#but also... RTD is really not doing these many new things with his second run is he

[iceinherheart-kissonherlips]

so Moffat is coming back to DW.

huh.

[majorbaby]

And now I'm curious whether you're planning to check out RTD's second run on Doctor Who, or if you're wary and waiting to see how it goes, or if you're uninterested entirely. I admit I'm curious, but for me it probably depends a lot on how much it leans into Moffat and Chibnall's style of playing around with the show's established canon, vs how much it does its own thing and moves on from that. Plus RTD def has his own flaws too lol, though I've pretty much only heard good things about his post-DW dramas so I've got hope.

i'm gonna try this new thing where i actually answer the question being asked up front and then i put all my optional "and also" thoughts under a cut: i'm famously bad at watching things on my watchlist but what matters is i want to watch it. this has more to do with my love and trust of RTD's writing than it does with me wanting to go back to the whoniverse.

and also...

very very important disclaimer that it's been years since i watched doctor who but i've been meaning to recently for nine-hawkeye parallel reasons (cowardly hero, bad god) so some of this might be off: i'm so appreciative of my doctor who years because i really fell completely in love with that world and my love for the doctor is surpassed only by my love for a select few of the companions. i also learned from DW that you can definitely love parts of a thing without loving the whole and that's fine - in fact, i think that is what we are meant to do with DW specifically. there are themes to the character of the doctor and recurring motifs but they're all nodded to and i don't really think it's possible for such a long running show/character with so many writers involved to even have a singular arc for its protagonist.

i view it as being similar to comic books. what is the overall "arc" of batman? it's just the same guy in a billion situations, and your different 'actors' are your different writers who write him. i think you can say new things about the world with the doctor or say something about the doctor in a new way but i'm skeptical if you can say new things about the doctor with the doctor and i don't think he should be used that way and RTD seemed to understand that.

i also just generally prefer 'monster of the week' style to 'story arcs' and i found RTD did that more often. i'd go even further and say it's a better way to do doctor who because when i zoom out i find that dw's seasons are episodic, because of how much there is. the episodes are the seasons and the seasons belonging to an actor are the arcs because they're all playing the doctor their own way and what we refer to as 'eras' are moreso eras of main writer/showrunner to me than they are eras of actors playing the doctor. and i think RTD understood this too.

i'm not saying let's throw out story arcs all together, RTD pulled off the arc of all time with 'i am the bad wolf' so it can be done well i just found moffat in contrast to be very 'this is an ARC', let me show you what an ARC is you sheeple'. anyway not to make this a steven moffat hatepost - but it is always correct to make a steven moffat hatepost is it not? this immortal post sums up my feelings about his writing pretty well and an obligatory: well if steven moffat writes so badly with such confidence then why can't i????

so no need for me to return to that world just because i've loved previous iterations. i'd go back because i really i like RTD a lot and it's also nice to be genuinely excited for who. i was excited for there to be a woman doctor because i remember a time when i genuinely believed there could never be a woman doctor but i was out of it for so many years by the time 13 came around and i was so disillusioned by the moffat years. so i sort of waved at the fandom when that happened, good for them!! about time!! i also like 12 a lot and i think peter capaldi is brilliant but when i watched it it wasn't the same for me as before. so actor appeal and world appeal don't really do it for me. it does come down to the writing.

all that said, i am a guy who loves when a story ends. i think nostalgia is overrated and bad and right now it's grip on cinema and audiences is very very bad. so i was kind of meh about david tennant returning. i like ten but he's not my favourite and he had a very good run and got his due, i don't personally need more of him. i would've liked more of nine because i felt he did not get his due, even though they still wrapped on nine very well. but it's clear to me that eccleston has moved on so i also would not want him back either.

donna, well, if there must be a returning companion from the ten years than yeah i'm happy it's donna because their dynamic is truly chef's kiss and catherine tate is brilliant and i'm not married to her tragic ending, i do think she deserved better than that. but i would still prefer someone new because i always lean towards 'new stories'.

if 'a returning character named rose' turns out to be anything other than a character who shares the same name as rose and the parallels are all projected on by the fans, then i will riot lol. rose's ending was perfect and i don't want it to change and just like you, i'm not interested in her being immortal or even coming back to help the doctor save the world again. if it were not for RTD i would not even consider watching more of "rose". it's true that some past companions have returned (my sarah jane <3) but i think if it's not kept to a minimum then that's bad for the doctor who ecosystem. new stories! new opportunities for other actors and writers!

other reasons i like RTD: he clearly still has a passion for doctor who, he's usually doesn't miss with his companions, he knows how to do tragedy and romance while having respect for his audience, he's smart writer and he's an overall strong writer.

tbh i should check out his other stuff because i like him so much and since i'm saying i'm coming back for his writing and not for the world as much. but also i'm really excited for ncuti gatwa's 15th doctor and i hope RTD stays on to write him, so maybe this is how i find my way back to doctor who.

[anidiotwithnolifebehindthescreen]

We're all aware that in October it will be Jodies aka Thirteenth doctor last episode and I wanted to write an honest review on my thoughts throughout the years of her run.

The actress:

I actually really like Jodie as the doctor, I think she's very adorable and fun but can be dark as well a bit like Matt Smith aka Eleventh doctor. I liked the character and I liked the actress. I lovednthe idea of a female doctor and would definitely like more female casting in the future. Because doctor who is about the plot not about something to look at. (Yes I'm talking about you mother)

The writing:

I'm going to be honest and say that the writing wasn't the best and could be a bit boring especially in the first series of Jodies run, but I do think the second series was a bit better especially Spyfall, I loved the twist but it would've been better if it was part two so that the Master reveals himself at the end, so it's like a cliffhanger after "O" was along with them all the whole two parts being a "goodie" (I love Dhawan Master) but there was still some more bland episodes and I did notice they are all kinda earth based and sometimes political. Where I'd definitely would've liked more lighthearted episodes where it's just aliens. (not Dalek's there's too many of these episodes now) I did like the third series of Jodies run it was pretty okay and was enjoyable. I didn't mind the new years special (I miss when DW was on at Christmas to be honest) and I liked the Easter special, it was just what I was after really still could've been a lil more to it that's all.

The companions:

Okay I liked the companions, but there was too many in the first two seasons of Jodies I liked Graham and Ryan and Yaz a lot, but I feel like there wasn't really enough screen time with them on separate occasions, so we didn't have a chance to really see that character properly to figure them out. (I liked Graham and I really like Dan and we have more Yaz now) and now we got a smaller group I like Dan a lot and I like Yaz and I love the fact there's a lil crushing going on. But I do fear that something bad is going to happen to Yaz in the next episode special.

Villains:

Okay the only villains I found interesting was The Master, The sea devil's (I was so happy to see these as I absolutely love the third doctor) and the weeping angels. I can't actually really remember the others if I'm being honest, because they wasn't really scary or the storyline was just a lil boring that's all no judgement to the writer at all. (Okay maybe a lil)

The series overall:

Okay I did like the thirteenth doctor's run but unlike the ninth, Tenth and Elevnth even some of the twelfth doctor. I probably won't watch these again, because I feel like these seasons are a single watch only thing. I feel that they would be incredibly predictable if I gave it a second watch. Otherwise I did like the thirteenth doctors run and it was a very new and different experience compared to the others but at the same time, I do miss the older doctor who episodes. But I'm also very excited to see what RTD has to bring to us, because I have a feeling it's probably going to be different from his first time round but I'm very sad that Jodie is leaving though, because I really liked the thirteenth and would've liked at least one more season. because of how long in-between and how little episodes we actually had with her.

[johannesviii]

So I guess I have thoughts on The Timeless Children

If you’re expecting some well-organised meta this isn’t a good post for that, you should probably leave now

I probably forgot half the things I wanted to say because I waited 2 days to write this

Ok so first I have to say I’m disappointed that the horrible bullshit from the WW2 sequence of Spyfall part 2 wasn’t addressed at all. It means it was not part of some big plan and that Thirteen doing some horrible shit wasn’t foreshadowing, but just insensitive writing. Fine. Ok. I don’t like it at all but it, unfortunately, happens. Every single New Who showrunner so far has made a big mistake at some point or another so that doesn’t mean Chibnall is worse than Moffat or RTD, who also had their own qualities and flaws and some occasional horrible writing. It sucks, and it’s gonna taint Thirteen’s character for me. But I’ll live.

HOWEVER

THIS FINALE

Oh my god ok so uh first, Cybermen? again? But like? It was still interesting?? The designs were varied, and the Lone Cyberman had this whole Hellraiser-lite aesthetic going on, and that abandoned warship was straight out of Sword of Orion and I really enjoyed all of that. It’s a shame the Lone Cyberman was defeated so quickly, because he was a much more interesting “final boss” than the one from the previous season in my opinion.

The regenerating Cybermen were 100% ridiculous but it was the good kind of ridiculous and I loved it

I have to say something about the fam now but I don’t have a lot of thoughts about them specifically. I liked it when Ryan threw that explosive thingie and actually managed to hit the cybermen and was super hyped about that, though

OK SO

Look. I loved Missy. I adored her semi-redemption arc, and her self-doubt, and her ultimate decision to be good, just to be killed by her past self as a result, even though the Doctor wasn’t there to witness it. That was brilliant.

But.

This new Master. I already thought he was pretty great, but the way he’s been recontextualised in this finale? I?? Holy s h i t

I’ve said it already but the actor is doing a fantastic job

I wasn’t even planning to put pictures in this post but this shot is so incredibly good

So in my Spyfall post I pointed out that he was very aggressive and very performative in his evil actions, to the point where he looked like he wasn’t enjoying himself. He was, like, doing it to prove a point.

Turns out it was because the best way to make a new evil version of the Master after Missy’s semi-redemption arc was to base this new Master on INTENSE, DEVASTATING, SUICIDAL SELF-LOATHING

AND IT WORKS SO WELL??

AND I LOVE IT??

IT’S ALSO VERY UNCOMFORTABLE BUT LIKE? IN A GOOD, INTERESTING WAY??

The part where he gives Thirteen the key to stop him. And he doesn’t dare her to press that button. He’s begging her to press that button. He knows she will do it because she did it once before and he’s like go on. Kill me now. God

If you’ve ever been suicidal or even just self-destructive yourself, even if you’re, like, a nice person and not... well.... an intergalactic criminal like the Master is, seeing him being like “go on. Press that button. End me. Do it. NOW” is... extremely relatable not gonna lie

Thinking “oh mood” about the Master during one of his scenes is... not something I was expecting but here we are

Also I absolutely adore how all of his world-destroying rage against the Time Lords was basically fueled by “they hurt my best friend and only I have the right to hurt my best friend” that’s so in-character

SPEAKING OF WHICH

You already know I’m very in favor of fluidity in the DW canon. One of my absolute favorite DW stories I’ve read so far was Unnatural History, which basically said “the Doctor is an idea that exists across the entire multiverse and every origin story is true and every version is true and nothing is canon because everything is canon”

But I wasn’t very fond of one specific version of the Doctor’s origin story which is super popular in the Extended Universe crowd of fans, and that’s the Cartmel Masterplan. I won’t bore you with my full thoughts on it but I’m not fond of the idea of the Doctor being some sort of rebirthed god now on the other hand the idea that all Time Lords are eldritch beings and that the Doctor or the Master is Nyarlathotep-

But this isn’t what this finale is doing

So far the Doctor’s origin story in the tv series was basically saying “look. This character that grew up in a privileged and pretentious part of their planet’s society just had enough of that one day (for a reason or another or even several reasons) and decided to leave, and by traveling and making friends, they realised being kind was important, and they decided to help people instead of watching bad stuff from afar without doing anything.” And now this finale basically added: “That society of pretentious assholes? Yeah they actually adopted that character as a kid and exploited them like a convenient source of power, and at the root of their power there’s literal child abuse, and they had to erase that child’s memories so that the kid could be assimilated in the society built on their own pain“.

It didn’t change that many things about the Doctor as a character ; it DEFINITELY changed stuff about the Time Lords, but they have always been this kind of background menace, with evil founders and shady shit, so I think it’s very appropriate.

So yeah. If you ask me to pick one between “plot twist the Doctor is a god” and “plot twist the Doctor is a lost child with the ability to regenerate”, I pick the second one, definitely

The best part is, it doesn’t contradict anything really important. The Doctor didn’t remember any of this. At all. Their desire to run away, their eventual hatred of Time Lord society, their choice to be kind and to try to help where they can? This didn’t come from that completely forgotten past. They still grew up in a life of privilege after their memories were erased, and they still decided to run away. It’s still their choice.

It doesn’t even diminish later things, like Ten being afraid of dying, or River giving away her regenerations to Eleven. Because, again, the Doctor didn’t know any of that origin story. Just like Gallifrey being hidden in a pocket universe doesn’t erase or diminish Nine being completely destroyed by what he thought he had done. It’s still as good as before.

It does put that scene from Time of the Doctor in a different light, though! This wasn’t a new regenerative cycle being given to Eleven in the end, just unlocking a dormant potential.

I saw someone saying this episode was bad because it was saying nature was more important than nurture? But... the episode literally states the opposite very explicitly, with Ruth saying ”have you ever been limited by who you were before?”.

I also saw someone on twitter saying that the diversity in the past incarnations we briefly saw “felt forced” and. like. It’s 2020. Can we not do this again please

I have such a thing for identity crisis tropes and stories and adding a bunch of lives in the Doctor’s past is certainly that and it’s like opening a giant sandbox. Imagine all the things that are actually possible now. The stories you can tell in that nebulous past! And I’m so glad the Morbius Doctors were briefly seen too!

Hell, there’s even an open door right there if you didn’t like this origin story, built in the scenario, and I’m certain it’s on purpose: the Matrix projection didn’t tell us the child was the Doctor. The Master told us the child was the Doctor. You’re free to believe him or not. It’s not set in stone. And that’s even better in my opinion.

So yeah it was all very very Unnatural History and the only thing I disliked was how it was a bit too much “telling” instead of “showing”, but that’s a minor complaint.

If you disliked this story, you aren’t a “fake fan”

If you liked this story, you aren’t a “fake fan” either

If you like some parts of the show you’re a fan, and you’re free to dislike some other parts ; god knows I don’t like some other things in Doctor Who

The only fake fans are the people bullying other fans about what they should like or dislike

I can’t wait to see what the fandom is going to make with this new sandbox and I’m so glad to be enthusiastic about the tv series again

Have a nice day

[beccaland]

Beccaland’s Bite-Sized Big Finish Reviews Big Finish Fourth Doctor Sale

Big Finish have got a sale on the first five series of the Fourth Doctor Adventures, plus some of the novel adaptations, until 30 August 2018. In order to facilitate your decision-making, I thought I’d give some quick reviews of the ones on sale that I’ve listened to, under the cut. Plus at the end of my post I’ve listed some of the ones I haven’t listed to, but am considering buying while they’re on sale; I welcome your advice!

Doctor Who - The Lost Stories: The Fourth Doctor Box Set

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Leela

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: It’s been a while since I listened to this, and I’ve only listened to it once, which is some indication of its middle-of-the-road-ness. It’s a nostalgic return to the Hinchcliffe era, and I liked it well enough. It wouldn’t be top of my list for buying, though.

The Wrath of the Iceni

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Leela

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: Big Finish generally does a good job of delving into the tension between the Doctor’s non-violent philosophy and Leela’s preference for, shall we way, direct action. This story is no exception. If you’re a fan of historical adventures, definitely get this one.

The Auntie Matter

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Romana I

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: Doctor Who does P.G. Wodehouse BRILLIANTLY. Put this one at the very top of your list! 

A British dandy who has a history of short but intense relationships takes a fancy to Romana, but his titular Auntie has her own ideas. Meanwhile the Doctor and Romana appear to be having completely separate adventures from one another. Unbeknownst to either party, their shenanigans overlap for better and for worse. Also there’s a robot who nearly steals the show.

The Justice of Jalxar

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Romana I

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: This one gets rave reviews from most quarters, and it is indeed very good. Plus, it’s got Jago and Litefoot! Basically, there’s a masked, superpowered vigilante running around Victorian London. What’s not to like?

The King of Sontar

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Leela

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: Sontarans rarely get treated with any depth, but this story is an exception. Dan Starkey has been playing Sontarans long enough to have developed some real insight into their psychology, and between him and always-on-form writer John Dorney, the Sontaran culture has never been better developed than it is here (though as I recall, the Eighth Doctor’s story in Classic Doctors, New Monsters Vol. 1 also does a pretty good job). Plus, Leela interacting with a Sontaran who isn’t just an angry cartoon potato is nifty.

Philip Hinchcliffe Presents Vol. 1

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Leela

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: I loved the Hinchcliffe era of Classic Who, and quite enjoyed this return to it, but at the same time, I was a bit underwhelmed. Neither of the two stories in this set wowed me; I find I don’t have a lot to say about it.

The Romance of Crime

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Romana II

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: I very much enjoyed the Missing Adventure novel from which this audio is adapted, and like Big Finish’s other novel adaptations, this one lives up to my expectations. There’s lots of lovely intrigue and John Dorney’s usual quality scriptwriting to enjoy.

The English Way of Death

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Romana II

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: See above re: novel adaptations, except this one is even better. 

Note that you can get both these two adaptations standalone or in a box set. Though the box set is also on sale, it costs significantly more than buying both stories separately. But you do get nifty bonus features, if you’re into that.

Requiem for the Rocket Men

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Leela

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: Leela and the Fourth Doctor meet the famed Rocket Men, in an adventure not to be missed! It’s right up there with the best in the lineup for this sale. Despite knowing that Leela doesn’t actually depart with this story, there’s a real pathos and tension to her journey here and in the subsequent story, Death Match. Plus, the Beevers Master is in fine form, and K-9 gets lots to do! 

Really, you should buy this, and The Rocket Men, and Return of the Rocket Men (Ian Chesterton and Steven Taylor Companion Chronicles, respectively), and then also get The Crowmarsh Experiment (standalone or in its box set). Don’t forget to also buy Death Match, because although the Rocket Men’s story is wrapped up in this installation, Requiem ends on a cliffhanger.

Death Match

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Leela

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: Not nearly as good as the first half of this story, but absolutely necessary to conclude that little arc (though you really should also check out the superlative The Crowmarsh Experiment, which is, alas, not part of this sale, but includes a sort of coda to Leela and Marshall’s story). The Beevers Master is the highlight of this story, and John Leeson as K-9 is brilliant as always.

The Well-Mannered War

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Romana II

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: See above re: novel adaptations, except this one isn’t nearly as good as the other two. Basically, there’s a centuries-long unofficial cease-fire in an interplanetary war, and everyone’s quite chummy when the Doctor and Romana arrive. But politicians are stirring things up for their political gain. 

TW: The Chelonians are treated as rather a joke, and there’s transphobic elements to those jokes (same goes for The Highest Science, a Seventh Doctor and Benny novel adaptation which I nevertheless enjoyed more than this one). 

Note that you can also get this in a Novel Adaptations box set with Damaged Goods, a Seventh Doctor, Roz, and Cwej story (novel by RTD, adapted by Jonathan Morris) which I think is much superior to this one. If it were me and I was considering buying TWMW, I’d buy the box set in this instance, since buying Damaged Goods on its own is $13 on download; this way you get two stories--one pretty good and one very good--for a very good price.

Wave of Destruction 

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Romana II

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: Other people seemed to like this one more than I did, but although I remember liking it pretty well, it hasn’t left a strong impression and honestly I don’t remember it well enough to write a very good review of it.

The Paradox Planet

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Romana II

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: This is a fascinating and compelling take on what can happen when people start using time as a weapon of war. Pity that Legacy of Death didn’t live up to the promise of the first installment.

Legacy of Death

TARDIS team: Fourth Doctor and Romana II

Rating: meh | ok | pretty good | great | freaking awesome

Bite: The Paradox Planet gave us a brilliant setup, but the whole thing sort of falls apart in this second installment. John Leeson as K-9 is the highlight of this story (and many others).

BONUS RECS based on various review blogs, here are the Fourth Doctor adventures I’m thinking of buying in this sale, with an asterisk next to the ones that sound most interesting to me:

Renaissance Man*

The Sands of Life

War Against the Laan

Phantoms of the Deep*

White Ghosts

Last of the Colophon

The Abandoned*

Suburban Hell

The Cloisters of Terror (mostly for the return of Liz Shaw’s mum Emily, from the superlative Companion Chronicle The Last Post)

The Labyrinth of Buda Castle

Gallery of Ghouls

The Trouble with Drax

The Pursuit of History

Casualties of Time

If you’ve listened to any of the above and want to recommend which of them I should snatch up, please let me know in a reblog!

[johnboothus]

Next Round: F!ve Drinks Aims to Can the Craft Cocktail Bar

On this episode of “Next Round,” host Adam Teeter chats with Felipe Szpigel, founder of F!ve Drinks Co. Szpigel discusses the brand’s aim to can cocktails that are as delicious as freshly made drinks crafted by top bartenders. Then, Teeter and Szpigel discuss the canned cocktail industry at large and why RTDs may be the future of the beverage industry.

In addition, Szpigel details F!ve Drinks’ canned cocktail lineup, including a collaboration with Dante, which has resulted in the brand’s Summer Spritz, Americano, and Gin & Tonic. Then, Teeter and Szpigel talk about the lingering impact Covid has left on the beverage industry, and Szpigel shares his vision for the future of F!ve Drinks.

Tune in and visit https://www.buyfivedrinks.co/ to learn more about F!ve Drinks.

Listen Online

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Spotify

Or Check out the Conversation Here

Adam Teeter: From VinePair’s New York City headquarters, I’m Adam Teeter, and this is a VinePair Next Round conversation. Today, we are speaking with Felipe Szpigel, co-founder and CEO of F!ve Drinks. Felipe, thank you so much for joining me.

Felipe Szpigel: Thank you, Adam. Thanks for having me.

A: So where are you right now?

F: I’m actually in São Paulo. I’ve been spending time here and in Miami for the last year.

A: Wow, so how’s the weather in São Paulo?

F: Well, it’s not that different from Miami, right? I guess after living too long in New York, I needed a little bit more of the sunshine.

A: I love it, so thanks so much for joining us. Can you tell us a bit about F!ve Drinks for those who are unaware of what F!ve Drinks is?

F: Yeah. To start, we make amazing craft cocktails in a can. We wanted to take the fine mixologist or the best of what you can enjoy in a bar to people any time, anywhere.

A: And how did this idea come about? Your background, for those who aren’t aware, is that you worked at AB InBev for quite a while running the craft beer program, correct?

F: Correct.

A: How did you move from craft beer to cocktails? Were you always a cocktail person? What gave you the idea to pursue this and how long has the business been around?

F: Like many of your listeners, I love drinking proper alcohol. Most of the time I would drink beer and actually, I always liked cocktails. Start with a cocktail, and then go with a chaser. Anyways, in terms of my background, I was at AB InBev for almost 20 years, and I did a bunch of different things in different parts of the world. I think the one that connected me into this world was leading the high-end, as you mentioned. We created a division to then find amazing craft partners, bring them on board, integrate them and help them expand their businesses. There were so many great entrepreneurs passionate about it. Let’s say my itch to do my own version of that was coming to fruition. On the spirit side, we had a couple of things in mind. One is, I think the right way of having a proper business is finding business partners that you like and that complement you. I am lucky to have four other partners that are amazing. Chris and Jeremy Cox are geniuses in product, Gus comes from a marketing background, and Roberto has more of a traditional finance background. Someone has to do the math for us. The second piece is that there is still a big evolution into the ready-to-drink space. To be candid, I like full-flavored drinks. I like real things. Even when consuming food and everything else I do, I’m one of those people who look into the labels. We saw this white space of just doing amazing cocktails using real ingredients and just offering convenience to consumers.

A: So when did this idea start to percolate? What year was this?

F: This was the end of 2018.

A: Did you leave AB InBev pretty quickly after or when do you depart and decide to start pursuing this full time?

F: Inside ABI, I was already working on some of these projects. For example, Devil’s Backbone in Virginia and also 10 Barrel in Oregon. I left at the end of 2018, and very quickly, we put the project up. We launched in Miami, July 2019.

A: Wow.

F: In six months, we were up and running.

A: How are you able to do that? Usually, R&D takes forever. Did you already have some formulations? Did you know what you wanted to put in the market that quickly? Was it just based on your experience in the business for so long that you knew how to get it done fast?

F: I think it’s a combination of all of the above. It is a delicate industry, right? The regulations are not simple. Being able to navigate regulations and potential business partners was helpful. We were bootstrapped, but we had cash to get up and running. That was an acceleration to the process. There was not a fundraising period. In terms of the product, I think that’s where Chris and Jeremy come together, right? We loved drinking cocktails even before that, as well as many of the craft folks I knew. We knew what we wanted so in terms of products, they did an amazing job on being able to replicate the flavors of great bars and putting them in shelf-stable cans.

A: I have some questions about that but before we get into the flavors and how you made the cocktails come to life in the can, I’m curious just about the business side a little bit. Did you ultimately raise any investment? Are there any investors in the business besides the five of you now? If you did, what was that process like? How did you go about convincing people that canned cocktails are going to be as big as they’ve now become?

F: I think people are still figuring out that this is going to be a huge, huge business. I was lucky enough to see the craft movement and how big the industry has gotten. It’s still developing with the number of players and I also was part of the beginning of the seltzer movement. AB InBev had partnered with Spiked Seltzer, the originator of the category even before White Claw and Truly came out. I think the insight here is that liquor is an $80 billion-plus industry that’s growing.

A: Yeah.

F: Most people drink the product mixed, so if you can offer something amazing and ready to drink, there’s no reason why people wouldn’t drink it. Especially with the many occasions where you need convenience right outside of the bar setting.

A: Right.

F: Again, most of us that partnered on the first rounds had lifelong work in the industry. We got all of our savings and put it behind the business. We wanted to have control and direction. I am still the majority shareholder of the company, and the ability to run my vision was critical. Now, our vision in fundraising is whenever you can get more cash, it will help you accelerate the growth of the business.

A: Totally.

F: We will likely come up with another round soon, but the way we’ve looked at it so far is looking at people that can contribute with cash but can also complement in a strategic sense. We did the rounds at the end of September last year. Companies at the beginning valued it at $10 million, so we sold 10 percent of the company. Back then, we looked at people in other industries. We looked to access capital in entertainment, so our idea was to have more expertise and discover things that we honestly didn’t know. People can help us in guiding the best direction for the company.

A: I know that ZX is an investor, correct?

F: Yeah.

A: And that’s when they invested?

F: They were part of the first investment rounds.

A: Very cool. That is very helpful in terms of getting to scale and people who know the industry, even though you do as well. That’s cool. Going back to the flavors, one of the biggest things that we’ve talked about a bunch is that flavors in canned cocktails are really hard to get right. That’s what other people who I’ve spoken to have said they think is ultimately holding the category back is that ability to replicate fresh citrus juice and keep it shelf-stable. Having had some of the cocktails you guys make, they are really on point with flavor. What are you doing? How do you think about flavor in terms of what you’re delivering to the consumer to ensure that it can be as delicious as that cocktail you’re getting at the cocktail bar?

F: Yeah, thanks for the compliment, first of all. I think the quality of the cocktails is what makes us stand out. For us, the philosophy was always to make something similar to what we would drink at the bar. Even today, most of the time when we go to venues, hotels, and golf courses, I generally come in and ask, “Can you make a Margarita, a Moscow Mule, and use top-shelf spirits?” Then, we taste it together with our drink, and we’re always at the same level. I think the discussion of our cocktail being at that level is something that blows people’s minds away. We took the same craft philosophy that we and our partners would use, which is no compromise to the flavor profile. Also, to go back and innovate on the process to be able to get the right product out there. Two things make a huge difference. One is the quality of the ingredients. We work with amazing craft spirits. For example, Oregon Spirits. In our collaboration, we use Mancino vermouth, which is one of the best vermouths in the world today and comes from Italy. There’s no compromise to what we put in. And it’s the same thing with the fresh juices. For example, in our Summer Spritz, because we need that fresh cucumber flavor coming out, we press the cucumbers right before we mix it and before we put in the Key lime.

A: Oh, wow.

F: It is the same thing when we use mint or hibiscus leaves. I mean, we steep it into the tank. It’s similar to doing a humongous batch of a great craft cocktail that you would have at your favorite bar. The other piece, for us, is we didn’t want to add anything. Citric acid is not lime, so you have to figure out a way of using lime and working with lime so it doesn’t oxidize, and then it maintains the flavor profile. I think the summary here is we focus on the no-compromise route, and it doesn’t matter that we pay higher taxes. It doesn’t matter that in New York, we can’t sell in grocery stores because it’s spirits-based and not malt-based or fermented sugar. We wanted an amazing product and we developed the innovation on the back end to be able to get there. We’ll get to the consumers in whatever way, shape, or form that legalities allow us to have access to consumers.

A: You rolled right into my next question, which was about that access. One of the reasons people are giving for these explosions of Truly and White Claw — besides the fact that the market was poised for a sessionable, full-flavored beverage that was low in calories — is the accessibility of it. I’m in New York and you used to live in New York, so we would call those convenience stores bodegas. You would go to any bodega or grocery store and buy them quickly. Whereas for the fastest-growing spirits-based seltzer, High Noon, the discussion has been surrounding it being held back a little bit based on the fact that in a lot of markets it has to be bought in liquor stores? How are you combating that? Saying you’ll meet the customer where they are is interesting, but what are you doing to make sure the customer knows you exist and can find you as easily as possible?

F: Yeah, and compound that with Covid.

A: Totally.

F: I mean, there’s no on-premise, no events, even the travel industry. I want to come back to the point where we thrive on the channels we are present at. For example, in our home market in Florida, customers like ABC Liquors or Total Wine, you can’t go into a store in Florida today and not see our product. It’s great to have support and perform as a top-five seltzer brand, including all the brands you even named. That includes longtime brands such as Mike’s Hard Lemonade, we’re just behind White Claw, Truly, High Noon, and sometimes Bud Light Seltzer. We’re right up there. I think there’s no escaping the fact that we made the selective choice of going for the product quality. Even if it’s less available, consumers will gravitate towards better-tasting products at some point. The second piece is on the marketing side. We try to punch above our weight by doing fun stuff, getting articles written about it, and even you giving us this opportunity with the importance of VinePair. It’s a great way for us to get the word out there and get people to try our products. Finally, the last one has been important because we had planned to have a distillery down in Miami with an experiential component as a way of innovating, getting consumer feedback, and also building the brand. We quickly pivoted to the online part of the business — right now, it’s currently around 10 percent of our sales.

A: OK.

F: It’s a great way of us getting early feedback, putting innovation out, playing with the packaging, and also learning feedback from new states. Unfortunately, due to the regulations and even the cost of doing business online with platforms like Facebook or Google charging you so much for ads, it’s not a profitable part of the business. But it’s a great marketing tool to be able to connect to consumers, though.

A: In terms of the ingredients, you mentioned some Italian vermouth. Are you making a lot of the ingredients for the cocktails? I’m talking about the spirit bases. Are you sourcing them from other well-known spirits producers? When you do source them, let’s say you use a well-known rum. I don’t know if you do, to be honest. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but I am curious, how much do you then think about putting a particular brand on the side of the can or not? How much is that going into your thought process for the creation of all these different cocktails?

F: It’s a great question. We’re not producing spirits today. We’re sourcing them. All of them are recipes developed for us or with us because again we want those flavor notes at the end product.

A: Right.

F: There is a development process, so we have this combination of great spirits makers that are flexible to create a recipe for us. We developed the products and packaging, to your point about brand naming, and our whole idea was to collaborate with others. That’s why, for example, we collaborated with Dante.

A: Right. I was gonna ask you about that, too.

F: Yeah, so I’ll start with that Dante example and then bridge back to the discussion on the spirits. I was a huge fan of Dante. Actually, on the day I signed the formalization of the company, that’s where I went to celebrate and had a Negroni.

A: Oh, awesome.

F: Our partnership came up many months after that and I’ll tell you this story over a couple of drinks in New York soon, but it’s one of those synchronicities in the world, right? It’s a longer story, but it’s interesting. I knew the founders from doing business in the past but didn’t know they were founders of Dante. Anyway, I think the whole idea there is that our cans are so simple and minimalistic. They’re almost like a white canvas for you to paint on.

A: Yes.

F: It is this whole idea that if there is someone that has something to say or put out there, we’re more than happy to use our brand for that. I think the collaboration with Dante is that, well, they had just won the best bar in the world. I love the place, and they make amazing cocktails. Now, could we take our cocktails to the next level by sharing the same vision we had? Let’s say, making the mixology available to many more people and being able to do that on a larger scale and put it outside of the bar setting, right?

A: Right.

F: I think that philosophy is what we put on the brands. I think the Mancino is an example where they’re doing amazing work. They’re working with us on the recipes, our drinks, and how to take our drinks to the next level. We might as well put the name there, right? I’m not against putting a famous brand or a big brand on the label, but I think it’s less about that. It’s more about the philosophy of collaboration and doing something that we’re both passionate about.

A: Will the Dante collaboration be ongoing, or was that a one-time thing that I saw?

F: We never know the future, but we did it for the long term. I don’t think we even talked about this or most people know about this in the U.S., but we also launched F!ve Drinks in Brazil. Some of the founders are Brazilian. I have a daughter, so during the pandemic, I spent so much time here that I said we might as well launch F!ve Drinks before I go back to the U.S. But Dante is a well-known brand here. They did a bunch of pop-ups already in the last couple of years, so expanding it outside of the U.S. is a huge opportunity. For example, in Australia, this ready-to-drink market is huge. It’s even bigger than the rest of the bottle spirits industry.

A: Right.

F: There is an opportunity as well to get something out there. I think both sides hope it’s ongoing and a bigger opportunity, but I’m really proud of the three products that are already out there: the Summer Spritz, the Americano, and the Gin & Tonic.

A: You seem to do a lot of limited releases. You’ll release a really cool new cocktail and it seems like it’s limited, at least. Was that always part of the marketing strategy as well? Putting a cocktail out there, see if it hits, and then maybe do it more later?

F: That is a piece of the craft industry that I loved. I think it’s also a critical piece of this ready-to-drink space, where people want variety. If the Moscow Mule is your top seller, variety packs are something that’s important. Again, someone’s entry to the brands, whether they’re going to someone’s house or they’re bringing people over, they want more variety. Those are the two biggest selling units, but the way to innovate is, we will keep getting things out but cycle through the ones that our consumers did not get as excited about. I’ll give an example. I like Gin and Tonic, right? For me, it is a summer, outdoor, higher-volume drink — the one that I can keep going to because my palate doesn’t get tired. I was bullish when we launched the first three flavors because I wanted to launch my gin and tonic. A London dry gin, a good tonic, and a nice splash of lime. I loved our Gin and Tonic, but I was likely one of the few people that loved it. Then, we launched the Paloma and a Watermelon Vodka Soda, so we had all of our products. Now, I can kill the Gin and Tonic. We have an upgraded version from the collaboration with Dante. Yet, I think for us, the sweet spot is having half a dozen flavors out there at the given time but launching a few during the year and cycling through. I think that’s going to be the business and let the consumer taste it and decide for themselves which ones they like the most.

A: Very cool. That is interesting. Now that we’re coming out of the pandemic and people are in-person more, where do you see F!ve Drinks headed in the next year?

F: Great question. We still have so many people that haven’t tried our product yet. We have two big challenges. One is just getting people to sample and then decide for themselves if we’re worth the $10 for the 4-pack. In general, people think it’s worth it after they try the product. More than 80 percent of people think so, which is great. The second piece for us is category education. Not all cocktails are created equal. Even from my past life, before some of the good stuff that is out there today including our brands, I had a prejudice to the category. I thought it was going to be malt-based, sugary, or full of artificial flavors. It was not my thing. It was a thing for many people, but it was not my thing.

A: Right.

F: Together with the sampling and just distribution in general, I think the biggest opportunity we have is educating consumers that not all cocktails are created equal and that we and some other people are worth the shot. The other thing with the pandemic that we’re seeing is as things start opening up, there is a challenge with the limited service in hotels or bars and events. Even you and me, right? I mean, are you going to be OK if so many people touch your product? Where were the eyes? Suddenly, you have a really good product. For example, there’s a bunch of hotel chains in South Florida that already carry our product. The One Hotel, for example, is one of our top on-premise customers. We are on the beach service, the pool service, and on the minibar right now. We will never be a substitute for a great bartending program, but for that flexibility of the additional occasion or the speed-to-service. Now, you don’t need to compromise in terms of quality. I see that and ask, “Why would you have to be 30 minutes in line in a venue to have a decent cocktail while you can grab a cocktail right at the same speed you would get a can of beer? And it’s a very good cocktail, right? I mean, it doesn’t depend on the bartender. The best bartenders already pre-batched the huge batch back in our production places. I do believe that transit, travel, and then larger on-premise venues that need the speed-to-service are huge opportunities for us to get distribution, sampling, and then build back the brands.

A: Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. Someone was telling me in an anecdote recently about a canned spritz that they had created. They were being told this by a big on-premise bar of theirs that was saying, “When we’re packed, these are easy to sell to people who don’t want to wait.” If the bar is three people deep and you’re just looking for something quality without the pomp and circumstance, it helps the bars out a lot. I definitely hear you that I think this isn’t just an off-premise product. There’s a huge potential for these canned cocktails on-premise.

F: Yeah.

A: Felipe, thank you so much for taking the time. It’s been really interesting to learn more about F!ve Drinks and what you guys have been up to in your trajectory. I appreciate it.

F: Thank you, Adam. It’s great connecting, and thank you for the space. Also, thank you to everyone that’s listening. If you haven’t tried the F!ve Drinks cocktail yet, the Moscow Mule is a top seller but we also have this amazing collaboration with Dante, the best bar in the world. We would love to get your feedback, too.

A: Awesome. Thank you so much for taking the time, and hopefully we’ll be in touch again sometime soon.

F: Same here. Thanks, Adam.

Thanks so much for listening to the “VinePair Podcast.” If you love this show as much as we love making it, then please give us a rating or review on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever it is you get your podcasts. It really helps everyone else discover the show.

Now for the credits, VinePair is produced and recorded in New York City and in Seattle, Wash., by myself and Zach Geballe, who does all the editing and loves to get the credit. Also, I would love to give a special shout-out to my VinePair co-founder, Josh Malin, for helping make all this possible and also to Keith Beavers, VinePair’s tastings director who is additionally a producer on the show. I also want to, of course, thank every other member of the VinePair team who are instrumental in all of the ideas that go into making the show every week. Thanks so much for listening, and we’ll see you again.

Ed. note: This episode has been edited for length and clarity.

The article Next Round: F!ve Drinks Aims to Can the Craft Cocktail Bar appeared first on VinePair.

Via https://vinepair.com/articles/next-round-five-drinks-felipe-szpigel/

source https://vinology1.weebly.com/blog/next-round-fve-drinks-aims-to-can-the-craft-cocktail-bar

[wineanddinosaur]

Next Round: F!ve Drinks Aims to Can the Craft Cocktail Bar

On this episode of “Next Round,” host Adam Teeter chats with Felipe Szpigel, founder of F!ve Drinks Co. Szpigel discusses the brand’s aim to can cocktails that are as delicious as freshly made drinks crafted by top bartenders. Then, Teeter and Szpigel discuss the canned cocktail industry at large and why RTDs may be the future of the beverage industry.

In addition, Szpigel details F!ve Drinks’ canned cocktail lineup, including a collaboration with Dante, which has resulted in the brand’s Summer Spritz, Americano, and Gin & Tonic. Then, Teeter and Szpigel talk about the lingering impact Covid has left on the beverage industry, and Szpigel shares his vision for the future of F!ve Drinks.

Tune in and visit https://www.buyfivedrinks.co/ to learn more about F!ve Drinks.

Listen Online

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Spotify

Or Check out the Conversation Here

Adam Teeter: From VinePair’s New York City headquarters, I’m Adam Teeter, and this is a VinePair Next Round conversation. Today, we are speaking with Felipe Szpigel, co-founder and CEO of F!ve Drinks. Felipe, thank you so much for joining me.

Felipe Szpigel: Thank you, Adam. Thanks for having me.

A: So where are you right now?

F: I’m actually in São Paulo. I’ve been spending time here and in Miami for the last year.

A: Wow, so how’s the weather in São Paulo?

F: Well, it’s not that different from Miami, right? I guess after living too long in New York, I needed a little bit more of the sunshine.

A: I love it, so thanks so much for joining us. Can you tell us a bit about F!ve Drinks for those who are unaware of what F!ve Drinks is?

F: Yeah. To start, we make amazing craft cocktails in a can. We wanted to take the fine mixologist or the best of what you can enjoy in a bar to people any time, anywhere.

A: And how did this idea come about? Your background, for those who aren’t aware, is that you worked at AB InBev for quite a while running the craft beer program, correct?

F: Correct.

A: How did you move from craft beer to cocktails? Were you always a cocktail person? What gave you the idea to pursue this and how long has the business been around?

F: Like many of your listeners, I love drinking proper alcohol. Most of the time I would drink beer and actually, I always liked cocktails. Start with a cocktail, and then go with a chaser. Anyways, in terms of my background, I was at AB InBev for almost 20 years, and I did a bunch of different things in different parts of the world. I think the one that connected me into this world was leading the high-end, as you mentioned. We created a division to then find amazing craft partners, bring them on board, integrate them and help them expand their businesses. There were so many great entrepreneurs passionate about it. Let’s say my itch to do my own version of that was coming to fruition. On the spirit side, we had a couple of things in mind. One is, I think the right way of having a proper business is finding business partners that you like and that complement you. I am lucky to have four other partners that are amazing. Chris and Jeremy Cox are geniuses in product, Gus comes from a marketing background, and Roberto has more of a traditional finance background. Someone has to do the math for us. The second piece is that there is still a big evolution into the ready-to-drink space. To be candid, I like full-flavored drinks. I like real things. Even when consuming food and everything else I do, I’m one of those people who look into the labels. We saw this white space of just doing amazing cocktails using real ingredients and just offering convenience to consumers.

A: So when did this idea start to percolate? What year was this?

F: This was the end of 2018.

A: Did you leave AB InBev pretty quickly after or when do you depart and decide to start pursuing this full time?

F: Inside ABI, I was already working on some of these projects. For example, Devil’s Backbone in Virginia and also 10 Barrel in Oregon. I left at the end of 2018, and very quickly, we put the project up. We launched in Miami, July 2019.

A: Wow.

F: In six months, we were up and running.

A: How are you able to do that? Usually, R&D takes forever. Did you already have some formulations? Did you know what you wanted to put in the market that quickly? Was it just based on your experience in the business for so long that you knew how to get it done fast?

F: I think it’s a combination of all of the above. It is a delicate industry, right? The regulations are not simple. Being able to navigate regulations and potential business partners was helpful. We were bootstrapped, but we had cash to get up and running. That was an acceleration to the process. There was not a fundraising period. In terms of the product, I think that’s where Chris and Jeremy come together, right? We loved drinking cocktails even before that, as well as many of the craft folks I knew. We knew what we wanted so in terms of products, they did an amazing job on being able to replicate the flavors of great bars and putting them in shelf-stable cans.

A: I have some questions about that but before we get into the flavors and how you made the cocktails come to life in the can, I’m curious just about the business side a little bit. Did you ultimately raise any investment? Are there any investors in the business besides the five of you now? If you did, what was that process like? How did you go about convincing people that canned cocktails are going to be as big as they’ve now become?

F: I think people are still figuring out that this is going to be a huge, huge business. I was lucky enough to see the craft movement and how big the industry has gotten. It’s still developing with the number of players and I also was part of the beginning of the seltzer movement. AB InBev had partnered with Spiked Seltzer, the originator of the category even before White Claw and Truly came out. I think the insight here is that liquor is an $80 billion-plus industry that’s growing.

A: Yeah.

F: Most people drink the product mixed, so if you can offer something amazing and ready to drink, there’s no reason why people wouldn’t drink it. Especially with the many occasions where you need convenience right outside of the bar setting.

A: Right.

F: Again, most of us that partnered on the first rounds had lifelong work in the industry. We got all of our savings and put it behind the business. We wanted to have control and direction. I am still the majority shareholder of the company, and the ability to run my vision was critical. Now, our vision in fundraising is whenever you can get more cash, it will help you accelerate the growth of the business.

A: Totally.

F: We will likely come up with another round soon, but the way we’ve looked at it so far is looking at people that can contribute with cash but can also complement in a strategic sense. We did the rounds at the end of September last year. Companies at the beginning valued it at $10 million, so we sold 10 percent of the company. Back then, we looked at people in other industries. We looked to access capital in entertainment, so our idea was to have more expertise and discover things that we honestly didn’t know. People can help us in guiding the best direction for the company.

A: I know that ZX is an investor, correct?

F: Yeah.

A: And that’s when they invested?

F: They were part of the first investment rounds.

A: Very cool. That is very helpful in terms of getting to scale and people who know the industry, even though you do as well. That’s cool. Going back to the flavors, one of the biggest things that we’ve talked about a bunch is that flavors in canned cocktails are really hard to get right. That’s what other people who I’ve spoken to have said they think is ultimately holding the category back is that ability to replicate fresh citrus juice and keep it shelf-stable. Having had some of the cocktails you guys make, they are really on point with flavor. What are you doing? How do you think about flavor in terms of what you’re delivering to the consumer to ensure that it can be as delicious as that cocktail you’re getting at the cocktail bar?

F: Yeah, thanks for the compliment, first of all. I think the quality of the cocktails is what makes us stand out. For us, the philosophy was always to make something similar to what we would drink at the bar. Even today, most of the time when we go to venues, hotels, and golf courses, I generally come in and ask, “Can you make a Margarita, a Moscow Mule, and use top-shelf spirits?” Then, we taste it together with our drink, and we’re always at the same level. I think the discussion of our cocktail being at that level is something that blows people’s minds away. We took the same craft philosophy that we and our partners would use, which is no compromise to the flavor profile. Also, to go back and innovate on the process to be able to get the right product out there. Two things make a huge difference. One is the quality of the ingredients. We work with amazing craft spirits. For example, Oregon Spirits. In our collaboration, we use Mancino vermouth, which is one of the best vermouths in the world today and comes from Italy. There’s no compromise to what we put in. And it’s the same thing with the fresh juices. For example, in our Summer Spritz, because we need that fresh cucumber flavor coming out, we press the cucumbers right before we mix it and before we put in the Key lime.

A: Oh, wow.

F: It is the same thing when we use mint or hibiscus leaves. I mean, we steep it into the tank. It’s similar to doing a humongous batch of a great craft cocktail that you would have at your favorite bar. The other piece, for us, is we didn’t want to add anything. Citric acid is not lime, so you have to figure out a way of using lime and working with lime so it doesn’t oxidize, and then it maintains the flavor profile. I think the summary here is we focus on the no-compromise route, and it doesn’t matter that we pay higher taxes. It doesn’t matter that in New York, we can’t sell in grocery stores because it’s spirits-based and not malt-based or fermented sugar. We wanted an amazing product and we developed the innovation on the back end to be able to get there. We’ll get to the consumers in whatever way, shape, or form that legalities allow us to have access to consumers.

A: You rolled right into my next question, which was about that access. One of the reasons people are giving for these explosions of Truly and White Claw — besides the fact that the market was poised for a sessionable, full-flavored beverage that was low in calories — is the accessibility of it. I’m in New York and you used to live in New York, so we would call those convenience stores bodegas. You would go to any bodega or grocery store and buy them quickly. Whereas for the fastest-growing spirits-based seltzer, High Noon, the discussion has been surrounding it being held back a little bit based on the fact that in a lot of markets it has to be bought in liquor stores? How are you combating that? Saying you’ll meet the customer where they are is interesting, but what are you doing to make sure the customer knows you exist and can find you as easily as possible?

F: Yeah, and compound that with Covid.

A: Totally.

F: I mean, there’s no on-premise, no events, even the travel industry. I want to come back to the point where we thrive on the channels we are present at. For example, in our home market in Florida, customers like ABC Liquors or Total Wine, you can’t go into a store in Florida today and not see our product. It’s great to have support and perform as a top-five seltzer brand, including all the brands you even named. That includes longtime brands such as Mike’s Hard Lemonade, we’re just behind White Claw, Truly, High Noon, and sometimes Bud Light Seltzer. We’re right up there. I think there’s no escaping the fact that we made the selective choice of going for the product quality. Even if it’s less available, consumers will gravitate towards better-tasting products at some point. The second piece is on the marketing side. We try to punch above our weight by doing fun stuff, getting articles written about it, and even you giving us this opportunity with the importance of VinePair. It’s a great way for us to get the word out there and get people to try our products. Finally, the last one has been important because we had planned to have a distillery down in Miami with an experiential component as a way of innovating, getting consumer feedback, and also building the brand. We quickly pivoted to the online part of the business — right now, it’s currently around 10 percent of our sales.

A: OK.

F: It’s a great way of us getting early feedback, putting innovation out, playing with the packaging, and also learning feedback from new states. Unfortunately, due to the regulations and even the cost of doing business online with platforms like Facebook or Google charging you so much for ads, it’s not a profitable part of the business. But it’s a great marketing tool to be able to connect to consumers, though.

A: In terms of the ingredients, you mentioned some Italian vermouth. Are you making a lot of the ingredients for the cocktails? I’m talking about the spirit bases. Are you sourcing them from other well-known spirits producers? When you do source them, let’s say you use a well-known rum. I don’t know if you do, to be honest. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but I am curious, how much do you then think about putting a particular brand on the side of the can or not? How much is that going into your thought process for the creation of all these different cocktails?

F: It’s a great question. We’re not producing spirits today. We’re sourcing them. All of them are recipes developed for us or with us because again we want those flavor notes at the end product.

A: Right.

F: There is a development process, so we have this combination of great spirits makers that are flexible to create a recipe for us. We developed the products and packaging, to your point about brand naming, and our whole idea was to collaborate with others. That’s why, for example, we collaborated with Dante.

A: Right. I was gonna ask you about that, too.

F: Yeah, so I’ll start with that Dante example and then bridge back to the discussion on the spirits. I was a huge fan of Dante. Actually, on the day I signed the formalization of the company, that’s where I went to celebrate and had a Negroni.

A: Oh, awesome.

F: Our partnership came up many months after that and I’ll tell you this story over a couple of drinks in New York soon, but it’s one of those synchronicities in the world, right? It’s a longer story, but it’s interesting. I knew the founders from doing business in the past but didn’t know they were founders of Dante. Anyway, I think the whole idea there is that our cans are so simple and minimalistic. They’re almost like a white canvas for you to paint on.

A: Yes.

F: It is this whole idea that if there is someone that has something to say or put out there, we’re more than happy to use our brand for that. I think the collaboration with Dante is that, well, they had just won the best bar in the world. I love the place, and they make amazing cocktails. Now, could we take our cocktails to the next level by sharing the same vision we had? Let’s say, making the mixology available to many more people and being able to do that on a larger scale and put it outside of the bar setting, right?

A: Right.

F: I think that philosophy is what we put on the brands. I think the Mancino is an example where they’re doing amazing work. They’re working with us on the recipes, our drinks, and how to take our drinks to the next level. We might as well put the name there, right? I’m not against putting a famous brand or a big brand on the label, but I think it’s less about that. It’s more about the philosophy of collaboration and doing something that we’re both passionate about.

A: Will the Dante collaboration be ongoing, or was that a one-time thing that I saw?

F: We never know the future, but we did it for the long term. I don’t think we even talked about this or most people know about this in the U.S., but we also launched F!ve Drinks in Brazil. Some of the founders are Brazilian. I have a daughter, so during the pandemic, I spent so much time here that I said we might as well launch F!ve Drinks before I go back to the U.S. But Dante is a well-known brand here. They did a bunch of pop-ups already in the last couple of years, so expanding it outside of the U.S. is a huge opportunity. For example, in Australia, this ready-to-drink market is huge. It’s even bigger than the rest of the bottle spirits industry.

A: Right.

F: There is an opportunity as well to get something out there. I think both sides hope it’s ongoing and a bigger opportunity, but I’m really proud of the three products that are already out there: the Summer Spritz, the Americano, and the Gin & Tonic.

A: You seem to do a lot of limited releases. You’ll release a really cool new cocktail and it seems like it’s limited, at least. Was that always part of the marketing strategy as well? Putting a cocktail out there, see if it hits, and then maybe do it more later?

F: That is a piece of the craft industry that I loved. I think it’s also a critical piece of this ready-to-drink space, where people want variety. If the Moscow Mule is your top seller, variety packs are something that’s important. Again, someone’s entry to the brands, whether they’re going to someone’s house or they’re bringing people over, they want more variety. Those are the two biggest selling units, but the way to innovate is, we will keep getting things out but cycle through the ones that our consumers did not get as excited about. I’ll give an example. I like Gin and Tonic, right? For me, it is a summer, outdoor, higher-volume drink — the one that I can keep going to because my palate doesn’t get tired. I was bullish when we launched the first three flavors because I wanted to launch my gin and tonic. A London dry gin, a good tonic, and a nice splash of lime. I loved our Gin and Tonic, but I was likely one of the few people that loved it. Then, we launched the Paloma and a Watermelon Vodka Soda, so we had all of our products. Now, I can kill the Gin and Tonic. We have an upgraded version from the collaboration with Dante. Yet, I think for us, the sweet spot is having half a dozen flavors out there at the given time but launching a few during the year and cycling through. I think that’s going to be the business and let the consumer taste it and decide for themselves which ones they like the most.

A: Very cool. That is interesting. Now that we’re coming out of the pandemic and people are in-person more, where do you see F!ve Drinks headed in the next year?

F: Great question. We still have so many people that haven’t tried our product yet. We have two big challenges. One is just getting people to sample and then decide for themselves if we’re worth the $10 for the 4-pack. In general, people think it’s worth it after they try the product. More than 80 percent of people think so, which is great. The second piece for us is category education. Not all cocktails are created equal. Even from my past life, before some of the good stuff that is out there today including our brands, I had a prejudice to the category. I thought it was going to be malt-based, sugary, or full of artificial flavors. It was not my thing. It was a thing for many people, but it was not my thing.

A: Right.

F: Together with the sampling and just distribution in general, I think the biggest opportunity we have is educating consumers that not all cocktails are created equal and that we and some other people are worth the shot. The other thing with the pandemic that we’re seeing is as things start opening up, there is a challenge with the limited service in hotels or bars and events. Even you and me, right? I mean, are you going to be OK if so many people touch your product? Where were the eyes? Suddenly, you have a really good product. For example, there’s a bunch of hotel chains in South Florida that already carry our product. The One Hotel, for example, is one of our top on-premise customers. We are on the beach service, the pool service, and on the minibar right now. We will never be a substitute for a great bartending program, but for that flexibility of the additional occasion or the speed-to-service. Now, you don’t need to compromise in terms of quality. I see that and ask, “Why would you have to be 30 minutes in line in a venue to have a decent cocktail while you can grab a cocktail right at the same speed you would get a can of beer? And it’s a very good cocktail, right? I mean, it doesn’t depend on the bartender. The best bartenders already pre-batched the huge batch back in our production places. I do believe that transit, travel, and then larger on-premise venues that need the speed-to-service are huge opportunities for us to get distribution, sampling, and then build back the brands.

A: Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. Someone was telling me in an anecdote recently about a canned spritz that they had created. They were being told this by a big on-premise bar of theirs that was saying, “When we’re packed, these are easy to sell to people who don’t want to wait.” If the bar is three people deep and you’re just looking for something quality without the pomp and circumstance, it helps the bars out a lot. I definitely hear you that I think this isn’t just an off-premise product. There’s a huge potential for these canned cocktails on-premise.

F: Yeah.

A: Felipe, thank you so much for taking the time. It’s been really interesting to learn more about F!ve Drinks and what you guys have been up to in your trajectory. I appreciate it.

F: Thank you, Adam. It’s great connecting, and thank you for the space. Also, thank you to everyone that’s listening. If you haven’t tried the F!ve Drinks cocktail yet, the Moscow Mule is a top seller but we also have this amazing collaboration with Dante, the best bar in the world. We would love to get your feedback, too.

A: Awesome. Thank you so much for taking the time, and hopefully we’ll be in touch again sometime soon.

F: Same here. Thanks, Adam.

Thanks so much for listening to the “VinePair Podcast.” If you love this show as much as we love making it, then please give us a rating or review on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever it is you get your podcasts. It really helps everyone else discover the show.

Now for the credits, VinePair is produced and recorded in New York City and in Seattle, Wash., by myself and Zach Geballe, who does all the editing and loves to get the credit. Also, I would love to give a special shout-out to my VinePair co-founder, Josh Malin, for helping make all this possible and also to Keith Beavers, VinePair’s tastings director who is additionally a producer on the show. I also want to, of course, thank every other member of the VinePair team who are instrumental in all of the ideas that go into making the show every week. Thanks so much for listening, and we’ll see you again.

Ed. note: This episode has been edited for length and clarity.

The article Next Round: F!ve Drinks Aims to Can the Craft Cocktail Bar appeared first on VinePair.

source https://vinepair.com/articles/next-round-five-drinks-felipe-szpigel/

[the-desolated-quill]

Dark Water - Doctor Who blog

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. If you haven’t seen this episode yet, you may want to before reading this review)

We’re finally coming to the end of another series and I for one will be glad to see the back of Series 8. The only thing that elevates this series slightly above the dire Series 7 is Peter Capaldi, who I found to be far more tolerable than Matt Smith was. Apart from that, this really hasn’t been a very good series, and now Moffat is here to finish it off.

I occasionally glance at what the so called ‘professional’ critics had to say just out of morbid curiosity, and I was amazed by the number of people praising the opening few scenes for being shocking and emotional. I personally thought it was a load of utter twoddle. Clara is trying to tell Danny something, and there are loads of post-it notes on the wall for some reason, when suddenly Danny gets run over by a car. Shocking? Tragic? No, not really. I think I’ve made it perfectly clear by this point how much I dislike Danny, so I didn’t even so much as feel a slight twinge when he got turned into roadkill. But what really undermines the supposed tragedy of it all for me is just how utterly random it is. The Moffat fans may love to keep kissing their precious auteur’s feet and proclaim how much of a genius he is, but the truth is he’s never been very good at plotting his bullshit series arcs. Just look at how Amy’s pregnancy and River Song were handled in Series 6. It’s as though Moffat is just making this shit up as he goes along, and this couldn’t be any more obvious here in Dark Water. In order for the Doctor and Clara to start paying attention to all the Promised Land bollocks, Danny needs to die now. So he just dies. He might as well have had a grand piano fall on top of him or something.

And then we come to one of the most insulting scenes I’ve ever seen in New Who. Clara threatening the Doctor. Again, loads of people praised the fuck out of this scene to the point where I’m beginning to question their sanity. This whole volcano scene is really emblematic of just how rubbish a writer Moffat really is. Rather than having the Doctor and Clara actually talk this out, relying on the emotions of the characters and the performances of the actors to carry the scene, Moffat has to resort to stupid, over the top tactics in a desperate bid to wrong foot the audience. Not only does it strip away any potential emotional impact Danny’s death could have had on their relationship, it also makes Clara come across like an arrogant brat. I could be more forgiving if Clara was driven to do this out of desperation because the Doctor wouldn’t listen to her, but no. She goes in there with the intent to threaten the Doctor. There’s no buildup or anything. She just immediately goes for the most extreme method. She doesn’t come across like an actual human being who’s grieving and in pain. She’s more like a spoilt child having a temper tantrum because she’s not getting her way. Then it’s all made utterly pointless thanks to the Doctor’s powers of plot convenience, revealing that the whole volcano sequence was just a dream state, which just underlines the fact that Moffat is more concerned with pathetically proving to everyone how clever he thinks he is rather than getting us to emotionally connect with Clara. Seriously, what does the volcano sequence do that a simple conversation between the two characters couldn’t?

Plus it’s hard to believe that Clara would go to such lengths for Danny considering the way their relationship has been portrayed over the course of this series. Moffat is desperately trying to convince us that this is a love for the ages and that the two can’t survive without each other, even going so far as to imply that Clara has some kind of death wish, except it’s hard to take it seriously because, due to Moffat’s own incompetence as a writer, this has got to be one of the most dysfunctional relationships I think I’ve ever seen. Danny is a controlling, insecure arsehole who thinks anywhere outside of London is too dangerously exciting, and Clara is a spoilt, arrogant thrill seeker who constantly lies to him for virtually no reason. These two have virtually nothing in common, and their relationship has been so toxic and so unhealthy that it’s hard to really be invested in it at all. I’m not saying Clara shouldn’t be sad that Danny is dead. I just don’t buy for a second that she would be prepared to die for him if she can’t get him back.

So the Doctor and Clara are off to find Heaven. And very briefly, can I just ask, can you imagine any other Doctor doing something like this? The Doctor may be open minded, but he’s a man of science first and foremost. Scientific evidence simply does not support the existence of an afterlife, and considering how dismissive the Tenth Doctor was towards the idea of God or the Devil in The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit, it’s hard to imagine that Twelve would be willing to try and find Heaven just to save one person. Why hasn’t the Doctor tried to find it sooner? It’s like Listen all over again. Clara is Moffat’s very special creation and everything has to revolve around her even if it means bending the Doctor’s character completely out of shape.

Considering how largely secular the Doctor Who fanbase is, I imagine I can’t have been the only person with raised eyebrows the moment we arrived at 3W. But it’s not just that. Did anyone honestly believe this was the actual afterlife? Again, reading the reviews, I was surprised by the amount of controversy surrounding the ‘don’t cremate me’ scene. Not only did I think that was just plain goofy, the fact that this is a Moffat script does unfortunately undermine the credibility of all of this. Have any of these people ever actually watched a Moffat story before? He’s basically the televisual equivalent of M Night Shyamalan. The man is so desperate to surprise the audience and show off how much of a genius he is that he’s prepared to shove any random bullshit twist into his stories even if it comes at the cost of the characters, the integrity of the narrative, or the audience’s trust in the show. And that’s the problem with trying to constantly pull the rug out from under us. Do it too many times and eventually people will wise up and stop giving a shit about what’s happening. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me constantly and I’ll never trust anything you say to me ever again. So rather than be intrigued by the 3W facility and the prospect of an actual afterlife, I’m just impatiently drumming my fingers on the arm of my chair, waiting for Moffat to get the fuck on with it and tell us the big twist.

And what a treat we’re in for this episode. Turns out there’s not one bullshit twist, but TWO bullshit twists. We’ll start with the most painfully obvious twist. Missy is the Master.

I mean who the fuck else could she have been?

Yes the Master is back and, even with a sex change, the character is still just as rubbish as before. The Master has always had about as much depth and complexity as a pantomime villain, and Michelle Gomez seems to be going the same route John Simm went down by portraying the character as boringly insane (a gimmick so old now, it’s practically been fossilised. Not even the Joker can get away with that motive anymore). But it gets even worse when you factor the sex change into the equation. You’d think I’d be all in favour of a female Master considering how long I’ve been campaigning for a female Doctor, but unfortunately Missy is a Moffat written woman, which means she ends up falling into the same sassy, kooky dominatrix role that every single one of his female characters fall into. (even with a non-romantic Doctor, New Who can’t resist shoving in a pointless snogging scene. It’s pathetic). Moffat constantly boasts about how he paved the way for a female Doctor, but I honestly think Missy is more likely to put people off the idea than encourage it. At this point Moffat just comes across as a clueless, sexist bastard who doesn’t have a single original thought whizzing around in his peanut of a brain.

Also, Missy? Fucking Missy?! Why Missy? Why can’t she just call herself the Master? What, does this mean Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor is going to have to call herself Nursie?

‘But Quill, women can be doctors too.’

MY POINT PRECISELY!

Doctor and Master. As in a doctorate and a masters degree. Get it? Moffat doesn’t seriously think that Master actually means... Sigh. Of course he does. The moron.

And then there’s the Master’s sexuality. You may have occasionally heard the odd fan theory floating around that the Doctor and the Master were... well... more than just good friends. A fan theory not entirely without weight. There are some very discreet hints in the classic series if you look hard enough (whether they’re intentional or not is another matter altogether), and RTD didn’t exactly downplay the homoerotic subtext during his tenure. Series 8 is really the show’s first official confirmation of this. In Deep Breath, Missy refers to the Doctor as her boyfriend and in this very episode she says the Doctor’s hearts belong to her. All very progressive... except the Master is a woman now. So when they’re both men, any mention of the dreaded gay must be kept to a minimum, but now one of them is a woman, suddenly they can be as overt and explicit as they want? Not only is the homophobia blatantly obvious, it also adds to the regressive sexism of Missy’s character, implying a male Master has more self control but a female Master is overcome with lust and can’t help but throw herself at the Doctor. It’s like I’ve always said. Moffat is more concerned with looking progressive rather than putting in the effort to actually be progressive. To say I’m disappointed would be an understatement and a fucking half.

The second twist I actually didn’t see coming, but only because of how fucking stupid the idea is. It’s the Cybermen. But that doesn’t make sense. Cybermen convert living people. They’re not zombies. They can’t convert the dead. It’s been previously established multiple times that they have no use for the dead. And part of their motive is to save people from death. Converting the dead directly completely contradicts their motivation. Also how do the Cybermen manage to convert people like the soldiers from Into The Dalek or the policeman from The Caretaker? Weren’t they disintegrated? What is there left to convert? And why wait for people to die in the first place? Why not just convert living people like they usually do? It just doesn’t gel with what we know about the Cybermen. And that bloody Nethersphere is just beyond daft. Before the Cybermen would just remove your emotions whether you want them to or not. Now they politely wait for you to give permission first. (Just when you think Danny couldn’t get anymore pathetic. Is he seriously considering erasing his emotions just because his girlfriend effectively dumped him? Isn’t he supposed to be a grown man? Get a grip, you spineless bell-end).

Well that was utter rubbish. But don’t worry. I’m sure Part 2 will put things right. After all, Moffat always writes satisfying conclusions to his series arcs, right?

[whore-er]

Tips for Choosing the Best Smoking Pellets

The internet research, the version contrasts, the prices --picking the proper pellet grill could be hard, so much so, by the time you settle on a barbecue, picking smoker pellets frequently becomes an afterthought. Even though some folks just default to the wood pellets offered by their own pellet grill maker, also many others settle for the most affordable pellets out there. A whole lot, actually.

As both a fuel supply and taste enhancer, wood pellets may impact everything from how nicely your pellet grill plays to how great the food tastes. And while you may assume that since all wood pellets seem alike, they're the same, that pellets you use can make a difference. These six tips can allow you to select superior smoker pellets, which can help keep your pellet grill doing its finest and creating great wood-fire taste.

Which are the Ideal Pot Pellet Flavors?

Whenever folks discuss pellet tastes, they are referring to the sort of wood used to produce the pellets. Smoker pellets come in a range of wood tastes, from the customary BBQ suspects such as mesquite, hickory, apple, and cherry to celebrated woods such as cherry, pecan, and sugar maple. Each variety has its own particular flavor --by the sweetness made by cherry into the nutty hints imparted by pecan--also may be paired with particular foods to emphasize and match their natural flavors. You could even make complex layers of taste by mixing and matching different forests.

Though mesquite is frequently considered as the most bizarre BBQ timber, do not stock it up till you have tried it. While many people who are fresh to smokers and BBQ instantly pick mesquite pellets, be forewarned: it's a solid assertive flavor than could overpower food. While buying pellets for the very first time, it's wise to select tastes that are flexible enough for use on several distinct foods. Hickory creates a moderate smoke that is powerful enough to resist the bold flavor of beef but is not so strong that it overpowers poultry or pork. Apple, on the other hand, produces a pleasant and gentle smoke which complements lighter foods such as fish and veggies but also has enough backbone for use with pork and poultry. Though hickory and apple would be the most well-known flavors, it is also possible to set different mixtures of mild and moderate forests (like pecan or walnut with peach or cherry ) to cover all of your BBQ foundations satisfactorily.

If you are interested in special flavors but are hesitant to invest in a 20-pound bag, a few pellet makers like BBQr's Delight offer cheap 1-pound bags that are ideal for sampling. BBQ pellets are 100% natural wood, but it does not necessarily signify the pellets are 100 percent of the sort of wood recorded on the tote. When you purchase cherry wood balls or chips, that timber is 100% cherry timber. But when you buy cherry wood pellets, then they are usually a mix of cherry and yet another timber, like oak or alder.

Mixing flavored forests with oak supply a few benefits, beginning with the cost. Woods such as cherry and hickory are not quite as abundant as bamboo and so cost more, which makes 100% Engineered timber pellet more costly than the ones that use a foundation of oak or alder. By employing a mix of walnut cherry, bark makers may keep down prices --because bamboo is rather impartial that the cherry wood smoke taste nonetheless shines through.

Besides providing savings, employing an oak base additionally generates consequences. For example, cherry burns quicker than hickory, therefore using 100% cherry you would undergo more pellets than if utilizing 100 percent hickory. The inclusion of oak makes it possible for every taste to burn at an identical speed and to use a comparable heat output signal, giving consistency in cook to cook.

However, not all combinations are equivalent. Some use a greater proportion of flavored wood compared to others. It is fairly common to find that a 70/30 ratio, using 70 percent of the timber being walnut and 30% Engineered timber, but a fresh like BBQr's Delight uses more Engineered wood, employing a 2/3 into 1/3 ratio.

Pellet Grill Issues? Your Pellets Could function as Source and Solution

Among the most common problems people experience with pellet grills is unnatural temperatures changes --the control is put to 250°F, but the grill is falling to 200°F then scaling to 325°F. Usually, people presume that it is a mechanical problem, and the control or RTD probe have to be replaced. But very often the issue is much easier and the answer far simpler.

Whenever pellet grill owners whine about temperature swings or shedding their flame mid-cook, the very first thing we ask is, "What Happens are you currently using?" Many times it is a cheap, low carb brand which generates excess ash, which may interfere with the detectors that help regulate cooking temperatures. If that's the circumstance, fix is easy: use superior pellets which burn cleanly and frequently clean any remaining ash out of the grill.

In certain ways, it is surprising that something so small could be the culprit behind numerous difficulties on a hi-tech stove such as a pellet grill. Then again, pellets would be your grill's gas and utilizing bad pellets is similar to using subpar charcoal at a kamado, and it may cause the very same issues --a lot of ash is generated, which makes it difficult to maintain a constant temperature and snuffing out the oxygen source to the flame.

Heating Pellets Aren't exactly like BBQ Pellets.

BBQ pellets have been food-grade pellets produced solely from 100% hardwood. They contain no additives, binders, or additives, together with the potential exclusion of vegetable oil, and this is occasionally used during the extrusion procedure.

Heat pellets, however, may include many different forests, such as softwoods such as pine, which includes resin which infuses food with a sour flavor. Since it does not really matter what is in heating pellets, as long as they burn, they are also able to include things like leaves and bark as well as other impurities which could negatively impact food taste and potentially pose a health hazard if ingested. But resist the desire to save a couple of bucks rather than utilize heating pellets at a pellet smoker.

Your BBQ Must Have BarkYour BBQ Pellets Should Not

Some pellet manufacturers remove bark from the wood prior to making their pellets, but some maintain it on. The question is if it is far better to cook pellets which include things like bark or using pellets made of wood that has been de-barked, or if it matters at all.

The debate for bark is the fact that it smolders extremely well, supplying more smoke throughout the cook and consequently more smokey taste. Consider it: Once you place a log on the fire, then the bark nearly instantly starts to smoke and smolder. And there is the second half of this pro-bark debate: if cooking in an offset you utilize logs with bark, so why should be any different?

The debate against bark is it may result in an inconsistent burn and create excessive ash. Since they have different compositions, the wood and bark burn at different speeds and create various levels of heat. What's more, bark does not burn, and it generates more ash compared to hardwood.

In terms of the, there's bark on logs debate --although it is true you would not think twice about placing wood with bark within a counter, conventional smokers do not rely on sensors to keep a precise temperature. Having a pellet grill, the ash it's coping with, the better it can do.

Do You Need to use this Traeger Pellets using a Traeger Grill?

Fairly often pellet grill maker instructs you to utilize their pellets, with a few going so far as to say that failure to do this will void the guarantee. Why? Well, there is the obvious reason that they need you to purchase their pellets. But, it actually has to do with ensuring the grill runs correctly, which begins with utilizing quality pellets. The simplest method for pellet grill manufacturers to ensure you are using good pellets would be to get you to use theirs; they understand they fulfill the desired quality criteria. They can not make that assurance regarding other new pellets.

In our experience, it does not matter what kind of pellets you use, as long as they're caliber pellets. Like many pellet grills, even however, it may experience difficulties when compared to low-quality cut-rate pellets which make excessive ash.

So how can you know which are great pellets and which are not? It is not straightforward. There are loads of debatable pellets on the marketplace which have luminous online reviews but that we know cause problems. If you find a price on pellets which sounds too good to be true, there is probably a reason behind it.

[snarktheater]

Series review — Doctor Who Series Ten

The latest series of Doctor Who is just over—not counting the Christmas special—and one of the few things I've been able to do as of late was keep up with it, so I can share my thoughts fresh off watching it.

It's Steven Moffat's last run—again, minus one episode, and I'm sure we'll get there when we get there—as well as Peter Capaldi's final round as the Twelfth Doctor. Does it show any sign of change, or even…redemption?

Yeah, okay, let's not even pretend like that last one is a possibility. But change? Definitely.

Spoilers for…pretty much the entire season.

This series felt different to me. Especially compared to the previous one, which relied on two-parters for most of its self-contained stories, this is a major departure. It also felt different from…basically every single season since the start of the reboot. Not better or worse, just…different. Structured differently, to be specific.

That difference in structure comes from the seasonal overarching plot, which is far more defined than…basically any of its predecessors. The RTD era seasons hinted at the bigger plot through offhanded references and arc words (think "bad wolf", "vote Saxon", and planets going missing). The Eleventh Doctor's seasons nearly form a trilogy rather than separate stories, with every instalment trying to pretend that it's self-contained (the cracks in the universe, the Silence, and "the question"). The Twelfth Doctor's been kind of a complete mess for two seasons, focusing more on questions of character than plot. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, although the execution felt botched to me more often than not.

This season, however, has an overarching plot with the introduction of a mysterious "vault" that the Doctor must keep watch over, and his adventures are him basically rebelling against that duty because…well, he's always been a bit of a giant manchild, especially in the hands of a certain writer. Halfway through the season, after foreshadowing about as subtle as massive neon signs, it's revealed that the vault contains Missy, who's still alive (shocking, I know) and has been locked up because the Doctor decided to try and reform her instead of being a participant in her execution.

As a result, structurally, the characters all go back to Earth until the next adventure so the Doctor can keep watch over the vault. It's not a bad idea, and the concept is mostly executed well. The only criticism I have of it is that Nardole, River's sniveling minion from last season's Christmas special who was somehow upgraded to series regular, is constantly berating the Doctor for leaving, because "what would happen if you can't come back?" You'd think this is trying to set up for a consequence late in the season, but when the two-parter finale begins and Missy inevitably gets free, it's…not because of that. At all. But hey, who needs to use the most basic rules of storytelling like setup and payoff when you're a showrunner for the longest-running televised science fiction show on the air, right?

Anywho. This show also features a new companion, since last season was the final run for Clara Oswald. And…this is where the series really hits its biggest problem. Not with the character herself: Bill Potts is an absolute delight. She's a black lesbian who works at the cafeteria of the college the Doctor is teaching at to pass the time while guarding the vault, and she attends his lectures because she's just that intellectually curious, and that's also why he notices her at first. She manages to hit a careful balance of growing fond of the Doctor over implied time-skips between (and sometimes during) episodes while also standing her ground to him. In terms of who she is, she's a great character.

The problem is, main characters (which I would argue the Doctor's companions…you know, are) need an arc. And that means the story needs to have room for them to have arcs.

The plot of this season does not have room for Bill Potts. It doesn't even try to make room for Bill Potts.

It's very sad, because the season opened looking like it would. The first episode sets up a story that could sustain an entire seasonal arc: Bill's girlfriend Heather (whose relationship starts during the episode and is adorable) is used by an alien spaceship's "oil leak" disguised as a puddle to become their "pilot", essentially turning her into a construct made of water that can travel through space (and I assume time?), because Heather dreamed of traveling.

You would think the rest of the season would be spent hinting at Heather, but…no, she's barely even mentioned at all until the finale. More on that in a moment. Instead, the seasonal arc is all about the vault, about the Doctor's story. It makes me sad, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, because after that first episode, most of the speculation was about Heather and the alien puddle.

Not surprising for Moffat-era Doctor Who (again, the Eleventh Doctor's entire run is basically a trilogy about how important he is to the universe and how many people want him out of the picture), but it's definitely the first time that this plot is in direct opposition with the companion's entire existence. At least Amy was connected to the cracks in space and to River, and Clara had echoes across time and space. Bill isn't so lucky.

I want to state the obvious (that it seems very coincidental that the one companion Moffat apparently doesn't know what to do with is also the one he can't have romantically interested in the Doctor at least at one point, or that she's the one companion of color he wrote), but really, I think that would be unfair. I think the issue is more that there was a concept for this story about the Doctor and Missy, and there was no room for a companion at all, but tradition says we have to have a companion. Of course, even I, a person who never watched classic Who, knows that Time Ladies have been companions before and Missy could have been the companion.

It's more than Bill not having a character, though: she very rarely has a chance to even do anything. She's involved in the events (in the premiere, for instance, her girlfriend turns into the alien of the week and goes after her), but often enough, she's not active in those events. She's just there for someone to be amazed at the Doctor.

Okay, there is an exception to that. At the end of the second part of a three-parter story (yes, you read that well) dedicated to a race of aliens called "the Monks", Bill ends up consenting to their invasion of humanity (long story short, don't question it too hard, it semi-makes sense in context), thus creating a world where everyone thinks the Monks have always been their benevolent overlords…except for Bill, who remembers.

This may be reminiscent of the Series 3 finale "Last of the Time Lods", where Martha Jones is similarly isolated in a sort-of alternate timeline where an alien rules the Earth. But that similarity only highlights the fact that, where Martha did most of the job of saving the world (yes, I know it involved restoring the Doctor, but still), Bill…doesn't. In fact, halfway through the third episode of that story, the Doctor is free and in control. While Bill does participate later in that episode, it's purely as 1) a way to raise the stakes when Missy claims her death is the only thing that will break the mind control that the Monks have going on, and 2) a device to stop that mind control without killing her. She is, quite literally, an object in that scene, on par with the Doctor's usual technobabble to solve the problem of the week. Also, it's revealed that that half-episode where she was active? She was following the Doctor's plans and manipulation through Nardole. She couldn't even have that agency left to her.

Even the one episode that's actually about her and her friend's friends looking for a place to live involves her doing surprisingly little to discover anything about what's going on, and it's hard to feel like her contribution was meaningful when she learns the same things as the Doctor, just from a different source. That is not agency, that's just making redundant reveals in your episode, writers.

Thing is, when we get past the fact that Bill Potts is a good character who is criminally underused, the season is…okay, really. Uneven, but okay. I like that we get random lines like "History's a whitewash" as response to the existence of brown people in Regency England, or that we have multiple instances where the Doctor criticizes capitalism throughout the season.

While we're on that subject, some of you might recall my Quantico Season 2 review (but only some, seeing as it got very few views), where I talked about television's reaction to Donald Trump's election and the global rise of fascism. Well…it's hard not to read a similar trend here with the Monks. Not only do they get a three-parter story (technically four, since one of the biggest sources of dramatic tension is that the Doctor was blinded in the episode right before these three), but Bill mentions Trump indirectly (reacting to mentions of "the President" by "he's…orange") and of course the Doctor drops a "fake news" at the end of the third episode. And Trump is referenced again, by name this time, in the series finale.

There's deeper stuff too. The Doctor seems to be a lot more interested in kindness than ever throughout Moffat's run, and while that does lead to some grandiloquent speeches I could have done without, it also translates into his actions. Hell, we even get a repeat of the Series 8 episode "Kill The Moon" (one of the most infuriating episodes I ever got to watch possibly on all of television) where my main issue, the Doctor withholding information, is taken out of the equation.

All that to say, there is progress. I'm sure there's debate to be had about how much is genuine and how much is pandering to the show's audience, but it's there regardless. I'll take what I can get.

And then there is that main plot once again. After a whole series of teasing about the vault the show brings Missy into the picture for that three-parter (albeit still confined in her prison). After that, she's still a presence, and gets the arc that rightfully belongs to a companion. Which is not a criticism of Missy, just a repetition that maybe, just maybe, it would have been better to have her be the companion this season. Just eliminate some of the early filler or move it around and we'd have been fine.

Because that arc…really does work. The Doctor is trying to teach her to be good, and while she points out the flaws in his ethical system, she does appear to be genuine in her attempts. It's an interesting story, and everyone like redemption stories. There was something to be done here.

And this leads us to the two-parts finale, where Missy is taken on her first outing after saving the Doctor (through sheer convenience, let's be honest, since the TARDIS randomly decided to leave him and Bill stranded on Mars, forcing Nardole to get Missy's help). Trouble happens as usual, and it turns out in the cliffhanger the Master is behind it. As in, her previous incarnation.

It looks like they're teaming up, but Missy betrays the Master pretty quickly, showing her inner conflict (as well as the Master hitting on her, because while Moffat managed to resist giving her and the Doctor a romantic relationship, he could only be this restrained). And in the decisive moment, she turns her back on the Master altogether, making a definitive choice to stand with the Doctor and stabbing the Master fatally so he'd regenerate into…well, her.

Of course, this still leads to a few issues—it's still Moffat. So the Master kills her back, because I guess we can't end a story with the Master without him (or in this case her) totally-not-fake-dying. It's sad, because it means the Doctor doesn't even get to find out the choice she made, which would have brought their arc some conclusion. Hell, she could have been shot by the Master but still made it back to him just so they have closure. But no, it's botched at the last second. Oh well.

Another thing the finale does is, of course, end Bill's story. And with that…we really take the shortcut, since Bill has no character arc and therefore no story to end, really—only a loose end to tie up. Specifically, Heather appears out of nowhere, and since Bill has been conveniently killed and turned into a Cyberman, Heather absorbs her into her water construct…puddle…alien…thing. Meaning Steven Moffat managed to write dead lesbians and pass it off as a happy ending anyway, since they are still technically themselves, just without human bodies. Having his cake and eating it too, if you will. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that, or even if I get a say in how to feel about that at all, so I'll leave it to the lesbian fans to decide for themselves, but I'll confess it doesn't sit right with me.

And finally, the Doctor has been fatally wounded multiple times throughout the finale (after faking a death and regeneration earlier and also foreshadowing the end of the finale in the previous episode, because the show wants you to know this is the end of this Doctor's run, I guess), and yet at the end of it he…refuses to regenerate. I didn't know he could do that, honestly. But it leads to this weird, almost meta moment where he claims he "refuses to change". Maybe I'm projecting, but it really sounded to me like Moffat himself was declaring that the franchise couldn't continue without him. But I could be overreacting. I've been known to do that.

That about concludes all I have to say about this season. It shows progress, even—dare I say—promise for the first time in a long while, and yet it still squanders so much potential, both with its official companion's lack of arc and story, and with its de facto companion's botched conclusion to her arc. And of course the narcissistic obsession with making the Doctor the center of the story and not…you know, the guy who comes along to help, which is what a doctor usually does.

[anotheruserwithnoname]

Doctor Who spin-offs that might have succeeded

I’m going to start this by repeating what I’ve said many times: I had high hopes for Class when it was announced in 2015. Any new spin-off is a cause for celebration and the fact it was going to fill the void left by Doctor Who taking a year off, all the better.

The end result was loved by many and hated by many, there’s no doubt. And while I disliked it enough to stop watching after a few episodes, I fully respect those who enjoyed it. I’ve written at length about why I didn’t like the show, and the creative mistakes that were made, and I’m not going to rehash them now as they’re irrelevant to this post.

Unfortunately, now that the first ratings for the BBC One rebroadcasts are in - and low - pretty much unless BBC Three has a very low threshold for renewal or the show becomes a surprise hit on BBC America this spring, it’s unlikely to continue past its first 8 episodes, though fans reportedly have started a change.org petition in support of the show. Hey, it worked for Star Trek TOS, Jericho and fan outcry also allegedly stopped Michael Grade from cancelling DW outright in 1985, so I’m not going to pooh-pooh the idea. Just as I respect the fans, I sympathize with them too. I’d hate to see Doctor Who itself pull awful ratings and be faced with cancellation and I would have felt the same with Sarah Jane Adventures and Torchwood, too (I never saw K9).

One thing I think doomed Class from the start - and this is fully independent of its quality - is that it was pretty much a spinoff no one was really asking for, nor expecting. Of course just because a show starts out of nowhere with a cast of all-new characters doesn’t mean it can’t be viable (look at the CSI and Law & Order spin-offs, or for that matter Star Trek: The Next Generation which started fully fresh except for McCoy’s cameo - and they even remade a TOS episode its second week), but when the overwhelming response I saw when Class was announced was, “Why?” (something I never heard with Star Trek), that’s not a good place to start with. And when it became clear there would be no “known” franchise characters appearing other than the Doctor’s cameo and Mr Armitage (who ultimately didn’t last long), I saw more than a few people voicing,”Why bother?”

There are plenty of ideas out there for a viable Doctor Who spin-off that might not attract the “Why?” response. After the break, I’ll give a few ideas. The image at top gives a clue to the first one, and it might not be what you expect.

(I’m just focusing on Moffat-created or Moffat-era concepts, not RTD’s. He gave us two popular spinoffs from his work, so he filled the quota.)

CLASS

“What? But you just said you hated Class. Why would Class top the list?”

Because I think Class was a good concept that would have succeeded had it (among other tweaks) featured at least one ongoing character who the audience already had some identification with. Courtney Woods had a recurring presence in Series 8 and even became a short-term companion (she travelled with the Doctor in the TARDIS at least twice - that qualifies her as a companion more than Liz Shaw based on some metrics). The Doctor also hinted at her intriguing future life as a President of the U.S. and she was destined to marry the discoverer of the Blinovitch Limitation Effect, a DW buzzword. By having Courtney as the identification point, we could have still had all the Ram and April and Charlie and Matteusz business, Miss Quill could have still done her thing. But there would have been a strong link that a building, a cameo by the Doctor and one minor character who gets offed almost immediately could not provide.

Plus imagine the emotional impact of the memorial wall sequence if Courtney - who knew Clara - was present.

THE CORSAIR

Just the little bit from The Doctor’s Wife, and some stuff Neil Gaiman wrote for one of the Brilliant Books, was enough for me to want more about this Time Lord. I hope Big Finish is considering doing a Corsair series. And if the show had worked out, there could have been some tremendous crossover potential. (Indeed, imagine if it wasn’t the General but the Corsair the Doctor had to deal with in Hell Bent? A fellow Time Lord who likely also loved and lost the way Twelve did with Clara ... and who the Doctor knows is destined to be used for spare parts. Oh the angst!)

RIVER SONG

This one’s pretty obvious. And Big Finish is already doing a series for audio as it is. Maybe her reappearance in the 2015 Christmas special might have been less of an ass-pull if we’d had a series or two of her (mis)adventures leading up.

MISSY

I think Missy works best in limited doses, but I can’t deny a Sherlock-formatted series with her would rock. In fact, if they want an “adults only” spin-off, can’t you imagine a show where they pull out all the stops and let Michelle Gomez run wild? It would make Deadpool look like The Care Bears Movie.

THE PATERNOSTER GANG

I don’t really need to explain this one as this one is quite often cited as a spin-off that should have been (given that every episode they’ve appeared in has felt like a “backdoor pilot”, especially “The Crimson Horror” that was so much like a pilot, it had people back in 2013 expecting a series announcement as part of the 50th anniversary). All three actors have said they were willing. Neve McIntosh didn’t seem to be too concerned about having to wear prosthetics all the time. As an added bonus, we might have been able to get a longer-term examination of the challenges faced by Vastra and Jenny being a married same sex couple in the Victorian era. There’s a haunting moment in the minisode Battle of Demons Run where Vastra says Jenny was cast out by her family because of her being gay. You tell me that wouldn’t have made for some pretty solid and relevant storytelling.

PSI AND SAIBRA

An augmented human with the ability to tap into computers. An augmented human with the ability to morph into anything or anyone. Sounds like the makings of a network action series right there.

UNIT

Just listen to Big Finish’s current audio drama series featuring Kate Stewart and Osgood and you can tell right away this thing needs to be a TV series. With the added bonus of a possible Jenna Coleman guest appearance if they ever decided to bring back Bonnie.

GALLIFREY

Two options: a series set on “modern” Gallifrey focusing on the General and Ohila and perhaps a new regeneration of Rassilon (played by Ian McShane, if you please); or an adaptation of the Big Finish West Wing-inspired audio drama series that starred Lalla Ward and Louise Jameson (preferably with them starring in the TV version as well).

TIME WAR: THE EIGHTH DOCTOR

Big Finish is already doing this, but ever since he popped in on Cass, people have wanted Paul McGann to come back to TV.

I could name more, but you get the picture (feel free to reblog with other candidates). Note I intentionally left out anything to deal with Clara Oswald and Ashildr as - unlike all the above teases - it was well established from the start that there would be no spin-offs or specials with the two characters given Jenna and Maisie’s busy schedules. And anyway, if Clara comes back it should be on Doctor Who.

My biggest concern is that the failure of Class will result in the BBC turning down other spin-off ideas - including John Barrowman’s proposed Torchwood revival. Time will tell if Chris Chibnall - who was responsible for the revival of UNIT, it must be said - comes up with characters worthy of spinoffs or, indeed, conceives of any new shows himself. And who knows, maybe Patrick Ness’ Class will live to fight another day.

[raadiocaargo-blog]

Tips for Choosing the Best Smoking Pellets

The internet research, the version contrasts, the prices --picking the proper pellet grill could be hard, so much so, by the time you settle on a barbecue, picking smoker pellets frequently becomes an afterthought. Even though some folks just default to the wood pellets offered by their own pellet grill maker, also many others settle for the most affordable pellets out there — a whole lot.

As both a fuel supply and taste enhancer, wood pellets may impact everything from how nicely your pellet grill plays to how great the food tastes. And while you may assume that since all wood pellets seem alike, they're the same, that pellets you use can make a difference. These six tips can allow you to select superior smoker pellets, which can help keep your pellet grill doing its finest and creating great wood-fire taste.

Which are the Ideal Pot Pellet Flavors?

Whenever

folks discuss pellet tastes

, they are referring to the sort of wood used to produce the pellets. Smoker pellets come in a range of wood tastes, from the customary BBQ suspects such as mesquite, hickory, apple, and cherry to celebrated woods such as cherry, pecan, and sugar maple. Each variety has its own particular flavor --by the sweetness made by cherry into the nutty hints imparted by pecan--also may be paired with particular foods to emphasize and match their natural flavors. You could even make complex layers of taste by mixing and matching different forests.

Though mesquite is frequently considered as the most bizarre BBQ timber, do not stock it up till you have tried it. While many people who are fresh to smokers and BBQ instantly pick mesquite pellets, be forewarned: it's a solid assertive flavor than could overpower food. While buying pellets for the very first time, it is wise to select tastes that are flexible enough for use on several distinct foods. Hickory creates a moderate smoke that is powerful enough to resist the bold flavor of beef but is not so strong that it overpowers poultry or pork. Apple, on the other hand, produces a pleasant and gentle smoke which complements lighter foods such as fish and veggies but also has enough backbone for use with pork and poultry. Though hickory and apple would be the most well-known flavors, it is also possible to set different mixtures of mild and moderate forests (like pecan or walnut with peach or cherry ) to cover all of your BBQ foundations satisfactorily.

Beef Tika, Beef Kebab Recipe, Shami Kabab Recipe Beef, Ground Meat Kebab - Nuha's Kitchen

Subscribe YouTube Channel

If you are interested in special flavors but are hesitant to invest in a 20-pound bag, a few pellet makers like BBQr's Delight offer cheap 1-pound bags that are ideal for sampling. BBQ pellets are 100% natural wood, but it does not necessarily signify the pellets are 100 percent of the kind of wood recorded on the tote. When you purchase cherry wood balls or chips, that timber is 100% cherry timber. But when you buy cherry wood pellets, then they are usually a mix of cherry and yet another timber, like oak or alder.

Mixing Nordic forests with walnut provide a few benefits, beginning with the cost. Woods such as cherry and hickory are not quite as abundant as bamboo and so cost more, which makes 100% Engineered timber pellet more costly than the ones that use a foundation of oak or alder. By employing a mix of walnut cherry, bark makers may keep down prices --because bamboo is rather impartial that the cherry wood smoke taste nonetheless shines through.

As well as providing savings, employing an oak base additionally generates consequences. For example, cherry burns quicker than hickory, therefore using 100% cherry you would undergo more pellets than if utilizing 100 percent hickory. The inclusion of oak makes it possible for every taste to burn at an identical speed and to use a comparable heat output signal, giving consistency in cook to cook.

Nevertheless, not all combinations are equivalent. Some use a greater proportion of flavored wood compared to others. It is fairly common to find that a 70/30 ratio, using 70 percent of the timber being walnut and 30% Engineered timber, but a fresh like BBQr's Delight uses more Engineered wood, employing a 2/3 into 1/3 ratio.

Pellet Grill Issues? Your Pellets Could function as Source and Option

Among the most frequent problems, people experience with pellet grills is unnatural temperatures changes --the control is put to 250°F. However, the grill is falling to 200°F, then scaling to 325°F. Usually, people presume that it is a mechanical problem, and the control or RTD probe have to be replaced. But very often the issue is much easier and the answer far simpler.

Whenever pellet grill owners whine about temperature swings or shedding their flame mid-cook, the very first thing we ask is, "What Happens are you currently using?" Many times it is a cheap, low carb brand which generates excess ash, which may interfere with the detectors that help regulate cooking temperatures. If that's the circumstance, fix is easy: use superior pellets which burn cleanly and frequently clean any remaining ash out of the grill. Often that is all it takes, and the next time we hear by the client, it is to purchase more pellets.

In certain ways, it is surprising that something so small could be the culprit behind numerous difficulties on a hi-tech stove such as a pellet grill. Then again, pellets would be your grill's gas and utilizing bad pellets is similar to using subpar charcoal at a kamado, and it may cause the very same issues --a lot of ash is generated, which makes it difficult to maintain a constant temperature and snuffing out the oxygen source to the flame.

Heating Pellets aren't exactly like BBQ Pellets

There are two kinds of wood pellets: heating pellets and toaster pellets. They contain no additives, binders, or additives, together with the potential exclusion of vegetable oil, and this is occasionally used during the extrusion procedure.

Heat pellets, meanwhile, may include an assortment of forests, such as softwoods such as pine, which includes resin which infuses food with a sour flavor. Since it does not really matter what is in heating pellets, as long as they burn, they are also able to include things like leaves and bark as well as other impurities which could negatively impact food taste and potentially pose a health hazard if ingested. But resist the desire to save a couple of bucks rather than utilize heating pellets at a pellet smoker. Some pellet manufacturers remove bark from the wood prior to making their pellets, but some maintain it on. The question is if it is much better to cook pellets which include things like bark or using pellets made of wood that has been de-barked, or if it matters at all.

The debate for bark is the fact that it smolders extremely well, supplying more smoke throughout the cook and consequently more smokey taste. Consider it: Once you place a log on the fire, then the bark nearly instantly starts to smoke and smolder. And there is the second half of this pro-bark debate: if cooking in an offset you utilize logs with bark, so why should be any different?

The debate against bark is it may result in an inconsistent burn and create excessive ash. Since they have different compositions, the wood and bark burn at different speeds and create various levels of heat. What's more, bark does not burn, and it generates more ash compared to hardwood.

As for the, there's bark-on-logs debate --although it is true you would not think twice about placing wood with bark within a counter, conventional smokers do not rely on sensors to keep a precise temperature. Having a pellet grill, the ash it's coping with, the better it can do.

Would You Need to use this Traeger Pellets using a Traeger Grill?

Very frequently pellet grill maker instructs you to utilize their pellets, with a few going so far as to say that failure to do this will void the guarantee. Why? Well, there is the obvious reason that they need you to purchase their pellets. But, it actually has to do with ensuring the grill runs correctly, which begins with utilizing quality pellets. The simplest method for pellet grill manufacturers to ensure you are using good pellets would be to get you to use theirs, and they understand they fulfill the desired quality criteria. They can not make that assurance regarding other new pellets.

In our experience, it does not matter what kind of pellets you use, as long as they're caliber pellets. Like many pellet grills, even however, it may experience difficulties when compared to low-quality cut-rate pellets which make excessive ash.

[johnboothus]

Next Round: Inside the Rapid Growth of Tattersall Distilling

On this episode of “Next Round,” host Adam Teeter chats with Jon Kreidler, co-founder of Tattersall Distilling, to discuss the rapid growth of his spirits brand. Currently, the brand offers over 30 products and produces a whopping 40,000 cases each year — not a small feat for a brand that has only existed for six years.

Kreidler discusses the brand’s new line of RTDs and canned cocktails — specifically focusing on Tattersall’s Cosmo Bianco in light of the cocktail’s renaissance — and how he uses data to decide which products to release next. Finally, Kreidler shares his vision for the future of Tattersall Distilling.

Tune in and visit https://www.tattersalldistilling.com/ to learn more.

Listen Online

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Spotify

Or Check Out the Conversation Here

Adam Teeter: From VinePair’s New York City headquarters, I’m Adam Teeter, and this is a “Next Round” conversation. Today, we are talking with Jon Kreidler of Tattersall Distilling. Jon, thanks so much for joining me.

Jon Kreidler: Thanks for the time, I really appreciate it.

A: Yeah, totally. Before we jump into everything, what is Tattersall Distilling?

J: We’re a craft distillery located in Minneapolis. We are also in the process of building a second facility in Wisconsin right now, but we are just focused on very authentic products. We have a massive portfolio and a really amazing cocktail room, and we’ve been up and running for about six years now.

A: Yeah, I want to talk about that. In only six years, I think you have what, 30 products?

J: We have a lot.

A: Why? Are you crazy?

J: We’re slightly crazy, but it’s really driven by the laws in Minnesota. The way it works here, if you have a cocktail room, is that you can only serve what you produce.

A: Interesting.

J: When we originally built the business, we wanted to have a cocktail room or a bar that could compete with any bar in the city, state, and country. As we wanted different drinks, it led us to create different products. As we rolled those out internally, our distributor and other people would ask for us to start distributing them. We have a hard time saying no, so we have a massive portfolio.

A: You’re in Minneapolis, obviously. Basically, you guys would make a vodka to make vodka drinks or a gin to make gin drinks. Do you have one distiller who works for you guys? How does that work? Or do they have to learn how to make every different spirit?

J: Before we launched, Dan — who is my partner in this business and we’ve been friends since second grade — and I spent nine months working on the gin before we even opened up. The same with a lot of the other liqueurs especially, and we spent many, many months perfecting them. Once we got the big equipment, we started ramping them up to a larger scale. From there, it was just adding stuff constantly.

A: Where are you guys trained in distilling? How did you learn how to make spirits?

J: I went to the Michigan State Distilling School, and Dan went to another school. Then, we bought equipment and we may or may not have been doing it out of our basement for a while.

A: Illegal, but it’s fine.

J: We won’t admit to it, but yeah.

A: Cool, so what was the first spirit you guys made?

J: Gin.

A: OK, so were you aware that you were going to need to make every single thing that you wanted to serve in your cocktail room when you were starting the business? I’m curious how that business plan was created. Did you guys want to create a distillery and a cocktail room at the same time? Or did you create a distillery and then the cocktail room came because you can’t have a distillery without a cocktail room? What went through your decision-making process and conceptualization process when you were creating the business six years ago?

J: At the time, a cocktail room wasn’t legal in Minnesota, but we could see that it was going to be passed and going to happen. For our business plan, I think we were one of the first in the country that really put so much emphasis on the cocktail room. My business partner, Dan, is one of the more well-known bartenders in the Midwest and previously had a bitters company and a soft drink company. He is really fantastic with flavors, so we really wanted that to be the focal point for how we reach out to our customers to start. That was a big deal, but we probably had 12 different spirits that we were working on before we opened. As we opened and tried different things, we kept innovating, expanding, and experimenting.

A: When you created the business, who did you think the market would be? Was it going to be the Minneapolis area? Had you always considered that this would expand to 30 states now that you’re distributed in? What was your plan?

J: Yeah, that was the plan. Look, there were other people doing vodkas and gins.

A: Yeah.

J: There are thousands of them now, and there were people making whiskeys, but there wasn’t really anybody that was so focused on more esoteric stuff like the amari, the liqueurs, and some of the weird stuff that really can set your brand apart.

A: So that was the thing you thought, “OK, this how we’ll get known is really for the liqueurs more than the spirits?”

J: Well, we thought the gin would blow up and we’d be world famous. No, the liqueurs just differentiated it. You go into a bar, and you have those in your pocket. I mean, everybody has gin. We think our gin is the best in the world, but so does everybody.

A: Right.

J: Bartenders have tasted hundreds of gins, so they don’t really care to taste yours, for the most part.

A: Does the gin do well in your region because it is a regional product? In New York, I see tons of Brooklyn gins just because we’re in New York.

J: It does extremely well, and it does well in other markets, too. In those other markets, it’s not quite special just because you’re competing against every market that has their own local channels.

A: Is there one thing, though, out of all these 30, that you want to become known for? Is it the goal to become known as a whole as this distillery that makes tons of different products all really well? Or would you like to ultimately be known for your whiskey or for your liqueurs?

J: Yeah, the whiskey has been the thing we’ve been working on for six years now. It hasn’t been until the last couple of years where it’s gotten to a point where it’s matured, and that we are comfortable with releasing it.

A: OK.

J: This last fall we released our first bourbon. They are bottled-in-bond bourbon, four-plus years. We’re super proud of our straight rye whiskey which is our biggest seller on the aged spirits side. That’s done amazingly well, too. Those just take a little more time, and a little more capital to really build that business up.

A: In terms of the amount, can you give an idea of how many bottles you’re actually producing a year with all this liquid?

J: If it wasn’t for the pandemic, it could have slowed us down a little bit, but we’re looking at about 40,000 cases.

A: Wow, that’s a lot. You’re saying that you are in 30 states. Besides the Midwest, are there any other regions that are really big for you guys?

J: Georgia does really well for us. So does Tennessee, and Illinois does, too.

A: Why do you think that is?

J: Part of it, from a business standpoint, is we have sales reps in those states. We’ve put them there. We got good traction to start. We have really good partners in those states, and having representation on the ground makes a big difference.

A: Interesting. One of the things I want to talk to you about, because I was impressed by it when it was sent to me, is your pre-batched cocktails.

J: Yes.

A: So right now you guys have five of them, correct?

J: Yeah.

A: At least on the site, you have five.

J: Yeah, I think we have another one that we’ll be launching pretty soon.

A: Wow, so what goes into creating those? I think that there’s so many of them that aren’t done well and at least the ones of yours that I’ve had I think are really great. Obviously, you have a business partner who’s a world-class bartender making sure that they’re the best they can be. How have you gone about creating these cocktails? And how are you trying to stand out in this space that is all of a sudden getting pretty crowded, but you seemed to have been there earlier than others have been?

J: Yeah, it really started with the Bootlegger. It is a RTD, but it’s a two-step drink. It was aimed at higher-volume bars and restaurants. Essentially, it’s a vodka Mojito. It’s the one cocktail that Minnesota claims as their own: lemon, lime, mint, and vodka. It was meant to pour that with soda water. It is a super-quick drink that you can push out to the masses.

A: Interesting.

J: What we found was that it really took off in retail and for off-sale. The consumers were the ones who were driving the volumes on that one. In the fall, as we launched our Old Fashioned, we wanted one that’s completely ready-to-go. That was modeled off of our most popular drink in the cocktail room. It’s probably the most popular cocktail in the country.

A: Besides the Margarita, for sure.

J: Yeah, and we built it off of that build. The amazing thing is how it’s not as sweet. People call it sweet, and it’s significantly sweeter than what we pour in the cocktail room. I don’t think people like to admit they like sweet drinks, but they do. That’s the simple syrup, and that’s what it is. We have our own special blends and the years of building all these different spirits and creating them, we’ve really figured out how these botanicals and spices work together.

A: Very cool. Was the Manhattan next?

J: We did a Salty Dog, which is similar to the Bootlegger. Then, the following fall, we did the Manhattan.

A: The Manhattan’s great. That’s the one that I’ve had that I thought was really delicious. Now, you just put out a Cosmo, correct?

J: Yeah, correct. The Manhattan is my favorite. It’s a little bit drier, and it’s wonderful.

A: We have a theory at VinePair that the Cosmo is making a comeback. We think it’s going to come back in a pretty big way. Why did you choose to do a Cosmo? When we talked to some larger vodka brands they said, “Do you really think so?” We’re seeing them pop up at craft cocktail bars all over the country. I’m curious what caused that decision on your end, in terms of why you would do a Cosmo?

J: We had one in the cocktail room here. I think when we first discussed it, there were a few people in the room who poo-pooed it and said it’s never going to work. Dan knew right then that we were going to have a Cosmo, and it’ll be the best Cosmo anybody’s ever had. It was incredibly popular, and it’s a very easy drink. It’s a simple drink for people to consume, and it’s a recognizable drink.

A: Do you think the reputation it had coming out of the “Sex and the City” moments faded, and people are coming back to it?

J: Yeah, I think so. We have a clear Cosmo. It’s a Cosmo Bianco, so it doesn’t have that pink color to it, which is part of what makes a Cosmo iconic. But also, I think what we found is that it scares a certain part of the population away.

A: Yeah, that’s interesting. I was just about to ask you why bianco, but that makes a lot of sense. Obviously, you guys have grown a lot in six years, and now you’ve opened a new distillery in Wisconsin, correct?

J: We’re in the process. It’s under construction right now.

A: What was the decision to do that? Was it in terms of being able to hit larger volumes? Did you see a huge market in Wisconsin? Why a second distillery and why there?

J: It was because of the existing laws in the state of Minnesota. To be considered a microdistillery and have a cocktail room, there’s a production cap. We worked on it for about three or four years, lobbying and trying to get that raised and it just wasn’t happening. We weren’t gaining any traction. The legislators in the state right now have a lot of bigger issues to deal with, and we just didn’t think it was going to happen. If we wanted to keep growing, we had to look to expand it in another state. Dan and I both have ties to Wisconsin. The new facility is 35 minutes away, and it’s in a pretty amazing little town, so we’re very excited.

A: Oh, so you’re basically crossing the border?

J: Yeah, exactly.

A: That’s really interesting. Stupidly, I didn’t look at a map before I asked you the question. I probably should have.

J: That’s all right.

A: Is this also just so you can grow and expand across the country?

J: Yeah, exactly.

A: I’m curious about why you went with a branded house instead of a house of brands. You’re doing so many different liquids and so many different cocktails. Is there a reason you put them all under the Tattersall name? Had you guys talked about that when you started, saying, “We’re going to do all these different spirits?”

J: We did. That was absolutely intentional. We thought that would allow us to grow the brand quicker, instead of having 20 different brands that we were each trying to grow. I think our brand is pretty recognizable. You see it behind a bar, and you might not know what spirit it is, but you know that’s going to be a good-quality spirit because you recognize us. It was a way to expand our reach.

A: Interesting. So what do you see as the future for the company? It’s only six years in, so is it something you want to build into a massive, national brand? Would you ever entertain offers from larger spirits companies who might be interested? What are your and Dan’s goals?

J: Growth is what gets us excited. Growth and innovation. With the new facility, it’s going to allow us to do a lot more things. The brown spirits, especially as we continue to build those out, it has been a lot of fun. But we’ve been exploring canned cocktails for a couple of years. We actually had them ready to roll right before the pandemic but we pulled back and now it’s just the difficulties in getting aluminum. That continues to be on hold for us, but we’ve always looked at that possibility. There aren’t that many brands in the country that get to a certain size without getting acquired. That’s the natural progression of this industry. For us, we’ve talked about it. We’ve been approached a few times now, and it hasn’t been the right fit or it hasn’t quite felt right. I think there’s a lot of value in being able to leverage somebody else’s existing logistics and distribution and their knowledge. It’s a different game. It’s a certain game growing from a startup to an established company and a breakthrough to that national level. It’s just a different game.

A: For people who are thinking that six years feels really short for them to already be producing 40,000 cases, what do you think is the reason for your quick success? How did you go from six years ago having the business just starting, to then being recognizable in 30 states? What do you attribute to that success?

J: We work really hard. I think we’ve done a really good job of listening to the consumer and figuring out what the consumer wants and staying ahead or at least with trends. Also, taking what the consumer is asking for instead of trying to jam something down their throat. I think that’s the biggest deal. We’ve hired great people to help us out, build it, and help spread the word.

A: When you’re coming up with the types of cocktails you want to make for the cocktail program, how much are you looking at data and things like that in order to inform what you do?

J: Yeah, we absolutely look at data. That was part of the Cosmo. If you look back six months ago at the top RTDs in the country, it was basically White Claw. Then, it was also the On the Rocks Cosmo. It just validated what we were thinking. We thought, “Huh, this is going really well.” We invest a lot of money in data, getting that information, and getting professional help to help us make decisions. If it’s there, I think you’re foolish not to at least take it into your analysis.

A: Right, so before you started the business, what was your background?

J: Finance guy. I worked for banks and hedge funds and needed a change. And that I got.

A: I have to tell you, the products you guys are making are very high-quality, really delicious. I’ve been very impressed with the stuff that you sent, as is the rest of the VinePair staff, so thank you. Keep doing it. And the growth in six years is really impressive. There’s very few brands that have gone to 40,000 cases in only six years. You guys should be really proud of that. If someone was thinking about starting a spirits brand now in 2021, what would one piece of advice be that you would give to them?

J: Just make sure you are unique. Do your research. Make sure that it’s something unique that the market actually wants or is craving or is lacking. Then, go after it. You really have to believe in yourself because you’re going to have a lot of people tell you it’s a terrible idea or tell you the thousand reasons why you shouldn’t do it. As long as you believe in what you’re doing and you’re enjoying it, go after it.

A: Awesome. Jon. One last question: If people want to find Tattersall — obviously in 30 states, they can — but can they also get on your website?

J: You can get it on the website. We have a finder and that’ll show you where you can find it locally. Then, there’s also some links to where you can buy it. There are certain states we can ship into and some we can’t. It’s not direct from us, but it’s through our partners. However, our website is the best spot.

A: Awesome. Well, Jon, thank you so much for taking the time. Congrats on all the success, and we hope to check in with you sometime down the road to hear what else is new.

J: Awesome. Really appreciate it, Adam. Appreciate the work you do on the podcast. It’s great.

Thanks so much for listening to the “VinePair Podcast.” If you love this show as much as we love making it, then please give us a rating or review on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever it is you get your podcasts. It really helps everyone else discover the show.

Now for the credits, VinePair is produced and recorded in New York City and in Seattle, Wash., by myself and Zach Geballe, who does all the editing and loves to get the credit. Also, I would love to give a special shout-out to my VinePair co-founder, Josh Malin, for helping make all this possible and also to Keith Beavers, VinePair’s tastings director who is additionally a producer on the show. I also want to, of course, thank every other member of the VinePair team who are instrumental in all of the ideas that go into making the show every week. Thanks so much for listening, and we’ll see you again.

Ed. note: This episode has been edited for length and clarity.

The article Next Round: Inside the Rapid Growth of Tattersall Distilling appeared first on VinePair.

Via https://vinepair.com/articles/next-round-jon-kreidler-tattersall-distilling/

source https://vinology1.weebly.com/blog/next-round-inside-the-rapid-growth-of-tattersall-distilling

[wineanddinosaur]

Next Round: Inside the Rapid Growth of Tattersall Distilling

On this episode of “Next Round,” host Adam Teeter chats with Jon Kreidler, co-founder of Tattersall Distilling, to discuss the rapid growth of his spirits brand. Currently, the brand offers over 30 products and produces a whopping 40,000 cases each year — not a small feat for a brand that has only existed for six years.

Kreidler discusses the brand’s new line of RTDs and canned cocktails — specifically focusing on Tattersall’s Cosmo Bianco in light of the cocktail’s renaissance — and how he uses data to decide which products to release next. Finally, Kreidler shares his vision for the future of Tattersall Distilling.

Tune in and visit https://www.tattersalldistilling.com/ to learn more.

Listen Online

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Spotify

Or Check Out the Conversation Here

Adam Teeter: From VinePair’s New York City headquarters, I’m Adam Teeter, and this is a “Next Round” conversation. Today, we are talking with Jon Kreidler of Tattersall Distilling. Jon, thanks so much for joining me.

Jon Kreidler: Thanks for the time, I really appreciate it.

A: Yeah, totally. Before we jump into everything, what is Tattersall Distilling?

J: We’re a craft distillery located in Minneapolis. We are also in the process of building a second facility in Wisconsin right now, but we are just focused on very authentic products. We have a massive portfolio and a really amazing cocktail room, and we’ve been up and running for about six years now.

A: Yeah, I want to talk about that. In only six years, I think you have what, 30 products?

J: We have a lot.

A: Why? Are you crazy?

J: We’re slightly crazy, but it’s really driven by the laws in Minnesota. The way it works here, if you have a cocktail room, is that you can only serve what you produce.

A: Interesting.

J: When we originally built the business, we wanted to have a cocktail room or a bar that could compete with any bar in the city, state, and country. As we wanted different drinks, it led us to create different products. As we rolled those out internally, our distributor and other people would ask for us to start distributing them. We have a hard time saying no, so we have a massive portfolio.

A: You’re in Minneapolis, obviously. Basically, you guys would make a vodka to make vodka drinks or a gin to make gin drinks. Do you have one distiller who works for you guys? How does that work? Or do they have to learn how to make every different spirit?

J: Before we launched, Dan — who is my partner in this business and we’ve been friends since second grade — and I spent nine months working on the gin before we even opened up. The same with a lot of the other liqueurs especially, and we spent many, many months perfecting them. Once we got the big equipment, we started ramping them up to a larger scale. From there, it was just adding stuff constantly.

A: Where are you guys trained in distilling? How did you learn how to make spirits?

J: I went to the Michigan State Distilling School, and Dan went to another school. Then, we bought equipment and we may or may not have been doing it out of our basement for a while.

A: Illegal, but it’s fine.

J: We won’t admit to it, but yeah.

A: Cool, so what was the first spirit you guys made?

J: Gin.

A: OK, so were you aware that you were going to need to make every single thing that you wanted to serve in your cocktail room when you were starting the business? I’m curious how that business plan was created. Did you guys want to create a distillery and a cocktail room at the same time? Or did you create a distillery and then the cocktail room came because you can’t have a distillery without a cocktail room? What went through your decision-making process and conceptualization process when you were creating the business six years ago?

J: At the time, a cocktail room wasn’t legal in Minnesota, but we could see that it was going to be passed and going to happen. For our business plan, I think we were one of the first in the country that really put so much emphasis on the cocktail room. My business partner, Dan, is one of the more well-known bartenders in the Midwest and previously had a bitters company and a soft drink company. He is really fantastic with flavors, so we really wanted that to be the focal point for how we reach out to our customers to start. That was a big deal, but we probably had 12 different spirits that we were working on before we opened. As we opened and tried different things, we kept innovating, expanding, and experimenting.

A: When you created the business, who did you think the market would be? Was it going to be the Minneapolis area? Had you always considered that this would expand to 30 states now that you’re distributed in? What was your plan?

J: Yeah, that was the plan. Look, there were other people doing vodkas and gins.

A: Yeah.

J: There are thousands of them now, and there were people making whiskeys, but there wasn’t really anybody that was so focused on more esoteric stuff like the amari, the liqueurs, and some of the weird stuff that really can set your brand apart.

A: So that was the thing you thought, “OK, this how we’ll get known is really for the liqueurs more than the spirits?”

J: Well, we thought the gin would blow up and we’d be world famous. No, the liqueurs just differentiated it. You go into a bar, and you have those in your pocket. I mean, everybody has gin. We think our gin is the best in the world, but so does everybody.

A: Right.

J: Bartenders have tasted hundreds of gins, so they don’t really care to taste yours, for the most part.

A: Does the gin do well in your region because it is a regional product? In New York, I see tons of Brooklyn gins just because we’re in New York.

J: It does extremely well, and it does well in other markets, too. In those other markets, it’s not quite special just because you’re competing against every market that has their own local channels.

A: Is there one thing, though, out of all these 30, that you want to become known for? Is it the goal to become known as a whole as this distillery that makes tons of different products all really well? Or would you like to ultimately be known for your whiskey or for your liqueurs?

J: Yeah, the whiskey has been the thing we’ve been working on for six years now. It hasn’t been until the last couple of years where it’s gotten to a point where it’s matured, and that we are comfortable with releasing it.

A: OK.

J: This last fall we released our first bourbon. They are bottled-in-bond bourbon, four-plus years. We’re super proud of our straight rye whiskey which is our biggest seller on the aged spirits side. That’s done amazingly well, too. Those just take a little more time, and a little more capital to really build that business up.

A: In terms of the amount, can you give an idea of how many bottles you’re actually producing a year with all this liquid?

J: If it wasn’t for the pandemic, it could have slowed us down a little bit, but we’re looking at about 40,000 cases.

A: Wow, that’s a lot. You’re saying that you are in 30 states. Besides the Midwest, are there any other regions that are really big for you guys?

J: Georgia does really well for us. So does Tennessee, and Illinois does, too.

A: Why do you think that is?

J: Part of it, from a business standpoint, is we have sales reps in those states. We’ve put them there. We got good traction to start. We have really good partners in those states, and having representation on the ground makes a big difference.

A: Interesting. One of the things I want to talk to you about, because I was impressed by it when it was sent to me, is your pre-batched cocktails.

J: Yes.

A: So right now you guys have five of them, correct?

J: Yeah.

A: At least on the site, you have five.

J: Yeah, I think we have another one that we’ll be launching pretty soon.

A: Wow, so what goes into creating those? I think that there’s so many of them that aren’t done well and at least the ones of yours that I’ve had I think are really great. Obviously, you have a business partner who’s a world-class bartender making sure that they’re the best they can be. How have you gone about creating these cocktails? And how are you trying to stand out in this space that is all of a sudden getting pretty crowded, but you seemed to have been there earlier than others have been?

J: Yeah, it really started with the Bootlegger. It is a RTD, but it’s a two-step drink. It was aimed at higher-volume bars and restaurants. Essentially, it’s a vodka Mojito. It’s the one cocktail that Minnesota claims as their own: lemon, lime, mint, and vodka. It was meant to pour that with soda water. It is a super-quick drink that you can push out to the masses.

A: Interesting.

J: What we found was that it really took off in retail and for off-sale. The consumers were the ones who were driving the volumes on that one. In the fall, as we launched our Old Fashioned, we wanted one that’s completely ready-to-go. That was modeled off of our most popular drink in the cocktail room. It’s probably the most popular cocktail in the country.

A: Besides the Margarita, for sure.

J: Yeah, and we built it off of that build. The amazing thing is how it’s not as sweet. People call it sweet, and it’s significantly sweeter than what we pour in the cocktail room. I don’t think people like to admit they like sweet drinks, but they do. That’s the simple syrup, and that’s what it is. We have our own special blends and the years of building all these different spirits and creating them, we’ve really figured out how these botanicals and spices work together.

A: Very cool. Was the Manhattan next?

J: We did a Salty Dog, which is similar to the Bootlegger. Then, the following fall, we did the Manhattan.

A: The Manhattan’s great. That’s the one that I’ve had that I thought was really delicious. Now, you just put out a Cosmo, correct?

J: Yeah, correct. The Manhattan is my favorite. It’s a little bit drier, and it’s wonderful.

A: We have a theory at VinePair that the Cosmo is making a comeback. We think it’s going to come back in a pretty big way. Why did you choose to do a Cosmo? When we talked to some larger vodka brands they said, “Do you really think so?” We’re seeing them pop up at craft cocktail bars all over the country. I’m curious what caused that decision on your end, in terms of why you would do a Cosmo?

J: We had one in the cocktail room here. I think when we first discussed it, there were a few people in the room who poo-pooed it and said it’s never going to work. Dan knew right then that we were going to have a Cosmo, and it’ll be the best Cosmo anybody’s ever had. It was incredibly popular, and it’s a very easy drink. It’s a simple drink for people to consume, and it’s a recognizable drink.

A: Do you think the reputation it had coming out of the “Sex and the City” moments faded, and people are coming back to it?

J: Yeah, I think so. We have a clear Cosmo. It’s a Cosmo Bianco, so it doesn’t have that pink color to it, which is part of what makes a Cosmo iconic. But also, I think what we found is that it scares a certain part of the population away.

A: Yeah, that’s interesting. I was just about to ask you why bianco, but that makes a lot of sense. Obviously, you guys have grown a lot in six years, and now you’ve opened a new distillery in Wisconsin, correct?

J: We’re in the process. It’s under construction right now.

A: What was the decision to do that? Was it in terms of being able to hit larger volumes? Did you see a huge market in Wisconsin? Why a second distillery and why there?

J: It was because of the existing laws in the state of Minnesota. To be considered a microdistillery and have a cocktail room, there’s a production cap. We worked on it for about three or four years, lobbying and trying to get that raised and it just wasn’t happening. We weren’t gaining any traction. The legislators in the state right now have a lot of bigger issues to deal with, and we just didn’t think it was going to happen. If we wanted to keep growing, we had to look to expand it in another state. Dan and I both have ties to Wisconsin. The new facility is 35 minutes away, and it’s in a pretty amazing little town, so we’re very excited.

A: Oh, so you’re basically crossing the border?

J: Yeah, exactly.

A: That’s really interesting. Stupidly, I didn’t look at a map before I asked you the question. I probably should have.

J: That’s all right.

A: Is this also just so you can grow and expand across the country?

J: Yeah, exactly.

A: I’m curious about why you went with a branded house instead of a house of brands. You’re doing so many different liquids and so many different cocktails. Is there a reason you put them all under the Tattersall name? Had you guys talked about that when you started, saying, “We’re going to do all these different spirits?”

J: We did. That was absolutely intentional. We thought that would allow us to grow the brand quicker, instead of having 20 different brands that we were each trying to grow. I think our brand is pretty recognizable. You see it behind a bar, and you might not know what spirit it is, but you know that’s going to be a good-quality spirit because you recognize us. It was a way to expand our reach.

A: Interesting. So what do you see as the future for the company? It’s only six years in, so is it something you want to build into a massive, national brand? Would you ever entertain offers from larger spirits companies who might be interested? What are your and Dan’s goals?

J: Growth is what gets us excited. Growth and innovation. With the new facility, it’s going to allow us to do a lot more things. The brown spirits, especially as we continue to build those out, it has been a lot of fun. But we’ve been exploring canned cocktails for a couple of years. We actually had them ready to roll right before the pandemic but we pulled back and now it’s just the difficulties in getting aluminum. That continues to be on hold for us, but we’ve always looked at that possibility. There aren’t that many brands in the country that get to a certain size without getting acquired. That’s the natural progression of this industry. For us, we’ve talked about it. We’ve been approached a few times now, and it hasn’t been the right fit or it hasn’t quite felt right. I think there’s a lot of value in being able to leverage somebody else’s existing logistics and distribution and their knowledge. It’s a different game. It’s a certain game growing from a startup to an established company and a breakthrough to that national level. It’s just a different game.

A: For people who are thinking that six years feels really short for them to already be producing 40,000 cases, what do you think is the reason for your quick success? How did you go from six years ago having the business just starting, to then being recognizable in 30 states? What do you attribute to that success?

J: We work really hard. I think we’ve done a really good job of listening to the consumer and figuring out what the consumer wants and staying ahead or at least with trends. Also, taking what the consumer is asking for instead of trying to jam something down their throat. I think that’s the biggest deal. We’ve hired great people to help us out, build it, and help spread the word.

A: When you’re coming up with the types of cocktails you want to make for the cocktail program, how much are you looking at data and things like that in order to inform what you do?

J: Yeah, we absolutely look at data. That was part of the Cosmo. If you look back six months ago at the top RTDs in the country, it was basically White Claw. Then, it was also the On the Rocks Cosmo. It just validated what we were thinking. We thought, “Huh, this is going really well.” We invest a lot of money in data, getting that information, and getting professional help to help us make decisions. If it’s there, I think you’re foolish not to at least take it into your analysis.

A: Right, so before you started the business, what was your background?

J: Finance guy. I worked for banks and hedge funds and needed a change. And that I got.

A: I have to tell you, the products you guys are making are very high-quality, really delicious. I’ve been very impressed with the stuff that you sent, as is the rest of the VinePair staff, so thank you. Keep doing it. And the growth in six years is really impressive. There’s very few brands that have gone to 40,000 cases in only six years. You guys should be really proud of that. If someone was thinking about starting a spirits brand now in 2021, what would one piece of advice be that you would give to them?

J: Just make sure you are unique. Do your research. Make sure that it’s something unique that the market actually wants or is craving or is lacking. Then, go after it. You really have to believe in yourself because you’re going to have a lot of people tell you it’s a terrible idea or tell you the thousand reasons why you shouldn’t do it. As long as you believe in what you’re doing and you’re enjoying it, go after it.

A: Awesome. Jon. One last question: If people want to find Tattersall — obviously in 30 states, they can — but can they also get on your website?

J: You can get it on the website. We have a finder and that’ll show you where you can find it locally. Then, there’s also some links to where you can buy it. There are certain states we can ship into and some we can’t. It’s not direct from us, but it’s through our partners. However, our website is the best spot.

A: Awesome. Well, Jon, thank you so much for taking the time. Congrats on all the success, and we hope to check in with you sometime down the road to hear what else is new.

J: Awesome. Really appreciate it, Adam. Appreciate the work you do on the podcast. It’s great.

Thanks so much for listening to the “VinePair Podcast.” If you love this show as much as we love making it, then please give us a rating or review on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever it is you get your podcasts. It really helps everyone else discover the show.

Now for the credits, VinePair is produced and recorded in New York City and in Seattle, Wash., by myself and Zach Geballe, who does all the editing and loves to get the credit. Also, I would love to give a special shout-out to my VinePair co-founder, Josh Malin, for helping make all this possible and also to Keith Beavers, VinePair’s tastings director who is additionally a producer on the show. I also want to, of course, thank every other member of the VinePair team who are instrumental in all of the ideas that go into making the show every week. Thanks so much for listening, and we’ll see you again.

Ed. note: This episode has been edited for length and clarity.

The article Next Round: Inside the Rapid Growth of Tattersall Distilling appeared first on VinePair.

source https://vinepair.com/articles/next-round-jon-kreidler-tattersall-distilling/

[the-desolated-quill]

Flesh And Stone - Doctor Who blog

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. If you haven’t seen this episode yet, you may want to before reading this review)

Oh bloody, buggering hell! It was all going so well until Moffat decided to get all clever-clever with it! Why can’t he ever just keep things simple?!

Flesh And Stone picks up immediately from where The Time Of Angels ended. The Doctor shoots the gravity globe at the same time the group jumps, causing a gravitational boost that propels them onto the ship, where its artificial gravity catches them (I’m not touching this scene with a barge pole. I’m just going to put it down to Doctor Who space logic and move on).

Now credit where its due, I thought the first third of Flesh And Stone was exceptionally good. Having done all the creepy, atmospheric setup in the previous episode, it’s all systems go here. The scene in the corridor was incredibly tense with the Weeping Angels slowly advancing on them in the deadliest game of Grandmother’s Footsteps ever played. And then it gets even more frightening when the Doctor needs to turn the lights off in order to open the door.

The Weeping Angels are presented as a powerful force to be reckoned with here. Despite magnetising the doors, the Angels are still strong enough to break through. Guns don’t work on them. The forest gives them plenty of places to hide (brief side note, I love the idea of the ‘oxygen factory’ being a forest on a spaceship), and to cap it all off the Angels are still playing mind games with Amy, forcing her to count down to her death. It’s immensely creepy.

But the undisputed star of the show has to be Matt Smith. He runs the whole gambit of emotions here. He’s funny and quirky, but at times often callous, like when he talks to Angel Bob and repeatedly makes puns about being alive. The scene where he leaves Octavian to die was really impactful. You can tell he doesn’t want to leave him, but he also knows he has no choice and that there’s no way to save him. The look of sorrow and guilt on his face really punched a gut. And he clearly cares a lot about Amy and her safety. There are a few points where he almost coldly dismisses her fears, but only because he’s thinking desperately of ways to help her, and his raw anger and distress when Amy is left alone in the forest was very powerful indeed.

All in all, this was shaping up to be a pretty awesome episode.

And then that fucking crack showed up!

With the possible exception of Bad Wolf in the first series, the series arcs in New Who have always been consistently rubbish, but at least RTD kept them in the background as Easter Eggs until the finale. The cracks in time seemed to be going the same way until this episode where they just barge into the story, wrestle the spotlight away from the much scarier and more interesting Weeping Angels and completely trash the creepy atmosphere. I’m not saying the idea of a crack in time that can erase people from existence isn’t interesting, but there’s a time and a place. Moffat might as well have just stuck his own butt crack into the episode. It would have had the same effect.

And if that’s not bad enough, Moffat then begins to reduce the threat of the Weeping Angels not just by putting them on the backseat, but also by changing the rules. The scene where Amy has to walk through the forest alone with her eyes shut should have been utterly terrifying, but it’s ruined by Moffat’s own idiotic handling of the Angels.

The Doctor tells Amy that it’s possible to trick the Angels into thinking she can see them. But... they already know she can’t see them. She has to keep her eyes shut otherwise she’ll die from the Angel in her mind that they implanted. So why would they be fooled by that? Also how the fuck are you supposed to trick somebody into thinking you can see them? A woman stumbling around in the woods with her eyes shut isn’t going to fool anybody. Then there’s the added issue that all of this implies that the Angels have control over their quantum locking abilities, and I’m pretty sure it’s not supposed to work like that. They’re supposed to freeze whenever anybody looks at them, including each other. If they have the ability to just turn it on and off whenever they feel like it, why bother doing it at all? Why not just pounce on their victims and get it over with? And if they have control over it, how were they defeated in Blink?

And then Moffat commits the ultimate sin.

WE SEE THE ANGELS MOVE.

Apart from the fact that it completely robs them of what makes them so scary in the first place, it also completely contradicts what we already know about them. Think back to Blink. When Sally Sparrow was roaming around that house and found the TARDIS key, how come the Angels didn’t attack her? It was because we, the audience, were looking at them. This is demonstrated when Sally walks past an Angel, obscuring our view of it, and we see it change positions. This was a really clever idea and a great way of getting kids involved with the story. Up until now, The Time Of Angels and Flesh And Stone remained consistent with this too. We are, in a sense, protecting the characters from harm. So when Amy is surrounded by Angels in the forest, they should not be able to move because we’re still looking at them. But oh no. Moffat just wants us to forget about that now because it’s suddenly inconvenient to the plot. And that’s always been one of the biggest problems with Moffat’s writing. It’s hard to be invested in a story when the established rules can just randomly change whenever the writer feels like it.

In the end it suddenly becomes abundantly clear why the crack in time really showed up. It wasn’t to propel a series arc. It was merely to provide a convenient deus ex machina to vanquish the Angels without the characters having to lift a finger. In fact, with the Angels now erased from time, the story doesn’t even make sense anymore. If the Angels never existed, how did the spaceship crash? And how does River Song think this is going to earn her a pardon? Technically it never happened. Why aren’t there a bunch of soldiers standing around, scratching their heads, wondering what they’re doing there?

Oh yeah. I suppose I should talk about River Song’s bullshit mystery. So she’s in prison apparently for killing a man. A good man. A brave man. The best man she ever knew. A hero to many.

Well gee. I wonder who this could be referring to. I mean it could be anybody. No, but seriously. It’s definitely Rory. (Did you know people at the time actually, genuinely speculated that? Those fucking idiots).

And then... there’s the ending... Oh Jesus.

I don’t think there are words that have even been invented yet to express how fucking inappropriate this is, but sod it. I’m going to try anyway.

For starters, this is a family show. I don’t think kids should have to be subjected to the sight of Amy trying to get into the Doctor’s pants. Second, this has become a recurring problem in Moffat’s stories. He has often stated that his stories have a sexual undertone to them, most notably The Empty Child two parter with the Doctor and Captain Jack comparing sonic screwdriver sizes, and a lot of his female characters are often reduced to these kinds of one dimensional, dominatrix-y types, which is sexist as shit. And third, this scene just comes right the fuck out off nowhere. There’s no build-up to it whatsoever and it doesn’t actually serve a purpose. No. Yuck. Take it away.

Cut out all the pointless bullshit with River Song and Moffat’s crack (in time. Come on guys. Grow up), The Time Of Angels and Flesh And Stone could have been an excellent two parter and a worthy successor to Blink. Instead, while there are some good moments here and there, the whole thing just feels like a squandered opportunity.