What Do the Big Guys Not Understand??

Pabst recreated the Ballantines IPA, so they are getting it from history.

ABInbev bought several craft breweries, the last being 10 Barrel which was one of my favorites in Bend, so they are getting it by buying.

 

The author is confusing Pabst Brewing Co's total sales (they market about 20 different brands) with Pabst Blue Ribbon sales. According to Beer Marketer's Insights, Pabst sold 5,480,000 bbl. last year, of which 2,710,000 bbl. was Pabst Blue Ribbon in 2013. Pabst, the company's barrelage has been relatively stagnant for the past five years (5,650,000 bbl in 2009) - whatever gains PBR has made have been offset by losses from their other brands.

In the 1988, Pabst Brewing Co. sold 6,100,000 bbl. of beer, about half of which (3m bbl) was Blue Ribbon. Pabst's current appearance of "success" is mostly because they would go on to lose market share as a company and for it's flagship beer through the 1990s.

Pabst's 2013 barrelage of just under 6 million barrels is even worse when compared to 1988's when one takes into consideration that Pabst now markets most of the brands owned by Heileman and Stroh in 1988. Heileman and Stroh sold over 35 million barrels of beer that year (14.6m and 20.6 respectively).

 

I think in terms of buying up microbrewries and creating specialty lines it will probably nab up some of the beginners and people with less knowledge on the subject, but as for discerning folks it will not help

 

We just had this discussion last week:
http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/budweiser-crowded-out.230024/#post-2987749

 

This article screams dummy argument, and amateur potshots. It's a qwerty reacharound for good beer noobs.
It's akin to saying tiny assed little cereal manufacturer on the far end of the aisle next to all those other tiny assed little hot cereal makers are taking down Cap'n Crunch, or whatever high sugar cereal kids moms are buying that still command the shelf space and aren't blocked from view by a support column.
The big guys have been doing this for far longer than a bunch of tiny scrub breweries who only when combined as a whole can begin to compete and overshadow the profit of a mass marketed beer that has declining sales. They spend more on marketing for a single product than what the top 5 producers EARN in a single year. They get it, and they know how to put lipstick on a pig far better than a brewery who uses an intern/volunteer to handle their social media or collaborates with their buddies to make label art. Because that's what they have been doing all along and they have departments solely dedicated to this socialization and marketing of their product.
What this quest for authenticity and retro-fitting of brands and making things comfortable and homey appearing instead relying on silly mascots and misogynistic tits on a towel ads, is creating comfort, and soliciting for repeat customers. This kind of marketing sets out to do what up-start breweries are going to have a very hard time replicating while screaming for attention in the deluge of choice and which exist within a fickle one and done leaning consumer market and within a craft industry whose biggest problem for a good many of its younger upstarts with their flagship product within QA/QC (which many do not have staff dedicated towards) is product consistency. You only hear people say BMC is swill, but you never hear them complain about this batch having off flavors, or doesn't hold up to that batch from whatever brewery that produces for that region. In fact because their beer is so consistent, it is what tasters use as the baseline product to detect off flavors. I can tell when a different brewer made such and such beer with many of the upstart craft breweries vying for my attention, but I can't do that with Budweiser.

 

Other considerations:

1) Marketing does work [and keep in mind that our community is probably not their target demographic]
2) Regular Budweiser sells almost as much beer by volume as all craft beer combined. Despite declining sales that's still a huge source of revenue that they don't want risk.
3) Previous attempts to branch out under the Budweiser brand failed horribly with craft and non-craft beer drinkers. (See Budweiser American Ale )
4) Many craft beer drinkers write-off any BMC product before they even try it, so why bother?
5) Budweiser is not just losing sales to craft beer, the rise of hard ciders, spirits, and ready-mix cocktails are also taking their toll, which means turning crafty probably won't be enough to turn everything around.
6) The Budweiser brand is competing in worldwide markets and is seeing increased sales in some markets outside of the US. It would be narrow-minded to mess with a world recognized brand because of slipping sales in one country.

 

3 excellent points. Mass advertising will probably sway the casual craft beer drinker. The people who grab blue moon 12 packs etc. I think their biggest target for gaining back market share would be to get the light cider/hard lemonade crowd back. Can it be done idk?

 

I don't know where Budweiser's taste-testers went wrong when they tasted their 'Batch 23185 – Vanilla Bourbon Cask' and thought it actually tasted like a wood aged beer. Didn't they try ANY other bourbon barrel craft beer before they put this one on the shelves? If they want craft beer drinkers to start buying their product, it needs to taste even remotely like a craft beer. Not mass-produced beer

 

This is likely what will happen with all the advertising.

Mom/Grandma sees commercial catering to "craft beer" drinkers and "hip and cool millennial's"
Then their thought process will be "Oh ____ is into craft beer! I'm going to buy ___ some he will probably appreciate this"

 

I think they understand exactly what they're doing. They're not looking for discerning customers, they're looking for ANY customers. It's the same thing as when McDonald's slaps some different toppings on a "burger" and calls it something new. It's about getting people in the door to turn a quick profit, not improving a product or creating something original.

 

I don't think Budweiser is a good AAL.

 

Marketing won't persuade the craft beer drinker. We are different. We are fickle and that is one of the reasons they won't be able to capture us with all that repetition and mindless drivel that they present in their advertisements. We seek the unknown. We even know a little bit about our subject. You can't fool us with a cold strip indicator that guarantees the off flavors will not be noticed by a cold, numbed palate. We have tried hundreds and some of us thousands of beers so we know what is good and if we repeat a purchase it is because that beer is good.

OK how many of us including me raved about Ballantine IPA? Made by one of the big guys , Pabst. I stand by my review but I have not purchased it more than twice. Why? Because it's a tad too heavy. Now I am gonna go buy some more to make sure my judgement is correct. For repeat purchases victory great lakes, southern tier and troegs, sly fox and ommegang win my business.

 

Lots of good posts in this thread.

I just want to again point out that AB is targeting AAL beer drinkers in their marketing of Budweiser. If they could get a few Coors Light or Miller Lite drinkers to consider buying Budweiser next time vs. their ‘regular’ beers of Coors Light/Miller Lite then this marketing campaign will be a success.

In the above paragraph you could replace Coors Light/Miller Lite with cider/wine/spirits as well.

Cheers!

 

The understand the beauty of 4 pack that can retail for over $25.00.

 

But would you?

I tried Budweiser American Ale and it was a perfectly decent beer. Had Budweiser not been in the name, it might have sold. I'm sure they've learned from experiences like that and it's why they don't brand beers intended to appeal to the craft market with macro names.

 

If it were merely a matter of overcoming mass-market advertising, I think taste-buds and the communal nature of craft beer culture (no one has Bud bottle shares) would win the marketing contest. But along with the advertising comes undue influence over distribution and legislation. (I'm about to veer off topic..and maybe this should be another thread) But just recently I was in Rhode Island and visited a few small breweries where they were only allowed to sell 72oz of beer to any single customer. Popular efforts to overturn this antiquated legislation has been routinely blocked by lobbyists protecting the status quo. I wonder how often these types on maneuvering are also a part of BMC marketing strategies?

 

Every time I see a thread like this, it makes me laugh that people believe craft beer isn't being marketed to them, and that marketing doesn't affect their decisions about what to drink.

 

The only thing that really stuck out to me in this article was the following sentence:

"That’s some kind of miracle in an environment in which, as of 2012, Budweiser spent $449 million on advertising, ranking it 25th among all US advertisers."

I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, the fact that they spent that much, or the fact that $449 million only puts them at #25 on the list of biggest advertisers.

 

Perhaps someone who is in the marketing business knows the answer to this, but I'm really curious if there is any kind of reliable research that indicates there is a positive return on all of those marketing dollars. Particularly in a world where increasingly, the costliest advertising (TV) isn't being seen as frequently, what with the ability to skip them either on DVR or on-demand services.

 

This is a $100,000,000,000+ industry. A shift of .45% covers the cost of advertising, so, yes, I'm pretty sure it works.