipe and instead focus on some new ingredients that may restore the original flavor instead, and at the original proof.

Yeah, I said it! :)

Actually, by logical reasoning, if they're using gas chromatography to tweak the blend, they're not using the literal recipe, so they're already off of the original formula.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

The phrase they used is "like every true navy rum", and they followed it with it's a blend of Caribbean rums, which is likely factually correct. They are not making every effort to call themselves a true navy rum, they are saying they "are like" a true navy rum. You know that's not the same thing.
Not making every effort? Sure they are. It's all based on the statement that (a) there are "true navy rums" (key words "true" and plurality) and (b) that they are one of "them". It's like me saying "like all of our honest posters", I too am telling the truth, lol. Mind you I'm speaking as a former marketing/advertising executive who wrote and produced tv, print and radio commercials, campaigns, makeovers and the like. I understand their ad copy and its intent. Thus the references to the British Royal Navy, secrecy, the gunpowder room et al are not at all accidental and are all meant to identify their rum as "true", ie a substitute for what - in fact - is the only true navy rum: namely the officially recognized British Royal Navy Rum, now represented by the few remaining $900 Black Tot bottlings, and Pussers - the only legal true navy rums both then and now.

They can't even hide behind the idea that perhaps there were other "navy rums", say used by the Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish et al. Nope, every word they created was designed to identify completely with the British Royal Navy secret product.

I too welcome the product, but I completely reject its devious and inaccurate presentation. Tjhe fact that any batch product deviates somewhat from batch to batch is no rationale of forgiveness for their intentionally misleading and nefarious campaign. Believe me, there are other ways to promote this product effectively and honestly. It was once my job...
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

For example...


Both Lamb's and Wood's "navy" rums were mentioned as rationale for forgiving Gunpowder's creative use of the word "true" to distinguish theirs as somehow, well, true. But as noted above, their ad/marketing copy is specifically designed to identify and merge their portrayed identity with the real thing (British Royal Nave, "secret", et al). I also mentioned that it's perfectly possible to promote a "navy style", without lying or by misleading implication. Shortly, I just might put my old marketing hand to work creating a better and honest ad that would be much more effective, and would not mislead or offend.

In the meanwhile I took the time to review Lamb's and Wood's promotion - both of which promote their rums with no such direct implication of "true".


Wood's Old Navy 100
"An excellent overproof potstill Navy rum from Guyana. With its rich demerara flavours, this is another good alternative for a float on cocktails. "

"Wood's 100 is one such rum, originating from what was known as British Guyana in South America. It has been produced in the same way for over 150 years and acquired by Wm Grant & Sons in October 2002. Distilled at The Diamond Distillery, Guyana. It is produced using a combination of spirit made in both pot and continuous stills, from the finest sugar cane grown along the banks of the River Demerara. It is matured for 1.5 to 3 years in oak before being blended. The sugar cane produced by this enormous life-giving river makes the sweetest sugar cane in the Caribbean."

"Wood's is made from the finest sugar cane and distilled in Guyana, South America. Bottled at 57% abv, it is one of the highest percentage volume dark rums out there right now, at least at this price.
Its smooth enough to enjoy neat, but also a killer choice for cocktails."

"Demerara Navy style produced at Guyana’s Diamond Distillery. Wood’s 100 is blended from pot still and continuously distilled rum aged 1½ to 3 years. Wood’s 100 is often used as a ‘float’ on cocktails, particularly Tiki style drinks, due to its flavour and strength."
At Lamb's site, the focus again is on the history of rum and runs 21 pages. Not unexpected In that history there is only a very brief mention of the daily tot and of course Black Tot Day, but the focus is overwhelmingly on Alfred Lamb, the 18 rums used in the blend, and the original aging period of 4 years. It is a well written piece that avoids confusion, and instead properly narrows the attention to Lamb, with no real attempt to imply Lamb's rum is "authentic" or "true" navy rum.

http://www.lambsnavyrum.com/lambs-story/


A punctuation...

Allow me to close with Lost Spirit's Navy Style Rum. Although the rum itself is a bit of a fail, the promotion of it is fair and honest. No "true navy rum", no blatant references to only BRN. What he properly promotes is his pot still process, use of "banana dunder", high proof and "no additives or coloring". These are all fair and transparent advertising claims, and yet more proof of the value of honest promotion.

http://www.amountainofcrushedice.com/?p=18690
http://inuakena.com/spirit-reviews/rum- ... -navy-rum/


Carry on mates...
User avatar
The Black Tot
Admiral
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK

Post by The Black Tot »

Points taken, cap'n.

Hopefully they can see themselves clear to making an excellent product and toning down the rhetoric.

I hope they don't change the name though. I like it.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

What an interesting thread...


Nice exchange. Actually I too like the name, and bottle as it makes a nice "hook" - gunpowder strength - which allows them a connection with history. But as for copy, this reminds me of a radio ad I once used for jewelry company that was competing with a well known jewelry chain that was clearly the leader in the market.

I went after them head on, and used their own campaign against them. It went something like this:
"We invite you to visit J. B. Robinson and to enjoy the wonderful selection of beautiful styles and presentation (continuing on in their own radio copy style).,, for good value, selection and prices. But before you make your selection make sure you visit My Client Jewelers for an even bigger selection, more and we think better selected styles but most importantly at prices you'll find even more attractive..."
Robinson and their rep went nuts and immediately complained to the radio station but could find nothing legally wrong. Still and since JB was one of the biggest buyers of ad time, the radio station pulled my client's ad. But by this time the ad had already become well known and memorable, and I was honored as salesman of the year, lol..
The same could be done with "Gunpowder". Instead of trying to tie themselves to British Navy Rum, they should go head on and promote themselves as different and better, for example...

"British Navy Rum was the standard, twice-a-day tot for generations of British sailors. But all that changed in 1970 on Black Tot Day, the Brits ended the tot and that rum and for good reason. To be fair things have never been the same. Neither is our high proof Gunpowder rum. It's new, modern and better and we'll tell you why. While we use similar sourcing, with fine British style rums from Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and of course Guyana. And our sourcing doesn't stop there! Because we are not tied down in any way, we've been free to create our own very special blend - a modern navy style rum blended to be even more robustly powerful but still wonderfully smooth and eminently sippable rum. Our extra fine Gunpowder Rum thus represents a needed and modern evolution of navy rum that we know you'll enjoy, especially if you already like Pussers or the original British Navy Rum.

Remember, we are NOT the original, nor do we pretend to be as others have. We - and our Gunpowder Rum - are better. Frankly, if the Brits were to reinstitute the tot, they just might choose us because like everything else in life, things don't stand still. Up spirits!"

Head on and different, better. Apart from being a straight rip, what I especially don't like about Gunpowder's original campaign is its weakness. No minimally knowledgable rum drinker will be fooled by their "true navy rum" claim. By tying themselves to Pussers and BRN in this way, they are not distinguishing themselves. It gives the very loyal Pussers fans no reason to buy and try. In a way it drives those new to "navy" rum - yup - to the original. A double fail. In my imagined ad copy, Gunpowder shows proper courage and self esteem to go right in the face of BRN and Pussers, and to promote a modern, evolved and better "navy style" rum. The latter ad demonstrates confidence, so much so that both Pusser's fans and new navy rum drinkers to try this modern and improved navy style rum. And as an extra added bonus, you can be sure their claims would get debated, especially by the Pusser loyalists for even more controversy, interest and sales.

You don't win by being a wimp. I call this guerilla marketing - using the leader's position to work to promote your own product. Typically when I worked with such a client, I'd challenge them to admit what's both good (easy) and bad (hard) about their product. I want to know why they get sales (easy) and why they lose them and to whom (hard). It's a needed reality check, and leads to an honest and effective campaign. Unfortunately I've not had that opportunity with Gunpowder, because if I did I'm sure the ad would be different.

But you get the idea...
User avatar
The Black Tot
Admiral
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK

Post by The Black Tot »

I do indeed.

And I would definitely enjoy that campaign, should Gunroom choose to pay you for it :)

I enjoyed the anecdote and description of the process.

I'm also planning to get to a full read of the Lamb's link and the others above, probably tonight if my energy holds (I've been reading up on different interpretations of how to make homemade orgeat syrup as well as re-reading reviews of the Tommy Bahama Seale's rums. Now I'm all worked up to go and hoover a bunch of them up when I get back.
Post Reply