One of the reasons given by Alcohol Focus Scotland for their complaint to the Portman Group about BrewDog’s Tokyo* was that it was being “marketed on the basis of strength”. This is obviously a gross misrepresentation, but it led me to think that in practice alcoholic drinks of any kind never are marketed on strength – indeed it is something that goes against advertising codes. People may choose a particular category of drink, but within categories nothing ever seeks to appeal on the basis that it is stronger than its direct competitors.
Many years ago, Whitbread got into hot water with the Advertising Standards Authority by advertising Gold Label barley wine (then sold in nip bottles at 10.9% ABV) as “as strong as a double whisky” and nothing remotely similar ever appears nowadays.
I can’t recall seeing Gold Label in a pub for ages, but it still lingers on in 33cl cans in the off-trade, now reduced to 8.5% ABV, and presumably selling overwhelmingly to old blokes. Interestingly, its makers seem to be able to extract a premium price for it, four cans typically selling at just under £5, or 44p per alcohol unit, compared with the 35p more typical of super-strength lagers.
There’s a review of canned Gold Label here on a site – Hywel's Big Log – that is refreshingly different from the usual CAMRA/beer geek style of beer reviewing.