The Calorie Conundrum

Jester King's La Petite Prince is a nice addition to the craft beer scene at the low ABV end. Tons of well meshed flavor.

The real problem I see is cost (as others have mentioned). Most people drink beer to get drunk, not because it tastes good. So it's hard to convince someone to fork over $20 for a six pack of LPP (I know it only comes in 750's, but that is it's equivalent cost) when they can get a 16 pack for less.

Sidenote : I am interested in seeing the ABV to calorie ratio for light beer vs individual styles of craft, generally speaking. As one poster mentioned 3 Ultra's = 1 Bigfoot in ABV. I assume Bigfoot doesn't have significantly more calories than 3. I think I read a thread about this in the past but I'm not sure.

 

Ugh. I've already mentioned to you 3 times in this thread that there are plenty of 100 calorie craft beers out there. Hell, there's an entire country (England) full of them - nearly every pub has at least one on cask. There are entire breweries in the US doing them (Notch). There are entire styles that are full of them (milds, berliner weiss's, grisettes).

It sounds like you won't be satisfied until a craft brewer sticks "tastes great, less filling" with a giant LIGHT stamp in a punch top cold-activated can with a vortex swirl widemouth tab.

 

Dude, NO. Your average light beer drinker is going to pass it up regardless. They buy based on marketing at they buy at stores that carry almost no craft. The idea that a craft brewer can brew a 100-calorie beer, throw "light" on the label, and make any dent in sales of bud light is an absolute fantasy.

 

Exactly! Exert more calories than you take in and you are ok, it really is that simple. That works on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Drink 6 Bigfoots on Saturday, run a little extra on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday (after you throw up 4 of the 6 Bigfoots of course )

 

With few exceptions, 12oz of any beer that is 3.5% or less is 100 calories or less. Perhaps you didn't realize the strong correlation between ABV and calories, but now you do.

 

Will you please stop pushing light beer as the solution?

If a person is too lazy to exercise, and gobbles down double cheeseburgers for lunch, then a light beer isn't going to save them.

 

I don't understand this thread at all.

 

I see ad copy like this: On one side of the page a lite beer and 4-5 potato chips, on the other a craft beer. With some text that conveys the message that you can drink some flavorless beer and eat the chips, or you can enjoy a flavorful craft beer for the same amount of calories and carbs.

 

What about bullet point 3.5?

3.5. There's no way craft brewers could possibly keep up with the demand for a new, amazing, light beer without cutting back production on their other beers.

How, again, is that "better for us"?

 

Your point seems to be that craft beer is failing to tap into the "light beer" market, and that they should create a "flavorful" light craft beer. The problem is, you've misdiagnosed why "light beers" are popular. It's because of 1) marketing, and because, quite frankly, 2) light beer drinkers don't want much flavor in their beer.

Light craft beer wouldn't find much of a market. Currently light beer drinkers wouldn't want it, because it wouldn't taste good to them -- believe it or not, they PREFER the taste of Bud Light et al. And craft drinkers wouldn't drink light craft beer either, because the flavor wouldn't match what we get from other beers.

As mentioned by others, you've already got Sam Adams Light anyway.

 

It's not the Beer's community's responsibility to lower this country's obesity. People need to educate themselves about diet and exercise and make decisions for themselves.

I get the sense that the integrity of many craft brewers lies nowhere near the light beer segment. They could brew light beer, but many clearly don't want to. But as others have already said, there are plenty of craft beers very close in calories to Bud Light. Not sure why you're stuck in exactly 100 calories when Bud Light clocks in at 110. Guinness Draught has just 16 more calories than that. I'd argue that people would drink fewer pints of Guinness than Bud Lights because the average person thinks Guinness is heavy. They may drink 4 bud lights in the time they drink 2 Guinness. Purely hypothetical, but you get me.

 

Maybe if craft beer would stop dicking around with the term "session" which has no meaning to the general beer drinking public (hell, beer geeks/writers/brewers can't even agree on the definition), that some lite beer types will be drawn to try a light craft beer. The ultimate naming convention ---> Summer light....

 

That's not necessarily true. The brewers rice that Bud uses is apparently more expensive than barley. They use rice and corn for taste more so than to save money. SN could just use less grain and make a lower ABV beer, but given that ingredients are just a small portion of the final price of beer, pricing a beer along the lines of Bud Light would make that beer extremely unprofitable for them.

 

The problem is that you're trying to solve a whole bunch of major challenges with one overly simplified and flawed premise.

First, you assume that people who drink light beer would ever care enough about taste to switch to craft. That's likely false.

Second, you assume that the natural/necessary growth avenue for craft is light beer drinkers, and that is probably the single hardest segment (aside from non-drinkers) of the population to convert to craft beer.

Third, you assume that light beer drinkers would not be price conscious and open to paying more money for craft beer, which seems highly unlikely given the cheap swill out there that many people drink.

Fourth, you assume that people who drink light beer do so to save calories. Many people actually either drink light beer to get a watered down flavor, or because it's what they have been marketed to their entire life and they have irrational brand loyalty.

If I'm coming across as condescending, it's because you're being told six ways from Sunday by this entire thread that you're barking up the wrong tree, yet you refuse to listen to reason.

 

Hanzo,

You're tilting at windmills right now. For the calorie conscious craft beer drinker, the solutions of low ABV beer - especially Berliner Weisse - are there. Otherwise, as already has been pointed out, you're trying to find a solution for beer drinkers who don't actually want to drink beer.

If you're worried about growth for 2000 breweries, your heart is in the right place, but there are 2000 breweries for 5% of a population of ~310 million. I don't think you have to worry about sustainability just yet.

 

Business-wise you are correct. But for those of us who drink craft beer for the taste, or brewers who like to experiment, it would ABSOLUTELY hurt craft brewers. Anecdotal evidence: on my last visit to Jackie O's, I chatted with Brad for a while. They are working towards opening a new production facility. However, even with the expansion, he has made the choice not to start canning Razz Wheat, one of their top sellers, because even with the expanded space and resources he STILL wouldn't be able to keep up with production. On top of that, all of the extra time devoted to Razz Wheat takes away from time he could be spending on the beers that BA's like you and I (and Brad for that matter, he's a geek like one of us! ) go crazy for (Oil of Aphrodite and variants, Dark Apparition and variants, sours, etc.).