Night Shift Brewing Seeks to Disrupt the Light Beer Category

Hope they did their homework on the ability to use "lite" in regards to a beer label. And light beer drinker are only concerned about price not taste, IMHO. Just wondering what other session beers are in terms of calories? Wait? I never bothered to check. Full flavored, easy drinking beer? Like, Notch, Naragansett, Jacks Abby and others? Best of luck to them, I like most of their product line. Seems they are stretching out their customer base, power to them.

 

MSRP of $14.99/12-pack means it will probably be a few bucks cheaper on many store shelves. I haven't had it yet, but I think the response has been pretty solid on Founders' Solid Gold, which is likely to be a major competitor in this space. For me, JA Post Shift Pilsner is the standard for affordable low ABV lagers, and it's a pretty high bar.

 

This is a dumb.

 

I'd give it a shot if you had distribution to CT.

Speaking of which why doesn't Night Shift distribute to CT?

 

They did: USPTO

 

Is there genuinely a significant market for Light beer brewed by a craft brewery? I suppose we will find out.

Cheers!

 

Oh the irony in this press release...

Oh OK then... Great! I'll look over that you ignored Sam Adams and Yuengling ("craft" according to the Brewers association) have light beers in their portfolios, because I'm seriously interested in what you are going to do that's not the same as every other "light" beer. Exciting!

[Side note: I underlined "redundant branding" and will return to this later]

OK... you still haven't told me what this beer will taste like or what will be different. You also get get big eye roll for the "...all natural, and excludes any preservatives or additives..." part.

Oh, I see how it is now.

...and it's going to be more expensive. So, I get next to no information about the flavor of the beer, but I do know the beer will cost a lot more than most "light" beers, and that's all good because it's "craft." Remember in the beginning when you mentioned the "redundant branding" of the macro brewers? Well, the craft beer branding is getting really redundant too.

 

If solid gold lager by founders is any indication than that is a solid no. I also don't think it's fair to say the average AAL drinker doesn't care about taste and goes and buy what's cheapest. My friends are all loyal to Michelob and if they are at a bar will still buy Michelob even if bud or coors are on special. My family buys Miller even if coors is available for cheaper likewise. They definitely have a taste preference even though they all lack in apparent flavor.

 

In the 1970s, after Miller bought the rights to "Lite" from Meister Brau and the beer took off and most every brewer came out with a "low calorie" beer, Miller tried to defend the trademark by suing numerous brewers who used not only "Lite" but "Light" (a term long used on labels of AALs previously) and even "Lyte" (< Genesee's "Fyfe & Drum Lyte Beer") but eventually lost the case when the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1977 found:

...what is strange is that so few brewers since that period in the US have used "Lite" - I guess they feel the public sees it specifically referring to Miller product when it comes to beer?

According to this page INVENTING A GENERIC CATEGORY NAME:

Earliest "craft light beer" I recall was Boulder's "Sport Beer" in the mid/late 1980s:

Contract-brewed at Spoetzl, IIRC?

 

The terrible part of all of this is that craft beer drinkers will buy it just because Night Shift makes it. If you are a craft brewer and you make a Light AAL, you should be forced to give up your craft designation, because making light beer is the opposite of what craft beer is supposed to be. Light beer has nothing to do with making a great beer and everything to do with marketing it to people. Now if they could only get it under 100 calories, they'd really be in business.

 

Well good for them.

But but but, Light Beer = Crap Beer.

It is an indisputable fact that for a beer to be Light it MUST by definition have less calories than the corresponding full strength.

Light beer tastes watery because it IS watery. Craft drinkers ain't gonna go for that. No way no how.

But kudos for trying.
Cheers.

 

This made me laugh.

About the only thing unique to this version of Light is that it is unfiltered.

And that part about high malt to corn ratio? Hey, STFU about that. The neck bearded crowd aren't looking for any corn, you know? Just wow.

 

What is craft beer supposed to be? Because isn't the definition of a craft brewer based upon production capacity? But that's a sidetrack...because I realize your intent and just felt like soapboxing about my displeasure with that label.

I don't have any issues with these breweries going the light/lite/lyte route. I don't care for corn in my beer so that generally keeps me away from these beers, but I can get behind a well made, sessionable lager. Locally, La Cumbre's Beer has really grown on me a lot....and that one isn't even priced competively to this styles market, but its a good beer and I happily buy it. And I think they do use corn in that, but don't quote me on it because I could just as easily be wrong about that.

 

Well, the 12 page TTB Ruling 2004–1 is a bit more complicated than that since it admits that:

Seems to me once they allowed "Bud Light" to be used for the branding of those 8% ___-a-Ritas and the 6% "Bud Light Platinum" other brewers can get away with anything as long as they don't claim it's a "low calorie" product or a low cal version of another of their beers.

No, not capacity, or only yearly barrelage - i.e., "Small" - but according to The Brewers Association also "Independent" and "Traditional", which it defines (now) as:

...which kinda means.... nothing.

 

Yeah the redundant branding works, whether your big industrial brewer or small craft brewer.

I won't go that far, but I'll call a spade a spade.

The funny thing to me is there are many neglected low-ABV and, in turn, low-calorie beer styles with real flavor that could be marketed as "light" beers, like English mild, grissette, saison, dry irish stout, and have room for experimentation I think. That's what I was honestly hoping for when I started reading the press release.

 

I'm completely down with lagers, but, to me, light beer is the antithesis of what craft beer is all about.

 

Yup, La Cumbre Beer is indeed brewed using some corn. Permit me to suggest that whether a beer is ‘good’ to you (or not) should not be based simply on a litmus test of whether it has corn or not. As with many aspects of brewing it is how a certain ingredient is utilized within an overall recipe that is important.

Cheers!

“I had no interest in making the cheapest beer possible. I wanted to make the very best pale lager available. If you’re looking for style guidelines, it would have fallen under International-style Pilsner. So I used Canadian Pilsner malt. Why? Because I felt the German malts would be too much for such a delicate beer and I loved both the color and the neutrality of the Canadian malt. I used ~10% corn flakes. Why use corn? Simply to dry the beer out. At that level, the beer is crisp without being watery. I used very low alpha hops. Why low alpha? So I could use more of them and still end up with a beer that was fairly low in bitterness. And I would filter it. Damn me to hell, I know, but I nearly always like lagers to be filtered. Sure, I like the appearance more, but really, I want the snappy, crisp, clean character that only a filter can provide.”

http://www.lacumbrebrewing.com/a-lager-with-soul/#bottom