Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Beer News & Releases' started by BeRightBock, Aug 29, 2018.
Than why are they using corn in the 1st place?
It gives them the flavor profile they're looking for, obviously.
This guy might have a problem:
BREWBOUND - Founders Brewing CEO: Beer Needs to Bring Sexy Back
Sounds like he's being more figurative than literal, there, though.
A place near me that blows out older beers is doing so with March-canned Solid Gold cases. I've bought two cases, it's still tasty at 5 months in the can. But this tells me that at least at the beginning the stuff wasn't exactly flying off the shelves. And if I wasn't buying at deep-cut discount, I'd buy Centennial in 15 packs rather than SG if they cost the same which I think they always have around here.
And I'll just add that while taking that as his intent, I still don't get it. The 'problem' seems to be relying too much on eye candy and gimmickry. If anything, Solid Gold's success is showing that there's a market out there beyond that nonsense.
"Founders recommends off-premise retailers price Solid Gold cans at $7.99 per six-pack"
I can buy a 6-pack of all malt Yuengling Golden Pilsner for less than that price.
Maybe somebody needs to educate Founders here!?!
I don't think there's any brand loyalty in that 15% of craft drinkers either.
Craft brewer's have done quite well not focusing on that continuously shrinking 85%.
I get his point, and it's not a bad idea to have a light adjunct lager in your portofolio, but the experience (e.g. Taprooms, beer gardens) seems like the way to go these days.
But Yuengling is only a dollar less a six pack and after drinking through a sixer of the Pilsner, I would rather have the SG.
And I would prefer Yuengling Golden Pilsner. And save a buck in the process!!
I think the insistence on saying "margins" instead of "profits" shows a bit of embarrassment over the whole pricing thing.
I'd pay $1.17 each for 12oz FBS, KBS or CBS.
I like the Yuengling Pilsner, cost me $5.53 incl tax a six pack when I buy by the case.
The elephant in the room that the article all-too-briefly touches on is that both of these breweries in this article lowered their prices after being bought out, meaning they had access to the principle of economies of scale as well as stronger negotiating ability thanks to their conglomerate benefactors. I'm not saying I don't buy their beers because of the buy-outs (I do occasionally buy from both Founders and Ballast Point), but I don't think it's honest to act like they're such good guys for lowering their prices. I also don't buy the explanation given that they don't have it easier now.
Ballast Point has always been very overpriced, especially Sculpin (though it is a very good beer). They had the room to lower their prices, especially with Constellation behind them now.
Come to think of it, Founders hasn't really lowered their pricing at all, another disingenuous aspect of this article. All they did is create new budget-friendly SKUs. Their older products still cost the same, even though they could easily lower them a dollar or two across the board and be fine. As I said in the Solid Gold thread, that beer is still at least two dollars overpriced, if not more. If it competed with Hamm's, High Life, or PBR, all of which are better beers, I'd probably buy it. As it is, it's a terrible value.
This is a pretty terrible puff piece trying to talk up the virtues of Big Beer in a very obfuscating way (I realize they mention the ownership behind the scenes, but they definitely don't discuss how that affects the breweries).
Also, where are other breweries that have always been cheap (Lagunitas and Goose Island, both of which are also owned by conglomerates)? Surely if they're extolling the benevolence of Founders and Ballast Point, they could tell us all how lucky we are to have access to Lagunitas and Goose Island?
In conclusion, this article is perfectly in line with the journalism I expect nowadays: awful.
Interesting -- I haven't seen any six-packs so far, but the 15-packs are actually cheaper than that here at the only store I've seen carrying them. And it's a place where beer prices are usually a little above the average grocery-store price, oddly enough!
This has nothing to do with the point you are making, so please pardon me if I go a bit pedantic on business terms.
A conglomerate a collective ownership of several corporations that do business in different industries. Berkshire Hathaway (for example) is a conglomerate.
AB-Inbev, Heineken and Constellation Brands are not conglomerates.
I don't think you're being pedantic at all. I appreciate you pointing out my error, and I would edit it if I could since being wrong about that weakens my point a bit, I think.
It would've been more accurate to call them "corporate giants" or something similar, and I wish I'd done that.
Again, thanks, seriously; it's not pedantic in the least to me.
I always thought GI would just come into town and be the cheapest IPA around. It's not. Ab inbev feels their brands have that high end craft value. For me it's actually the local guys who are fighting it out for value.
It is all about margins and profits. If local brewery A can't compete and lower their price after local brewery B lowers theirs and its costing brewery A some business. Well that's capitalism. The pool of qualified craft drinkers hasn't grown as fast as the number of breweries in operation, so everyone has to be alright with lowering their margins just a bit. Adapt. Don't blame.
Locally speaking, the core lineup IPA four/six pack is $9-10. I've seen some new players come in and try to charge $11. Not happening. Even out of state distributed products may sit at $11. I haven't seen many outsiders try $8. It's mainly the local players pushing everything down to stay competitive.
It's not new to everything else around. Edging out your competition is natural and generally seen as a positive for consumers.
I should add. The sixer price on SG is atrocious compared to comparable better tasting pilsners and lagers. It's all about the big quantity buys. I've seen local breweries start doing 12 packs. They still aren't touching SN or SA in that regard but prices are definitely staying flat or even dropping $/oz. Finally breweries are finally fighting for our dollars. For decades it truly felt like easy money. Glad tides are turning in our favor.
I wasn't really speculating on what his problem might be - I agree, it's mostly likely vocabulary-related or, maybe, a case of DON DRAPER-itis? It does seem a tone-deaf choice of terminology in the age of #me too, and when brewers are trying to appeal to women. Maybe he should have went with the more vague "COOL". . .
And, as for the lack of brand loyalty in the macro segment of the beer market, while there has been an oft-noted dramatic change in total barrelage for some of the brands ( Budweiser - '88 was its peak sales year) and their combined market share, the US Top 4 brands has been the same for the last 30 years:
Sorry if I was unclear, by "brand loyalty of the 15% of craft drinkers" I meant in the craft beer market. Not the 85% with the Bud/Miller/Coors of the world. There's definitely still brand loyalty there.
Yeah, I understood that.
I was simply furthering and expanding your point in response to the Founders' exec's claim you quoted, of:
I also think that the ~85% of the beer market made up of "non-craft"/macro brands and imports does NOT equal "Eighty-five percent of American beer drinkers". Won't even go into the fact that, if he's using the Brewers Association's stats his brewery is outside their "craft" segment. Unless he's not "rounding the numbers" as the writer said, and that's why he's using 15% rather than the Brewers Association's 12.7%?
Founder Solid Gold goes for $12.99 per 15 pack at Wegman's in Woodbridge NJ. I'm on my third; the summer is hot and sticky and it goes well in the backyard.
This is my big issue with the article.
It isn't that craft breweries are lowering their prices its that they are creating a cheaper, less expensive product. And they are still over-priced/expensive for the market they are trying to sell too, especially when you consider that you are not the first to complain its an inferior product to much of its competition.