When branding fails

Marketing releases are often hilarous when looked at with hindsight. Like Bass's new regional Bitter for Yorkshire. Which tried to build a nrew brand from a previous success.

"Bass launch new “regional” bitter
Despite the continuing disappearance of many local brews, one of the country’s largest brewing groups, Bass Charrington Ltd., is showing its awareness of regional palate preferences by the introduction of beers suited to a particular area.

Latest beer in this context is Brew Ten, which has been launched in the North-East and is advertised as being “specially brewed for the men of the North by Bass".

Described as a medium-priced draught bitter — it has a recommended public bar price of 2s. 2d. per pint — Brew Ten follows on from the success Bass Charrington have had in the Midlands with their Brew XI.

A major programme of television, Press and poster advertising starting this month has been planned by Bass Charrington to support the launch of Brew Ten."
Brewers' Guardian, Volume 99, May 1970, page 49.

Spoiler here: Brew XI was shit. A sweetish beer sometimes likened more to a Pale Mild than a Bitter. And Brew Ten? That was even worse. The success of Brew XI might not have totally been on its own merits.

"Brew XI draught beer took the Midlands by storm and was a genuine success; of course, that success was helped along by strenuous statements that it was successful - like a government minister justifying his policies - and the fact that it was replacing the existing M&B brands which had a ready-made market."
"The Brewing Industry 1950 - 1990", by Anthony Avis, 1997, page 104.

Picking a lower number for the new beer possibly wasn't the brightest idea.

"As part of the same thought process the Tadcaster Brewery had been allocated X, by which to call its main draught beer; and that too was a failure in marketing terms - the Yorkshire drinking public were convinced they were being sold weaker beer than the Midlands, since X was less than XI; so it was dropped as a brand name."
"The Brewing Industry 1950 - 1990", by Anthony Avis, 1997, page 107.

A top-down approach always works so well.

Beer zoning ends

Beer zoning - supplying tied houses from a closer rival brewery - ended after a little less than threee years in March 1946.

I'm sure that brewers were happy to be able to supply their own houses again. And drinkers must have been pleased to have a better choice of beer locally.

"BEER ZONING ENDS MARCH 2
Back to Favourite Brews
"Evening Post" Reporter
There is good news to-day for beer-drinkers — beer zoning will end on March 2.

From that date breweries and public-houses everywhere will resume rormal relations. Breweries will send supplies their own "tied" houses, and will supply "free" houses which were accustomed to take their beer.

Beer zoning came into operation August, 1943, and immediately attained Its object — that of economising road and rail transport. Brewery companies arranged among themselves districts which each could supply with the minimum use transport. One company's licensed houses in a town some distance from their brewery would be taken over en bloc by another firm better placed geographically.

For instance, zoning dealt effectively if somewhat arbitrarily, with Tadcaster beers, which were sent to Bradford, and Bradford beers, which were supplied to Leeds. That situation was dealt with by diverting the Tadcaster beers to the houses of the Bradford firm in Leeds, and the Bradford firm took over the Bradford houses which had been supplied with Tadcaster beer."
Yorkshire Evening Post - Wednesday 23 January 1946, page 5.

It seems that beer zoning wasn't always that logical.The brewery chosen as a replacement supplier wasn't necessarily the closest.

For those who don't know the geography of Yorkshire well, Tadcaster is about 25 km Northeast of Leeds, while Bradford is 10 km due West of Leeds.

Tadcaster is a small town that was home then to three substantial breweries: John Smiths, Sam Smiths and the Tower Brewery. Surprisingly, all are still in operation. Leeds, obviously had Tetley, but also Melbourne. And in Bradford there was Hammonds and Heys. All had substantial tied states.