Blue Moon Tells Beer Snobs to Drink Up and Show Respect

no

 

I let my dollars do the talking

 

Nice article. The beer is not for me, but I do frequently keep some in the fridge for company.

 

I love the stuff, lucky I seen hoengaarden come back down in price, but even its not the beer it used to be.
some of us old craft beer lovers, love BM....

I just do not get the hate over a beer

 

I like how the writer disparages Shock Top as a Blue Moon "knock-off".
Hilarity ensues.

 

Pierre Celis is rolling in his grave.

I have absolutely no problem giving respect to the brewers. I just have disdain for management, marketing, sales, finance, etc.

 

Is this based on recent experience, or just an assumption based on the brewery's parent company?

 

too sweet. bad version of the style. not craft bar in any respect.

 

I like Blue Moon beer better than Budweiser...but most of their beers have a similar taste.

 

UPDATE: Beer snobs tell Blue Moon to cram a sock in it and focus on making a better beer.


Should we all shed a tear for Blue Moon? Defend your brew all you like; you're entitled to do so. But, that does not make it anything more than a mediocre beer.

 

I was interested in Freddy Bensch from Sweetwater describing it as a good example of it's style. That says as much about SW as it does Blue Moon.

 

This may not be a popular opinion on this site, but I have to say I kind of agree with Blue Moon here.

I do think it's reasonable for their parentage to be commonly-known, so that people who do want to support smaller, locally-owned breweries with their money, but if we're looking at "craft beer" from the standpoint of taking an artisanal, "crafted" approach, then Blue Moon does seem to fit. If they are truly run independently from the big conglomo down the street, and use quality ingredients (both of which seem to be true), then

It may seem ridiculous to describe ShockTop as a Blue Moon knock-off, since Blue Moon is often described as a "knock off" of actual witbiers, but let's be honest, BM is worlds better than ST and actually tastes like a beer I would expect to come out of a full-on, bonafide craft brewer. Whereas ST tastes like a beer I would expect to come out of a conglomerate who simply wanted to capitalize on the craft craze.

Of course ownership and marketing matters, but to me, the core issue here is ingredients and taste. And it seems like Blue Moon has made a commitment quality ingredients and flavors. I liked the comparison to Toyota/Lexus, because even though that analogy is strained, given that you don't hand-craft cars (unless you are Lamborghini), it still points out that the same company can produce cheap-o swill that it meant for mass consumption and minimal flavor as well as well-made, quality product. The key is keeping the operational, tactical and strategic decisions of the two "levels" separate, so that the need to brew cheap and in large quantities for the AAL doesn't impede the need for time, attention, and care that is required for craft.

Plus, I'm not terribly worried that Blue Moon's presence is threatening craft beer as a whole. Now maybe individual brewers have some valid concerns, since overall industry health doesn't necessarily translate to individual business health, but from the consumer's perspective, BM is not really a threat.

 

“Blue Moon Brewing Co. has been around long before the vast majority of craft brewers,” he said in the interview. “What exactly is crafty about that?”
Which raises a question: Is Blue Moon a good beer?​

In a BMC bar lineup, it's "good beer". But if there's any non-BMC, I'd ignore it (OK, maybe not Harp or Smithwick's or Heineken stable--those are pretty much equivalent to BM).

 

The brew’s creator, Keith Villa, said leaving the parent company off the label almost two decades ago was practical, not expedient.
It mirrored strategies employed by Toyota Motor Corp. for its specialty brand Lexus and Hallmark Cards Inc. for Shoebox greetings. Villa also worried consumers might be confused when the weird, cloudy Blue Moon didn’t look and taste like other Coors beers.
Many Blue Moon drinkers don’t care where the product comes from so long as it tastes good, said John Faucher, an analyst for JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. He says Blue Moon is right to resist the pressure from the “snobby” craft industry.
“What’s the advantage of letting people know that it’s by MillerCoors?” Faucher said. “The downside is the beer-snob factor. If there is no upside from doing it, then why take the risk?”

That's the essence of why it's "Blue Moon Brewery" not "Blue Moon brand from Coors".

 

Blue Moon is the Blue Nun of the beer world.

 

just not a fan at all

 

Blue Moon, while always a Coors-owned brand, was once brewed by two of the largest Brewers Association's "Craft Brewers".



So, Samuel Adams when brewed by Miller was "craft", but Blue Moon brewed by Boston Beer Co. and F.X. Matt wasn't.

"Craft" vs. "Crafty" = damn confusin'.

 

This really sums up the fact that they were just trying to squeeze in some peripheral beer drinkers and, most importantly, not make regular Coors pluggers drink it as another Coors. They wanted to hide it from beerdiots lest they get confused.

 

not craft *beer*.

but yeah, i suppose they've been a gateway out of AALs for many. but their beer is swill.