Should brewers label updated beers differently?

I think they should, but at the same time I can see why they wouldn't - cost.

It costs a lot of money to create a brand, from state registrations to packaging and advertising. If that brand doesn't go over well it might be the packaging and name, or it might be the beer. If it's the beer then why not change it and save yourself some money rather than starting over?

Brooklyn's Greenmarket Wheat comes to mind. It was originally done with a Belgian yeast, but then they changed it to a Bavarian strain, I'm assuming because it improved the beer. The name and the idea behind the beer, however, are probably more important than the specifics of the beer though, so I can see why they'd keep it the same. They did change the information on the label though.

Another side to it is that sometimes beers just kind of change naturally, evolving and morphing into something else. For whatever reason - maybe the yeast was changed, maybe the hops weren't available, maybe the brewery switched their base malt and it just seemed to want to be a different beer, or perhaps it just needed an update and some tropical hops did the trick - there are many reasons... should they just chuck the old label and create a new one? And I'm sure that's a question that every brewer that's done that has asked themselves.

 

Southern Prohibition just changed Devil's Harvest from an APA to a "Breakfast IPA." They changed the beer, changed the can, but didn't change the name. That's annoying to me. The new beer, however, is delicious.

 

"Should brewers label updated beers differently?"

Yes!!

Cheers!

 

I say yes as well.

Cheers!

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

If it's a true update, and not a biproduct of a bad harvest for any mash ingredients, then yes. A beer carries a particular persona that some folks may love and some may hate. Changing the beer inside the bottle/can without alerting the customer by skimping on marketing research, or properly registering a new label could result in folks being turned off from a beer and brewery they've drank for years. Like wise, a new potential customer may continue to see that same label art and think "ehhh, that's that beer in _____ style, and I don't like that style at all".

 

Yes, a change should get a new label stating a change was made. Stone with their .1 is ok with me. At least I know there is something different. Southern tier changed the 2x IPA recipe(made it public) but don t think the label changed. Columbus IPA changed labels and the IPA is not the same. What was my all time favorite IPA is now a beer I no longer dream about.

Enjoy

 

Southern Tier has definitely done this with some stuff before. Off the top of my head, Farmer's Tan went from being an imperial pilsner to a session IPA . Just come up with a new name, guys. It was a totally different format, too.

 

How about getting the right label on the brew!

Cheers!

 

I was just talking to someone about this with the King Sue. I had it almost a year ago and it was no where near as hazy/juicy as it is now. The label is more of a orange color to show the change. But it's just a totally different beer all together imo

 

I ran into this today. Went to a brewery and was asked if I had tried one of the beers on tap. I said yes, and they asked how recently. I said oh, not sure, pretty recently probably. Then they said that the recipe had changed pretty much 100% within the past month.

Well, haven't had it then I guess.

I haven't thought this out, really, but it seems that if EVERYTHING changes it merits a new name. Especially smaller places that don't need to worry about branding. If it is minor tweaks, keep the name the same, or say "beer X, 2012-14," "beer X, 2015- ," and so on.

 

Also like west coast IPA which is now a DIPA.

 

How big would the change need to be to require relabelling? Breweries are constantly tinkering with their recipes. If only because barley and hops are agricultural products which aren't identical from one year to the next.

 

Last year Stone made a minor change to the dry-hop for their IPA so they decided to re-label this beer as Stone IPA v1.1. I think this was an appropriate decision on Stone's part.

Ron, what do you think about this example?

Cheers!

 

I'm not Ron, but I am not a fan of the idea of BEER v1.1. That's different from if it's appropriate.

 

I would think that if a brewer feels the need to update a beer then it is not meeting their sales expectations. A minor tweak can probably get by without relabeling but anything significant enough to revive a flagging brand might do better with a new name. But then it is their money on the line - not mine.

 

Chris, if you were President of Stone Brewing how would you have relabeled the new version of Stone IPA?

Cheers!

 

Well, my position of "not being a fan" is strictly a consumer perspective. It's tied to what I react to on the shelf as opposed to the business realities of being a product manufacturer. Although many do, I can't pretend that there's fluidity from one perspective to the other, but both perspectives are valid in the marketplace.

To humor you though, if I was "President of Fictitious Stone Brewing," and my marketing department told me that we should start naming our beers the way that software companies name their products, I would gag. I would tell them that it is not "arrogant" enough to name our beers like computer software. Then they would tell me that we need to do it to "stay relevant" and get out of the red... and that giving our beers version numbers will maintain the built in audience who is loyal to our old beer... while simultaneously appealing to the people who only want to try what is "new"... and that it's a win-win. I'll counter by explaining that the fans of the original might feel alienated... and the lovers of the new will only buy 1.1 one time anyway. Then they'll tell me that that's when we release "Stone IPA Classic" alongside "New Stone IPA 1.2" and everyone will jump for joy. Then in a moment of rage I would tell them that we need to do this one of two ways... either brew "Stone IPA" as our IPA and retire all of the 30 other IPAs we put on the brewing schedule... or embrace that we are an IPA brewery and let something called "Stone IPA" retire. Then they'll tell me that I an running the company like an opinionated BeerAdvocate member. Then there's a hostile takeover.

I hope nobody actually read all that.