Talk:BrewDog

Controversies section

As is often the case with such sections, this is a real mixture, in this case of marketing, product, copyright, employee, business practices... While they may relate to an underlying corporate personality, separating it into themed sections would probably aid understanding. Jontel (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I would argue seeing as how the company has marketed itself in the past and trying to stand out as different from larger breweries their actions are relevant to how they publicly present themselves. RLS 84 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favor of reducing it, just enough that it doesn't outgrow the history. It's just a company, and many of those controversies seem to be plain and simple shock advertising, which means this article relays the company's advertising content way too much... Finersinger (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a classic case of WP:PROSELINE really, I think we ditch 'controversies' and split it out into something like - Strongest beer claims - Employee Relations - Marketing Campaigns (into which we can include the feedback) - Legal and Trademark disputes. I'll see how that ends up looking. JeffUK 09:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the direction taken. I'll try to do a little more clean up within the new sections. Finersinger (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Introduction

It seems very unusual to me that even in the opening paragraph of this article it is already mentioned that "The company has been involved in a number of controversies. These have focused on its treatment of employees, its use of unethical business practices, and hypocrisy in regards to its anti-establishment branding."

I would argue this is hardly such a defining characteristic of this company that it belongs in the introductory paragraph. Most multinational companies have experienced some type of controversy. Where is such a mention in the introductory paragraph of McDonalds, Shell, Coca Cola?51.9.166.169 (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. It’s very much absent from the big conglomerates intros but for some reason seems to make the cut here. I think it’s just worthy of a separate section further down the page. 2A00:23C6:73B9:4901:AC6E:AC8E:DF:BE2A (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm removing 'Hypocrisy' that seems to be POV. Anecdotally I do feel they are quite notable for their controversies though. JeffUK 23:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Holding %

I don’t believe from current info available the accurate shareholding % has been attributed correctly and should be updated. 2A00:23C6:73B9:4901:AC6E:AC8E:DF:BE2A (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What would you have it say? We know that TSG's ownership is 22% of shares with 18% annual return in the case of transfer or liquidation, starting several years ago. This would give rise to them having more than 70% of outstanding shares if the company were sold (equivalent to the percentages given in the info box.) If a Brewdog or TSG Consumer Partners executive would like to correct me, I am easy to find. -Moike 77.241.177.12 (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Dickie leaving and Bankruptcy

Much has changed since the article was written with co-owner Dickie leaving and this week it was announced the company has gone bankrupt. Also (once again) mistreatment of employees after bankruptcy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd70zjvwjpdo Fwd079 (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)