Cans - will you pay a premium?

I'd rather not. But I will in places where bottles are not allowed, of course.

 

I thought cans were supposed to be cheaper? In addition to being easier to recycle. These were reasons for the shift from bottle to cans. (and weight too I guess). Was I mistaken?

 

FWIW, I am personally accepting of the concept that the beers would be priced equally between cans and bottles (although I would prefer to pay less for canned beers). The idea that canned beers are being priced higher is a travesty IMO.

Cheers!

 

Nope, this was already discussed by @Peter_Wolfe and others above.

Cheers!

 

You're right on all counts, with the two added bonuses of 100% blockage of light and oxygen. Cans are better in every way with the possible exception of being slightly more awkward to actually drink from (which can be avoided by pouring into a glass).

 

To which any good beer snob (*raises hand) does. ...unless they are being lazy *raises hand again.

 

The price of "craft" popularity.

 

Like BA's #1 beer, Heady Topper? I think that one beer alone as big a factor in the can revolution as anything else is.

To the OP though... if all things were equal between a can and bottle except price I would not pay a premium for the can. Yes, cans are a superior beer vessel, but the superiorness from when I buy to when I consume the beer isn't worth a premium cost to me. Besides, the packing and weight efficiencies should reduce the cost of canned beers relative to bottles, not increase...I'd buy the cheaper bottles with a little bit of spite to boot!

 

As a guy who does beer pricing for a living nationwide, you've landed on one of my pet peeves. There are some places where BMC products are more expensive in bottles than in cans, there's some relatively complicated reasoning behind it, but it's just the way it is. That being said, more often than not, when cans and bottles aren't priced the same, it's because one is an ad special or something and they only include one of the two packages or somebody just made a dumb mistake while putting it into the computer and nobody's bothered to correct it, in this case, I would guess the latter.

 

It's probably not a beer that you would buy, but I recall getting a case of cans of Corona for at least $5 more than the bottled version back when I lived in PA.

 

In addition to the reasons you stated, corks being a natural product have inconsistencies which can effect the seal case-by-case or completely fail. I heard on a winery tour once that synthetic corks are also slowly winning producers/consumers over for much of the same reason as screw tops. I'm honestly a little surprised the beer world holds to the cork & cage, instead of a synthetic cork [& cage, if necessary], because I don't think beer drinkers are quite as locked into tradition as wine drinkers. Or are there are other factors I'm not aware of?

 

Sure if there is an activity I am engaged in that cans are required/more convenient(camping, boating, ect.)

Sounds like some of you guys don't do anything fun with the unequivocal NO

 

This is strange. Aren't cans actually cheaper for the brewer to use as packaging? I always assumed cans would be easier and cheaper to use. Maybe they are trying to cash in on the new trend.

 

Unfortunately, I probably would pay a premium for cans (although I've never had to). I hate bottles and would be happy if every beer were available in cans. If I'm torn on a decision between buying two beers that I'm in the mood for, if one of them is in cans then that usually breaks the tie for me.

As much as I hate to say it, if Lagunitas Sucks were available in 12oz-cans at a $5 premium per 6-pack......I'd pay it.

 

Would you still choose bottles over cans if that particular beer bottle was green or clear?

 

I have found cans to be less expensive than bottles, typically. Especially, the 16 oz. "tallboy" 4 packs. I often choose cans over bottles, but I would not usually pay extra for cans.

 

Maybe the bottles were on sale or something?

 

On a sidebar, I wouldn't expect a brewery that recently started canning to offer that variant at a lower price, immediately. I think this conversation may have overlooked the initial start up costs, of adding a canning line. I would expect once the ROI of the canning line is realized, pricing would settle back in line with the bottles.

To answer the Q - No, I would not pay a *significant* premium i.e. greater than 10%. I do acknowledge the improved recycleability of cans and space in my trash as a reason to consider it though.

 

Blind tasting with those vs. cans - if there was no flaw introduced from those bottles then I would still go with bottles. All else equal I'm going with bottles.

 

Given the choice, I opt for bottles.

If cans cost more, it matters nothing to me.

This is an example of the of the market trying to direct itself.

Sorry, that is not how it works, greedy brewers.