Destroying a beer's legacy...

I think we need to either say it exists or say it doesn't exist.

If your point is that scarcity marketing doesn't exist in beer marketing, than I disagree.

If your point is that it does exist, but it would be hard for the consumer to know in all cases whether it is the brewery purposely making less than they knew they could sell, or distributing it in a way they knew would cause shortages and FOMO, than I agree.

I know that Captain Lawrence deliberately made less of certain of their beers than they were capable to do so as to instigate desire, and sell all of the beer for cash in one day. Lawsuits were likely to come from the shitshows of his releases. I personally witnessed a drunk guy's pants catching fire from one of the space heaters left outside for the line that formed the night before in freezing weather. Interesting to note that all those same beers now are made in much larger quantity and sold at beer stores as well as at the brewery, and there are no lines. Of course, now their new facility has more capacity. But how would we ever know for sure if the old facility had only enough capacity to make the amounts released in those small batches? I only know from being told by an ex employee that there was plenty enough capacity to make more, they purposely made small amounts guaranteed to cause FOMO

 

I've found that most formerly desirable beers are as good as they ever were. The main difference is that they were usually sought after because they were unique. There aren't too many unique beers left. You also have places all around the country with an M.O. of trying to make local versions of sought after beers. There's also something to the mystique of something being limited in the beer community. You often hear "I can buy that anywhere/any time." That's usually followed by "...but I haven't bought one in years."

 

First, I did not say it didn't exist at all. There are two kinds of scarcity natural and artificial. What I asked was where/how do we draw the line that exists between the two. Some scarcity exists because there is simply no way to physically produce more given existing resources. Some exists because it is a deliberate choice to attempt to capitalize on human nature.

I asked simply because you said Founders as using scarcity as a marketing strategy. Marketing is the artifical. Natural just is.

So for example, how does one know that for some of those Captain Lawerence beers that it is deliberate choice on their part to restrict production for marking purposes rather than happening to brew a one-off as part of learning something and then deciding the batch, which was a success would/could not enter the regular brewing schedule, even if only because there was such a tight schedule that they would have to cancel production of an existing beer and replace it with the new. Fine if the old doesn't sell well but risky if it happen to be a steady source of reliable and predictable income.

Bottom line, scarcity is not necessarily for marketing purposes.

 

Yeah, I know you didn't say that it doesn't exist, I wanted to frame the argument. I did my best to do that.

I agreed in my reply that it is hard to know in all cases whether it is actual unplanned scarcity or a marketing scheme. I can't help you make that determination, nor am I 100% certain all the times I reacted with FOMO were the result of scarcity marketing, but the fact that we respond to scarcity, and that scarcity marketing exists, makes it secondary to the point I originally made.

I didn't mean to accuse Founders specifically even though CBS and KBS may or may not be actual cases of scarcity marketing. Guess I should have pointed that out, since OP does mention both KBS and CBS

 

There is a third one, in between. That is scarcity due to priorities on use of resources.

For example, a small brewery who's beers are highly regarded, located in a small town in a mostly rural state, named after knocking over a Biblical character who shall remain nameless

Anyway, no insider knowledge here, just rational (I think) speculation...

In theory, back in the day, they had enough capacity to brew much more of their most sought-after beers and therefore come closer to meeting demand, but only if they dedicate the brew-house to brewing just that beer, which would then cause a shortage in their "flagship" brands. So, they choose to allocated their resources in a more balanced way across their portfolio.

 

To be honest, I suffer from supply-side anxieties of choice. Too much to decide on, look at, sort by date, and that means that some good ol' choices fall by the wayside in this tsunami of craft beer choices every time I enter the store. If I have a plan before walking in, a specific beer in mind, I'm OK. But if I'm browing...? takes me forever. The range, depth, and supply is just... tremendous these days.

 

Gotcha. I'd suggest that in the case of CBS there's more evidence that suggests real contraints rather than artifical created on purpose. One example, the barrels I mentioned. The natural scarcity of Bourbon barrels alone has driven up barrel prices significant since aging beer in those used barrels became a thing. Can't imagine how one could easily find a sizable increase in the source of twice used barrels with the last being maple syrup. They have a bottle neck in supply that is not under their control if only because their source can only.

BTW I realize it was secondary to the point but took advantage of the idea that you might have some idea when you used that term. One of my bad habits, you may have noticed, curiosity about how someone knows something. When it's a technical term in an area that I know about.... (BTW I wasn't singling you out as this has happend before to others. Inquiring minds want to know.)

 

The overall quality of beer improves as well as beers becoming less unique over time. When I first tried Tree House Julius it was several years ago when the NEIPA was still fairly new. There weren't many comparable beers at the time and certainly not many outside of the area. The excitement of getting something scarce as well as getting something that was canned that day. The cans still smelled overwhelmingly of hops when I got home and for days later, the smell you get when you walk into a brewery. Drinking it that first time was "Whoa, this is something different". Each of those contributed to how I rated it at that time.

Fast forward to today and its hard to replicate that feeling when drinking the same beer. Not only inaccurate memory as you said but a totally different experience. This is a bit of an extreme case but its no different than drinking say Heady Topper for the first time now. I'm sure if I drank that years ago even without the hype it would have provided that "Whoa, this is something different" feeling. Now I drink it and its good but nothing special IMHO. This is the same reason people talk about trying Tree House for the first time and wondering what the fuss is all about. It just isn't as unique today as it was years ago. It hasn't changed but expectations have.

On a 1 to 5 scale 3 is average, if quality is increasing then that means that above average beers eventually become average. I've had friends incensed that I rated a beer 3.75 because it was such a sought after beer at one time. I find it hard to rate a beer like that because people expect you to rate it highly, when you drink it you expect it to be amazing. How do you rate a beer fairly when reality doesn't match up to expectations. Are you rating it poorly because you had such high expectations or are you rating it higher because it feels wrong to rate such a "great beer" relatively low?

 

True. I was actually lumping two together and bringing up examples form both since neither involve the deliberate consciously chose artifical scarcity used by marketers to increase demand beyond supply.

 

Back in the early 00s I could sell pallets of Green FllashWCIPA and Imperial IPA (bombers) in very short order. My complete delivery from Green Flash was paid for long before the bill was due. Strangely, I knew it couldn't last. Change is the one constant in the modern beer trade.

 

There is a charm to something small and local and often an artisanal quality and the beer gains a certain charisma when you have to drive to the next state, trade for it or bike 5 miles to the brewery. Even if no other changes happen when the brewery goes national and regional, it loses some, if not all of its charisma and charm. There is also the aspect of moving from Elizabeth Taylor in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof to Elizabeth Taylor in the Sweet Bird of Youth - the young and sexy becomes old and familiar. You can't be the next new thing forever. There are also social and economic changes in the brewery itself - and shifts in priorities when the brewery goes from small and artisanal to regional or national and not everybody survives these changes well.

 

What's your local beer joint? Curious to know what southern CA establishment is worthy of Raul's patronage.

 

These are generally the kinds of thoughts I think when I see a bunch of legendary beer collecting dust on the shelves.

It's not a new phenomenon. Chimay, Rochefort, Westmalle ... those beers were collecting all kinds of dust back in 2012 when I got back into beer. And in the case of those beers, well ... we all have favorites, but IMO no brewery makes a beer better than Rochefort 10 and few can touch Chimay's and Westmalle's dubbels or Chimay's strong dark. But they've been around for a hundred years, so the hype surrounding them is nil. No hype = no major movement of product.

I know I'm repeating much of what's been said in here, but I always think of the best trappist/abbey ale imports when dust collecting gets mentioned.

 

The Amish or PA Dutch in this area of the country would probably say something along these lines as well: "Kissing don't last, Cooking do."

 

I thought KBS was so-so back when it was hard to get. I even went back and checked my review to verify I'm not telling myself a lie after the fact now that it's easy to get. Not terrible, but honestly there were and are much better beers out there. I only had CBS two years ago for the first time, but unless the early days stuff was way better I was not impressed at all.

 

I love buying KBS for $5/12 oz at my grocery store. I love buying Central Water -bal stouts for ~$15/48oz when I go to Wisconsin.

As a result, my purchase of other favorite -bal stouts like Eclipse and Bourbon County for $1 or more per oz. has dropped off by like 90% in recent years.

Beer nerd collector/trader types are doing mental gymnastics to tell themselves somehow these beers aren't as good anymore. Its like when a team fires a coach who is a proven winner in the past. You really think with more experience they became less adept at their trade? Sure there are exceptions and outliers, but as a general rule. . .

I think some breweries intentionally brew in small batches because if their wares reached the masses, the masses would rightfully declare that Beer A is pretty similar to Beer B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I etc. . . from other geographic regions. We already know that when blind tastings are done scientifically, expensive/rare products rate the same as cheap/available ones. YMGMV (Your mental gymnastics may vary).

 

not enough flavor additions. No vanilla, no lactose, no marshmallows......no thank you!

 

Very nice analogy that fits well.

 

Well, Richard Burton married Elizabeth Taylor twice, at different times in their lives.

 

Legacy or Infamy? I sometimes wonder aboot that.