Discussion in 'Beer Talk' started by sandiego67, Jul 20, 2012.
You mean the Swedish Bikini team's career is over? Oh, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
That attitude is exactly what many craft brewers play into. In a way, it's just as much marketing as girls in bikinis and Spuds McKenzie
Look at all the "edgy" and "extreme" labels out there. A lot are pretty much the craft beer equivalent of Hot Topic.
Non-packaging is packaging.
I think labels are as important as other forms of marketing, which is very important to the vast majority of people. That being said, my experience in craft beer leads me to believe that a lot of people check ratings and buy entirely based on that such that the label makes no difference to a certain group of buyers.
Well if the dusty bottles of Lost Abby beers I see in my area are any indication of his theory, LA must have sucky labels.
this beer must suck...
That would be Citra (and centennial), and not Simcoe you were tasting in Headwaters. Citra has a similar herbal character as simcoe, but not as intense.
So you're saying that Stone's marketing isn't marketing?
I think it's textbook ad copy.
Yep. Differentiation. It's a thing.
It's marketing but with a Stone twist - not what you learn in marketing 101.
Im slightly influenced by the bottle style. The cork and cage motif will almost get me every time.
Making people think that they are part of an elite club (or using products that will get you in an elite club) is one of the most basic forms of marketing.
Yes , I knew a man in marketing who said-make it cheaply, make it bland ,sell it at a high price and tell people how smart they are to buy it.
True, but the whole point is to get you to buy it the first time.
This. To summarize what others have been saying, a label can get someone to try a beer once, but if they don't like the beer, they won't buy it again.
And to those of you who think the same dweebs you know who work for advertising firms have some sort of cabalistic knowledge to get people to buy things they don't like or want, try doing a search for "New Coke" and "Edsel" to see the results of the magic of advertising witchcraft on bad products.
And in this case, whether Tomme decides to show up at my house or not...there's still a very high likelyhood that the product in this very artistic bottle is flat.
the best marketing is making a great product. And vice-versa.
I'm going to agree with this and call bullshit on anyone who thinks they are not affected by label designs in some small way at least. A good beer store is going to have its shelves packed with hundreds of different beers and a poor unattractive label can easily get lost in the fray.
Realistically we're all susceptible to advertising to some degree, which is what labels are. Sometimes that turns out great - Samuel Smith's classy labels are what stuck out to me the first time I tried them back in the 90s and that's what got me into good beer. The beer could have been crap, but the label did its job. But if you're an established beer nerd, you're mostly shopping based on what you've heard about irrespective of art. Lots of beers can have great labels and be some crapass fake craft beer or just some forgettable micro - we've all been burned by that. And others can have horrible amateur labels (looking at you Hoppin' Frog) and have great stuff inside. I think the average BA gets that after a while though and doesn't get swayed by labels.
Simplicity is good design. It doesn't have to look like Darklord for me to notice.
New Glarus's labeling, with a single six-pack carrier, is deplorable. But the beer is good and it sells.
I remember trying great divide's brew for the first time because I liked their labels, same as sierra Nevada and dog fish and southern tier. I have stayed away from beers made by flying dog because I think their labels are weird.
I think that a beer's name is half the battle too. Think of some of the beers on the following list:
Russian River's -Tion series
Midnight Sun "Bar Fly"
Imperial Biscotti Break
The list goes on...
Imagine if Foothills named that beer "Chocolate Stout".
I know that a name isn't everything (Rare would still be... well, Rare), but it DOES have an impact on perception
EDIT: Think if the Bruery didn't name it "Partridge in a pear tree" and instead it was called "Christmas ale #1"
It's as textbook as you can get.
Well, the pig IS blind.
When I first got into craft and was building mix sixers label had a ton to do with what beers I'd look at. As an example I passed by Smuttynose Finest Kind countless time, not thinking a beer with two old dudes in lawn chairs on the label could be any good. Turns out I was passing by a truly world class beer. Same with Two Hearted....
I'll readily admit that there have been times when I've been in a store, staring at several beers I've never had and know nothing about, and decided which one to go with in part based on how attractive the labels were/weren't. If you know nothing about the beers, the quality of the label can certainly impact a decision.
Label IMO is an afterthought its not important to me i like many styles research and read about beer i will try new brew based on this knowledge not on the label,having said that i do like labels and enjoy them from a marketing/visual aspect
It's true, but look at some of the most critically acclaimed beers. Pliny. Two Hearted. Not the fanciest of labels, but the beers are insanely high in quality.
It's important only to a point. If the beer is lousy, no amount of marketing is going to sustain it in the long run.
Utterly disagree with the quote.
I find no correlation between label quality and beer quality, and often I find the fancy labels are trying to sell shitty beer
Labels sell. I don't care about a label now, but back in the day (when I just started exploring) I bought Dead Guy and Heavy Seas mostly because the labels were silly. I didn't really bother with Sam Adams. That's just one example but the point is if you know little to nothing about the myriad choices of beer on a shelf you will start by looking at the labels that catch your eye the most.
QED? Brewing beer is a business, but it's still an art first and a business second. Art is about the creation, the creation of brewing is beer, marketing does not affect beer quality, marketing is irrelevant to the creation of beer. QED
I'm not sure I agree that brewing beer is art, but I wouldn't be an expert on that anyway. Marketing does not affect the quality of a beer, sure. That assumes that people enjoy beer in a vacuum where only taste matters. The fact is that people look at the bottle before, and the presentation of the bottle affects perception of taste, no matter how hard one may try to separate the two. Labels matter, even if we don't want them to.
Maybe they matter for you. The only thing I worry about on labels is abv% and style/ingredients.
Just tonight I bought Hoptimum because it has the coolest label I've ever seen, and it's been catching my eye for a while now.
my psychology degree tells me that there is truth to this statement... my economics degree tells me that this is only true in the short run and quality of product is dominant in the long run.
You can't judge a book by its cover, but who wants to own ugly stuff?
Your user name is also TheBeerSnob. To the rest of the majority beer drinking population, marketing matters in a big way. If it didn't the macros wouldn't put have millions into a can that turns mountains blue or has a punch top.
I personally do not find a correlation between taste and clever name/label, but the clever people get my money first.
Separate names with a comma.