Opinion: Why the secrecy, drinks producers?

Am I alone in wishing there wasn't such a need for secrecy among drinks producers?

At a time when the pub trade is crying out for a spark of innovation, everyone from Fuller's to Coors seems less willing than ever to discuss new product development. If licensees were let in on drinks producers' plans, they could anticipate their moves, and get an insight into their thinking on drinks trends.

Trials of products that may never come to fruition are always going on behind the scenes. When rumours about the launch of a higher strength Stella Artois variant coupled with the withdrawal of Peeterman Artois sprung up a few weeks ago, the most striking thing was the level of detail in initial reports. It indicated it was likely to be true, that an InBev source had for once gone public, albeit anonymously.

The Publican hears of exciting products on the horizon all the time, but when we go to brand owners for confirmation, we are rebuffed. Of course, producers are scared of alerting competitors to possible launches. But nevertheless, it seems these people are rather hiding their light under a bushel rather than working closely with retailers.

It is reassuring to know suppliers are thinking creatively about new drinks with genuine customer appeal, identifying where the next big success may lie. As sources noted during investigations into the latest Stella-gate, it's entirely believable that the product supposedly codenamed Stella Black did at one point exist on a test run - so commonplace are such trials. But wouldn't it be even more helpful if these suppliers could go on the record?