Gimmicks - good or bad?

i meant not much different... but anything new to a crowd can be perceived as a gimmick (provided we could agree on the semantics about what a gimmick is)

 

Exactly.

We have a local brewer (interesting story these chaps, involving going broke and a move to NY after their contract brewer distributed an infected batch back in New Mexico)named Keuka that decided to use a South American herb that no one ever heard of, called maca root, in their beer. Maca root is a medicinal herb that tastes terrible, very medicinally bitter. And, yes, I know that because the gimmick worked, I bought a six of that one, and another one that was equally awful, I think it had banana as an ingredient. Many of the beers in their lineup are gimmicky. I think they choose ingredients via darts and list of flavors and styles

 

I hate to admit it, but I picked up Mother Earth's Sisters of the Moon because I'm a huge Stevie Nicks fan and that is one of my favorite songs.

 

Anyone that hates beers with "gimmicky" names that currently has a bottle of DDG or Kiwi Herman, feel free to send that crap to me. Any beer with a punny name can't be worth anything anyway.

The majority of the beers on the market have a name that you could consider a gimmick. Unless the beer is named appropriately for the beer like Kern River Citra Double IPA, Maple Bacon Coffee Porter, or Stone Imperial Russian Stout, the name could be considered a gimmick. Whether you want to believe it or not, there is a reason why Willoughby didn't name their beer Willoughby Coffee Chocolate Peanut butter Stout and instead named it Nut Smasher. The same can be said for the artwork on the bottle or can. When a brewery puts out a bunch of money to have someone design a can or bottle, like Three Floyds or Pipeworks, they do it because they want to stand out on the shelves, not because they just like art.

Some beers are more obvious gimmicks but I promise you when Green Flash made Palate Wrecker, they knew that people would buy that beer just to see how hoppy it is. When Westbrook named Mexican Cake they knew that the name just sounds delicious. When a brewery makes a BA Stout aged in Pappy Barrels almost every single one of them makes sure Pappy Van Winkle is labeled in bold letters on the bottle and that's no accident. There'es a reason why breweries make small batches of bottles and hand write "Bottle 43/189" because they knew people like to hold rare.

Long story short, who cares? It's all marketing, from the name of the brewery, the name of the beers, the adjunct ingredients used in the beer, and the artwork. Nobody has a problem with a beer named MILF but someone names with a Ghostbusters reference then some people all the sudden have a problem?

 

I know that this will not be a popular position, but I'm generally not a fan of the opposite approach either. By opposite approach, I am speaking of beers that are crafted to mimic flavor combinations that are found elsewhere, or beers that are crafted in such a way to play off of existing culinary/cultural connections.

Here's what I mean: Making a beer with pumpkin pie spice because it also has pumpkin. Adding coffee to a cream ale because it's "coffee and cream." Making a beer that tastes like Mexican chocolate and then going one step further by aging it in tequila barrels.

This is the opposite of the dart board approach. I think it's just as unappealing. The concept is all about the connections, but "beer" is barely a part of the connections.

At times I feel like brewers are approaching beer like it's a snow cone. You start with a flavorless base, and then you pump whatever syrup flavor you like on top of it. I realize that that's quite an insulting statement, and that I could hurl the same criticism on beers that I enjoy... and that it's even potentially nonsensical. It's more of an emotional response than a logical one.

 

I'm more interested in the books, TV shows, films, etc. that are referred to in beer names and bottle designs. I think the "gimmick" beers definitely skew to the nerdy end of the spectrum with sci-fi/fantasy tie-ins. It seems that this is the target market, rather than the frat boy types that are often thought to be beer drinkers.

I bought HUB's Galactic Imperial Red simple because of the bottle. I would have bought O'Douls if it came in that bottle. Fortunately, I really enjoyed the beer itself; the bottle turned out to be an added bonus.

How many beers do you see with a connection to a romantic comedy or political thriller. I guess there have been some Breaking Bad beers, but I'm surprised that there aren't more/any Dharma beers aimed at Lost fans.

Sorry for rambling; I'm typing this with baby-brain as I try r get my daughter to go to sleep.

 

I saw this and thought of this thread. Release info here.

 

Look, I understand many of you have been burned by bad gimmicks. Those Voodoo Doughnut beers were awful. I'm sure those Bud Light Chelada things are also terrible. But let's be real: those beers were never going to be good; if you looked at a drink that was a combination of Bud Light and clamato juice and said "That sounds delicious. This is a thing I should spend money on, and I definitely won't regret this decision. It's a great idea to put this thing in my body," that's on you, buddy. Or maybe you just bought them because of the novelty; I'm certainly guilty of this, and it often ends poorly for me. But can you really say that you were disappointed? That implies that you thought they might be good.

Okay, so you made a mistake, and that's okay. But my point is this: beers like the Bacon Maple Ale and its ilk aren't bad gimmicky beers, they're just bad beers, period. They aren't bad beers because they're gimmicky, they're bad beers because they suck. Though I suppose that's a tautology.

You could call coffee beers gimmicky, and anyone who doesn't enjoy a good coffee stout doesn't know what they're missing. Same goes for chocolate and vanilla beers. A beer with peanut butter? That sounds awesome, frankly. And in spite of all the hate they seem to get on this forum, I actually really enjoy a nice pumpkin beer. Haters gonna hate.

And if a brewery tries something and fails, so what? I think it's pretty cool that breweries are so open to experimentation. That spirit has yielded some amazing beer, and while it's also resulted in some duds, that's to be expected. There are a ton of breweries out there making a ton of beer, and if some of them want to innovate, they're welcome to.

And maybe you are just fundamentally opposed to the idea of anything remotely gimmicky in your beer, because you're apparently a German who's time traveled from the 1600s. You're entitled to your opinion, but just bear in mind that if you see a beer whose concept you dislike, you don't have to buy it. There are plenty of solid traditional beers for you to drink, and I can still have a beer that tastes like a melted chocolate bar if I want to, because I'm capable of enjoying multiple different things. I know, it's pretty amazing.

Of course, I fully expect a lot of you to disagree with me vehemently.

 

I'm just happy you're acknowledging they're gimmicks instead of hiding behind the euphemism of 'innovation'

 

The reason why Bud Light Chelada/Modelo Chelada etc exist is because there is a good demand for them and they are not gimmicks. Walk into most bodegas or mom and pop shops in ethnic neighborhoods and you will most likely see a stack of Clamato next to the Coronas or Modelo Especials. There is a huge misconception from some BA's that everyone who enjoys beer must be drinking beers that are highly rated on beer websites...nothing could be further than the truth. These products are enjoyed by those who purchase them and sell at a great clip in neighborhoods that I'm willing to bet are nothing like yours.

 

I agree with both the OP and @yemenmocha , actually. I think gimmicks are certainly hit or miss, but what's the harm in trying something new? I thought Habanero Sculpin had to be a gimmick and maybe it is, but I really dig the beer. Partly because the gimmick doesn't completely overshadow the IPA part that stands out quite clearly to me before the pepper kicks in. I enjoy my traditional styles, no doubt about it, but I have nothing against something novel. Each have their place. When the wheels come off is when the gimmick is there to cover up something that would be heinous by itself. Jacks Abby Framinghammer variants come to mind as another good example...PBJ doesn't work for me, but the vanilla and coffee variants are excellent. Failed gimmick for me was Southern Tier Creme Brûlée...to me it was just a super sweet sugary mess, but other people enjoy it. So I agree in principle with the concept that a bad beer is a bad beer regardless of the gimmickry.

Brewers brew what people drink and it's nobody's business to judge...there's tons of taste buds out there and they all enjoy different things.

 

Here's where I draw the line though, there is a big difference between somebody who has been sober this week saying "man, that really is an interesting idea" and being willing to dump a loser batch and breweries doing something that doesn't sound palatable to anybody, but will get a lot of attention and the beer is going to released no matter what. I appreciate innovation and adventurous beer as much (or more) than the next guy, but there are absolutely a majority of losers in the crazy gimmick category.

 

i doubt many people disagree with you OP, we know you don't have to buy the gimmick beers....it's just when a brewery is putting out a disproportionate amount of never-going-to-be-good beers that people start to say "you know what i'm not going to buy anything from them anymore." this is why whenever i see a new release from dogfish head or rogue(who can and do make plenty of good beers) i never buy it....maybe it's the best beer i've ever tasted but this is an expensive hobby and frankly they can suck my balls before i ever pay to find out if the next thing is better than all the previous ones.

 

I think I get what you're saying, OP, but I guess I just have a different definition of "gimmicky." Coffee and peanut butter and pumpkin may be outside of the reinheitsgebot, but I do think they lend legitimately original and different flavor characteristics to a beer. It's when a brewery adds things to a beer that obviously are just for shock value that the gimmicky radar starts to go off. A good amount of Rogue's beers are a pretty solid example. A beer brewed with pages of Moby Dick? Or Ninkasi's Ground Control beer whose yeast was sent to space? That's cool sounding and all, but it's a pretty obvious gimmick.
What offends me more is probably when breweries know that the name they give a beer will be enough to sell it, so they obviously don't try. Has anyone enjoyed any of the Ommegang Game of Thrones Beers? I say this as I'm drinking Stone's "Your Father Smelt of Elderberries." Which is, predictably, gross.

 

I actually enjoyed both of the GoT beers I tried, and Ground Control is honestly a very good imperial stout, if overpriced. Gimmicks are fine with me if the beer's still good.

 

Diiiiiiiiiiiid you try Three Eyed Raven?

 

I did. It wasn't bad. I didn't mind that it was branded; I like beer, I like Game of Thrones, and Ommegang is a solid brewery. I can understand if you didn't care for it, but let's be honest: whether it was good or bad had nothing to do with the Game of Thrones name. Implying that it's bad because it's a tie-in beer is silly.

 

I still love the maple bacon beer!

 

And as for the Rogue thing, I've mentioned in another thread that the vast majority of their beers are pretty inoffensive and not really gimmicky at all. They may be a little overpriced and their business ethics are questionable but saying all their beers are gimmicky is incorrect. Maybe less than ten of them are, and they make dozens of beers. Their last release was their pumpkin ale, which is one of the more traditional and dependable variants on the style, and the one before that was a solid, if somewhat forgettable, pale ale. So while I also groaned when I learned they were making a Sriracha Stout, I'm not going to pretend that everything they make is gimmicky, or even that all of their gimmicks are bad; they still make the best chocolate stout out there, and I have to admit that the Sriracha Stout wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be.

 

it's only a gimmick if they got you to spend more money than you should have.