BREWDOG has been referred to an advertising watchdog after winners of a “solid gold” beer can found it was actually largely brass and worth just a fraction of the advertised price.
The brewing firm, based in Ellon in Aberdeenshire, had claimed that the “24 carat gold” cans were worth £15,000, but that valuation has now been disputed.
One of the ten winners of the competition has contacted the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) after being told by one jewellery expert that the can was worth just £500.
Instead of the “solid gold” advertised, which BrewDog now says was an error, the can is actually brass plated with gold just three microns, or three thousandths of a millimetre, thick.
On November 12, 2020, BrewDog founder James Watt tweeted: “Dear People Of The World, 10 solid gold Punk IPA cans are hidden in Punk 12-packs which will ship from our online shop over the next 4 weeks.
“Winners receive a gold can worth £15K, £10k of BrewDog shares & VIP tour of our Brewery. Good Luck To All.”
READ MORE: Watchdog bans BrewDog climate change advert over F-word controversy
The company insists that the £15,000 valuation was “based on multiple factors” and not only the worth of the gold.
They claim these include “the price we paid for its manufacture, the constituent metal and quality of the final product, the standard retail markup and the rarity and uniqueness of the cans”.
They say the “solid gold” reference was an error which has since been removed.
Adam Dean, a prize winner from Shropshire, told the BBC: "It said on the can 'you've won a £15k 24 carat gold Hazy Jane can'. Once I'd got over the shock I wanted to cover it on my house insurance.
“I got in touch with the can's makers, Thomas Lyte, who told me it was actually brass with a 24 carat gold plating.
"I had it valued by a jewellery expert. He told me it was only worth £500. I'm just totally disappointed and I want it resolved.
“I legally entered a competition to win a solid gold can but I've not got that. I asked for shares to make it up to £15,000 and Brewdog basically said no.”
Another prize winner, Mark Craig from Lisburn, Northern Ireland, said he had been told the can would be worth up to £10,000 based on its weight if it was solid gold.
Craig told the Guardian: “You saw people claiming that they’d ordered 20 cases to stock up, all on the basis of it being a ‘solid gold’ can.
“I can’t imagine a similar frenzy for a novelty can, which is what it ended up being.”
BrewDog have said that: “Importantly, the phrasing in question [‘solid gold’] was never included in the detailed terms and conditions of the competition, nor in the wording informing the lucky winners of their prize.”
The firm also said it had apologised to the winners “privately”.
READ MORE: BrewDog CEO responds after ex-employees write open letter criticising workplace
The ASA said in a statement: "A complainant has challenged whether the claim that the prize was solid gold is misleading as they believe it's not made from solid gold and rather brass and gold plating.
"They have also challenged whether another ad is misleading as they understand the can is not worth £15,000."
The blunder is one of a string of recent misfires for the “punk” company, now estimated to be worth more than $2 billion (£1.44bn).
BrewDog came under fire earlier this month after former employees alleged that a “significant number of people have admitted they have suffered mental illness as a result of working” for the firm.
The former staff, in a lengthy letter, also accused the company of “vanity” projects and of failing to follow through on promises made as part of marketing campaigns, including sending beer to the Kremlin to mock Russia’s laws on “gay propaganda”.
In response, Watt said his company wasn’t going “to make excuses, we’re going to take action”.
The brand previously said it aimed to be the “best employer in the world” after placing 80th in the Sunday Times 100 Best Companies To Work For in 2017.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel