WHAT A GREAT NEW BOTTLE WOW HOLY CRAP ITZ SO COOOOLL!!!

People used to ask me, back in the days before The Great Craft Rationalization®*, 'Lew, why don't you ever write about the regular beers? Budweiser, Miller Lite, Coors Light; you know, the beers everyone really drinks?!' And although I did write about beers like that sometimes -- more in a business mode, but I did write for trade journals, so you do; hell, I wrote two vodka pieces! -- and I made my mark writing about Yuengling, my response was usually something like, "Well, what can you say about them? 'Damn, this Budweiser tastes just like the last 100 Buds I've ever had!' They don't change, there's never anything new, and even the people who love them have nothing to say about the flavor past "crisp," "clean," and "great taste, less filling." There's just not a lot to work with there."

We are, after all, ultimately in the story business. Hats off to A-B, who did try to engage us by flying groups of beer writers to their hop farm and maltings in Idaho...but then that turned into a circular firing squad of mutual ethics accusations and just got ugly. And mostly, beer writers didn't write about mainstream beer.

Well...MillerCoors is changing all that! I've been seeing the teaser billboards on I-95 in Philly (one of the big Lite markets) for months now, and the new Miller Lite bottle is finally here! That's right, a NEW BOTTLE! Hot damn!

Yeah. A new bottle. And they're telling us amazing things about it (add your own excited exclamation points, I already took out most of the capital letters):

Consumers Overwhelmingly Prefer The New Bottle 2:1

We Win With Occasional Drinkers Who Preferred The New Bottle By Over 3:1 

We Win With All Ages (21-34, 35-40) Both Groups Prefer The New Bottle To Current (Younger By 19 Points, Older By 23 

We Win With Hispanics: Hispanics Prefer The New Bottle To Current By 20 Points 

Advantages Of The New Bottle Also Place Us In A Stronger Competitive Standing Relative To Bud Light

WOW! I guess all the beer geeks who say the different glassware really makes a difference may have a point, and Miller Lite is keying on it.

I'm yanking Miller's chain, but come on, guys... A new bottle? You already did that! Remember the Vortex bottle, back in 2010? Had a set of spiral grooves on the inside of the neck? Jay Brooks summed that up pretty well here, I mean, what's the point of swirling Miller Lite as it comes out of the bottle, to stimulate the lack of aroma? Maybe...except I did an interview that year with the folks from Owens-Illinois, who developed the Vortex bottle, that I never found a market for and never released...and it shines a light on things here. Have a look.

Within the consumer package and beer industry, people are looking for something new and different. It's important to differentiate. It brings added value and news to the marketplace. The Miller Lite brand has seen a lot of change and not all of it positive. It's innovation in terms of value and news to the brand.
 
Internal embossing is a tech that Owens-Illinois brought to the marketplace. It's the most significant change to the long-neck bottle since the twist-off cap. The  Vortex bottle is an example of how we can merge the science of glass with the art of package design to bring something the market hasn't seen before.

It's designed to differentiate the brand on the shelf. You get the decorative look, and a flat panel for the labeling. We're working with the customers and letting them lead with that effort.

Now...did you notice? Nothing about swirling the beer. That all came from craft guys who assumed it had to be for something. As far as O-I was concerned -- and I was talking to their beer marketing manager and the VP of global innovation -- this was about the look of the swirl. Even Miller never specifically said that the vortex was functional. It's about look. It's all about getting you to look at Miller Lite.

No kidding, right? They're just making up news to get themselves noticed! Because there's nothing new about Miller Lite!

But what about the constant stream of one-offs and one-time seasonals from craft beer? It's all about the beer! Is it? Or is it about getting you to notice them, shouting to be heard over the new darlings -- 16 oz. cans, 'slim' cans, open-top cans, nanobreweries, reality-TV breweries, collaborations -- and then moving on and making something else new?

Look, I like new beers. It's how things happen. But they ought to have some kind of intrinsic value. There are an awful lot of "me too" beers out there among all the innovative ones. It's almost reached the point where making a pale ale is innovative, as people run from them to make exotics.

New beer? New bottle? It's all attention for the brand. Miller Lite spins off way too much money to mess with it; you can't make a craft version (they tried that; major fail). But the craft brewers look at big crafts who leaned hard on a flagship -- Sam Adams, New Belgium, Sierra Nevada -- and they see them running into trouble with their street cred, being passed up as not really craft. (Admit it, if you haven't thought that about Boston Lager, Fat Tire, or SNPA, you've heard someone say it.) And we get new beers that are made just to have new beers. Better than a new bottle, but...where's it go? BeerAdvocate? Tickerville? Celebrator?

I dunno. It's how things work, but for what part of the market? Who reacts to this stuff, and is it enough to have a real effect? Is it just a new bottle?


*I just made that up, and you know, I kind of like it: it's when, about five years ago at the beginning of the Great Recession (I didn't make that up, apparently that's what we're calling the Wall Street debacle and the Stimuless® (yeah, made that one up too...it never caught on, but I haven't given up) now), craft beer stepped out of the background and became the superhero of the beer category by blasting through a collapsing market with hops-fueled double-digit growth. It's when the industry finally realized that this wasn't a fad, wasn't going away, and had to be taken seriously...and Blue Moon and Shock Top stopped being redheaded stepchildren at their parent companies.)  

"India Pale Ale displayed the strongest unit growth in 2012"

It should come to a surprise to no one, but sales tracking company GuestMetrics has released a report showing that IPA kicked ass and took names last year. According to their database (from POS systems in restaurants and bars), IPA showed stronger growth than any other type of beer last year: an amazing 39% year on year. And it's accelerating going into the second quarter of 2013; 1Q 2013 showed 40% growth. 

And who's doing the best? "Based on data from GuestMetrics, the IPA brands with the largest share gains last year were Widmer Broken Halo IPA, Lagunitas India Pale Ale, Sierra Nevada Torpedo Extra IPA, and Ballast Point Sculpin." 

Meanwhile, the flipside -- which might have sent craft beer geeks into spins of delight five years ago, but now only evokes a "damn straight" nod and grin -- is that "pale lager" is sucking wind.  

"Pale Lagers saw unit sales contract by 5% in 2012 compared to the prior year, and as a result, experienced by far the largest share loss at about 170 basis points in 2012," said Peter Reidhead, VP of Strategy and Insights at GuestMetrics.  "Additionally, in analyzing the quarter of 2013, the picture does not appear to be improving for Pale Lagers, with units contracting 6.2% against prior year, and the share loss accelerating slightly to 180 basis points."  Based on data from GuestMetrics, the Pale Lager brands with the largest share loss last year were Miller Lite, Bud Light, and Budweiser." 

Like I told someone in an interview the other day, betting against IPA is like betting against vodka: don't do it. This is not a cycle. This is not a trend. It's a straight, upward line. People have been looking for IPA to peak and head back down since 1995, and they've been wasting their time.  

Just look at craft beer branding these days: it's all about different kinds of IPAs! We have black, double, session, rye, red, green, wheat, and white IPAs, and you can bet I missed some that a brewer is concocting even now. Brewers see that putting "IPA" on your label is like rubbing money on it; hops are crack, like Dogfish Head said about 90 Minute IPA, that's the sickness and the cure! 

"Wife Beater" On Wikipedia?

You may or may not know that the ABIB/InBud-brewed Stella Artois is colloquially known as "Wife Beater" in the UK. Or at least, it was for a while...and now will be again, thanks to the publicity for that embarrassing monicker generated by a hired PR company's clumsy attempts to expunge it. Sure, it's true: read about the original story here in The Independent, and then read the just-drinks.com story here on how InBud defends their actions in hiring Portland Communications to scrub the term "Wife Beater" from the Stella Artois entry on Wikipedia.




(Why "Wife Beater?" Depends on who you ask. There's the "Stella!" line from A Streetcar Named Desire, bellowed by the abusive Stanley Kowalski, but others will tell you that it's because the beer appeals to the kind of yob that would beat his wife, or that the beer's drinkers would be the kind to walk about in the strapped undershirts colloquially called "wife beaters." (Note that Brando's wearing a regular t-shirt in the clip.) I favor the first; fits too well, and the others just sound like snobbery to me.)

I don't care that some intellectually-aware beer drinkers tagged Stella with the name "Wife Beater." Well, I do, a bit; it does wink and giggle at domestic abuse to some extent, and that's bullshit. But as a writer, and a reader, and an independent thinker, I care a lot about this kind of paid clean-up activity on the Internet. It's the greatest strength and weakness of Wikipedia; anyone can edit it, and that leaves it open to abuse...except it's not happening here. The editors caught the changes, and reinstated the references.

Why did Portland think they could do this, and why did InBud believe them? Well, sit down, because someone's got to tell you: it's because they still think you're a bunch of chumps. It's because some marketers still look at us as cattle, as blind sheep, and they don't try to influence you, they set out to manipulate you. There is a difference, and there are ethical, good-minded marketers who look to influence your decisions without insulting you. Portland Communications are not such marketers, and apparently, InBud doesn't hire that kind, either.

Friends from Europe have been telling me for years -- years! -- that InterBrew, then InBev, and now ABIB is a company that's bad for the industry, that they indulged in bad business practices, that they killed breweries, that everything they touched turned to crap. I resisted. Stella, for what it's worth, still tastes decent when it's a fresh draft, and that's my touchstone: what's in the glass? I just repeated that to folks at Bocktown Monaca who had come out to see me last Tuesday: I don't care who's making it -- as long as they're not using child or convict labor -- I care about how it tastes.

But this...leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Bud Light Platinum -- and I thought Miller Clear was dopey

It's like Bud Light doing a pole dance...

Go read this, and come back. We need to talk.

All up to speed? Okay. The quote that stands out there (other than "higher-alcoholic beer," what the hell, fella, was there something too tame (and accurate) about "higher-alcohol"?) for me is this one: "Bud Light Platinum is a trendy blue-bottle line extension that appeals to a key group of beer drinkers and expands consumer occasions.”

WTF?

• Blue bottles are trendy?
• Blue bottles are a type of beer?
• Blue bottles appeal to a key group of beer drinkers? WHO?

You guys should know by now that I don't slap AB around just for fun, but this idea's got "cognitive disaster" stamped all over it. A 137 calorie "light beer" with 6% ABV? Right, pound these like 4.2% 105 calorie Bud Light (because it does say BUD LIGHT right on it), and you'll be knee-walking -- knee-walking and fat -- in no time.

I'm seeing a lot of people -- beer geeks -- saying this is a shot at the craft market. I'm sorry: you're stoned. You guys think everything is about craft beer: it's not. Craft beer is still under 6% of the market. It's growing, it's profitable, and you've got Dark Lord in your cellar, but 7 out of 8 beer drinkers are still pounding mainstream suds, okay?

What we have here is yet another attempt to get people to pay more for light beer. I'm not sure how making "Bud Light" stronger than Bud (at 5.0%) and only 8 calories "lighter" per 12 oz. can is gonna do that, but that's what they're doing. It's crazy, and it's going to fail. Everyone in the media knows it's going to fail, you know it's going to fail. This is going to be another Bud Select, a big fat expensive FAIL. Why are they doing this? Did all the smart people quit or get laid off?

Ah, well. Sit back and watch the follies.

An addition that was too good to pass up. Convenience Store News notes in their story on Bud Light Platinum that it "...has the chance to be a trailblazer in the light beer market. Most beers in that category deliver fewer calories and carbohydrates than standard beers, while providing a lower alcohol content." Oh, CSN, if I didn't know better, I'd think you having some fun with these guys! 

Branding is such a dirty word

I get Daryl Rosen's e-letter on beer sales. Not about what beers are selling; it's about selling beer. Rosen comes from the Sam's beverage retail chain in Chicago -- it was his family's business -- and when the family sold 80% of the business in 2007 (the chain would later be bought by Binny's, their Chicago rival (and an excellent booze supplier, love to see something like that in PA post-privatization!)), Rosen set up shop as a lecturer and sales consultant. And he's good. Not only does Rosen give me an insight on how beer sales works, his advice -- listen, focus on finding needs and filling them, help the customer even when it doesn't directly benefit you or your product -- works for me, and potentially for anyone. I've never met Rosen, but I owe him.

Anyway, I wanted to share something I read today at his Beverage Professionals site: "Split Personality." It's about how the beer industry looks at branding. A lot of craft beer drinkers -- the hardcore -- look on branding, marketing, promotion, and advertising as pretty much tools of the Devil...because that's what the big brewers use. When craft brewers use them, it confuses these people; witness the way some of them trash Samuel Adams, a beer brand that has done amazing things to establish craft's credibility across the country, and one that produces excellent beers, exceptional and experimental beers.

However, as Rosen's colleague Michael Browne points out, it's not so much the branding the bigs use that should be disturbing; it's how they do it. Here's how he starts the piece:

'So a bunch of states that have this 3.2 ABW law. You have to sell a watered down (‘non-intoxicating') beer to distribute in many channels.'

‘Okay, I get it,’ says the newcomer to the beer industry.

So we take our biggest brands -- the ones we spend hundreds of millions of dollars marketing - and water down the product by 25% so we can sell it in these channels.’

‘Use the same brand name for this watery version of your product?’

Yup’

And you know it's true. Just that example alone is completely true; you'll see 3.2 versions of well-known brands -- like Budweiser -- in states like Oklahoma, and it won't say "Bud 3.2", it just says "Budweiser." (I'm not picking on Budweiser in particular, it's just an example.) 

What do you care? Well, Browne does, and for reasons that might intrigue you.

...the beer industry has convinced itself that playing fast and loose is okay, as long as there is a lot of volume at stake. And consumers are keenly aware of this. They know that craft brewers and specialty imports do not have compromised versions in these markets. They are able to draw a bright line between the mass producers and the small brewers that don't compromise… more evidence of the split personality in the beer industry. There are a bunch of large brewers who will put one brand on 2 very different beers; and there are craft Brewers that won’t.

Just one more chapter in a larger narrative that crafts are all about the beer; mass brewers are all about money.

Branding doesn't have to be a dirty word if you play it straight. After all, when I see "Deschutes," or "Victory," or "Bell's," or "Sierra Nevada" on a label, I know I'm getting a good beer. It may not be exactly to my taste, but the solid experience and integrity going into it makes it an easy decision to give it a try. Brand integrity is important, and it's been one of craft brewing's best practices (even through re-branding and the occasional slip -- Rogue's multi-labeling experiments come to mind). 

When craft is seen to have clear lessons for big brewers on basics like this, it's another sign that the whole industry might be changing. It's slow, but if the sales pros are chiding big brewers about this kind of, well, this kind of deception, that's a good sign.