Trends and Gimmicks

My problem with most of the gimmicky beers out there is that they are really overpriced for what they are. Yeah, there are some good BA/BBA Stouts & pepper/chile infused beers out there but I'm not going to support having to pay a minimum of $18-20 for a limited release bomber when I could get 2-3 4- or 6-packs, for that kind of money, that I can find on a consistent basis.

Most recent beer I've seen that perfectly falls into this gimmicky scheme is Rogue's Beard Beer.

 

sort of off topic but i aways loved the Budweiser campaign that marketed it's "drinkability". as if to say, "well, it's drinkable.. as opposed to, say, gasoline". i realize they were going for something more along the lines of sessionable, but i like the unintended irony that goes along with it. like being able to physically drink it is the best selling point they could think of

 

There's always a new trend to be had and some remnant of the trend sticks with us. Remember 2010 was the year when Belgian yeast went into everything? Now you don't find nearly as many Belgian pale ales or stouts but there are still some on the market and those that stayed around tend to be among the better-produced. Same thing for any other trend in the past or the future.

There's nothing wrong with trends until they convert into gimmicks. I think of gimmicks as things done purely for the sake of cashing in on a trend rather than doing things for the sake of producing a quality product. It's like barrel aging. Sure, there are a lot of great barrel aged beers out there but you can find an increasing number of beers being dumped into barrels that aren't good base beers and/or don't benefit from the barrel aging. That, to me, is when it's a gimmick. I guess we have to allot a third category for those who mean well but produce bad beer but I think that's still brewing for gimmick because the brewery isn't focusing on brewing solid beer before looking at brewing whatever is the fad of the year.

 

There's the obvious stuff pulled off by the BMC vermin of course. When looking to the craft beer world I gotta say that basing a beer around "beard yeast" is fairly gimmicky. Not to mention a bit on the disgusting side.

 

They sell that at my overpriced local hipster beer emporium ; I will not be buying it : gross and unnecessary from a brewery that excels in producing mediocre beer.

 

There's a difference between gimmicks and trends. Gimmicks are meant to gin up demand for a product based on less discerning consumers' short attention spans.

Trends are longer term changes in how products are made, marketed or sold. Many of the aforementioned items can subjectively be placed in either or both category. Barrel aging, for example, would in my mind be a legit and welcome trend that has been used as a gimmick by some poor brewers. Same goes for sours, double this and triple that.

Some brewers, pubs, etc do a good job with these extras, others do not. One trend I would like to see continue is the flat screen monitor tap list. When done poorly, they certainly are gimmicky. When done right they can help the consumer be informed about freshness, ABV, and up to date choices.

 

What you're saying is partially true, but that wasn't my point. Many of these additions mask the true flavors of what are in the base of the product. People who have cream and sugar in coffee are either drinking shitty coffee, or simply don't enjoy the taste of a good cup of coffee.

Brewing a beer in bourbon barrels, or increasing the amount of hops in a lager are burying what lies beneath them. For example Jack's Abby are making many fine IPLs, but they themselves have said they don't use German malts because the malt gets suppressed by the amount of hops in the beer. So they simply use American 2-row, because it would be a waste to use German malts. I would argue many of these people don't like lagers, they like hops. Easy to detect, bold flavors.

A caramel macchiato from Starbucks is an appropriate analogy in my opinion. Does it matter the beans are over-roasted and mediocre? Nope, the coffee flavor is buried in cream and sugar, or, easy to detect bold flavors. These people either don't like the taste of black coffee, or the base of the drink (the actual coffee) is mediocre in the first place. And I'm not bashing anyone for what they enjoy. I also enjoy boatloads of hops, barrel-aging, and a peppermint mocha from time to time. But I also appreciate the difference between what's at the base of the product and what any additional flavors to that base are.

 

I agree there is such a thing as too much.
But if I never had too much I wouldn't know how much is enough.

 

My idea of a "gimmick" is something added that will raise the price or profile of the product without creating any actual improvement in the product. If barrel aging can truly enhance a beer (and I've had a few that do just that) then it's no gimmick. But if it's a lukewarm effort to turn a mediocre beer into a slightly-less-mediocre beer and they charge an arm and a leg for it, then that's a gimmick.

 

Citra hops.

 

I totally get what u r saying but u may have struck a nerve with many using BCBS and FFF as examples. I have tried many beers and theirs are very good. I think barrel aging is good when done properly. I agree with u about the wax dipping thing. I found it funny when Pipeworks did it all the time and I think most of their brews are mediocre. I think a big gimmick is Founders with their backstage series. CBS was delicious but doom was ok and bolt cutter just marginal and the rest not much better IMO.

 

I don't give a shit as long as it tastes delicious.

 

THIS ... So perfectly put. When a beer becomes more about donuts or chai spices than it does about the actual malts and hops, there's a problem in my mind. If you want a donut, go to a donut shop and snag one. Spicing can be done well and tastefully. Unfortunately some people really **** it up though. A buddy made an Irish red ale and then added about 8 bushes worth of blueberries. Come on man ... Why do people do this stuff?

 

Did you have a question?

 

agree to disagree?

i get what you're saying, and agree that there are definitely gimmicky techniques out there. but i don't think barrel-aged beer or double IPAs can be counted in those. these are now pretty much established styles

by your rationale, any deviation from original recipes waaaaaay back are all gimmicks. so, British style IPAs are gimmicks, because they used way more hops than had come before. stouts are gimmicks because they use roasted malt and barley, which hadn't been done before. imperial stouts use even more, etc. would you say an imperial stout is gimmicky? because it uses way more malt than a lager?

i think there's a difference between adding extraneous ingredients, and recipes that came about organically and are now considered genuine styles within beer. even pumpkin beer, while not for everyone, is still a legit style. even if it's usually a seasonal one. i wouldn't consider it a gimmick. just like i don't consider barrel-aged beers a gimmick

i do think beard beer is a gimmick

maybe i will be proven wrong in 10 years and it will be a commonplace style

 

I am currently calling Apple for my idea about the IBeerMenu.

 

I defenetely would!!

 

Well, we can sort of agree to disagree. Because I do agree with this response you made. I think barrel-aging and "hopping" can be sort of gimmicky. But barrel-aging and double IPAs are NOT gimmicks. But they can be "gimmicky."

The best way to explain it, is I believe some brewers add extra hops or throw a beer in a barrel as a gimmick simply to sell more beer. In some styles/beers it works, and compliments the beer. But in others, it just doesn't. It's forced, and ruins the style/beer. I'll get flamed for this I'm sure, but I found Backwoods Bastard to simply have too much bourbon flavor in it, and it took away from how solid Dirty Bastard is. But Goose Island's Bourbon County Barleywine was fantastic, the bourbon blended quite well with that beer (although it was too sweet in my opinion, but still a delicious beer). Do I think Founders added bourbon to Dirty Bastard as a gimmick? Probably not, it's just what they do. I was simply using it as an example.

 

Didn't read them all, so I might be repeating, but wax dipped beer bottles.

It's just beer. Lets not elevate to something above and beyond (to losely echo the comments of John Kimmich)

 

I have no problem with ANY marketing plan or whatever they want to do. I only buy good beer at a decent price.


Not sure if I call a collaboration a gimmick, but if the bomber price (22oz) is north of lets say $8-10. Then I am out of that game. I mean I love Brooklyn Chocolate Stout every year. Not because its best RIS there is. (its not). But because its $7.95 a 4 pack. 4 x 12oz

Call me cheap. But when your own a fixed income you will know. Besides I am old school and its about value.

So a 22oz bomber is 1 12oz bottle and a 1 10 oz bottle. think about it. is ANY beer worth more than $10 a bomber?

Even if I was rich, and I am far from it. I think its too expensive. When many pay it, the prices goes up. Supply and demand. free market etc. yea I get it. I also do not really care if anyone does pay it. I just know us old timers, retired folks we buy allot of beer. lol. YMMV and its just my 2 cents.