‘Hearsay’, not fact, in Scots Courage story

David Benady’s story “Scottish Courage clears out brands” (MW February 8) is misleading and in-accurate in both tone and detail.

This may be the inevitable consequence of relying on hearsay from a closed meeting but it is nonetheless, irresponsible.

Scottish Courage will focus its marketing investment on its key brands, which is a continuation of the strategy which served both Courage and S&N well in the past. However, it is wrong to suggest that the key brands of the portfolio are confined to two or three major national brands.

The combined portfolio contains a number of powerful national and regional brands as well as development opportunities. Support will be given across all key brands.

Beyond this, I must stress that our “secondary brands” still have an important role to play. There are no plans for mass rationalisation as the story suggests.

It is also completely incorrect to state that advertising cuts have any connection with the company’s publicly stated plan to achieve annual savings of 75m following reorganisation.

Any attendee at our briefing would have heard very clearly that Scottish Courage is committed to increasing support for its brands.

Thank you for allowing me to present the facts and I hope this will clear some of the confusion that the story may have created.

John Nicolson

Marketing director

Scottish Courage

Edinburgh

It is neither misleading nor inaccurate to report the facts. These are not based on hearsay – they were confirmed by the Scottish Courage corporate affairs department. Scottish Courage is shifting its marketing spend to key products, away from its smaller brands. The corporate affairs department accepts that some of the small brands will be left to go “into a downward spiral” when marketing support is withdrawn. Far from being irresponsible, last week’s article sought to clarify Scottish Courage’s strategy on its extensive brand portfolio, and report the changing emphasis of its marketing strategy. – Editor.