I am starting to think that I am saying too much. Not the wrong words, just too many of them.

I am a writer and I like words. I aim to describe and discuss, entertain and inform. How well I do at that, well that’s for you guys to decide. But, as a writer, that’s my mission statement.

But in looking at the shade and nuance of an issue such as this takes lots of words. I have realised, though, that it doesn’t seem to take a lot of words to reply to them, as CUB’s short, concise and to-the-point answers show. (update…just realised that describing their answers as to-the-point made it sound as if they were answering the question. Of course, their to-the-point statements are generally something other than an answer to the question MK).

It’s not CUB’s fault, that’s how companies communicate. I know it can’t change that just on my account. But than again, that’s also why CUB can’t just be helping out a little brewery because they like the idea of it. There is a waycompanies have to do things.

Anyway, I have realised that maybe the reason I have not gained any traction with CUB on this issue is because I haven’t been speaking to them the right way. I mean, my open letter to Ari Mervis contained 961 carefully thought out words, and I haven’t even received one back from him.

So, change of strategy here at Brews News. We’re going to be short, sharp and to the point from now on (after this long-winded explanation, that is). Brews News is going into PowerPoint mode!

If I get time, I might even do some slides…

Open bullet points to Ari Mervis

I received the following response from your company over the weekend to issues I raised last week:

“In regard to your other questions – the consumer is the ultimate judge. Overall, we have no intention of misleading the consumer but, while we brew the pack beer under licence, we fundamentally believe this is Barry’s (Byron Bays) product. ”

My position:

• Intention is not required for the consumer to be misled. The Competition and Consumer Act 2010supports this.
• SABMiller, which owns CUB, professes high standards of ethical behaviour and transparency.
• Merely not breaking the law is achieving minimum standards of corporate behaviour. High standards would involve actively avoiding the potential for consumers to be misled.
• The packaged product bearing these labels is your product, it is made by CUB and distributed by CUB.
• You have acknowledged the consumer is the ultimate judge.
• The consumer cannot judge if you do not disclose your involvement. Not disclosing your involvement can only result in some consumers being misled.
• To adhere to your own high standards transparency, and to your company’s promise to let the consumers decide, the packaging and communication for all Byron Bay Premium Lager bottled product should disclose your involvement.

Conclusion:

All it takes is three wordsto avoid the potential for consumers to be misled : Carlton & United Breweries

(Image has been digitally manipulated)