You’ve probably noticed some of Labatt’s new St-Jean-Baptiste-themed ads around town lately. “On est tous Québécois, même à Montréal,” they read, which I think is kind of cheeky and cute, even if it’s grammatically incorrect (shouldn’t it be “québécois,” since it’s an adjective?). But Labatt is doing more than just spreading good will on June 24th: it’s clearly angling for a bigger market share in Montreal and it is even going so far as to impose itself on a major street fair.
From now until the end of August, Ste. Catherine St. in the Village will be closed from Berri to Papineau. Dozens of terraces will spill into the street, which will become a quasi-permanent street fair. Unfortunately, as La Presse reports, the Village’s merchants’ association has signed a contract with Labatt’s that will give the brewer a monopoly on terrace beer sales. What’s worse is that the deal forces the street’s restaurants and bars to purchase a quantity of Bud Light whether they plan to sell it or not.
Cette entente d’exclusivité signée entre la Société de développement commercial du Village (SDC) et la Brasserie Labatt en échange d’une commandite est loin d’enchanter les restaurateurs du quartier. Plusieurs sont furieux des quotas d’achats de la marque Bud Light qui leur sont imposés.
Jean-Luc Raymond, propriétaire du restaurant Le Planète, a été obligé de se procurer pour 1690 $ de produits Labatt. Au cours de l’été, il devra liquider environ 65 caisses de 24 bouteilles de Bud Light. Pour offrir une diversité à sa clientèle, il a également acheté quelques barils de Stella Artois. Il se demande comment il arrivera à vendre autant de blondes en 75 jours. (…)
La SDC a signé une entente d’exclusivité avec Labatt, propriété du géant belge InBev, pour deux ans. La SDC a reçu 100 000 $ pour financer le coût de la piétonnisation, estimé à environ un million de dollars pour la période du 17 juin au 3 septembre. En échange, elle s’est engagée à redistribuer pour 100 000 $ de produits Labatt aux 54 commerçants.
Le restaurant Kilo, qui sert des sandwichs et des desserts, a également dû acheter pour 1000 $ de bière. « C’est frustrant de vendre un produit qu’on ne veut pas vendre », lance la gérante Stéphanie Dagenais. «C’est un 1000 $ que je dois débourser de plus cette semaine en plus des milliers pour le permis d’alcool, l’ouverture du dossier à la Ville, l’arpenteur, l’installation de la terrasse… Mettons que la facture est salée.»
Comme la majorité des commerçants du Village, la propriétaire du restaurant italien Piccolo Diavola, Myriam Guay, voit d’un très bon œil la piétonnisation de l’est de la rue Sainte-Catherine. Mais comme la dizaine de restaurateurs interrogés, elle se demande ce qu’elle fera des 50 caisses de Bud Light qu’elle est forcée d’acheter.
The real issue here isn’t taste, of course: it’s the wholesale co-option of a major commercial street by a single corporate interest. Last year, concerns were raised that something similar would happen at the Ubisoft-sponsored St. Viateur street fair, but in the end, Ubisoft’s presence was very discreet and the festival wasn’t used as a platform for advertising. In this case, however, Village businesses and customers both face reduced choice and are subject to what is, in some ways, a giant marketing campaign.
It’s true that a number of other festivals have similar sponsorships, but the scope of the Village street fair is unprecedented: it will last for more than two months. Montreal benefits from its many festivals and street parties, and the pedestrianization of a major street during the summer months is more than welcome, but to what extent are we willing to allow private interests to exert such influence over our public spaces?
18 comments
BTW, what is the gist of that “même à Montréal” tag.
It’s more than just a mere pun on the double meaning of Quebecois, as signifying both a resident of the capitol and a Quebecer, isn’t it? Or is it?
When I saw it my immediate reaction was that it was playing into frankly xenophobic or even racist sentiments that Montreal, by nature of its multi-ethnic/multi-linguistic mix, isn’t sufficiently Quebecois.
But then, why would they run those ads in Montreal?
signed,
A Confused (and quite possibly paranoid) Ethnic
Et pourquoi les commercants doivent-ils rester dans cette association qui ne les représente plus?
Ils restent dans l’association parce que la loi les en oblige. Contrairement aux autres associations commerciales, l’adhésion aux SDC n’est pas volontaire.
Kristian Gravenor a récemment écrit un article sur les SDC pour la Gazette.
IL n’y a pas de faute dans la façon ici d’écrire Québécois, puisque le terme ici est un nom employé pour désigner les habitants du Québec. La règle exige la majuscule. On est Québécois, ou Canadiens, ou Américains.
Merci, Martin. Mais mon question est toujours : pourquoi “meme a Montreal”?
I’m definitely thinking of going there and supporting some merchants there, since I feel making even only a chunk of Ste-Catherine to be a generally good thing, but I’m torn between getting Bud Light to help out the merchants and boycotting Labbatt products to indicate my outrage.
I’m thinking that, in the end, my taste buds will decide for me. ;-)
Nous sommes québécois. (adjectif)
Nous sommes des Québécois. (nom)
Je crois que M. DeWolf connaît mieux son français que M. Girard.
The tag “meme a Montreal” strikes me immediately as playing into the whole identity/reasonable accommodation/whatever the debate is called these days discourse.
Love that a woman in a head scarf is walking past. The irony.
It would be interesting to see if the “québécois” ads run in other towns – remember that it is also a play on the 400th anniversary celebrations. Quite possible that it runs in such “pure-laine” towns as Trois-Rivières and Chicoutimi.
As for the beer deal, pity that the terrasses won’t be able to offer decent microbrewery beer that isn’t full of chemicals.
The seemingly small capitalization mistake really puts it all in focus for me. As an “ethnic”, I might be québécois(e), but can never be a Québécois(e).
Emmanuelle, dans l’expression “On est Québécois”, le mot québécois peut être interprété comme un adjectif (minuscule) ou comme un nom (majuscule). Les deux usages sont acceptables. On peut dire “Je suis Québécois” (nom) ou “Je suis québécois” (adjectif). Je suppose que les auteurs de la publicité emploient le terme québécois comme un nom (dans le sens de: “Nous sommes tous des Québécois”) , la majuscule s’applique. Et inutile de m’insulter pour me corriger, ce n’est pas nécessaire.
Maybe it’s good that we can joke about it. I don’t know.
I do remember Molson’s “I am Canadian” ads for their equally execrable swill. If I recall correctly, there were a few shots at Americans.
In Labatt’s campaign, Montreal anglos and ethnics are the scapegoat “other.” So glad we could be of help in selling their crappy beer.
I knew there was a use for us.
I don’t completely understand this. Are bars in the effected area ONLY allowed to sell Labatt products on terraces or are they just required to have it as an option? If it’s the former, I don’t understand the Bud Light requirement. They’re required to have it available to sell inside the bar but then aren’t allowed to sell it on the terrace? I also don’t quite understand what Labbatt and Budwiser have to do with each other.
What happens to businesses that don’t already sell Labatt products? They’re going to be required to install the taps and make room in their fridges for new beers (that they might not even want to and/or be able to sell)?
Echoing Pierre above, my taste buds will also decide and I doubt I’ll be drinking on many terraces in the Village this summer.
Budweiser is a Labatt product. Along with its “house” brands (Bleue, 50, etc.), Labatt brews a number of different beers, including Budweiser, Stella Artois, etc. They’re all owned by InBev, a global brewing conglomerate of which Labatt is a subsidiary.
Restos and bars will ONLY be able to sell Labatt products on the terraces. On top of that they have all been forced to buy large quantities of bottled Bud Light. So if they don’t serve beer already they will have a bunch of bottles of Bud to get rid of.
Saying that Labatt is co-opting and imposing itself on the street is disingenuous. It’s the merchants themselves (including the bars), through the Merchants Association, who negotiated the deal and made the decision.
I’m a little confused about the quote from the Kilo restaurant. Is this deal forcing them to open a terrase, purchase a liquour license and sell alcoholic products?
I can understand the frustration some of these bars feel. However, they all seem to agree that pedestrianization is a good thing and in the end someone has to pay for it. I’m sure if asked them, the bar owners would rather “pay” for it by having to sell beer than by shelling out more money from their own pockets. And I doubt they’ll have too many problems unloading the beer. By my calculations, La Planete restaurant has to sell 21 Bud Lights a day. I’m not an expert, but that really doesn’t seem too difficult.
I’m not a fan of the Gay village ever since Divers/Cité moved its parade landing from Parc Lafontaine to the Village. The parade and the whole pride feeling went from being a wonderful, general and inclusive day of celebration, to a beer-soaked money-hungry muscle-proud party-hardy revelry. I think the Village regularly sells its soul to the highest bidder.
et…
…
…On est tous canadiens, même au Québec.
I’m biased against big brand beers generally, since I was born in Munich, but even so…
What bothers me at least as much is the sponsorship-induced monopoly of Heineken and either Labatt or Molson (I forget now, since I don’t buy those) at the indoor Jazz Fest shows, especially since at other times of year I can get a decent local brew in those places (e.g., at least Boréale.) It bothers me that with international tourists coming to the Fest, the venues can’t showcase Québec’s own produits superiéurs… Instead, folks get a choice they could have just as easily in Cleveland.
Perhaps the local brands should band together for festival sponsorship on the scale of Heineken.
And I think the insinuation in the Labatt’s ad – that Montréalers’ Québec bona fides are automatically suspect – is quite clumsily transparent. Disingenuous protests as to the innocence of the chosen phrasing only highlight it. Montréal is Québec’s crown jewel *by virtue* of its international cosmopolitanism, and is in the first rank of world-class cities. That doesn’t seem to register with the insecure, though.