THEY say there is no such thing as bad publicity. It’s a maxim which appears to hold true for AG Barr, the maker of Irn-Bru.

The Scottish firm caused a furore at the start of the year when it announced it had changed the recipe of its famous brand. Barr took the unusual step of altering the formula, whose ingredients have long been a closely-guarded secret, to ensure the drink was not eligible for the forthcoming sugar tax (though the firm has always maintained it is consumers, not regulators, who drive its business). For purists, however, it was a step too far. An online petition was mustered in protest, attracting tens of thousands of signatures. Even Ally McCoist was unhappy.

Barr, however, held firm, and the early signs are the controversy will not cause significant damage to the health of this most Scottish of brands.

Some may continue to argue that Barr has compromised Irn-Bru’s cherished heritage by changing the drink’s secret sauce just to prevent paying what is likely to have been a hefty tax. But it would be wrong to characterise this as a crude, knee-jerk decision.

As Barr chief executive Roger White noted yesterday, the new-look Irn-Bru had been between three and four years in the making, involving the input of considerable resources. And there is clear merit in its claims it has been guided by groups of consumers who have calling for products which contain lower amounts of refined sugar. It now says that up to 99 per cent of its portfolio will contain less than five grammes of total sugars per 100ml by the time the sugar tax comes in, having announced last March than more than 90 per cent of its drinks would be moving to lower or no sugar content. That Barr, which has diversified in recent years by moving into mineral water and fruit juices, is outperforming the market suggests it has rightly called the way consumer demand is heading.