Toppling Goliath Releases and Updates

Rue the Crown

 

While that's true, there is surely a cut off point right? A price at which you are damaging your brand or turning off future customers. They would surely still sell out quick if they charged $250 a bottle. Would they be crazy not to?

 

If MD wasn't worth $40 to you, Assassin definitely isn't worth $50. MD is the better beer (depending on batch). There aren't a lot of imperial stouts that integrate both maple and coffee as well as MD (again, dependent on batch). There are plenty of BA imperial stouts that are at least comparable to Assassin, and, honestly, BCBS, BA Silhouette, CW Black Gold, CW Anniversary beers, Fremont KDS, and Pipeworks The Jones Dog are all the same or better than Assassin. Of course, it's my opinion, but I've had all those beers plus three vintages of Assassin.

 

I only took a few Econ classes in college, but isn't something worth what somebody's willing to pay for it?

If I were in charge at TG I'd charge $500 per bottle. Would they still sell out?

OK, I'm not greedy. Only $250 per bottle.

I'm not going to go, but I wouldn't go to an event like that if the beer was $20 per bottle. It's like Black Friday, with a little better clientele.

 

Oh, I completely agree. And I believe, though it patently sucks, that more & more brewers will be jacking up the price of their "big beers" because they can. Such is the free market.

 

wut?

 

$25. In 2013 it was $20 (I believe) with a 6 bottle limit per person.

 

The money on the table I was referring to is the difference between $50 and $25.

 

I'm hoping that TG will troll everyone by quietly releasing all the non Mug Club Assassin bottles to Tavour so it gets a wider distro. Pretty sure that won't happen, but talk about level 99 butthurt...

 

The opportunity cost for brewing assassin is a pretty sizable loss in the production schedule. It takes roughly 36 hours to brew assassin. In that 36 hours they could have brewed a few other beers that they can turn in two weeks and sell completely out. (Loss of profit)

Assassin takes more time in fermenter space, which could have held beers that they turn over quicker and make money off of.

Assassin is put in barrels which cost a lot of money depending on quality. TG seems to source high quality barrels.

Assassin requires much more manaagement through its time in barrels, lab testing, blending and extra bottling/waxing time.

These releases also require more manpower to put on which costs more money. (Could argue that in brings more people in that in turn spend more money on other brands as well)

So with all of that extra investment and time, selling it for only $15 more than a double IPA that they can put out every couple weeks seems pretty low. I'd say they either break even at a $20-$25 price point or the profit is hardly worth amount of work/risk involved.

Clark has also stated that they basically break even.

 

One other point I always think of on these big BA Beers is it's the risk factor. After all that work and cost there is a much higher risk of infection/off flavors than an IPA. Then you have to end up dumping down the drain (best case) or release and recall (worst case). These BA beers can be a tricky deal - Even so 50 bucks a bomber is still a lot of money, lol. I wish I was rich...

 

It's a business and it's all about demand. Don't like the price hike, then don't camp out in the parking lot and sleep in your car the night before to be one of the first to buy a bottle (ex.. BA Chainsmoker). You are creating the demand by doing that and people will continue to do that even with a big price hike. I will pay $50 for a bottle because I feel it's worth the demand as if now. Remember, it's been 2 years since the last release and a lot of the other beers mentioned above are released at least once a year with a lot higher bottle counts.

 

It absolutely depends on batch. This batch of MD is pretty thin and acrid with barely any maple. I would argue that when TG nails a stout there isn't anything in the same realm. SR-71, Assassin and KBBS have in the past been absolutely incredible beers. A lot of that is anchored by the fact that no one else can match the mouthfeel that Mike does regularly.

 

I think people vastly underestimate the costs of production of both wine and (especially barrel aged) beer by a wide margin. It is 100% categorically false to say the most it costs to produce any single bottle of wine is $30. Barrels are incredibly expensive (especially if they are new oak...much more expensive than barrels utilized to age beer, which are essentially being repurposed from other producers and thus cheaper depending on the specific distillery/winery purchased from), its incredibly time consuming (resting in barrels for at least 12 months and sometimes much longer than that), farming costs would blow your mind, the cost of a winemaker is enormous if you want someone of notoriety, cost of tanks, etc, not to mention the price of land (if you are a recent or new vineyard) is assanine. If you look at napa for an example, a single acre of vineyard can be $5-6M.

Again, as an example, I personally know several winemakers in that region...there was a large vineyard on Pritchard hill that was originally listed for nearly $50 million. At that price, JUST to break even, the wine would have to had to be sold for $375 a bottle.

High quality, low production boutique type productions (such as toppling Goliath stouts as well as high quality wine) is much more expensive when people realize

 

And as a counterpoint, I know winemakers that would tell you that is false and it doesn't cost more than $20 to produce a bottle of wine.

 

I think you completely misunderstood me.

I am aware that it is more expensive barrel aged beers are and what goes into them.

There's no way on earth that they're "basically breaking even" at $50 a bottle, though.

I actually agree they should be charging a huge premium and have no issue with it, but it's laughable to suggest that there's not a huge profit margin.

 

That's only if you follow the ludicrous assumption that you should amortize the cost of the land into a single bottling. This is the lunacy that leads pharmaceutical companies into justifying outrageous profits for drugs (to provide a net positive ROI within a short period of time).

Toppling Goliath can and should charge a significant premium for their beers, and it does indeed cost much more to produce BA beer than it does other beer. These two things, however, are mutually exclusive.

 

I meant at 20-25 they are breaking even. Since the beers are now world renowned, they can actually charge a price to make a profit. Hopefully that means they do it more often. I think $50 is right where it should be.

 

Producing barrel aged beers at scale requires space (both for the barrels and as part of the production capacity) and time, right? I doubt the individual profit margin on a small scale release like this is what's been holding them back.

 

That is not amoritized into a single bottling...It was the cost to break even over someplace between 10 and 20 years, I honestly cannot remember where along that timespan. Completely separate issue from pharmaceutical companies, which I agree is ludicrous to say the least