Jump to content

Certified craft -- setting the record straight


Recommended Posts

This week, ADI announced its Certified Craft Distiller program. As I initiated this idea on the ADI forum board almost three years ago and framed some of ADI’s current definition, I want to set the record straight on how, in my view, its final implementation will not benefit craft distillers and why I urge all of my fellow distillers to avoid adopting it.

Background

I initially proposed the idea of certifying our spirits as the handiwork of real, small distilleries when Diageo launched Moon Mountain vodka in 2010 and tried to market it as craft. (The brand, which had nothing to do with craft distilling, has subsequently been discontinued.)

Since then, our ranks have swelled and craft spirits are beginning to gain recognition and shelf space throughout the country. Because of our success -- and knowing full well the parallels between craft spirits and craft beer -- large brand owners and their wholesalers are jockeying to take advantage of the movement. Their answer to the threat (and opportunity) we represent is a classic jiu jitsu move: embrace the category and re-direct its energies towards small-to-mid sized brands that large players own or control.

This is a serious threat to our future. As big brands jump into the space and claim to be craft, they’ll introduce enough confusion in the marketplace to thwart our growth.

It was and remains my hope that, by articulating what makes our spirits “craft” in simple terms and then uniting behind it, we’ll bring clarity to the term and strengthen our position in the marketplace.

The ADI Program and why it’s flawed

ADI proposes to create two tiers of certification. Here’s how they define them:

- CRAFT DISTILLED SPIRITS are the products of an independently-owned distillery with maximum annual sales of 52,5001 (sic) cases where the product is PHYSICALLY distilled and bottled on site.

- CRAFT BLENDED SPIRITS are the products of an independently-owned and operated facility that uses any combination of traditional and/or innovative techniques such as: fermenting, distilling, re-distilling, blending, infusing and warehousing to create products with unique flavor profiles. Craft blending is not merely mixing high-proof spirits with water or sweetening.

Beyond the inconsistencies and confusing language of these definitions (why does blending include fermenting and distilling?), I find three critical faults with ADI’s approach which, I fear, will undermine our efforts to define craft spirits in a meaningful way:

1. Message.

Precision can be great for certain types of communication but it’s deadly when trying to introduce a new idea to a large audience in a short period of time with limited resources. Our audiences -- spirits fans, trade buyers, wholesalers and reporters -- will realistically grant us just enough of their attention to remember one clear message about craft spirits. If we insist they remember two or more, then they won’t remember any.

More than one definition would also open the door for others to introduce their own schemes to frame craft spirits. This will complicate the message further until even our most ardent fans will stop paying attention.

BOTTOM LINE: We need one definition of craft.

2. Control

I believe that we, the craft distilling community, not ADI (a private corporation, which is not our trade association) should be in control of defining craft distilling. In framing what constitutes craft distilling, ADI made a decision for us that wasn’t its to make.

Ceding our right to define our industry is dangerous for craft distillers. One day, Bill will retire and ADI will likely have a new owner. If we go along with ADI’s proposed definition and begin promoting its certification, then that new owner will have undue control over our industry.

This new owner could easily be a company like Pernod Ricard, for which the idea of certification as a means to influence the market is not new. It owns a business called BarSmarts that trains and certifies up-and-coming bartenders by teaching them how to make cocktails using primarily Pernod Ricard brands. Do we want really want someone like Pernod Ricard to control the definition of craft on our behalf?

BOTTOM LINE: We, the distilling community, not a private corporation, need to define and maintain control of the definition of our industry.

3. Ownership

In all of my communications with Bill Owens, the owner of ADI, I have stressed that we, the craft distilling community, need to own the trademark for “certified craft.” It’s our industry and we, its members, need to own this legal title to its certification -- much as NFL teams own the NFL trademark.

Given its resources and history of involvement with the craft distilling community, ADI could make a good administrator of the certification process and profit from its maintenance and marketing. But it should not profit from its ownership or be in a position to sell it to another company.

After verbally agreeing to this, Bill proceeded to trademark the term “certified craft” and has remained mum about its ownership.

BOTTOM LINE: We, the distilling community, not a private corporation, need to own the trademark for “certified craft” and ADI should turn over its ownership.

Next Steps

I urge all of my fellow distillers to avoid using or adopting this certification scheme on any level. I’m working on a solution and will report back in the next 30 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you think of forming a co-op to buy ADI when the time comes? Or else having the brewers' association create a certification method/definition that we market as being one that is widely adopted and agreed-upon by craft distillers and NOT created by a corporation. If we get the jump on this, ADI could wind up with egg on its face.

Edit: Only...Instead of calling it "certified" since it's trademarked, use some properly professional-sounding synonym. "Authentic?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be better to build on what Bill has done if we can, but move toward what the first poster has suggested. In particular, Bill may have protected the trademark; it is smart to trademark IMMEDIATELY, because otherwise it becomes public domain. Now, the question is what happens with that trademark. I suggest a good outcome is to get an agreement in place between ADI and representative organization(s) for the industry, like ACDA and the state guilds or trade associations, to do what the first poster proposed: ADI would run a certification program and profit from doing so, and the TM(s) would be registered or owned in a way that ensures trade (versus ADI) control.

I disagree with the first poster in one way: I do not believe it is impossible to have two versus one certifications. I do agree they should be absolutely clear in definition, and that they should have names that strongly represent those definitions. I do agree that the current title of "Craft Blended" could be confusing, UNLESS it is only used for blended spirits. One could have a broader category of "Craft Produced" which would cover everything other than distilled on site. I suspect the first poster would actually more strongly object to this than the original "Craft Blended" moniker.

The ACDA or other organizations may not really want to take on doing this task in any case, because an organization that is certifying incurs additional liabilities, and in particular, if running as a 501©6, has to be careful how this affects tax status. As per my earlier comment in another thread, I think there can be advantages to having the non-profit trade association (ACDA) do some things and the private institute (ADI) do other things, particularly if this is done in a cooperative and coordinated way. Then everyone may benefit synergistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you call someone who buys GNS from the supplier down the road, and runs it through there still and calls it "handcrafted"?

A distiller has a DSP permit from the Fed and the home state of the plant, and produces product through a still. That seems simple enough doesn't it? I've been involved with the discussion on the matter of a definition for what "we" do for three years at least, some of you may have followed the thread here on the ADI Forum during that period and know we found it not really possible to find a definition including the word "craft" which would be accepted by a solid majority of respondents. In the end, such as it was, we opted for the term "micro spirits producer" which met with no real negative response. For ADI membership purposes that served as the de facto definition for the last few years. But the proliferation of small distilleries which use the term "craft" and as Melkon points out, presents the risk for the true Craft Distillers of dilution of the meaning of the term and so perhaps it is time to bite the bullet and actually use "craft" in a definition. Unfortunately, also as Melkon notes, ADI is not a qualified agency and can not simply announce to the industry ADI (Who? by the way) has defined the terms, here they are. The definition of the industry is the right and responsibility of the industry members and that means those with DSP permits and producing spirits and paying taxes. This is precisely the reason why, regardless of ADI and its membership, there needs be a true industry association owned and operated by its membership, which members are actually licensed distillers with real professional, regulatory, taxpaying, educational concerns. A private corporation which is a club for anyone with any interest in distilling at all, licensed or not, and subject to the owner's unilateral decisions is not. The AMERICAN CRAFT DISTILLERS ASSOCIATION ("ACDA") is engaged in a variety of undertakings which will have a direct impact on American small distilleries in such matters as: Excise Tax reduction, International Export, Professional education for member DSPs. It is currently organizing its first election of officers and a Board of Directors made up of licensed DSP operators which will direct the work of the ACDA. Both ADI and ACDA are good for the craft spirits industry for different reasons, both valid. But let's not confuse their mandates. ADI has helped to successfully launch the craft distilling movement, and continues to do so. It is time now to recognize the differences between the roles of ADI and ACDA and set aside any discussion of competition between the two organizations. I must agree with Melkon that the definitions ADI puts forward are inappropriate and should not be agreed by the community. ADI can again help the craft distilling industry and in particular those who invest substantial money and time in acquiring permits and equipment and are engaged in a startup, by acknowledging ACDA as the legitimate Industry Association for Craft Distilling in America.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I object to ADI defining this without any input or vote from actual distillers.

So i think I will just ignore the ADI labels.

If ACDA would put out several options and solicit real input and buyin from distillers, then have some sort of legitimate voting process among members, that is something I could support, even if my vote were on the losing side eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actual distillers? It sounds like you aren't too fond of ADI and are a little offended that someone who might not 'actually distill' might have a voice, so why do you keep coming back to the forum? ADI is an independent organization (which you paid into for some reason) and can put whichever designation on a sticker they want, and it will only bug the 'actual distillers' (which we are) and not the public. The Public wants a craft distilled product, and this is a good step in the right direction. I applaud ADI for not designing something by committee and just making a dang decision already. I'll also bet several 'legitimate actual distillers' that are well respected in the industry were consulted on the matter and helped to frame the definition - no matter how loose it may be. Sounds like you're mad you weren't invited to the party. Forego the stickers. It's totally within your right to not identify your product as craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ADI is a privately owned company, it is under the control of the owner. The industry needs more than a club for interested persons. TUTHILLTOWN SPIRITS has been a member of ADI since the beginning and we intend to continue our membership. But we do so in the full knowledge that it is not representing the needs and wishes of the licensed distillers. As I said, there is a place for both the ADI and the AMERICAN CRAFT DISTILLERS ASSOCIATION, but let's not get their roles and mandates confused please. ADI has no authority to unilaterally establish standards for the producers. The process of developing the ADI proposal was not transparent to the licensed community, and appeared unannounced. Should AAA be designated the agency qualified to set technical standards for auto manufacturing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should AAA be designated the agency qualified to set technical standards for auto manufacturing?

Should it, probably not. Could it designate standards, ratings, or certifications for auto travel: it can, it does, and if there is value in them for the consumer, then it will be highly regarded and sought out. And in the latter case, the only "authority" comes from its position established by its membership and the degree to which the consumer base respects the result.

ADI can attempt to do the same. That does not mean it is representative of our industry; agreed, that should be the role of the ACDA. So two questions remain: 1) does the ACDA want to do its own certifications? and 2) does ACDA want to provide feedback and ultimately endorse/accept (or not) the certifications being managed by ADI? From the consumer's point of view, if both ADI and ACDA were to provide such certifications in competition, it is not obvious which would be the most successful. That would hinge on how the consumer views each. While the consumer might put value on a certification based on rules that represent the interest of the industry, they might just as well prefer that it be done by an independent entity, albeit the monikers of representative and independent would all be a matter of perception by the consumer.

Disclosure: I am a member of both the ADI and the ACDA, and a founder of the ICDA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all,

This discussion will always turn around in circles on the definition of craft. TTB defines what a DSP can or can't do, but they don't define based upon size, craft vs macro, etc.

In some ways, this is analogous to many of the posts I've written about certifying "Master Distillers" in our industry. I've said it before, I have designed, built, commissioned and personally distilled greater than 1 million gallons of material in the last 8 years....however I don't call myself a "Master Distiller". Yet I attend ADI and see people who have yet to get their DSP's and haven't distilled a drop other than at 4 day workshops, handing out business cards that say "Master Distiller".

Until ADI & ACDA &, &, &,..... (basically the industry as a whole) can come to some sort of agreement on what terms and certifications mean, this will continue to be an issue.

Think of it this way. Joe Blow "Master Distiller", opens a new distillery after a 4 day workshop, makes crap (because it will be with that level of knowledge and experience), puts a "Craft Distilled Spirits" sticker on the bottle and sells it to the unwary customer. Then by association, the customer will come to think that if this is what "Master Distillers" and "Craft Distilled Spirits" gets you, then by default anyone else with the same monikers will probably have the same crap in their bottle.

Ultimately, defining craft, Master Distiller, and other terms isn't going to get us too far. The long term solution will probably be something like a certifying body (think Professional Engineer certifications, ISO-9000, ASTM) that can assess the knowledge, education, and experience of the distiller and certifies that said person or said Distillery is making something that the consumer can trust.

Until then, my opinion is the following will happen. ADI has led to ACDA. Someone isn't going to like something about ACDA and they're going to start their own group with its own goals and certifications. Someone isn't going to like that and they're going to start something else....ad infinitum.

The only way to stop the "I'm taking my toys and going to play somewhere else" is to follow the standards set in damn near all other manufacturing industries and set a certification program and live by it.

I know that many of you have heard me bang this drum before and after the few years in this industry, my opinion has only strengthened on this issue. Define all you want, but until there is a certifying body with a defined group of standards.....we're only going to wind up with bottles covered in stickers from every group one can find.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you John. Agreed. The interim Board of the ACDA is considering, as you suggest, the possibility of lending ACDA certification to programs such as that which ADI is promoting. However, any qualified certification must carry the weight of the support of the licensed industry participants. ACDA is young and still coalescing. It will take a little time to get any kind of acceptable certification program underway. But that does not suggest that in the meanwhile we can use the "standards" established by a private club for the industry. This will confuse the marketplace, especially if the ADI certification does not meet with acceptance by the industry as a whole. Those who have worked hard, risked their own resources, filed the extensive paperwork, paid for the insurance and staff and fuel and taxes; these are the qualified professionals who will be most directly affected by the setting of any standards and should have direct input into the standards. Any compilation of "standards" will take some time, and should not be rushed simply to sew up use of a term or claim "first in" status. The most experienced craft distillers in the US are deeply involved in the creation of the industry association and certifications as well as Legislative action, tax reform and safety; but we are all starting from scratch and these things will take some time. Licensed distillers should get on board, join ACDA and contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an extremely interesting thread. People are all over the map, as they should be in such a rapidly growing industry. The old timers with either multi-generational distilling backgrounds or advanced degrees want one thing, the 4 day workshop entrepreneurs want something else, and we are all in it together. In the end, quality, branding, and a bit of luck will carry the day. No single label will matter, imho. Craft, Artisan, Micro, whatever.... Aren't COLAs hard enough to deal with? I don't need any more hoops or regulations. What I would like is action to help deregulate this industry and make it easier for more and more to enter and try new things. What I love about this field is there is really not much dogma. People are out there trying just about anything with all kinds of different still designs, different barrels, infusions, ingredients, you name it. Some will become Tito's, others will be selling their equipment on this very forum after blowing their life savings on a dream that didn't pan out. I like it when we don't get in each other's way and we sort of share our experiences and wisdom without arrogance. Maybe I say that because I have little practical experience and I like to avoid making the same mistakes everyone else has already made :) I rely a great deal on the relationships and mentorship that I have found on these forums. I appreciate all of the dedicated folks out there willing to contribute. As I grow, I hope I can stay connected and contribute as the hours become fewer and fewer in my day.

Just my 2 cents. Cheers and Aloha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one have previously voiced my opinion about "master distillers, and certified quality" . It's bunk. The very term "craft" is often times synonymous with "less than perfect". It's why thousands if not millions of people drive to marginal wineries even year to buy high priced, less than "perfect" wines that aren't squirted out of a giant machine. They expect something that may be other than a cookie cutter, same old thing every time.

Even the concept of "small batch, or single batch, or single pot" conjures up the concept of a different outcome with each run. Would one expect and pay a premium for the exact same outcome every time? If the "master" were in fact so adept, then there would be no difference, and therein no premium.

In this quest for a terminology that will define the likes of non corporate giants, we shouldn't confuse someone's hours behind a still, with what makes a desireable product and purchasing experience that commands a price point that is good for us all.

As a pilot we have a saying "there are thousand hour pilots, and their are pilots that have the same hour a thousand times" . In other words, raw hours don't necessarily make you good at what you are trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it'd be great if TTB promulgated a "craft" designation / certification. State governments that do this will be helping build a reputable brand for their spirits. The British Columbia government earlier this year released a "certified craft" designation for distilleries in the province. Distilleries have to apply for the "Craft Distillery" designation from the province's ABC. The requirements are:

1) All products must be fermented and distilled at the licensed distillery site using 100 per cent BC agricultural inputs; and

2) All products must be produced utilizing traditional spirit making techniques. The production of spirit cooler products or other highly processed products are not permitted, nor is the use of neutral grain spirits in the production of any products; and

3) The distillery has an annual production of finished products below 50,000 litres.

"Finished products" is defined to mean bottled and ready to sell. Putting aside the 100% local inputs, I think it's a great definition. They also say when you apply for a craft designation, they'll combine distilleries that have any combined ownership/management. And less anyone doubts their seriousness, the ABC requires a "signed statutory declaration", along with extensive and periodic auditing and information sharing with the Federal Excise authorities.

Edited to add this thought: I think the "USDA Organic" logo would be a good model. "TTB Distilled Craft" - awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Next up on the "abuse of craft" labeling: http://americanharvestspirit.com/

They claim to be handcrafted in small batches, but their promo video clearly shows their production as an industrial capacity continuous column facility. In fact it appears that the only "hand crafting" is an assembly line of people tightening bottle caps. I also find it especially ironic that they tout their environmental footprint and energy conciousness, yet their bottles are marketed to bars to sit on top of little light stands to make them visible.

So they are using high capacity outdoor continuous columns to maximize profitability which they says is actually energy consciousness, but then burning thousands of light bulbs across the country to showcase their product.

"Craft" : if it wasn't for all that pesky work and stuff, this would be a great gig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their are a lot of so called craft distillers buying juice from those folks. It amazes me this craft thing. Very few craft distilleries I have seen are what I would call craft at all. So why even worry about it. There is more craft in the big distilleries in ky than there is in I would venture to say 98 percent of all micro distilleries operating today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their are a lot of so called craft distillers buying juice from those folks. It amazes me this craft thing. Very few craft distilleries I have seen are what I would call craft at all. So why even worry about it. There is more craft in the big distilleries in ky than there is in I would venture to say 98 percent of all micro distilleries operating today.

If there was no intrinsic value in the term "Craft Distiller" and "Hand Crafted" there would be a whole lot less use of the phraseology by companies who do neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These guys http://americanharvestspirit.com/ are actually these guys http://www.waytogoidaho.com/index.htm not a whole lot of craft in that plant.

American Harvest vodka is a private label brand that was designed by the Sidney Frank company (maker of Grey Goose till it was sold).

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sidney_Frank

They are a marketing company, not a distillery.

American Harvest vodka is made by a company called Distilled Resources. It was started in the 1990's when the current owners purchased a former ethanol factory, then did some work on the place to convert it to vodka production. They now do many brands for various vodkas like Blue Ice, 44 North, Glacier, Square One, American Harvest and a few other small brands.

Here are all of the "craft" brands produced at the ethanol factory.

http://www.waytogoidaho.com/customerlinks/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread would be more productive if it reflected readers' response to the fundamental question: What is a Craft Distillery? Complaints about what everyone else is claiming true or not, gets us no closer to an acceptable definition of the term or the category.

The BC definition is close to something reasonable:

1) All products must be fermented and distilled at the licensed distillery site using 100 per cent BC agricultural inputs; and

2) All products must be produced utilizing traditional spirit making techniques. The production of spirit cooler products or other highly processed products are not permitted, nor is the use of neutral grain spirits in the production of any products; and

3) The distillery has an annual production of finished products below 50,000 litres.

There are some items which are questionable for the American Craft producer. In many States the requirement for use of indigenous raw agricultural materials is 75% or so. Since not all States have malting facilities it would be unreasonable to make any limit 100%. There is also a need for a clause which allows out of State raw materials in case of declared crop failure.

“Traditional spirit making techniques” is a subjective description and makes any innovation growing out of small production research and development, questionable. “Highly processed” is subjective as well, it could be said of certain gins and cordials they are “highly processed”.

Production limits are not desirable since they limit the potential success of the producer and limit the amount of product the distillery can put into long term storage. The ACDA and the NY CRAFT DISTILLERS GUILD as well as other State guilds have agreed if there are to be limits, the limit should be on goods “removed from bond” in a given year.

Charles’ quoted BC definition may not exactly meet the needs and wishes of the American Craft Distillers, but it is the more productive contribution to this discussion.

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to throw my .02 in... I like the idea of the TTB setting a craft distillery standard, and in my opinion there isn't a need for a separate "craft blended" category. If you have a DSP and fall under a certain output, you should be able to label your product as "Craft", whether you're 100% from scratch or just part of it. If the big boys want to buy out a small distillery and operate that distillery under a separate license that complies with the rest of the standard, that is just the price we have to pay. Excessive regulation isn't good for anyone's business.

Regarding the title of "Master Distiller", I think some are getting on their soapbox a little too much. If I have a DSP and a commercial product that I am distilling, I am the Master Distiller of that product. No one else is in charge of it, right? The label of "Master" tradesman is a tool of unions and trade associations to maintain control of an industry. Until we feel a need to unionize or major universities start offering Master's degrees in Distillery Science, we are arguing over a standard that doesn't exist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one wholeheartedly agree that the industry could use a standardized definition, however I would question a prohibition against NGS, because unless I am mistaken, many distilleries use what are essentially "Netrual Spirits" to produce and blend their finished products. Irish and Canadian whisky'(s) come to mind, except that in their nomenclature the term NGS doesn't really exist in the same way as in the US. They appear to blend their pot stock with : sic. NGS to bring about the end flavors they are looking for.

Meanwhile companies like Bacardi make "redistallado" which is essentially a NSS (netrual sugar spirit) of up to 95% which they use to blend with their various lower proof stocks to blend various "Bacardi" flavors.

So a prohibition against NGS would seem to be contradictory to "craft distillers" drive towards the quality and consistency that many famous brands and styles have been using all along. Unless of course the NGS prohibition was merely sidestepped as I would imagine it would be, by people using 94.5% alcohol, which would then totally negate the intent of the prohibition.

My vote-

Yes - all products must be fermented and distilled on the DSP site.

Yes- 50,000 proof gallons per year maximum production (inclusive of all production at the DSP location, I.e. no multiple licenses, with sub segments classified as "craft" )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austontatious,

You are absolutely incorrect about the use of the term "Master" as it applies to unions. There are years of experience and training, along with very specific qualification tests any union master "anything" must go through. They start as apprentices, usually a two-five year process. While working as an apprentice they begin to work on the skills necessary to qualify as a Journeyman. They work as a Journeyman until they qualify for the the master title. 8 States actually have specific classifications, requirements and certifications independent of unions. As an example I will put this up, which is a qualification summary outlining those state rules.

Apprentice Plumbers

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, apprentice plumbers might begin their careers as plumber’s helpers, but most enter an apprenticeship program offered by a business or trade union. Although the requirements vary, apprentices must typically be 18 years of age or older. The program might also require apprentices to be high school graduates or hold an equivalent diploma. The applicant might need to pass a basic mathematics test and drug screening. Some apprenticeship programs also require basic computer skills.

Journeyman Plumbers

The experience requirements for a journeyman plumber’s license vary by state, but the bureau reports that apprenticeships can last from two to five years. After obtaining the prerequisite experience, plumbers may apply for a journeyman’s license. Most states and some cities require an aspiring journeyman plumber to pass a test to demonstrate knowledge of local codes as well as general plumbing knowledge. The applicant might have to provide documentation proving previous work experience.

Master Plumbers

After working as a journeyman plumber for the time required by the licensing state, you can apply for a master plumber’s license. The application process typically involves passing an examination. The testing state might require documentation of work experience as a journeyman plumber before the applicant is allowed to take the exam.

On the Job

Apprentices must perform all work under the direct supervision of a journeyman or master plumber. After obtaining the proper license, a journeyman plumber may work independently. Master plumbers can become plumbing contractors or start their own plumbing businesses. Although apprentices and journeymen learn how to read blueprints for new construction, a master plumber might be creating the blueprints for the plumbing to be installed.

ON this issue of Master Distiller, by your definition anyone using a pressure pot, diamond sugar, corn meal, and red star/fleischman's yeast from the grocery store to cook up liquor on the stove is a master distiller. Saying you're a master distiller just because you know how to distill, is like saying you are a gold medal runner simply because you can put one foot in front of the other faster than walking. I don't trust anyone who calls themselves a master. The distinction of Master is one bestowed upon someone by recognized masters for years of dedicated work and achievement. This is not going to happen in this industry, as Americans will tell you, "I can say whatever I want." This discussion from beginning to end is about this very idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...