Should brewers label updated beers differently?

Not big enough to warrant a label change.

 

So, do you have an example of what would constitute "big enough"?

Cheers!

 

Several new ingredients or one really dramatic one. Something that changes the character of the beer significantly.

 

Well, needless to say the term "significantly' is subjective but I think I am getting your perspective here.

Cheers!

 

Keep in mind that @patto1ro 's research has probably revealed many cases of huge changes made over time to beers that have kept their name regardless.

 

I am a more contemporary kind of a guy!

Cheers!

 

Dont think there is one single answer to this question.

-If the difference is just a small tweak in the recipe then it doesnt seem necessary and would be a lot of trouble for no real benefit to customer or brewer.
-If the beer is constantly being changed but sold under the same label and name, it is in a brewers interest to either rebrand or state that its a rotating recipe, like Nightshift Morph. If they dont do that they risk being seen as a brewery with poor quality control and lots of batch variation.
-If the difference is a massive change to the beer and the final taste, then a rebranding seems necessary. Customers dont want to be blindsided by a completely different beer than they wanted to drink.

 

If they kept the name and said something prominently like, "we've found a way to make your favorite beer better" , I think they might gain customers. There are a number of breweries that I would trust to continue working on recipes of their best proprietary iconic beers.

 

Dick, is Sixpoint on your list here?

Cheers!

 

Does Luponic Distortion Rev ### count?

 

Exactly. Barclay Perkins X Ale is a good example. It was several totally different things over its 120 year life.

 

Interestingly, I have never tried any Sixpoint beers. But from what I have read they seem to be versatile and trustworthy for sure.