The big merger

Perhaps you could tell us how it is that huge beer makers such as Miller, Coors, Anheuser, etc., have over the decades managed to convince great numbers of the american public to drink and enjoy their products if all they are selling is "swill".

It is alleged that John S. claimed:

I'm not Dick, but may I answer?

1: People buy into advertising. If you're told often enough that something is good, you tend to start believing it. Particularly when that advertising includes implied sex and other forms of people having fun.

2: A-B, Coors, etc, are less expensive, and less expensive sells. Particularly when all you want is the alcohol so you can get drunk on the cheap.

3: Most American beer drinkers are easily satisfied.

4: By not having much real flavor or character, the megabrews are also inoffensive. If they don't taste like anything, there is no flavor to dislike.

The same way McDonald's has sold billions and billions of rather sub-par hamburgers: by offering a consistent, predictable product. A great many people - maybe most - value predictability in their purchases over the chance to get something really good. They'd rather give up the chance for something really great for the guarantee that they won't be let down.

That, and there are people out there who actually like what the big brewers (and McDonald's) have to offer.

-Steve

Budweiser, Twinkies, Air Supply, Taco Bell, Britney Spears, reality TV, McDonald's, Ford cars, etc. The public as a whole simply doesn't have good taste. In anything.

You're propping up a straw man here. Dick didn't say nobody liked the swill (see above), he simply labeled it swill.

I believe that "popular" beer is a very well made product-- clean, consistent, brewed to exacting specifications from quality ingredients. I have toured the headquarters plant of the biggest US brewer at least twice. As a homebrewer and beer lover I was quite honestly awed by their operation. I also believe that they brew, at best, a product that is uninteresting to the average informed, open-minded beer aficionado.

As an aside, some of the big brewers have come out with specialty beers that are better than uninteresting (if less than mind-blowing great), but they don't seem to last long on the market.

I agree. The large brewers are clearly succesful at turning out a huge amount of beer that is consistent in quality and it meets the expectations of a lot of beer drinkers. There are a lot of people who enjoy what Serious Beer Drinkers might call a mild tasting beer. A confirmed Bud Lite drinker would likely find a good Hefe or IPA to be overpowering and not to his liking. I've enjoyed my beer much more when focusing mostly on their good points.

And yes it is a good sign that the big brewers are taking an interest in either brewing their own small batch beers or buying an interest in a local brewery.

If believing nonsense like that helps you to enjoy your micro brews, then please feel free to continue. I've found that focusing on the good points of the beers I enjoy helps a lot more in their enjoyment.

If someone does not agree with you, does that make what they write nonsense?

You asked HOW? The above is an excellent answer. Wendy's went after McDonald's "made to inventory" product with a "made to order" product for the same price and ate up a big piece of McDonald's market share.

Dick

So, where's the nonsense? That the big brewers brew a consistent, predictable product? That a lot of people value that predictability and consistency? That there's a good number of people who'd rather be safe than advernturous? That there are people out there who actually do like what the big brewers offer?

Oh, and please point out any point I mentioned craft beers or my enjoyment of them.

-Steve

I found the introduction of the term "micro brews" kinda funny. I could swear I've seen you drinking beer from breweries that are by no means "micro," you nonsensical person.

Sorry bud, but his response is essentially the same elitist crap you put forth. Dressed up a bit nicer is all. Why you all feel it necessary to put down hugely popular brews and their drinkers is beyond me. If put downs are what help you feel good the expensive beers you drink I would say your habit is on very shaky ground.

Quoting: "The same way McDonald's has sold billions and billions of rather sub-par hamburgers......A great many people - maybe most - value predictability in their purchases over the chance to get something really good."

Focus on your elitist assessment of many or most people. It's the same way you describe drinkers of popular beers from the big brewers. It provides a thin support.

I must have missed something here. Who was putting down someone for their choice of beers? Who has discussed expensive beers? As far as I can tell, the answer to both questions is only you!

I'm sitting here drinking a Maple Porter that I homebrewed and cost me 52 cents for a 12 oz bottle or $3.12 a six pack. That is not expensive by anyone's standards.

Popular is not a surrogate for quality and neither is expensive.

Anyone who took Marketing 101 should be able to tell you that advertising is not about sales - it is about creating brand-consciousness and maintaining brand-loyalty. There was a commercial for a brand of cigarettes that used the slogan "I'd rather fight than switch." It was an extremely effective commercial. Nothing elistist about that and there is nothing elitist about any of the responses you have received.

If education and knowledge are elitist to you, then I clearly understand from whence you are coming. BTW, the chip on your shoulder looks bigger with your every post.

Dick

Wow. Did you ever miss the point.

Other than the use of sub-par - and, btw, I just had a McDonald's burger - I didn't make any value judgements. In fact, my point was that just because some of us prefer things that are outside the mainstream, there are a great many people out there who enjoy things that they know what they're getting and prefer that over taking the risk that something may be better, or may be worse.

You had originally asked how Bud, Miller, etc. had "convince(d) great numbers of the american public to drink and enjoy their products if all they are selling is 'swill'." I responded by saying that they did so by giving people a product that they want and value.

You're the one reading value judgements into my statement that many people value predictability over the chance to maybe get something better. I didn't say predictability is bad. I personally, in a lot of parts of my life, prefer the risk, but that's just me. And there are areas where I definitely don't and value predictability and consistency, while others like the risk. It's just different ways of viewing things.

And there are products out there that meet the needs of those who want consistency, just as there are products out there that meet the needs of those who want something more adventurous.

That was the point. And it flew right by you.

-Steve

I'm not sure if you are ignoring the point intentionally or just don't see it. When you talk about sub par and people not wanting better how more value laden can your observations about the consuming habits most of the populationfbe! Good grief - don't you even read what you post?????

Sorry, but your painfully narrow definition makes no sense in the real world. Advertising is ultimately about sales. Creating an awareness of the product is an intermediate step. Additionally advertising can be used to reinforce brand loyalty, but if the seller does not deliver what the buyer wants that loyalty will be very short lived. In the final analysis sales are what advertising is about.

The cemetary is full of dead products that did not live up to the advertising.

My comments did not refer to advertising. They referred specifically to your elitist comments about people who drink very popular beer. Lest you forget,you stated that the large brewers are doing little more than producing swill for the overwhelmong majority of beer drinkers.

You come across as both a "beer snob" and a "Condescending Afficiando" looking for ways to justify his consumption of expensive beer. Does making fun of the drinking habits of the vast majority of beer drinkers really help your enjoyment of micro brews?

Have you really stopped to think about how absurd your statements about the vast majority (98%) of beer drinkers really sound?

I acknowledged that "subpar" conveys a value statement.

OK, I suppose "better" could be a value statement. I refuse to be a Barneyist and delcare that all foodstuffs and beverages are equally good. They're not. Period.

However, you'll note that I never said it's a bad thing to like something that's not of higher quality compared to some available other options (in part because "quality" is beyond subjective), nor that everyone should like the same things I like. Personally, I think wanting to opt for the consistent is just as valid a choice as opting for the riskier, but potentially more rewarding, choice.

And that's where you're missing the point. You've declared I've made value judgements about people's choices, and not simply about products. For the record, I find nothing wrong whatsoever with someone choosing Bud or Miller over Victory or Goose Island. That's they're choice. Not the one I'd make most of the time, but I don't care. You're the one, in fact, who is casting the perception that someone's choosing the consisent, predictable alternative is somehow shameful, given the defensive way you've reacted to that simple statement of fact.

-Steve