Why Session Beer?

Where did I say a 3.5% beer costs half of what a 7% beer does to produce? I didn't. I have no reason to doubt Chris' numbers, so it's 5 or 10 cents a pint cheaper to make. My point is beer that is meant to be purchased in volume doesn't have to be marked up as highly as beer that is purchased at a lower volume; also session beer shouldn't be compared to higher ABV beer on a pint for pint basis it makes more sense to compare the entire purchasing session of session beer vs. higher ABV beer.

Overhead does decrease in relation to volume as volume increases. A 20 bbl brewery doesn't cost 3 times what a 7 bbl brewery does. It doesn't require 3 times the personnel. Does it require 3 times the fuel to boil 20 barrels (well 21) as it does to boil 7 - only on paper if you ignore the greater efficiency of the bigger system. This should be obvious, if larger systems weren't more efficient then breweries wouldn't move up to bigger systems. Greater volume allows you to either use a bigger system or more fully utilize a smaller system (stick with the 7 bbl and you're using it 3 times as much as a guy selling high abv beer, his big pile of expensive stainless is sitting there as you are using yours).

The entire purpose of session beer is people can drink more, maybe they're drinking 2 or 3 instead of 1 7% beer with dinner, maybe they're drinking 1 on their lunch break instead of a diet coke (zero beer).. if it's not meant for volume consumption then 'all day', 'day time', 'anytime' and whatever other 'drink this all day' named session beers on the market need new names.

 

No, it's made as an option when higher ABV beers are not optimal based on the occasion. No more, no less. I'll say it for the nth time, it's an option. If you don't like the option, choose another.

 

Thanks for the lesson. I currently brew on a 7 bbl, 38 bbl, 60 bbl and 100 bbl brewhouse. The larger question is why are breweries who utilize large (100bbl) systems not passing on the savings at that scale for 7% beers? The answer is that the consumer continues to purchase these beers at the higher prices. We don't have a session beer pricing problem, we have a craft beer pricing problem.

 

You missed the context. My "shocking" is pointed to those on this forum who can't believe that is the case. I brew only session beers, so yes, I fully understand the concept. Really happy you do too!

 

I must be misunderstanding the "session" description from your website then ... and all the posts in this thread repeating the same ideas


like I said made and advertised as being for drinking in volume

 

Why is it daft for a beer consumer to pay $5 for a pint of a well made Pils at 4%, when a $5 pint of IPA at 6% is also an option but just too much ABV for their time at the pub?

 

Absolutely, session beer is, at least to me, a better option when you are having multiple pints. Of course that is a benefit of lower ABV beer. It's also great when you want one without needing a nap.

Your extrapolation that a session beer brewer has better volume than a high ABV brewer is a bit off base. I can show examples of a number of craft brewers making 100K bbls a year of beers above 6% who have far better economies of scale than a session beer brewer making 3K bbls a year. Yet, the 6% beers are priced much higher. This biz is all about scale, and it impacts COGS far more than ABV. So ask the question, why is the 6% ABV beer from a 100K bbl brewer more expensive than the 4% beer from a 3K bbl brewer?

And even more to your point, why is a west coast brewery that is in the top 10 in volume in the country selling its session IPA at $180 per keg, when Notch sells its session IPA for $160. To your example of volume and economies of scale, who do you think has the lower cost of goods?

 

The 100K brewery definitely could charge less than the 3K brewery.

But take a small brewery making 4% beer, and a small brewery making 6% beer. A lot of people in this thread are deciding to drink '2 or 3' 4% beers instead of 1 6% beer. The 6% brewery needs 2 to 3 times the number of customers to sell the same volume. The 4% brewery is selling 200-300% more volume per 'drinking session'. ("Well Marty", you say, "don't take it as gospel when people say they'd only drink 1 6% beer, they're drinking 2 or 3 of those if the 4% beer isn't there" and uh yeah I have no answer for that.)

I have to think some of the reason those 100K+ breweries are nudging into your territory is it's getting harder to grow at the percentages they're addicted to, and the idea of swapping in sales of 2 or 3 session beers in place of 1 of their 7% IPAs sounds great (or having a guy run through a 6 pack in 2 days at home when the 7% 6 pack would last him a week)

 

You're still jumping to the conclusion that just because a beer that is made or marketed to be consumed in larger quantities means that that's exactly what everybody does with it. Given the way a lot of people seem to feel on this forum and the prominence of IPAs over fuckall else leads me to believe that something not specifically designed as a session beer will probably sell just as fast (faster, really) than a session beer. When I go out, I rarely order the same beer twice in the same night. To look at the situation as a "one customer, 3 pints" scenario is the wrong way to look at it, because when in a typical bar that has a big enough selection to include session beers, there are probably at least 15 other options too. Many, many people will explore those other taps and still have 2 or 3 total, but that one session beer they had is a one-and-done.

So yes, theoretically, a brewery should be able to turn over more session beer than a "standard" strength offering, but that simply isn't what the market reflects right now.

 

If you look at the overwhelming majority of US craft brewers top-selling options, most of them by the US definition would be "session" beers.

I'm not sure why anyone isn't foaming at the mouth that SNPA isn't cheaper than Torpedo even though SNPA is sold in far higher volumes and the drinker generally consumes more of them in one sitting than its hop-torpedoed cousin. Would we all be happier if SNPA was $8.49/sixer and Torpedo was $8.99/sixer to reflect the differences in ABV, ingredients, and average consumed volume?

No, of course we wouldn't- it's a matter of nickles and dimes. But god forbid if SN starts selling Nooner in six packs. Then the cost needs to plummet despite the fact that you're still drinking a craft-produced, high-quality ale with an ass load of expensive hops that is brewed in a comparatively small volume by a comparatively small brewer in the US.

If Miller comes out with a session IPA, I'd expect it to be $5.99/sixer. But not a session IPA by a craft brewery.

 

I enjoy the taste of beer, so there are plenty of beers that are sessionable that taste damn good. If I were only out to get a buzz, I think I'd drink a good beer and then slam a couple of rotgut shots. I think it would be cheaper overall. I think good beer can come in just about any ABV, but then again so can bad.

 

Agreed. The $/oz argument just fails on so many levels.

For those complaining--new job/new hobby/new drink--pick one--no one is forcing anyone to buy anything.

 

I understand your argument, but it's irrelevant for cost and pricing. The only relevant number is the total BBLs per year a brewery produces. That is the only scale that impacts pricing, not a single consumer's consumption volume.

And believe me, I would LOVE to be outselling all other beers on tap by 200-300%, but that is wishful thinking.

I think I've overstayed my time on this thread, but thanks for the discussion.

 

My bad!

Keep brewing those session beers! (I'd be interested in any good session beer recipes that you have)

 

Every few days I come back to this post to see if anything new has been discussed? Nope...

I will say we BA brethren are a hard headed bunch of breer drinkers...regardless of which side of the chair you fall off of at the end of a session...

 

Just been giving this some thought. Session ale was the norm when I began drinking and pretty well remains so in pubs.They don't sell a lot of stronger beers because people stop buying when they've had enough!
When the changes began (and I think we were a little ahead of you on this) the beers were based on the best common practice but generally stronger.I embraced these stronger brews but after a while I realised that although they were tastier and more powerful they weren't actually any nicer! In fact when very strong the flavours were impossible to unravel and the beer had less interest.As I couldn't drink as much of them it appeared that there is very little advantage in strong beers.That's for everyday drinking, beer for special occasions excepted.
So, much as I might enjoy the odd glass of strong ale I feel no inclination to drink it often.
That's "why session beers"
For those of you who don't understand them, give them a proper chance. After a while you won't notice the more subdued flavours but you will realise just how much is there in your glass.It's there to be found, it just doesn't rub your nose in it.

 

The lower ABV/session beers work out beautifully. I can find many, great tasting, brews that my friends and I can drink in succession with just a bit of a buzz. The bonus is that we can all tackle another round on Saturday night too - especially in the spring/summer - when get togethers happen more often. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some of the stronger beers too, but sessionables are just better for me for the 3-4 hour time-frame. Along the lines of Lordquackingstic as he mentioned earlier, I want to remember the shit and conversations I had. Wisconsin Brewing Company's Session IPA is pretty good. Esser's Best (albeit a tick above the session threshold at 5.2%) is good too. I might as well throw in New Glarus' Spotted Cow and Naked too.

 

Back in ye olde tymes, beer was a means of sustenance. Most beers didn't get above 4%. It became commonplace to drink a bunch of it in one sitting (a session) with friends and family and still have cognitive abilities to make your way back home.

I rather enjoy session beers, macro or micro...doesn't matter. I'm not in it to get fitshaced anymore and if I ever feel like letting go of control, I just start taking them down faster.

Either way, session or not, there's no right or wrong way if you can actually pace yourself.

 

Nevermind craft. Keystone Ice is 6% abv and Keystone Light is 4.2%, yet they're the same price. No one seems to give a shit.

 

What about the fact that some NA beers sell for relatively the same price as their regular counterparts? The Light vs Ice price comparison is nothing compared to that...