Gimmicks - good or bad?

I definitely don't think all Rogue beers are gimmicky. Their Hazelnut Brown Nectar is probably still my favorite brown ale to date. But they've been trending that way. Heavily. If you look at all of the new beers they've released, it's hard to find one that's not a gimmick. Moby Dick Beer (White Whale Ale), Beard Beer, Sriracha Hot Stout and the three Voodoo beers are pretty obvious gimmick beers. And that by no means makes them bad beers. A gimmicky beer isn't bad because it's brewed with gimmicky ingredients. But if a brewery believes that the marketing will sell a beer no matter how bad it tastes, then you end up with a beer like Sriracha Hot Stout which, no offense meant to you if you enjoyed it, tasted to me like throwing up after a night of eating over-spiced Pho.
Rogue's by no means the only culprit here. Brewdog has had quite a few (remember the Viagra beer brewed for the royal wedding? Or the beer with performance enhancing ingredients brewed for the Olympics?), Dogfish has their fair share and if you haven't tried Pizza Beer yet, you've yet to discover the depths of gimmickry.

 

I don't mind a brewery trying anything they feel like trying. In fact, I think we should encourage it. For every terrible "gimmick" beer I've tried, I bet I could name at least one I liked ... and possibly two. A couple years ago I hated the idea of anything other than water, yeast, barley and hops going in my pint glass, but some of the more "gimmicky" beers I've tried have been awesome.

Jalapeno beer. Peppermint stout. Cucumber wit. The recent Blood & Honey by Revolver six-pack I bought ... some of Jester King's concoctions ... and Jolly Pumpkin's. Those "gimmicks" often work out really well, and the bottomline for me has become either I like it or don't, regardless of what's in the beer or how it was made.

 

Personally, I think there is a definitely difference between "Gimmick" and "Experimental"/"Unusual".

I love trying new things when homebrewing, and love beers that have something unusual or unique about them. When a brewer goes out of their way to make something different with the main aim of making good beer, then that is a good thing. When a brewer goes out of their way to make something different with the main aim of publicity, then that is not a good thing.

 

I don't mind that people like gimmicky beers, just as I don't mind that most people prefer Bud. I'm just afraid that breweries will rely on these beers eventually and then beer quality will drop.

As a side note, when people see "chocolate peanut butter" on a beer, I don't understand how they don't ask: "how does the peanut butter affect the beer? does the fat spoil/oxidize in disgusting ways? Does the yeast break down the peanut butter into methanol or some other weird shit? Will it continue to taste the way it's supposed to in a week from now? Or is powdered peanut flavour added at the end of fermentation?" I think the same thing about pretty much everything weird in beer as well.

 

The "Gimmicky Beer" thread got me thinking about how innovation is perceived in the craft beer community. Personally, I think there is a clear divide between gimmick/novelty and true innovation.

When a brewer makes an educated guess about how a new recipe will turn out, based on his/her experience as a brewer and understanding of the chemical properties of the ingredients, I would call the brewer innovative. The brewer is making small steps into the unknown using knowledge and experience as their foundation.

Most of the unique beers seem so out there that I can only imagine the brewer thinking it up like this -> "oh shit, this is crazy, I wonder how a... um... BERLINER WEISSE will taste with pickles added! People love beer, and they love pickles! I'll add Citra and Galaxy and age it in tequila barrels. Who knows what the fuck will happen, but at least it will sell!"


TL; DR
Where do you draw the line between novelty and innovation?

 

To me, a gimmick screams of doing something more for attention than because you're trying to do something unique and groundbreaking.

In music terms, think Miley Cyrus compared to System of a Down. Both turn heads, but with one there's substance and artistry behind the craziness. I think ya know which one is which.

 

I think you've touched on an important distinction as it relates to the definition of gimmick.

In marketing, a gimmick is used to stand out... but has little/no relevance or value to the product. In other words, it's different for the sake of being different (i.e., attracting attention).

Using that definition, I have a categorically defining all beers that utilize a weird or outlandish ingredient as "gimmicky". Take something like a Sriracha beer--you're going to be hard-pressed to convince me that an ingredient like Sriracha, which has a profound impact on the aroma and flavor profile of a beer, has little relevance to the product. Of course, that sounds awful to me (even as someone who likes Sriracha), but I'm not sure it's a gimmick. I think "experimental" is a good way to describe it. Contrast that to the Game of Thrones beers, which are literally no more connected to the TV show and books than a simple piece of label design. Movie/show tie-ins with beers might as well be the textbook definition of gimmick.

Of course, the interesting juxtaposition with all of this is that while we tend to have negative connotations with the word "gimmick", often times, a well-done beer that just happens to tie-in to a popular TV show is very likely to turn out better than some bonkers huitlacoche beer that's likely going to taste like unwashed ass. None of the Game of Thrones beers stood out to me as remarkable, but all were enjoyable to drink and well-executed for the style. But they were certainly gimmicks. Crime and Punishment, however, were not what I would call "gimmicks", but I actually regretted trying them.

 

There isn't much room for innovation in brewing , most "new" things can be found in dusty old records though with different names. Such as Black IPA and DIPA.
Fiddling with ingredients and recipes is just fiddling , throwing weird ingredients into the mix is gimmickry.

 

I agree, there have been barrel aged stouts, wild ales and big beers for over a hundred years at least, it's just new to some people. I think innovation comes with time, happens slowly and is a product of technological change or economical calculation, not experimental genius.

Brewers should aim to make a beer with its own profile. I can imagine the taste of Schlenkerla Marzen, Rodenbach Grand Cru and Saison Dupont right now with a surprising amount of clarity even though I'm not drinking anything. These beers really have their own personality.

 

#CSB

To me a beer I consider gimmicky is not good by definition.

BCBCS, Mex Cake etc - not gimmicks