Refunds for 2015 Regular BCBS and 2015 Prop

Yeah, I definitely remember the stories of their response at first. I took it as they really didn't know there was an issue. But, depending on the impression I was given by an inquiry at that time, I could definitely see having a different view of the situation. However, I can only go on what I've experienced.

As far as the FB page, I suppose I see your side about personal info, but my general point is that these forums in general bring about the negative opinions rather than the positive ones. There is a bias towards negative opinions.

 

It's obvious your predicament is/was different so it's easy for you to speak from your pulpit and tell others how they should feel or think. Maybe you'll convince some people, but I don't fall into that category. So you can continue to stalk my posts and do whatever fills your day, but it's not of any real benefit. If you like being an apologist, have at it (is it hometown pride?).

 

Ended up letting it soak for 3 hours, taste didn't improve until then. Off the bat infected smell still there and not getting better, Taste still metallic but much better, not enjoyable though. Added Regular 2015 BCBS to the prop, 11-5 bottle date(not too off yet, bit getting there). Didn't measure but I poured the reg until reaching the top of the circular GI log on the back label into a 12 oz snifter. Smell still not right, but taste is great. Get the maple on the back end with minimal sour metallic taste up front that fades as it warms.

 

Well you didn't address my proposal. Will you not purchase or consume another Goose Island Bourbon County beer (or variant) until such time you get your $25 check for your bottle of Prop '15? Being a principled man and all it seems like a slam dunk. See the quandary here is that most all beer geeks cannot fathom not having or missing out on BCBS and its variants. Some folks complain about GI yet they still scoop up BCBS every year. It's like clockwork. This year will be no different.

 

Oy vey, so much bickering! I got a case of regular and two Prop that are all on "the list." Sure, great, I get a refund for some of them, but I'm just so sad that I didn't get to enjoy these beers as I have so many years in the past. I am particularly unhappy about the coffee, when I had it on tap, I thought it was phenomenal. I'm sad that the infection robbed me of enjoying the bottles I bought, who cares if people bought one bottle to drink right away or 5 cases to enjoy later--we are all fans. Can we all stop fighting about horders and other nonsense and come together in our collective sorrow that these fabulous beers that we all love have been tainted. RIP BCBS 2015.

 

hmm. i actually was checking my bottles just now. i know it's hella' early but unless i'm misreading, mine aren't 1 of the listed bottle dates though the last 2 i had were definitely souring, most noticeably on the nose.

 

Well at the same time we also know that not all bottles of the listed dates for refund are bad either.

 

Yeah at least none of the draft has gone bad. I had Coffee on draft about two months ago and it was still perfect.

 

Of the 6 bottles I bought all were from 10/21, drank one right away and it was great, traded one away back in December and now I have 4 left I'll get refunds on.

 

Can we all at least agree we don't need to vote in January for best thread of the year? This is clearly it! I love reading these posts

 

I'm just about done going back and forth on your particular situation because you haven't really shown the ability to see it from the perspective of the logistical costs and pitfalls of executing this kind of plan in the first place. You suggest alternative refund options that would require a different end-to-end process as if it makes no difference based on the fact that said difference would address your personal situation, with no consideration for the question of how many customers would it actually help vs. how expensive and tricky would it be to implement. Just one example off the top of my head: label validation/verification is a lot easier than receipt validation.

Then you talk about how GI should have simply warned early reporters of their potential plans to maybe do a possible refund in the future so that those people would know to save bottles, which is frankly, absurd. It ignores the fact that GI (or any company) will want a little more than a few dozen/hundred phone calls and emails before taking something like this seriously. The progression of how this took place seems pretty standard to me:

1. Initial, isolated reports are met with checking of their own in-house stock and responses that they have found no evidence of infection/off flavors
2. As the number of reports build, a reevaluation is undertaken to address the apparent discrepancy between in-house testing results and the growing quantity of outside reports. Responses at this point become more ambiguous, but acknowledge that there is something to look into and that they are doing it. No real timeframe is given because at this point they have no clue what they will find. In this case, it ended up being a previously unidentified and hard-to-culture strain of bacteria--i.e., the poster child for why they'd be noncommittal with their initial answer.
3. They release an initial statement about the problem and explain what they've found and also acknowledge that they are aware of and looking into an extension of the problem on which they haven't verified test results, but are aware of a suspicious pH change.
4. They finally release an official release that explains their refund process details, doing it in a way that accommodates the fact that they know most customers aren't going to have receipts 8 months later, but also enables them to do some measure of verification on the refund requests, given the way it was abused the first time around.

I know some people don't want to hear this, but companies can't immediately concede to customers on matters like this--matters that have broad-reaching impact--because customers can be wrong and customers can have malicious intent. They also can't be expected to craft a solution that covers every single individual situation or action a customer might have taken. The bigger the undertaking, the harder it is to be flexible?

I'm going to defend their actions against unreasonable criticism. Not because I have any particular investment in GI, but because I think looking at a refund effort that is unmatched in scale and difficulty and poo pooing it as "terrible" is completely obnoxious.

 

exactly. which, in turn says the dates not listed are likely to be hit & miss too, yet they seem to be implying they are certain that's not the case.

 

I was only able to get one bottle, and was very lucky to get that one. I opened it up last fall, and enjoyed it, so much so, that I still have the bottle. I have no idea if mine is part of the recall, but even if it is, there's no way in hell I would try to get a refund. It was good last fall, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Props to GI for doing the refund program. I just hope that they did truly get to the bottom of the problem, and hope that they don't have issues in the future.

 

What if I have the neck stickers from my BCBBW bottles that were all terrible? I stuck the bottles in the basement at my mom's for hope that some new refund program would appear after I heard about the 1st refund program, which I had already missed the deadline for.

I still want my money back from those disasters.

 

Great post. I agree that the label is the best method for refund. It proves you have the affected product much better than a receipt does. I save all my receipts, and not all clearl label what I bought. On top of that, no receipt shows bottling date info. Since they restricted the refund to certain dates, I don't see how a receipt without the label can replace the label.

That was before big bad ABI and their lawyers were involved.

I think GI could have handled the message better once they acknowledged potential issues. However, from their perspective, this is the best way for them to handle a refund to allow the most people to get it. I'd rather have a brewery try to do something than completely ignore the problem.

 

You didn't address my proposal to have you send me $25 since it's no big deal.

 

Alternatively, how big was the distribution footprint back in 2010 and how big is now? Many more states involved and so several different sets of legal restrictions on how refunds can be offered and processed.

 

If memory serves me well Goose Islands first batch of Big John produced in early 2011 had the "can be aged for five years" on the label and the second batch produced after In/bev took over did not.

 

They chose to deny the initial claims, for whatever their reasons. But given that denial and given that the natural reaction when others have posted reports on bad product is to go and drink said beers in hopes of the lacto not developing further, they should try to see it from the customer's perspective. I will again, reiterate, that I don't think my ask is unreasonable. It probably didn't help that they were so dismissive over social media when I explained my situation to them. Would it have killed them to say, "Send us a PM/email to discuss further with the dialogue posted here" and then made it right? I don't think so.

 

Y'all are doing it wrong. I'm going to head to the brewery with my last prop and smash it against the building then upload the video to all of Goose Islands media outlets. The satisfaction of that is worth way more then $25.