Trends, and the Trendy People Who Are Trending Them

A rare cross-posting from my Session Beer Project blog, because there's more here than just session beer. 

"Not Even Justin Timberlake Can Save Bud Light Platinum"

You know how I know session beer is the smart new trend for craft brewers?

Because the big brewers are making higher ABV beers.

Check out this story in Ad Age. ABInBev and Miller Coors are betting big on boozier beers.

That appears to be part of the playbook for MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch InBev, which have turned to pricier, higher-alcohol line extensions to recapture share from growing liquor brands. The latest entry: Miller Fortune, which will debut next year at 6.9% alcohol by volume with a marketing strategy aimed at luring millennial males during nighttime drinking occasions.

The brew, in the works for months, follows A-B InBev's recent launches of Bud Light Platinum and Budweiser Black Crown, which both check in at 6% ABV, compared with 4.2% for most light beers. The goal for brewers is to reach variety-seeking drinkers whose habits lead them to the liquor shelf and away from beers their fathers drank. 

(Can anyone tell me what the latest sales curves are like on Platinum? Thought I heard they sucked. Oh, here it is: "Not Even Justin Timberlake Can Save Bud Light Platinum")

Guys, guys, guys...People don't want beer with more alcohol. They want beer with more flavor. And Bud Light Platinum doesn't have beer flavor, it has added flavor, artificial flavor. Session beers have real flavor, and that's what people want. Good luck with the big beers; you're only about eight years behind the curve.

Spitting on the head of Britain's national drink

I'll assume you've heard that beer is not allowed at The Royal Wedding™, yes? It was pissing me off more and more, and I was feeling more and more Paine at the very thought...when I saw this. Pete pretty much nails it, so go read. And no, I won't be watching a single second of The Royal Wedding™ unless some evil jackass puts a gun to my head and puts me through some reverse Ludovico technique...I'll be at a beer festival (TAP New York, to be precise), so watching the little bluebloods formalize their fornicating would be inappropriate.

Hey, JOURNALISTS!

And bar-owners, too...could we get something straight? A "BREWPUB" is not a bar that sells beer, even interesting "micro-brewed" beer. A "BREWPUB" is a "pub" where they "brew" the beer they sell. It is a brewery. Don't brew beer at a place? Not a brewpub.

While I have your attention...If you have a bar, don't name it "The [somethingsomething] Brewery" or "The [somethingsomething] Distillery". Again, these are real types of places, more importantly, they are real types of places that your bar is not one of!*

Can we get this settled, please? Because you're screwing up my Google Alert, not to mention all the people who are walking into your place expecting fresh-made beer. Thanks.



(Tip of the hat to beer writer Don Tse for bringing that one up.)

Kid Rock's American Badass Beer!

Hey, Kid Rock's beer not only has a name now -- American Badass Beer -- it's even got a "website preloader" page. Wow! A preloader! (?)

American Badass has been out since July. It's in Michigan, and will roll out nationally over the next 12 months. Has anyone seen it?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Look, no slant on Michigan Brewing, which is doing the contract brewing for Kid Rock; more power to them, and after all, they get paid on the loading dock, so they're not going to be taking the bath along with him. And read this description:

Crisp, refreshing and smooth as a traditional lager can be. Delivers a nice hit of carbonation at first and finishes with a slight citrus note. This is a highly approachable beer that delivers a bright lager flavor without even a hint of aftertaste. Cascade hops light up the aroma while balancing the brew. Brewed for maximum appeal and slamability. Midwestern malted barley and hard, red winter wheat from Michigan, transform water from the Saginaw Aquifer into a beer that's a true American lager and truly Badass.

Doesn't sound like they went totally sell-out, right? Okay, "slamability" is out there, but I think I may have praised slamability once or twice myself.

But...someone's going to lose their shirt. Projects like this have a very, very bad track record. (Speaking of which...Donnie, Donnie, Donnie...) Only one I can think of working is Land Shark Lager, and it's not tied as strongly to Jimmy Buffett as this is to Kid Rock; and, of course, Land Shark is ABIB, who have a pretty damned good idea of how these things work, and the deep pockets to sustain them.

I'll be watching for this stuff at a bar near me.

"DUH!" of the Week...

Check out this headline from the BBC:

Heavy drinkers seek out bargains

This study found that people who drink heavily bought cheap booze: vodka, mostly but "White cider is the beverage to which our patients appear to have particularly cheap access, along with whisky." (Really? Whisky? Why the hell is whisky cheap? It's because distillers dump it to 'own brand' schemes in stores for quick cash; incredibly short-sighted, because it keeps the price of better whisky down as well).

Did anyone really think most drunks -- all the people surveyed were being treated for alcohol problems -- bought high-end booze-o? Heck no! These are the folks who skew the numbers, the 20% that consumer 80%, and they buy the cheapest buzz they can get, something the UK government has made even easier by mandating "units" of alcohol per bottle/serving being shown. Makes it easier for the drunk to spot the bargain, y'know?

So the study is supporting the government's latest plan, which goes beyond raising the UK's already stiff drink taxes: minimum booze pricing. Raise the price per unit to a higher minimum price. Wonder who pockets the difference? Bet it's not the booze producers...

Kentucky Beats up Bourbon Again

The state of Kentucky is a wonderful place. I lived there for a year in the 1980s, and I loved it, even through the heat. The people are friendly and gracious, the men generous and the women handsome, the fishing is good, the scenery is breathtaking above and below ground. The whiskey and the people who make it made my life a happier time.

But the Kentucky legislature sure can be log-headed. They have raised the tax on booze again, and Kentucky already had the third highest booze taxes in the nation. I could go on, but Eric Gregory, the President of the Kentucky Distillers Association, says it all pretty well here. Some excerpts:

Our state leaders should evaluate the entire revenue base and propose solutions that will stabilize our economy for years to come, not derail an industry that's on a roll. Raising alcohol taxes is a short-term fix with long-term consequences -- lost jobs, higher prices for consumers and yet another competitive disadvantage for one of Kentucky's signature industries.

Is there any other industry with a product that's taxed at least five times before it reaches the consumer? Has the legislature considered the long-term damage to small businesses and our hospitality industry in this grab for new revenue? And finally, is this any way to treat a thriving signature industry that's been so good to Kentucky? The answer is an absolute "no."

In Kentucky, the bourbon industry provides more than 3,200 jobs, pays more than $115 million in state and local taxes, and has planned capital investment of more than $100 million that will benefit the commonwealth for decades.

The bourbon industry understands that the state and country are facing a fiscal crisis. Many other industries are asking for bailouts and government help. But bourbon is not. We're just asking legislators to do no harm during these difficult times.

Be reasonable: leave bourbon alone. Hasn't it done enough?

"I'm no mathematician..."

A huge thank you to Harry Schumacher at Beer Business Daily for pointing out what anyone who ever made it through an intro business admin course in high school (I did, and thank you too, Mr. Bassett) should be able to figure out: higher excise taxes mean lower sales...which means lower tax income.

Unfortunately, the nimrods at the California Board of Equalization just don't get it. They're the people who collect sales and excise taxes (and isn't that a great name for such an agency?), and back in June they put forth a ruling that all beer ("but not politically connected wine," as Schumacher points out) would be considered a spirit until proven otherwise. This was because New Dry crazies at PIRE and the Marin Institute convinced them that malternatives (Smirnoff Ice and its ilk) were still being made with distilled alcohol...which meant they could be taxed at the spirits rate of $3.30 a gallon, instead of the beer rate of $0.20 per gallon. If malternatives were taxed at liquor rates, the New Drys whispered in the BOE's ear, think of all the tax revenue you'd rake in!

The hypocrisy boggles the mind: these are the same people who preach that higher taxes on beer will drive consumption down, and here they are telling the saps at the BOE that higher taxes will bring in more money. Because that is, after all, what this is really all about. The money.

What puts the icing on this three-layer dumbass cake is that the BOE...well, let's let Harry tell it.

The BOE, chaired by Dr. Judy Chu, is apparently unaware of the realities of what they have done, and they have asked the state (which is on the brink of bankrupcty) for $1.16 million to add nearly 6 full time employees to administer and enforce the new tax. The BOE has predicted that they will generate an extra $38 million in new taxes due to the reclassification of PABs. Apparently, as unbelievable as this sounds, nobody has seen fit to apprise Dr. Chu that increasing a tax on a price-sensitive beverage by 1,660% will diminish demand for that product -- to the tune of killing it entirely -- unless the producers of those PABs reformulate them to fit the definition of beer [which, almost uniformly, they have: they must have taken that high school course. Which begs the question...in what area does Dr. Chu have her doctorate?]. I'm no mathematician, but $3.30 times 0 gallons equals zero dollars in new tax revenues -- which is a far cry from $38 million.

Not just high-handed, not just gullible...they're stupid, too. Unlike the brewers, who have already jumped through this dope-hoop: Schumacher notes that the state already has over 100 pages of a single-spaced list of brewers who've "proven" that their product...is beer.

And I thought Pennsylvania was ass-backwards on booze.

Exciting Beer News!

At last, the beer -- I think -- we've all been waiting for.

Drinks Americas Holdings, Ltd (OTCBB: DKAM), a leading owner, developer and marketer of premium beverages (like the amazing Trump Vodka and resurrected, er, revivified, er...whatever Rheingold Beer), today announced that the Company has signed an agreement with American icon and rock and roll musician Kid Rock to develop and market a premium domestic beer.

Drinks and Kid Rock will work together to develop and bring to market a product targeted to beer drinkers who appreciate value with an easy to drink (and we do mean really easy to drink), traditional, good tasting American manufactured beer (that comes with a scruffy knit cap on each can).

J. Patrick Kenny CEO Drinks Americas stated, "Kid Rock is a reflection of great American rock and roll music and the American spirit (I thought that was bourbon), and we think we can create a beer in that same image. Having Kid Rock as a Drinks Americas partner is an exciting and big addition to our portfolio of icon brands (which include The Donald, Dr. Dre, and, surprisingly, Paul Newman). There is no question in our mind that people will try a beer that Kid Rock will stand by (like he offered to stand by Pabst for money...only they turned him down) and when they like it (not 'if', dammit, 'when'!), a great and incredibly valuable trademark will be created with his support."

Kenny said, "Drinks will come to market rapidly with Kid Rock's beer. We are in the process of interviewing breweries now (So, Mister...Brewery, where do you see yourself with Kid Rock's Beer in five years?) and working with Kid Rock to make sure that every aspect of the beer and the marketing support is as exciting as everything else Kid Rock does (Everything? Got any video of him sorting his socks?). We think that by very early spring we will have a compelling product and that consumers will love the look, taste, and branding that Kid Rock creates (wait, he's creating the taste, too? How is it with grits sandwiches?). This is a tremendous asset and a valuable addition to Drinks Icon portfolio. The continued expansion of our portfolio is great news for our shareholders (and no one else)."

More details regarding the brand will be released in the coming weeks (if you can hold your water that long).

What, Ludacris and his chicken weren't available?

I've seen this too many times. Why do people keep putting money into schemes like this? If Hard Rock Cafe, which owns a world-wide chain of bars, can't make it work (they launched Hard Rock "Light" and "Heavy" back in the 1990s, and they fell with a barely audible thud), do these folks really think Kid Rock can do it? Whoa, that is so Pamela Anderson.

Paul Newman? Sure, he is an icon, and people know it's largely going to charity. Trump? People know him across a wide range of demographics, and it's a vodka: promotion costs aren't that high. But selling a mass-market style beer? Does anyone involved in this project have a clue about the amount of promotion money needed to do that? Ask InBev how expensive jump-starting Stella in the U.S. has been -- and continues to be. Do they really think having Kid Rock tub-thumping for his own beer is going to be able to bypass that? Oh, yeah, like Billy Beer. Sure...Barnum was right, there is one born every minute.