“Well, at least they didn’t go as far as making it a “ladies” blend or some sh*t. Some of my most knowledgeable and astute clients are women who love Laphroiag and they cringe at the notion of someone telling them that there is such thing as a scotch for women. Now, this is not that, but it screams patronizing none the less,” said @just_a_wee_dram Instagram.

@WhiskeyJedi, from the US, commented that “[I] thought this was a joke at first. It just shows how out of touch Diageo has become with the industry. Women who drink whiskey drink regular old whiskey, not “whiskey for ladies”. This is even more offensive than that ‘Whiskey Girl’s flavored whiskies with the lipstick on the label“. @MaltReview went further to describe it as “a patronising, insincere cash in. Highlights the lack of anything useful to say. When a focus group spirals out of control“.

Then is it the case that there were a load of good intentions here, just somehow executed in a way that has not connected as intended? @rhframe thinks so, saying “I find it patronising! It does draw attention to the fact that whisky isn’t currently marketed to women though. Not sure they meant that and quite sure they wanted to cash in“, with @gclaywhittaker describing it as “a poorly executed, tone deaf destination on a road paved with some good intentions“.

I think @markofrespect said it best with the comment: “At least it wasn’t a pink bottle. It feels like a cynical attempt to tag on to the very valid empowerment movement. But are they saying a woman couldn’t enjoy a Johnnie Walker? For anyone saying ‘oh but this creates debate’, perhaps but I’d argue that the debate is already there and this is a t shirt slogan version of it designed to see a product, not a profound world leading change“. And @megansnowco commented that “I get what they are trying to do, but as a woman, I’m curious why I need a special bottle to justify drinking whisky?“

Curiously, not one comment that came back said they thought it was a good idea, this is not me being intentionally negative about this release as I’m a big fan of Johnnie Walker as both a product and a brand, and the people behind the brand work tirelessly to get positive messages out there and for the most part do an incredible job.

I just genuinely do not know what the right answer is here, but it feels just plain odd to me that at a time when so much focus is on #MeToo and #TimesUp movements around the world that releasing something to piggyback on really important and just social causes feels so forced and insincere, especially given that it is based around a fictional character instead of a woman who already imbues the entrepreneurial amongst other respected qualities such as Elizabeth Walker and Elizabeth Cumming – or even Helen Cumming who used to run the distillery and is as famous a figure in whisky folklore.

What is also interesting, as noted by Becky Paskin in her brilliant column here, Diageo, as with Bacardi, is consistently noted for “its work in promoting gender equality in the workplace, and has been named among the best companies in the FTSE100 for the number of women on boards and in leadership roles”, yet this just does not hit the mark for me.

Originally, when TMZ, who broke the news said in their article that “the ‘Jane Walker’ concept had been touted in 2016, around the time of the US presidential election, though it was scrapped after Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump”. Interesting.

The big thing here is that it does demonstrate progress and does demonstrate that the whisky industry is behind women, which is great news, just executionally I’m not so sure. I sincerely hope the campaign, and limited edition Jane Walker bottle raises lots of money for this great cause.

I’m keen to hear your thoughts on this Jane Walker release, the movements it is associating itself with and what that means for your view on the Johnnie Walker brand. 

Here’s an alternative take on Jane Walker from the States…