Russell I. (ed.) Whisky. Technology, Production and Marketing

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

[16:25 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-009.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 009 Page: 298 274-307

and process engineers will demand high-grade stainless steel in the construc-

tion of tanks and pipe work.

Whisky authenticity

Whisky authenticity falls into two catego ries: brand and generic authenticity.

Brand authenticity is concerned with whether the liquid in the bottle pur-

chased by the consumer corresponds to the brand name on the label; generic

whisky authenticity is concerned with whether the liquid in question is

entitled to the broad description ‘whisky’. Liquid analysis plays a major role

in both cases by allowing the analytical fingerprint of the suspect sample to be

compared with that of the genuine brand or whisky type.

Brand authenticity

Whisky brand authenticity analysis enables enforcement agencies to protect

their consumers, and producers to protect their brands against illegal substi-

tution and counterfeiting. Substitution occurs when one brand is deliberately

and illegally substituted in bars by another (usually cheaper) brand. When this

occurs, the consumer, the brand owner and often the bar owner are defrauded.

In some countries, such as the UK, consumer protection officers (from local

authority Trading Standards or Environmental Health departments) collect

suspect samples from bars and submit them to their support laboratory

(known as the Public Analyst) or the brand owner for authenticity analysis.

In the case of blended Scotch whisky, it has been found that analys is of the

major volatile congeners (particularly the higher alcohols) allows normal con-

gener concentration ranges to be set (Aylott et al., 1994). As an example, Table

9.4 shows the normal analytical range data for three different brand s of

blended Scotch whisky dur ing 2001. The three brands contain quite different

blends of malt and grain whisky, as can be seen in their unique amyl alcohol

(2- and 3-methylbutanol) concentration ranges. As the less expensive brands

tend to contain lower proportions of malt whisky, these are usually the type of

product used illegally to refill the more expensive products.

The analyst will therefore determine alcoholic strength and the major vola-

tile congeners in a suspect sample, and compare the results with the normal

ranges for the genuine brand. If the suspect sample’s results fall within the

normal ranges, then that sample’s authenticity is usually accepted. If its results

are outside the normal rang es, the sample is not authentic. Table 9.5 contains

the results for three suspect samples, numbered B1, B2 and B3, which were

collected from bars by consumer protectio n officers and sold in bottles labelled

as brand B. The result for sample B1 fell within the normal ranges for brand B

and was therefore accepted as genuine brand B. Sample B2 had congener

concentrations within the normal ranges for the brand but an alcoholic

strength of 30 per cent vol.; it was concluded that this sample was the genuine

298 Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing

[16:25 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-009.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 009 Page: 299 274-307

299

Table 9.4

Major volatile congener concentration ranges (g/100 l abs. alc.) for three different brands of Scotch whisky comprising samples taken

from 42, 54 and 42 production batches, respectively

Sample Declared

alcoholic

strength

(%)

Acetaldehyde Methanol Ethyl

acetate

n-Propanol Isobutanol 2-methylbutanol 3-methylbutanol 2- and

3-methylbutanol

Ratio 1 Ratio 2

Brand A 40 3.4–8.4 6.4–9.9 20–24 50–58 61–70 10–13.7 32–39 42–53 0.7–0.8 2.8–3.1

Brand B 40 3.3–8.6 6.2–10 21–27 51–66 61–72 16–21 46–56 62–76 0.9–1.1 2.7–3.0

Brand C 40 6.6–13 6.0–9.2 34–42 58–87 64–76 22–26 60–70 82–96 1.2–1.3 2.6–2.8

Ratio R1 ¼ 2- and 3-methyl butanol/isobutanol.

Ratio R2 ¼ 3-methylbutanol/2-methylbutanol.

[16:25 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-009.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 009 Page: 300 274-307

300

Table 9.5

Major volatile congener concentrations (g/100 l abs. alc.) in Scotch whisky brand authenticity investigations

Sample Alcoholic

strength

(%)

Acetaldehyde Methanol Ethyl

acetate

n-Propanol Isobutanol 2-

methyl-

butanol

methyl-

butanol

2- and

3-methyl-

butanol

Ratio 1 Ratio 2 Authenticity Conclusion

Suspect

sample B1

40.0 7.2 8.5 25 60 70 17 48 65 0.93 2.82 Genuine ...

Suspect

sample B2

30.2 5.0 6.0 22 55 70 20 54 68 0.97 2.7 Not

genuine

Diluted with

water

Suspect

sample B3

40.0 9.0 5.0 15 39 75 13 35 48 0.64 2.7 Not

genuine

Other Scotch

whisky

Suspect

sample C1

40.1 11.7 8.8 32 70 73 22 62 84 1.15 2.8 Genuine ...

Suspect

sample C2

39.3 6.4 6.9 15 43 46 13 38 51 1.10 2.8 Not

genuine

Other Scotch

whisky

Suspect

sample C3

47.2 1.7 1.7 4 7 9 5 15 21 2.18 2.9 Not

genuine

Admixture

Suspect

sample C4

38.0 8.0 4.0 16 30 35 11 31 42 1.15 2.8 Not

genuine

‘Stretched’

Ratio R1 ¼ 2- and 3-methyl butanol/isobutanol.

Ratio R2 ¼ 3-methylbutanol/2-methylbutanol.

[16:25 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-009.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 009 Page: 301 274-307

brand but had been adulterated and stretched by dilution with added water.

Sample B3 had many congeners outside the normal ran ges for brand B (parti-

cularly n-propanol, isoamyl alcohol and ratio R1), and it was conclude d that it

was not the genuine brand B but another blended Scotch whisky with less malt

whisky in its blend composition compared to brand B. This analytical

approach regularly contributes to prosecution evidence against those who

substitute popular brands in the on-trade with cheaper products.

In a similar way, samples C1–C4 were suspect counterfeit samples collected

in Asia and purporting to be deluxe Brand C. The results for suspect sample

C1 fell within the normal ranges for Brand C and therefore sample C1 was

concluded to be genuine. Sample C2 results were outside the required ranges,

particularly isoamyl alcohol and ratio R2, which suggested the liquid was not

genuine but was another Scotch whisky with much less malt whisky in its

blend co mposition compared to Brand C. Sample C3 was not genuine; its

higher alcohol concentrations were very low, but ratios 1 and 2 were charac-

teristic of Scotch malt whisky. This suggested that Sample C3 was an admix-

ture based on neutral alcohol flavoured with a smaller proportion of malt

whisky. Sample C4 was also not genuine, with all congener concentrations

at approximately one-half of their expected values for genuine product. This

suggested that Sample C4 was based on genuine Brand C ,which had been

adulterated (or ‘stretched’) by the addition of an equal volume of cheaper

neutral alcohol.

There are needs for similar analytical strategies to be established for check-

ing the brand authenticities of Irish, Canadian and bourbon whiski es.

However, many brands, each with their own unique blen d compositions,

can show overlapping analytical fingerprints, and the methodology described

above then becomes limited. There is a need for more research in this area.

Generic authenticity

Generic authenticity analysis is more complicated than brand authenticity

analysis because the analytical data employed must encompass all the

whiskies in that category, rather than the more narrow analytical fingerprints

of specific brands (Lisle et al., 1978; Simpkins, 1985; Aylott, 1999). Generic

authenticity is primarily a concern in the less regulated markets, where

there are less stringent legal definitions for whisky and less stri ngent consu-

mer protection laws.

Chromatographi c techniques contribute qualitative and quantitative infor-

mation for suspect samples to be compared with the known analytical ranges

of genuine product. It is also useful to check for the presence of components in

the suspect product that are foreign to the generic whisky, or for the absence of

required congeners from the suspect product. The presence of foreign compo-

nents or the absence of key congeners will raise suspicions about generic

authenticity.

The major volatile congener profile can be very useful in generic authenti-

city analyses. For example, an abnormally high methanol concentration may

Chapter 9 Whisky analysis 301

[16:25 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-009.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 009 Page: 302 274-307

suggest the use of a non-cereal alcohol. The presence of 3-methylbutanol with-

out any 2-methylbutanol may suggest the addition of 3-methylbutanol as a

synthetic flavouring. The maturation congener profile can be used in a similar

way. The absence of maturation congeners may suggest that the suspect pro-

duct has not been subjected to the required period of maturation, and the

presence of a congener (such as vanillin) on its own without related matura-

tion congeners may suggest its addition as part of a synthetic flavouring.

Analytical conclusions from such examples may be used to demonstrate that

a suspect product purporting to be whisky has not been produced in compli-

ance with the regulatory requirements. The analytical evidence can then con-

tribute to the disqualification of suspect products as whisky.

Isotopic techniques have been assessed for use in checking that the alcohol

suspect sa mples are derived only from cereal fermentation and not a cheaper

source such as cane or beet. One potential stable isotope measurement is the

H ratio in different positions on the methyl and methylene hydrogens in

ethanol, determined using site-specific natural isotope fractionation–nuclear

magnetic resonance (SNIF–NMR). The methyl hydrogens are primarily influ-

enced by fermented substrate, and the methylene hydrogens are strongly

influenced by the ratio in the fermentation water (Martin et al., 1995).

C stable isotope ratios are influenced by the photosynthetic pathway

used by the fermentable substrate to assimilate CO

(Parker et al., 1998).

Barley, wheat and beet use the C

(Calvin) pathway, and maize (corn) and

cane use the C

(Hatch–Slack) pathway. Unfortunately, this technique cannot

help authenticate the many whiskies made from both barley and maize. Lastly,

synthetic alcohol is obviously not permitted in whisky, and

C analysis by

liquid scintillation counting may be used to discriminate betwe en synthetic

and natural ethyl alcohol in spirits and fortified wines (McWeeny and Bates,

1980).

Recent issues

Nitrosamines

N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) was discovered in the mid-1970s at low

mg/l levels in certain beers and whiskies. NDMA is a suspected carcinogen,

and therefore methods of analysis were required in order to determine its

concentration and to understand and control its formation. NDMA is analysed

by gas chromatography with a thermal energy analyser (TEA) as detector. This

analysis requires no sample preparation for whisky samples, yet offers sensi-

tivity to below 1 mg/l.

Research at that time on Scotch whisky found that NDMA formation was

influenced by the kilning conditions for malted barley. The presence of oxides

of nitrogen (NO

) in the kiln gases enhanced its formation. NDMA could be

reduced by preventing NO

from entering the system, or by ensuring the

presence of sulphur dioxide in the gas stream (Duncan, 1992). Sulphur-dioxide

302 Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing

[16:25 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-009.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 009 Page: 303 274-307

levels were enhanced in those malt kilns fired by heavy fuel oil rather than

natural gas. Now that the NDMA issue has passed, its regular analysis in

Scotch whisky is all but over, with only occasional analyses required for

very aged samples.

Ethyl carbamate

Ethyl carbamate (urethane) was discovered as a trace component at the mg/l

level in a wide range of foods and alcoholic beverages in the mid-1980s. As

ethyl carbamate (EC) is a carcinogen to laboratory animals at much higher

dose concentrations, Health and Welfare Canada set maximum concentrations

in table wines (10 mg/l), fortified wines and sake (100 mg/l), distilled spirits

(150 mg/l) and fruit spirits, liqueurs and grape brandy (400 mg/l) (Connacher

and Page, 1986). There then followed an intense five-year period in the

European and North American whisky industries, first to determine natur al

concentrations of EC in whisky with adequate sen sitivity, selectivity and pre-

cision, and then to understan d its method of formation so that control mea-

sures could be implemented (Zimmerli and Schlatter, 1991). Various surveys

have shown that most whiskies contain EC concentrations at less than 100 mg/l

(Dennis et al., 1989; Battaglia et al., 1990; Food Standards Agency UK, 2000),

although higher concentrations could be found in certain single whiskies.

Similarly, certain bour bon whiskies exceeded the Canadian 150-mg/l limit.

United States distill ers later agreed with BATF a 125- mg/l EC target limit for

new whisky distillate. More recently, a 400-mg/l EC limit has been introduced

in Germany due to the greater EC levels encountered in certain fruit spirits.

Methods for the determination of EC in whiskies and other distilled spirits

require capillary column gas chromatography coupled to nitrogen-specific or

mass spectrometric detection (Aylott et al., 1987). Initially EC was concentrated

by solvent extraction, but subsequently sample preparation was minimized

and the method automated by employing direct injection of whisky samples

with added n-propyl carbamate as an internal standard. GC–MS on a polar

capillary column with mass detection at m/z 62 enabled good selectivity and a

limit of detection of less than 5 mg/l in whiskies. It was found that the chro-

matographic peak shape for EC was better when analysing distillation and

maturation strength samples (at > 55 per cent vol.) compared to those at 40 per

cent vol. bottle strength. Therefore, bottle strength samples were first diluted

with absolute alcohol (containing no EC) in order to bring sample alcoholic

strength up to about 70 per cent vol. prior to injection.

Intense research was initiated throughout the alcoholic beverage industry in

order to understand EC formation. The breakthrough for whisky came when

post-distillation EC formation from trace cyanide and cyanate precursors was

discovered in the Scotch grain whisky process (Aylott et al., 1990). Trace cya-

nide was found to come from the thermal decomposition during distillation of

the cyanohydrin of isobutyraldehyde (IBAC), which is present in fermented

wash (or beer in the USA). IBAC arises during fermentation by the hydrolytic

action of yeast b-glucosidase on a naturally occurring cyanogenic glycoside

Chapter 9 Whisky analysis 303

[16:25 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-009.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 009 Page: 304 274-307

known as epiheterodendrin (EPH). EPH is located in the acrospires (growing

shoots) of malted barley (Cook, 1990, Cook et al., 1990). Laboratory-based

radiochemical studies verified this chemi cal pathway (McGill and Morley,

1990).

The knowledge that the relatively low EC levels in new-make grain spirit

from a Coffey still could increase by post-distillation EC formation from cya-

nide and cyanate precursors led to investigations into their formation, using

ion chromatography with conductivity and pulsed amperometric detectors

(MacKenzie et al., 1990). The precursors cyanide, copper cyanide complex

anions, lactonitrile and IBA C we re collectively determined as ‘measurable

cyanide’ (MC), along with cyanate and thiocyanate ions. A practical relation-

ship was established between MC concentrations in new-make spirit and final

EC concentrations after all the available MC precursor had converted during

the first few weeks of maturation into EC (Aylott et al., 1990), giving the

formula:

Final EC ¼ 0:5 MC þ 15

Ion chromatographic or colorimetric MC analyses were introduced into dis-

tillery process control. During this period of research the presence of sacrificial

copper surfaces in Scotch grain whisky Coffey stills and the addition of sacri-

ficial copper rings into stainless steel American bourbon beer stills was found

to mop up MC, and thus help reduce post-distillation EC formation.

More importantly, it was found that different barley varieties have differing

levels of EC precursors (Cook, 1990, Cook et al., 1990). First this knowledge

enabled maltsters and distillers to select low MC-potential varieties, and then

enabled growers to develop new varieties of malting barley with low levels of

epiheterodendrin precursor. Ethyl carbamate in all whiskies can now be mon-

itored, and its formation minimized through distillation process control and

the use of malting barley varieties with low MC-potential.

References

Allan A. H. and Chattaway W. (1891). On the examination of spirituous liquids for

secondary constituents. Analyst, 16, 102–115.

Anon. (1494). Lord High Treasurer of Scotland’s Accounts, 1, 176.

AOAC (2000). Official Methods of Analysis Handbook, 17th edn, vol. II, 26.1.07 – 26.1.11.

AOAC International.**50

Aylott, R. I. (1999). Chemistry Review, 3,2.

Aylott, R. I. and Mc Lachlan, I. (1986). In: Proceedings of the Third Aviemore Symposium on

Malting, Brewing and Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), p. 425. Institute of Brewing.

Aylott, R. I., McNeish, A. S. and Walker, D. A. (1987). Journal of the Institute of Brewing,

93, 382.

Aylott, R. I., Cochrane, G. C., Leonard, M. J. et al. (1990). Journal of the Institute of

Brewing, 96, 213.

Aylott, R. I., Clyne, A. H., Fox, A. H. and Walker, D.A. (1994). Analyst, 119, 1741.

304 Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing

[16:25 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-009.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 009 Page: 305 274-307

Battaglia, R., Connacher, H. B. S. and Page, B. D. (1990). Food Additives and Contaminants,

7, 477.

Baxter, M. S. and Walton, A. (1971). Proceedings of the Royal Society London, A321, 105.

Beveridge, J. L. (1990). In: Proceedings of the Third Aviemore Symposium on Malting,

Brewing and Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), p. 449. Institute of Brewing.

Connacher, H. B. S. and Page, D. B. (1986). Proceedings of Euro Tox II, Zurich, p. 237.**51

Cook, R. (1990). In: Proceedings of the Third Aviemore Symposium on Malting, Brewing and

Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), p. 237. Institute of Brewing.

Cook, R., McCaig, N., McMillan, J. M. B. and Lumsden, W. B. (1990). Journal of the

Institute of Brewing, 96, 233.

Craig, H. C. (1994). The Scotch Whisky Industry Record, pp. 7–347. Index Publishing.

Dennis, M. J., Howarth. N., Key, P. E. et al. (1989). Food Additives and Contaminants, 6(3),

383.

Drinks International (2002). May, 17.**52

Duncan, R. E. B. (1992). A History of Glenochil, p. 41. United Distillers.

Duncan, R. E. B. and Philp, J. M. (1966). Journal of Science of Food Agriculture, 17, 208.

EEC (1989). EEC Council Regulation No. 1576/89 of 29 May 1989, Laying down general

rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks. Official

Journal of the European Community, L160,1.

EC Commission Regulation (2000) No. 2870/2000 of 19 December 2000. Laying down

Community reference methods for the analysis of spirit drinks, Annex 1, L333/23

– L333/46.

Food and Drug Regulations, Ottawa, 1993, Section B.02.020–021.**53

Food Standards Agency UK (2000). Survey for ethyl carbamate in whisky, Information

Sheet 2/00, May.

Hardy, P. J. and Brown, J. H. (1989). In: The Science and Technology of Whiskies (J. R.

Piggott, R. Sharp and R. E. B. Duncan, eds), p. 182. Longman Scientific and

Technical.

Hills, P. (2000). Appreciating Whisky, p. 15. HarperCollins Publishers.

Kahn, J. H. (1969). Journal of the Association of Off. Anal. Chem., 34, 1166.

Kelly, J., Chapman. S., Brereton, P. et al. (1999). Journal of the Association of Off. Anal.

Chem. Int., 82, 1375.

Lee, K.-Y. M., Paterson, A., Birkmyre, L. and Piggott, J. R. (2001a). Journal of the Institute

of Brewing, 107, 315.

Lee, K.-Y. M., Paterson, A., Birkmyre, L. and Piggott, J. R. (2001b). Journal of the Institute

of Brewing, 107, 287.

Lehtonen, M. (1983a). Journal of the Association of Off. Anal. Chem., 66, 71.

Lehtonen, M. (1983b). Journal of the Association of Off. Anal. Chem., 66, 62.

Lisle, D. B., Richards, C. P. and Wardleworth, D. F. (1978). Journal of the Institute of

Brewing, 84, 93.

Lyons, T. P. (1999). In: The Alcohol Textbook, 3rd edn (K. A. Jacques, T. P. Lyons and D. R.

Kelsall, eds), p. 137. Nottingham University Press.

Lyons, T. P. and Rose, A. H. (1977). In: Alcoholic Beverages (A. H. Rose, ed.), p. 635.

Academic Press.

Maarse, H. and Visscher, C. A. (1985a). Volatile Compounds in Food, Qualitative Data,

Suppl. 2, p. 66.1. TNO-CIVO Food Analysis Institute.

Maarse, H. and Visscher, C. A. (1985b). Volatile Compounds in Food, Qualitative Data,

Suppl. 4, p. 66.14. TNO-CIVO Food Analysis Institute.

MacKenzie, W. M., Clyne, A. H. and MacDonald, L. S. (1990). Journal of the Institute of

Brewing, 96, 223.

Chapter 9 Whisky analysis 305

[16:25 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-009.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 009 Page: 306 274-307

Martin, G. E., Burgraff, J. M., Dyer, R. H. and Buscemi, P. C. (1981). Journal of the

Association of Off. Anal. Chem., 64, 186.

Martin, G. G., Symonds, P., Lees, M. and Martin, M. L. (1995). In: Authenticity of

Fermented Beverages in Fermented Beverage Production (A. G. H. Lea and J. R.

Piggott, eds), p. 386.**54

McGill, D. J. and Morley, A. S. (199). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 96, 245.

McWeeny, D. J. and Bates, M. L. (1980). Journal of Food Technology, 15, 407.

Morrison, J. A. (1999). In: The Alcohol Textbook (K. A. Jacques, T. P. Lyons and D. R.

Kelsall, eds), 3rd edn, p. 169. Nottingham University Press.

Murray, J. (1998). Complete Book of Whisky. Sevenoaks.

Parker, I. G., Kelly, S. D., Sharman, M. et al. Food Chemistry, 63, 423.

Philp, J. M. (1986). In: Proceedings of the Second Aviemore Symposium on Malting, Brewing

and Distilling (I. Campbell and F. G. Priest, eds), p. 148. Institute of Brewing.

Piggott, J. R. and Connor, J. M. (1995). In: Fermented Beverage Production (A. G. H. Lea

and J. R. Piggott, eds), p. 247. Blackie Academic and Professional.

Piggott, J. R., Sharp, R and Duncan, R. E. B. (eds) (1989). The Science and Technology of

Whiskies. Longman Scientific and Technical.

Ralph, R. (1999). In: The Alcohol Textbook (K. A. Jacques, T. P. Lyons and D. R. Kelsall,

eds), 3rd edn, p. 211. Nottingham University Press.

Reazin, G. H. (1979). Brewers’ Guardian, June, 31.

Research Committee on the Analysis of Potable Spirits (1979). Methods for the Analysis of

Potable Spirits. Laboratory of the Government Chemist.

Saxby, M. J. (ed). (1996). Food Taints and Off Flavours. Blackie Academic and

Professional.

Shoeneman, R. L. and Dyer, R. H. (1973). Journal of the Association of Off. Anal. Chem.,

56,1.

Simpkins, W. A. (1985). Journal of Science and Food Agriculture, 36, 367.

Singer, D. D. and Styles, J. W. (1965). Analyst, 19, 290.

Swan, J. S., Howie, D., Burtles, S. M. et al. In: The Quality of Foods and Beverages

(G. Charalambous and G. Inglett, eds), p. 201. Academic Press.

Zimmerli, B. and Schlatter, J. (1991). Mutation Research, 259, 325.

306 Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing

[16:26 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-010.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 010 Page: 309 308-349

Introduction

Before exploring the theme of the marketing of Scotch whisky it would be

helpful to define what marketing is about and why it is an importan t disci-

pline for the successful conduct of any business today.

Philip Kotler, of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern

University, and one of the leading academics in the field, def ines marketing

as ‘the set of human activities directed at facilitating and consummating

exchanges’ (Kotler, 1999). This definition is concerned with decisions by peo-

ple, either individually or in groups, conducting voluntary activities.

Marketing covers exchanges that are either one-time transactions or those

that concern building lasting relationships between buyers and sellers. The

marketing process is a two-sided discipline, where both buyers and sellers can

be actively involved. In terms of what is being exchanged, the key point is that

it concerns something that has value to one or both parties.

A narrower definition of marketing that is relevant to the practice of the

discipline is ‘the management of all the function s required to [copyright] satisfy

consumers and maximize profit in the long run for the company’. This defini-

tion puts the spotlight on the consumer, being the person who counts most in

transactions and is the focus of attention. It also highlights the motivation of

companies, which is the pursuit of profits over the long run, which in turn

depend upon the revenues derived from recurring customer and consumer

demand. Returning again to Kotler, marketing management is ‘the analysis,

planning, implementation, and control of programmes designed to bring about

desired exchanges with target audiences for the purpose of personal or mutual

gain’. Reliance is placed upon coordinating and adapting the key variables for

achieving an effective response from the consumer. McCarthy popularized a

four-factor classification of the marketing decision variables, the ‘four Ps’:

309

Chapter 10

Marketing Scotch

whisky

Grant E. Gordon

ISBN 0-12-669202-5 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved