Blue Moon: The “Craft” Beer Made by Coors(priceonomics.com)
priceonomics.com
Blue Moon: The “Craft” Beer Made by Coors
http://priceonomics.com/blue-moon-the-craft-beer-made-by-coors/
75 comments
In Canada, John Sleeman bought Unibroue, and then Sleeman was bought by Sapporo. Since then, MolsonCoors has been on a buying spree of larger Canadian microbreweries, e.g. Creemore Springs, such that they have gotten better national distribution. I can now find Granville Island ales in Québec City!
Didn't expect to see Founders and Magic Hat on there, though they're not InBev/MillerCoors (that really would have surprised me!)
The Boulevard acquisition's fairly recent. Haven't noticed any changes, really. Still producing a range of decent to very good beer marked up about $1-2/bomber higher than it ought to be. Still putting out interesting new stuff pretty regularly.
The Boulevard acquisition's fairly recent. Haven't noticed any changes, really. Still producing a range of decent to very good beer marked up about $1-2/bomber higher than it ought to be. Still putting out interesting new stuff pretty regularly.
That's cool. It reminded me of a similar (though simpler) visualization I saw for whisky: http://www.gq.com/life/food/201311/bourbon-whiskey-family-tr...
It got a lot of attention from the beer world? A world that knew the very basic information you presented already?
Riight.
Riight.
If it tastes good, does it matter? Franziskaner and Leffe are both great beers and are brewed by AB InBev - widely seen as rather scummy amongst homebrewers. Blue Moon is in virtually every pub (I've been to) and supermarket in the UK. It tastes good, but I'm surprised anyone was under the illusion that it was somehow a small operation.
I never really saw Blue Moon as a craft beer. In the UK craft beer means ale, you buy whatever happens to be on tap in the pub or you have a nose round your local farmer's market if you want to be really trendy.
I never really saw Blue Moon as a craft beer. In the UK craft beer means ale, you buy whatever happens to be on tap in the pub or you have a nose round your local farmer's market if you want to be really trendy.
It doesn't matter, really. If you like it, drink it! There're plenty of more esoteric styles represented these days so that whatever your taste you can find a great micro or macro version. I like Belgians, and think that Fin du Monde is the best of them, regardless of being brewed in Quebec and being owned by Sapporo.
I think most people know Blue Moon is not a micro-brewery. And it doesn't matter -- blue Moon is one of the best wheats for me, IMHO. I like it more than most "craft" beers in it's genre. Some of the small microbreweries attempting the style can be very hit or miss.
By obfuscating its brand name on products like Blue Moon, Coors is violating the consumer’s right to know who he is supporting, and where his beverage comes from.
The money quote on why it matters.
The money quote on why it matters.
As far as I'm concerned they diversified and funded another company to produce it. They don't hide it, it's there on their website:
http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/brands/signature%20brands/blue...
They also own Sharp's Brewery (of Doom Bar fame) which I never knew:
http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/Brands/Signature%20Brands/Doom...
In that case they simply bought the brewery which was already successful and produced a few award winning ales.
http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/brands/signature%20brands/blue...
They also own Sharp's Brewery (of Doom Bar fame) which I never knew:
http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/Brands/Signature%20Brands/Doom...
In that case they simply bought the brewery which was already successful and produced a few award winning ales.
When I look at a Lexus automobile, I don't see a Toyota nameplate anywhere. Is Toyota therefore "obfuscating" the fact that a Lexus is little more than a glorified Corolla? Is an Acura basically an obfuscated Honda?
I don't buy it. Consumers sophisticated enough to care about the provenance of their beer are no doubt well aware that Blue Moon isn't a microbrewery. Consumers who aren't that sophisticated probably don't care, and (gasp!) simply enjoy the way it tastes.
The "right to know who I'm supporting" is the key there. I observe that for a lot of people these days, the brands that an individual purchases are a matter of reflecting (or establishing) that individual's own brand identity. "I use Chrome on a MacBook, because that SAYS something about me that using Chrome on a PC wouldn't.", etc. I understand that this is a thing, but like many I am more of a realist by nature and cannot relate at all. The most important factor in my purchasing decisions is cost-benefit ratio, with a generous amount of wiggle-room for subjective style considerations. However, I have zero fucks to give about what a purchase tells other people about my "identity", and am somewhat baffled by people who do. In my mind, if you're pretentious enough that you can't enjoy a beer without confirming its "exclusivity" from major brewers, then it's on you to pull out your phone and spend 20 seconds looking up the brewer on Wikipedia.
I don't buy it. Consumers sophisticated enough to care about the provenance of their beer are no doubt well aware that Blue Moon isn't a microbrewery. Consumers who aren't that sophisticated probably don't care, and (gasp!) simply enjoy the way it tastes.
The "right to know who I'm supporting" is the key there. I observe that for a lot of people these days, the brands that an individual purchases are a matter of reflecting (or establishing) that individual's own brand identity. "I use Chrome on a MacBook, because that SAYS something about me that using Chrome on a PC wouldn't.", etc. I understand that this is a thing, but like many I am more of a realist by nature and cannot relate at all. The most important factor in my purchasing decisions is cost-benefit ratio, with a generous amount of wiggle-room for subjective style considerations. However, I have zero fucks to give about what a purchase tells other people about my "identity", and am somewhat baffled by people who do. In my mind, if you're pretentious enough that you can't enjoy a beer without confirming its "exclusivity" from major brewers, then it's on you to pull out your phone and spend 20 seconds looking up the brewer on Wikipedia.
Toyota didn't concoct a shell company complete with a fully fabricated image in an effort to hide its relation. You buy Lexuses from Toyota.
As for your "brand identity" rant, there are more reasons than pretentiousness to support small-time outfits- I buy from cottage industries when I can to support creative alternatives- and I personally think Blue Moon tastes fine.
Although it's mildly annoying when "domestic night" at the bar discounts Budweiser but won't mark down my glass of Blue Moon "because it's a micro". They were made in the same damn room.
As for your "brand identity" rant, there are more reasons than pretentiousness to support small-time outfits- I buy from cottage industries when I can to support creative alternatives- and I personally think Blue Moon tastes fine.
Although it's mildly annoying when "domestic night" at the bar discounts Budweiser but won't mark down my glass of Blue Moon "because it's a micro". They were made in the same damn room.
> Consumers who aren't that sophisticated probably don't care, and (gasp!) simply enjoy the way it tastes.
If all those who cared already knew, then the manufacturers wouldn't have had to obfuscate it (as it wouldn't make a difference). So if we go with that assumption, they should just put their name on the bottles, experience no difference in sales and thus make everyone happy.
If all those who cared already knew, then the manufacturers wouldn't have had to obfuscate it (as it wouldn't make a difference). So if we go with that assumption, they should just put their name on the bottles, experience no difference in sales and thus make everyone happy.
Assume the mind of a potential new Blue Moon consumer in 1995. You pick up the bottle and notice it says "From the makers of Coors Light." Do you: A) think to yourself "This probably tastes like water" and put it down, or B) drink it without an ounce of bias?
That phrasing implies that it's targeted to those who enjoy Coors Light, so I wouldn't buy it. But there are still many ways to market the product more honestly.
For example, they could be entirely open about this product being something new and different but from the same manufacturer. An example of this is Nya Carnegiebryggeriet, "a collaborative joint venture between Carlsberg Sweden and Brooklyn Brewery"[1]. They don't try to hide the fact that it's owned by Carlsberg[2] (4th largest brewery group in the world), but they make it very clear that it's a different category from their regular lineup.
If that seems to risky, they could sell it under a different brand without deliberately attempting to deceive customers into thinking it's from a small-scale craft brewer. Just present the product honestly under a new name without the misleading bullshit.
[1] http://www.nyacarnegiebryggeriet.se/en/brewery/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsberg_Group#Carlsberg
For example, they could be entirely open about this product being something new and different but from the same manufacturer. An example of this is Nya Carnegiebryggeriet, "a collaborative joint venture between Carlsberg Sweden and Brooklyn Brewery"[1]. They don't try to hide the fact that it's owned by Carlsberg[2] (4th largest brewery group in the world), but they make it very clear that it's a different category from their regular lineup.
If that seems to risky, they could sell it under a different brand without deliberately attempting to deceive customers into thinking it's from a small-scale craft brewer. Just present the product honestly under a new name without the misleading bullshit.
[1] http://www.nyacarnegiebryggeriet.se/en/brewery/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsberg_Group#Carlsberg
This line of thinking bothers me.
A while back, I saw mention of someone making (or considering making) a phone app that could take a picture of some product in a store and tell you if the manufacturer was associated for or against your political party. That's horrifying.
We should not make it easy to ostracize anyone you have a difference of opinion with. Boycotts and similar applications of force should not be impulse decisions. Bifurcating society along ideological lines is not conducive to everyone getting along. Stifling unpopular opinions is not good for political discourse.
A while back, I saw mention of someone making (or considering making) a phone app that could take a picture of some product in a store and tell you if the manufacturer was associated for or against your political party. That's horrifying.
We should not make it easy to ostracize anyone you have a difference of opinion with. Boycotts and similar applications of force should not be impulse decisions. Bifurcating society along ideological lines is not conducive to everyone getting along. Stifling unpopular opinions is not good for political discourse.
There's a pretty large difference between ostracizing an individual for voicing an opinion and choosing not to financially support a multinational conglomerate for contributing to political causes contrary to one's beliefs.
I do agree that splitting everything on US party lines would be utterly ridiculous, but I don't see what would be wrong with making it that much easier to boycott corporations opposed to, say, paying their employees livable wages, or reproductive rights for women, or marriage equality.
Though I also don't see what's wrong with boycotting a company simply for spending a fortune aggressively and offensively marketing their aggressively mediocre adjunct lagers.
I do agree that splitting everything on US party lines would be utterly ridiculous, but I don't see what would be wrong with making it that much easier to boycott corporations opposed to, say, paying their employees livable wages, or reproductive rights for women, or marriage equality.
Though I also don't see what's wrong with boycotting a company simply for spending a fortune aggressively and offensively marketing their aggressively mediocre adjunct lagers.
horrifying!!
Well who cares. I like their winter Mountain Abbey ale.
It can still taste good without having been individually brewed by monks in a monastary some place.
On the topic if beers PBR -- Pabst Blue Ribbon has an interesting story associated with it. It went from cheap beer considered barely good enough for cooking, to being the premier hipster drink. You couldn't image a flannel and tight jean wearing hipster with a PBR in their hand. It was a fantastic marketing effort, it involved product placement in show, sponsoring of various events and so on.
It can still taste good without having been individually brewed by monks in a monastary some place.
On the topic if beers PBR -- Pabst Blue Ribbon has an interesting story associated with it. It went from cheap beer considered barely good enough for cooking, to being the premier hipster drink. You couldn't image a flannel and tight jean wearing hipster with a PBR in their hand. It was a fantastic marketing effort, it involved product placement in show, sponsoring of various events and so on.
Details on PBR? I get that hipsters like to look like lumberjacks, and that actual lumberjacks might drink PBR, but I don't know the origins of the hipster angle. It's dirt cheap, but it tastes awful enough that I rarely even drink it for free.
Here you go:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/pbr-coolness-study_...
Look at the sales chart went from 140M to 350M in less than 10 years.
I knew the person who poached (ok recruited) the CEO of PBR brewing company, that's how I initially heard the story about how they did the marketing campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/pbr-coolness-study_...
Look at the sales chart went from 140M to 350M in less than 10 years.
I knew the person who poached (ok recruited) the CEO of PBR brewing company, that's how I initially heard the story about how they did the marketing campaign.
For some it was Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet, "Heineken? Fuck that shit! Pabst Blue Ribbon!".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeWUXV89w0g
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090756/quotes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeWUXV89w0g
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090756/quotes
People forget this now that hipster is a high fashion super cool trend, but the things we associate with hipsters originated from poor artsy types who lived in industrial neighborhoods and bought clothes at the thrift store because they couldn't afford to shop at Bloomingdales and live in SoHo. PBR is dirt cheap.
PBR and its siblings (Olympia, Old Style, Hamm's) succeed because they're cheap and low gravity enough to be sessionable while plausibly being the beer of our grandparents but not our parents. As other brewers learn to hit that sweet spot, I imagine you'll see folks switching.
I've never heard of blue moon referred to as a craft beer. I always had the sense that it was only a step down from bud light in terms of corporateness.
Same.
It may have been considered a notch above the normal macros maybe 15 years ago, before the whole craft thing went really nuts, but never itself a craft beer.
Hell, it was nationally distributed, available in every grocery store in the United States.
This is not a unique scenario. InBev owns Leffe and Goose Island, for example.
It may have been considered a notch above the normal macros maybe 15 years ago, before the whole craft thing went really nuts, but never itself a craft beer.
Hell, it was nationally distributed, available in every grocery store in the United States.
This is not a unique scenario. InBev owns Leffe and Goose Island, for example.
Goose Island and (especially) Leffe were both extant brands before being acquired by InBev, which is a bit different from Coors creating the Blue Moon myth of whole cloth. InBev's most direct analogue is Shock Top, the packaging of which also avoids any mention of its parentage.
Regarding Blue Moon: in the US, at least, their marketing seems dedicated to working in the word "craft" as frequently as possible. I imagine it isn't actually legal for it to be marketed as a "craft beer," as that's a controlled term, but they certainly use both words in isolation.
Regarding Blue Moon: in the US, at least, their marketing seems dedicated to working in the word "craft" as frequently as possible. I imagine it isn't actually legal for it to be marketed as a "craft beer," as that's a controlled term, but they certainly use both words in isolation.
>I imagine it isn't actually legal for it to be marketed as a "craft beer," as that's a controlled term
On that note, Boston Beer Co (the ones behind Sam Adams) had been pushing for changes to the definition of "craft beer" so their mass-market beer could still fall under that heading. Specifically the 6mm barrel threshold mentioned in the Pricenomics article.
http://beerpulse.com/2011/01/brewers-association-enacts-sam-...
On that note, Boston Beer Co (the ones behind Sam Adams) had been pushing for changes to the definition of "craft beer" so their mass-market beer could still fall under that heading. Specifically the 6mm barrel threshold mentioned in the Pricenomics article.
http://beerpulse.com/2011/01/brewers-association-enacts-sam-...
I didn't realize there was an official definition. Interestingly, at the time Sam Adams and other brews that were a step up from the mass market lagers in the US, as I recall a distinction started being draw between craft beers (Sam Adams, Harpoon, Anchor Steam, etc.) and microbrews--where microbrews were the very small local brews with limited distribution.
As I remember things, this first microbrew movement (as well as something of a homebrewing fad) sort of declined but it's more recently really roared back in force. On trend I've noticed recently is the big "craft" brewers like Sam Adams and Sierra Nevada have really expanded their lineups and come out with all sorts of limited time as well as higher-end products like barleywines.
As I remember things, this first microbrew movement (as well as something of a homebrewing fad) sort of declined but it's more recently really roared back in force. On trend I've noticed recently is the big "craft" brewers like Sam Adams and Sierra Nevada have really expanded their lineups and come out with all sorts of limited time as well as higher-end products like barleywines.
I think Blue Moon was an acquisition too (I went to school in Golden - wouldn't drink it for free).
I have experienced numerous individuals irrationally argued against me when I told them blue moon was brewed by coors, not a 'microbrewery', whatever that means.
I'm personally sick of having to associate every consumer product with some sort of public good or political cause.
I don't like blue moon, but if I did, the fact that coors brews it would not stop me from partaking.
I'm personally sick of having to associate every consumer product with some sort of public good or political cause.
I don't like blue moon, but if I did, the fact that coors brews it would not stop me from partaking.
I do think they've tried to blur the lines-- their slogan for a while was "expertly crafted".
I'm not sure of the point of this article. Are they criticising the strategy? Are they praising it?
It seems fair enough to me, as long as it's not just coors light with a different brand. To me this is no different than Toyota developing the Lexus brand because people wouldn't pay big money for Toyotas.
After 72 quarters of growth, I think it's fair to assume that people buy it because they like the taste, not because they hide the parent company.
It seems fair enough to me, as long as it's not just coors light with a different brand. To me this is no different than Toyota developing the Lexus brand because people wouldn't pay big money for Toyotas.
After 72 quarters of growth, I think it's fair to assume that people buy it because they like the taste, not because they hide the parent company.
I think it's fair to assume that people buy it because they like the taste
I drink Blue Moon. I like the taste but I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb enough to fall for marketing campaigns. In this case, Coors expertly marketed the product to my demographic and it provoked a strong reaction in me to buy it. Personally I'm fine with all this.
I drink Blue Moon. I like the taste but I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb enough to fall for marketing campaigns. In this case, Coors expertly marketed the product to my demographic and it provoked a strong reaction in me to buy it. Personally I'm fine with all this.
Funnily enough, I was fooled by the marketing, but only around two years ago, when it first started being sold in Ireland.
I did find out from a friend (who's a brewer) that it was produced by Coors, which I didn't like.
I still kept drinking it though, as its a nice beer. Honestly though, if I had known it was Coors before I tried it, I probably wouldn't have.
So, yeah, marketing works or something, I guess? :)
I did find out from a friend (who's a brewer) that it was produced by Coors, which I didn't like.
I still kept drinking it though, as its a nice beer. Honestly though, if I had known it was Coors before I tried it, I probably wouldn't have.
So, yeah, marketing works or something, I guess? :)
The main advantage megabrewers have over craft brewers is economy of scale. If Coors can crank out Blue Moon in volume and price it below a similar craft beer, then they've got a viable market. If they're pricing Blue Moon the same as similar craft beers, then their margins are much wider than the craft brewers.
If a mock-craft beer and a craft beer taste equally good and cost the same, it's a good idea to support diversity by buying the craft brew. The critics seem to agree Blue Moon is one of the best beers Coors makes, and craft brewers are to thank for pressuring Coors to produce decent beer.
If a mock-craft beer and a craft beer taste equally good and cost the same, it's a good idea to support diversity by buying the craft brew. The critics seem to agree Blue Moon is one of the best beers Coors makes, and craft brewers are to thank for pressuring Coors to produce decent beer.
call me crazy, but i drink Blue Moon and other beers because of the taste - which is nothing like Coors Light - not because i indiscriminately flock to craft beers. i'll pay more because it tastes better, not because of some story.
i'm in Breckenridge now, maybe I'll get a Coors factory tour in Golden and thank them for making a beer that doesn't taste like piss.
i'm in Breckenridge now, maybe I'll get a Coors factory tour in Golden and thank them for making a beer that doesn't taste like piss.
+1 to Coors factory -- Pro tip: skip the bus and walk into the brewery from the West entrance.
Definitely do the tour. I walked away from it with a respect for Coors. They have some great environmental practices, they run AC Golden pretty much independently, which produces some awesome microbrews, and they've kept at least some identity with the company that Adolf Kors started.
When you're in the tasting room, ask for Colorado Native, which is sourced locally and only sold in Colorado, and Batch 19.
When you're in the tasting room, ask for Colorado Native, which is sourced locally and only sold in Colorado, and Batch 19.
thanks for the tips, guys.
i actually spotted a Colorado Native pack at the Safeway here, i'll grab it in the next few.
i actually spotted a Colorado Native pack at the Safeway here, i'll grab it in the next few.
If you visit the Sandlot at Coors Field, you can actually have 'original recipe' Blue Moon. They have a handful of other beers that are only available there, it's a cool spot to check out if you like Blue Moon.
Heck, you could visit breck brewery.
But both countries’ products -- and all of Blue Moon’s products world-wide, for that matter -- share one thing in common: nowhere on the packaging is there any indication that the beer is a product of MillerCoors, the second-largest brewer in the United States.
It says quite clearly on the back label on the australian bottles that it's brewed by Coors
It says quite clearly on the back label on the australian bottles that it's brewed by Coors
Honestly it doesn't matter. It tastes good and that's what's important. As long as my beverages and food aren't producded in an unethical manner I really don't care if it comes from a small or large firm.
> “If a company is proud of itself and also wants to let a beer be judged on its merits, then I see no reason why that company should not clearly boast of its provenance.”
It sounds exactly like CoorsMiller wants Blue Moon to be judged based on its merits.
It sounds exactly like CoorsMiller wants Blue Moon to be judged based on its merits.
I've been drinking Blue Moon for years, and I didn't think there was any secret or mystery to the fact that Coors was behind it. Furthermore, reflecting on this, I'm pretty sure I discovered that shortly after I discovered the beer. I guess I assumed everyone else knew as well.
I'm not sure it's something worth getting upset about. It tastes good, so I drink it when I'm in the mood for a sweet wheat ale with a hint of orange flavor. IMO, that's the most important criteria for a beer, be it a some mass produced product, a limited release from some forgotten mountain monestary or anywhere between. It has to taste good.
I am mildy curious if it is brewed in the same brewery in Golden, or if the subsidiary mentioned in the article has another site and brewery of their own. I shall have to investigate this and see if they do tours.
I'm not sure it's something worth getting upset about. It tastes good, so I drink it when I'm in the mood for a sweet wheat ale with a hint of orange flavor. IMO, that's the most important criteria for a beer, be it a some mass produced product, a limited release from some forgotten mountain monestary or anywhere between. It has to taste good.
I am mildy curious if it is brewed in the same brewery in Golden, or if the subsidiary mentioned in the article has another site and brewery of their own. I shall have to investigate this and see if they do tours.
I think it is brewed in Golden (they do most of their beers for the US there). As I mentioned elsewhere, the tour is well worth it. Ask about AC Golden and try Colorado Native and Batch 19.
This is really common in Australia - I've found the biggest giveaway of a fake-craft brand is that the alcohol content is generally 4.8% (which just happens to be the governments definition of a full-strength beer).
Australia goes further. Several "foreign" beers are actually domestically brewed under licence and sold for juicy markups.
In the US, where I buy Japanese beers, all are either brewed in the US or Canada under license. If it's brewed in Canada, it's marked up as imported. I doubt it's any different in other countries or for other brands.
That is common in all countries. Budweiser in the uk is brewed in the uk and tastes nothing like Budweiser in the us.
'Fosters' the Australian beer, is not really found at all in Australia. Where it is found, it is usually brewed locally.
'Fosters' the Australian beer, is not really found at all in Australia. Where it is found, it is usually brewed locally.
I'd like to know how you get something viral to happen with beer drinkers like the ritual of putting an orange slice on a Blue Moon. I've seen people actually get upset when they're handed a draft without it...like the brewer ships mandatory oranges with the kegs or something.
Kind of like the whole Corona lime-in-the-bottle-neck thing. Nobody knows or remembers how it started (or so they say).
Kind of like the whole Corona lime-in-the-bottle-neck thing. Nobody knows or remembers how it started (or so they say).
It's as simple as their marketing images have an orange slice.
Interesting marketing case.
* Large beer company wants to make a beer with more complex flavor.
* Consumers who enjoy more complex flavors are negatively prejudiced against the large beer company and stereotype their products.
* Large beer company creates separate brand to escape prejudice.
* The question is, can they somehow flip this by slowly adding back their branding in order to improve the value of their main brand.
* Large beer company wants to make a beer with more complex flavor.
* Consumers who enjoy more complex flavors are negatively prejudiced against the large beer company and stereotype their products.
* Large beer company creates separate brand to escape prejudice.
* The question is, can they somehow flip this by slowly adding back their branding in order to improve the value of their main brand.
I don't know if they're really concerned about boosting their main brand with the craft brands. InBev produced a Budweiser Super Bowl commercial slamming craft beer, particularly a "pumpkin peach" beer, just a week after they bought a craft brewer that makes a pumpkin peach beer. That leads me to believe that their goal is just to have separate brands that target different demographics.
I don't think there's any problem with a large brewery creating a sub-brand to differentiate its products that are aimed at a different market.
But I do think Coors has crossed a line in trying to make people think Blue Moon is a craft beer. I don't know how many people they fool, but I certainly thought it was one (though I rarely ever drink it; I also think it's an overhyped beer, perfectly drinkable but not something I'd choose if given a reasonable alternative). For comparison, I didn't realize Shock Top was Anheuser-Busch, but I also didn't think it was a craft beer. Maybe I don't pay much attention and it really is marketed the same way Blue Moon is, but in my mind, Blue Moon crossed a line that Shock Top didn't.
But I do think Coors has crossed a line in trying to make people think Blue Moon is a craft beer. I don't know how many people they fool, but I certainly thought it was one (though I rarely ever drink it; I also think it's an overhyped beer, perfectly drinkable but not something I'd choose if given a reasonable alternative). For comparison, I didn't realize Shock Top was Anheuser-Busch, but I also didn't think it was a craft beer. Maybe I don't pay much attention and it really is marketed the same way Blue Moon is, but in my mind, Blue Moon crossed a line that Shock Top didn't.
> By obfuscating its brand name on products like Blue Moon, Coors is violating the consumer’s right to know who he is supporting, and where his beverage comes from.
(I don't think my rights have been violated. They'd have to prevent me from reading this article in order to do that.)
This is not fundamentally different than this absurdity: By obfuscating its brand name on products like the Lincoln Navigator, Ford is violating the consumer's right to know who he is supporting, and where his SUV comes from.
I really like Stella Artois and Blue Moon, and it doesn't bother me that they're brewed by large brewers. What makes a beer good is not the fact that the company that makes it is of a certain size. I love being able to go to a bar I've never been to and have at least two good options of last resort if they don't carry something else that I know I'll like.
(I don't think my rights have been violated. They'd have to prevent me from reading this article in order to do that.)
This is not fundamentally different than this absurdity: By obfuscating its brand name on products like the Lincoln Navigator, Ford is violating the consumer's right to know who he is supporting, and where his SUV comes from.
I really like Stella Artois and Blue Moon, and it doesn't bother me that they're brewed by large brewers. What makes a beer good is not the fact that the company that makes it is of a certain size. I love being able to go to a bar I've never been to and have at least two good options of last resort if they don't carry something else that I know I'll like.
I don't really care if big companies buy up smaller breweries - helps increase distribution and rewards those small brewers who produce a quality product. What I can't stand though is when they promptly start adulterating the recipe - I'm looking at you Miller/Leinenkugels! Before you know it, what used to be a good beer is now nothing but corn and rice filler just like the dull flavorless mega beers. And, you can't move a brewery to the other side of the country in the name of corporate consolidation and pretend you are still brewing the same beer - Olympia wasn't kidding when they said "It's in the water!" and Milwaukee ain't the same as Tumwater!
Clearly, it's a different product than watered down budweiser style beer. I am not sure I ever cared personally who brewes it. It's decent beer. If a big co makes a decent product, great.
In school we're doing a case study on Coors and Anheuser Busch Inbev, and effectively any "premium" beers sold by the big beer companies are the same cost to make as the lite versions. They price them higher because of higher perceived value by the consumer.
I find that a little hard to believe as the lite version tend to use a lot of cheaper and less flavorful grain (corn, rice, etc) as adjunct to get the sugar levels up for fermentation instead of costlier malted barley.
Big enough difference in price between those for those to make a difference in production cost. This assumes that premium lines tend to be higher in flavor/alcohol than the lite versions, which isn't always true (see Budweisers line) but enough for generalization.
Big enough difference in price between those for those to make a difference in production cost. This assumes that premium lines tend to be higher in flavor/alcohol than the lite versions, which isn't always true (see Budweisers line) but enough for generalization.
There are other aspects of brewing American lagers that could make them more expensive than typical microbrewed ales. For one, you have to refrigerate lagers and they take longer to ferment. I know Budweiser has some steps after fermentation that I could see adding cost as well.
For all the hype around microbrews, it actually takes a lot more effort to brew Coors-type beer than your typical hopped up microbrew IPA. There's less room for error because there is less to mask off flavors.
To be honest, I am surprised that the American macro brews haven't touted the craft and history of making their style of beer. The American lager style is really a Bavarian style beer that is 100+ years old -- and its surprisingly difficult to brew.
For all the hype around microbrews, it actually takes a lot more effort to brew Coors-type beer than your typical hopped up microbrew IPA. There's less room for error because there is less to mask off flavors.
To be honest, I am surprised that the American macro brews haven't touted the craft and history of making their style of beer. The American lager style is really a Bavarian style beer that is 100+ years old -- and its surprisingly difficult to brew.
From a process control point of view I've always thought the master brewers doing huge batch american light lagers are very impressive. There is really no room to hide anything there and the people buying your product have likely been doing so for years.
Repeatable, precision, and incredible quality control willing to dump the last batch if its not right.
Repeatable, precision, and incredible quality control willing to dump the last batch if its not right.
> The American lager style is really a Bavarian style beer that is 100+ years old -- and its surprisingly difficult to brew.
The difficult Bavarian lager, sure, is more difficult. American adjunct lager is made of rice (which is flavourless), and precisely pH, temperature, etc controlled. This both removes nuance and increases repeatability
The difficult Bavarian lager, sure, is more difficult. American adjunct lager is made of rice (which is flavourless), and precisely pH, temperature, etc controlled. This both removes nuance and increases repeatability
Bud and Bud Light are always priced the same in the beer store I normally go to. http://www.inandoutbeverage.com/
This is hardly unique to beer, of course. It's not uncommon to find that the little, local café you like? It's a chain, owned by a major supermarket. That "traditional" apple juice/lemonade you liked? It's owned by Coca-Cola/PepsiCo.
I think there are two categories here though. Small craft operations that got acquired by large conglomerates and large conglomerates deliberately creating a sub-brand to appear craft.
Starbucks, for example, opened several coffee shops in Seattle that appeared to be local independents and beared no starbucks branding.
Starbucks, for example, opened several coffee shops in Seattle that appeared to be local independents and beared no starbucks branding.
[deleted](1)
I think this article says more about the mind of a quick-to-judge consumer than the corporations that brew and sell the beer.
[deleted]
The result @ http://vinepair.com/wine-blog/map-actually-makes-your-beer/ received a LOT of attention in the beer world.
It's been updated four times as it was tough to sort through some of the confusion and obfuscation in marketing, even with the benefit of having had dug through SEC filings, the COLA registry at TTB, and other sources. FWIW, I was contacted for direct clarification from one of the companies indirectly called out in this piece (Kona/Craft Brew Alliance).
All that said, I'd argue that association (and particularly a lack of care about such an association by many, many consumers whether or not they know about it) is less interesting than the advantages of being purchased/created by a macro brewer, such as distribution and how that plays out in the 3-tier system in the US.