Of the 30 beers released at the Systembolaget on 1st April there was one beer in particular that stood out for me – for all the wrong reasons.
Cheap Thrills from Brutal Brewing (Spendrups) is a 4.6%ABV lager that costs 7.90SEK for a 330ml can, making it the lowest priced beer along with three other industrial lagers currently on sale at the monopoly.
The first time I saw the name Cheap Thrills I reacted strongly to it. At first I thought it must be some elaborate April Fools joke but alas, writing this post on April 2nd I can report that the cans are still sitting there on the shelves, and furthermore are scheduled to be there for at least another year.
It’s certainly no joke that a beer that clearly promotes the message that beer is both cheap and thrilling is now on sale at the monopoly. The serious question is how did it ever get there?
Lets for a moment take a closer look at the brand name. Breaking it down into its constituent parts the word cheap in the online dictionary is listed as meaning:
Cheap -
Of poor quality; inferior:
Achieved with little effort:
Of or considered of small value:
Worthy of no respect; vulgar or contemptible.
Not exactly the sharpest example of brand management Spendrups, is it?
Now for the word thrill:
thrill –
(From the online dictionary) ”the swift release of a store of affective force; ”they got a great bang out of it”; ”what a boot!”; ”he got a quick rush from injecting heroin”; ”he does it for kicks”
In other words thrill refers to the sensation of having a high, a rush, a kick, a boost. A perfectly harmless word on its own, but put it in front of the word cheap and associate it with alcohol and the resulting message is anything but positive.
And it’s a message that, in my opinion, has no place in the Swedish alcohol monopoly.
By allowing Cheap Thrills to go on sale the monopoly is unravelling some of the great work it has done in recent years to raise the beer category as a whole. It is figuratively and literally cheapening the image of beer by flooding its stores with a brand that presents beer as an inferior product designed to provide a quick ‘fix’ of alcohol.
But unbelievably it may not be the brand name that’s the most controversial thing printed on the Cheap Thrills can.

Click on the image to zoom in
If you look at the sales text printed on the side of the can you’ll see that at the end of the ridiculously self-contradicting sales pitch about the beer appealing to the beer lover who cares more for what’s on the inside (of the can) rather than what’s on the outside it finishes with the line: ‘Cheap Thrills – Good Beer for Good People’.
Does that line sound suspiciously familiar to you? The beer enthusiasts among you will have heard of Maryland-based US craft brewer Flying Dog, whose bottled beers are well known for bearing the catchphrase of Flying Dog fan and inspirator Hunter S Thompson “Good People Drink Good Beer”.
Which is why, until April 1st, we have never seen a bottle of Flying Dog’s world class beers in the ordinary assortment of the monopoly, because it is my clear understanding that this catchphrase has been rejected for years by the monopoly on the grounds it improperly promotes the consumption of alcohol.
One of the reasons, as I understand it, why Flying Dog’s Gonzo Imperial Porter was able to go on sale on April 1st was because the offensive line was removed. If you have a bottle check for yourself – it’s not there.
Which leads me to ask the obvious question. If it is true that the catchphrase “Good People Drink Good Beer” has been rejected by the Systembolaget in the past why has it allowed Spendrups/Brutal Brewing to use an almost identical line on cans of Cheap Thrills?

Check out the tag-line on another Flying Dog beer. Looks familiar doesn't it........
According to an email sent to one BeerSweden reader in the past few days it appears the Systembolaget sees things rather differently. This is a copy of a response the monopoly’s customer service department issued to the aforementioned reader after he questioned the use of the name Cheap Thrills and the tag-line ‘Good beer for good people’. I will leave the text in Swedish for now to avoid any possibility of translational error:
”Jag har nu varit i kontakt med både ansvarig inköpare och märkningskontroll och de har i sin tur varit i kontakt med både chefen för varumärke och våra jurister. Både ”Good people drink good beer” samt ”Cheap Thrills – Good beer for good people” är godkända av oss.
”Cheap Thrills är en av våra ansvarsfulla lanseringar då den har en lägre alkoholhalt. Detta är en volymprodukt och det låga priset kan förklaras med att vi vill att våra ansvarsfulla lanseringar ska få så stor genomslagskraft som möjligt.”
The first paragraph utterly contradicts how I believe Flying Dog and its importer understands the situation. I have already sent messages to Wicked Wine (the importers of Flying Dog beers in Sweden) to confirm if this is indeed their understanding of the situation and will report any eventual response.
However I find it very strange to believe anyone would go to all the trouble and expense of having to produce country specific export labels if there was no reason to do so.
The second paragraph contains, in my opinion, such twisted logic about the socially responsible supply of alcohol that for now I’m just going to leave it hanging there, like a bad smell in a room, and will return to it at a later date.
I apologise this post has dragged on so long but to summarise I have two clear and direct questions I’d like to ask the Systembolaget:
1) Do you believe launching a beer called Cheap Thrills at 7.90SEK a can complies with the core principles of the Systembolaget, specifically to work to reduce the damaging effects of alcohol in society and, in line with Swedish alcohol politics, to reduce the nation’s total consumption of alcohol?
2) Was the catchphrase on Flying Dog beers “Good People Drink Good Beer” rejected by the monopoly in the past and, if this was the case, why, and why has the sentence ‘Cheap Thrills – Good Beer for Good People’ subsequently been approved?
Let me finish by saying that this really isn’t meant to be a witch-hunt aimed specifically at Spendrups/Brutal Brewing, which is of course perfectly entitled to seek profits by using its economies of scale to mass-produce cheap lager (although I do have a huge issue with them trying to pass it off as anything remotely associated with craft beer).
My main concern as a beer enthusiast is that any brewery should be allowed to name their beer in a way that drags the image of my favourite drink back down to the gutter while using a catchphrase almost identical to that of another brewery whose beers were apparently rejected because of it.
If there are rules to follow that’s fine. As long as everyone follows them.
Please comment everyone. It’s important.