Limited release beers

They are time, labor, and equipment usage intensive to produce.

A brewery also needs to be able to put out flagship beers that will move through the brewery and off the shelves relatively quickly.

In other words, cash flow is necessary to running a business.

Even those who buy them, say DFH120 at $10 a bottle, are not going to drink enough of them as a regular thing to support the brewery and the employees.

Also, if that's all you brew and a batch goes bad on you and has to be dumped, what do you have as a back up to sell in its place if all your equipment has been tied up brewing that special release.

 

High demand, low supply = higher price. I'm sure they could produce more, even if some of the limited release require more time/effort/resources, but why not take advantage when they can?

 

The other two posts above hit it right on. I will add a third. Traditional seasonality.

 

I have a forth thought and would like to hear what others think- does anyone feel it has anything to do with quality control as well? I always felt and thought things were better when there were fewer cases produced- easier to control the quality if a beer when it's not a mass quantity, also less likely for mistakes/contamination? Thoughts?

 

They release them like that to whet our appetites for more of the good stuff

 

This was always my thinking as well, of course I'm not a home brewer (yet). I simply thought the less the brewers are rushed to produce, package and distribute the lower the mistakes and higher the quality.

 

If a brewery could make more money by ceasing production of their entire line-up, and solely producing an 18% ABV DIPA year-round, then I'm sure they would. Thankfully DFH haven't done that.

Also just pre-empting this - expansion costs money and typically means large amounts of additional debt - I can see why somebody may not want to do this either.

 

I completely understand it isn't financially feasible to produce certain limited release beers, but there is one thing I do not understood. I don't understand why some breweries will brew a beer that is only meant for a one time release and when it is a huge hit they never brew more, yet their regular beers are average, at best. Im talking about one time beers that are pretty normal beers as far as difficulty and cost to brew goes. It seems like some smaller breweries become stubborn and try to force average beers into their lineup for what I can only assume are emotional/sentimental reasons. I'm sure it's difficult to drop a beer from your lineup and replace it with a new one when that beer may have been one of your first, but it seems like a bad business decision when your brewery is considered pretty average.

 

See: Troegs Nugget Nectar. No reason they couldn't brew that one year round, but it would take away from the allure and most likely, the profitability

 

Cost of producing the product is the biggest issue. For expample when we went on the tour at Perennial they were talking about brewing the base for Sump and Abraxas; they pack their brew kettle so full it is not only more expensive than any other beer to brew but also doesnt allow them to brew multiple batches per day. (if i remember correctly they boil it for like 10 hours)

 

This I also do not understand. I get when a seasonal or once a year release stays just that. BUT When you are mediocre and you have a one hit wonder you need to capitalize.

 

My thoughts on this is that what we at BA consider a huge hit may be a lot different that what the brewery defines as a big hit. I would hope they have sales data behind any decision to produce a flagship other than 1 offs. The only reason I can come up with for a brewery to force a flagship that is not selling is that they have decided they cannot survive without one. I know that paradigm is rampant in the industry. Now whether your flagship can be a BA stout has probably never been tested.

 

We have a few of these in Illinois, IMO.

 

Any examples that come to mind?

Bear in mind that I, as a beer nerd, may greatly prefer the special Goose Island Juniper and Hyacinth one-off wheat ale, but they probably make a ton more money from selling 312 urban wheat to the "normal" consumer

 

Most limited beers also require a more ingredients (double, imperial, etc) and more expensive ingredients, and more time (which was already mentioned). Founders does not make their money on KBS. Founders has used KBS to make them an icon in the craft beer market, which then sends customers to buy flagship products, which are the beers that they actually make their money on.

 

There are exceptions to every rule, but I'm of the opinion that if very many brewers constrained supply in order to limit demand and drive prices, we'd see much higher prices across the board. For the most part, prices on limited release beers continue to be depressed compared to what the market could likely bear.

 

Agreed. Pretty sure beers like BCBS and KBS come out when they do because they want the barrels doing their thing over the temperature fluctuations that occur over a 10 - 12 month period.

 

Marketing , we bite , we search , we pay $$

 

My argument is more geared toward much smaller local breweries. I'd rather not call them out. I understand what you are saying with beers like juniper, but I see it with basic examples of styles like an ipa and others. I know it's an entirely different argument, but instead of trying to brew EVERY style possible why not try to increase the quality of your basic lineup? I'd much rather go to a brewery with a very good flagship line than one with a really good barrel aged stout and average flagships.