Gimmicks - good or bad?

I find them lame and lazy

 

Just because something is publicized, doesn't make it a beloved product. It's talked about so much because it is an attention grabber. It provides publicity when a location can say they offer bull testicles as a regular menu item. If you look at the statistics, you will find that Coors Field (while they do offer them at The Grill in section 144), hardly sells them at each game. They keep them around for the novelty of it.

As an ironic side note, even Wynkoop Brewing knows it was a publicity stunt and was a gimmicky idea for a beer. (Article below). The amount of rocky mountain oysters used was so little that it works out to 1.26% of bull testicle extract per pint. That is such a negligible amount that you would never even taste them in the beer. But guess what, it allows them to put it on the label for the shock value. Don't confuse demand for this beer as a confirmation of peoples love for bulls testicles. Was it a decent beer, possibly, but not because of the bulls testicles. That portion was just a gimmick to draw attention to the brewery, as well as giving the ability for consumers to say they had a beer brewed with 'bull testicles'.

http://blog.cookingchanneltv.com/20...erys-rocky-mountain-oyster-stout-beer-review/

So as I originally stated, yes, this beer was a gimmick regardless of whether it was any good or not.

 

I like it when people give away free beer. I appreciate free beer much more than little dogs, wet t-shirts, heavy metal, free bottle openers, standing in line and whatever.

 

Bad, always bad.

 

I think the point you are missing or ignoring is that in several areas of North America, including the area of the Brewery's distribution footprint, the choice of Rocky Mountain Oysters to use in brewing a stout is neither odd nor controversial. The only thing surprising given the growing use of Oysters in Oyster Stouts in other parts of the country is that some brewery hadn't already used Rocky Mountain Oysters in a stout.

 

Kind of bothered me when they came out with those Game of Thrones beers. I love GoT, but it really felt like just a sales gimmick. However, I think Ommegang is capable of standing on their beer alone, so it probably wasn't a desperate money grubbing move. They probably just love the story like the rest of us. If a gimmick is used because the brewery's beer isn't good enough to stand alone, well then yea that's bad.

 

I will drink anything. I don't give a shit if it's a gimmick.

PS I used to love Ecto Cooler, so I would try that beer in a heartbeat.

 

If the beer is good, who cares if it's gimmicky? What's important is that it's good beer.

If the beer is bad, who cares if it's gimmicky? What's important is that it sucks.

 

I'm not missing nor ignoring that there is in fact a market for these, even if it is quite small. This is not about whether Rocky Mountain Oysters are acceptable, or if people like them, or where the markets foot print is. It is about the use of them as an ingredient in brewing a beer at all, which is in every way a gimmick.

Just the very basis of using an ingredient that draws such strong reactions and seems like a joke at face value, gives this beer a gimmick status. Then add to it that the amount used was so negligible that it had no noticeable effect on flavor and/or impact on the beer itself, and you push this one over the edge. Even the brewery itself recognizes the gimmicky concept of this beer (article below). There was no benefit to adding these as an ingredient, except for giving the brewery the ability to put it on the label. Which they used to great effect I might add, as it helped them sell beer to those willing to buy into it. If you don't agree with the general consensus of this being a gimmick as far as beers are concerned, including the breweries belief of the same, then I don't know what else to say.

Beyond that, it would just become arguing for arguments sake, which is just silly.

http://blog.cookingchanneltv.com/20...erys-rocky-mountain-oyster-stout-beer-review/

 

So these states and provinces that offer this product on a regular basis are keep them in the menu use up the valuable real estate on a product that doesn't sell?? Im sorry but 10 years of cooking leads me to think it would be poor business practise to do so.

Sounds like you would claim that a brewer who uses a new hop is just doing it for attention too.

The fact that even as it started off as a joke people wanted to try the ( fictional) beer so much they made it a reality.

 

Great way to put it!

 

Bruce Dickinson was heavily involved with the brewing of Trooper. That seem more legit than selling your name to a beer.

 

I believe that.

 

Do you guys consider a beer made for say a ski area a gimmick? For example Jay Peak Tram Ale, made by Long Trail for Jay Peak.

 

I tend to stay away from gimmick beers. I guess the snob in me likes to see originality and creativity in the package as well as the product. Gimmick beers seems to be the lazy way of getting out of creating a label worthy of the beer.

 

Well, since you wouldn't know what to say, I agree, further discussion would be silly. Enjoy your next beer.

 

Depends on the gimmick. Brown Note is certainly a turn off

 

Lol, using a new hop in a beer is completely different than putting bull testicles in a beer. Apples and Oranges.

I can tell you did not read the article I posted earlier (or at least did not pay attention to what was in it) and seem to be playing devils advocate to everything I say. The beer in question was designed as an April's Fool Joke, received enough buzz and publicity (as something as gimmicky as this would do) and was then actually brewed and sold on a couple of limited runs. It was then retired , as the sales were not sustainable. (The novelty wore off.) This is not a regular line up beer or something that is mass produced as you are assuming. Your argument is simply conjecture at this point.

 

And you do the same.