Today’s Denver Post business section has a profile of Outlast Technologies, the company that’s making the gimmicky “Cold Wrap” labels that are designed to absorb the heat from your hand rather than warm the beer to a temperature where you might be able to actually taste it. It took Outlast a full year to design the label and goodness knows what amount of money, which is ironic because I can solve their problem for a fraction of whatever Coors spent. Here’s how. In order to keep heat radiating from your hand from warming your beer, open the bottle, take it in your hand and gently pour it into a pilsner glass. Voilà, no more problem. If only they had consulted with me first.
Here is Coors’ press release about the cold wrap, which also explains the “Stay Cold Glassware,” another part of the strategy to keep the beer from having any discernable taste.
So it appears that Coors’ main focus in selling their beer is all about how cold it is and how they’ll use technology to make it stay cold. This is good news, of course, if you know how it tastes warm. But do a taste test for yourself. Get Pilsner Urquell, Czechvar, Lagunitas Pils, Victory Prima Pils or similar good pilsner beers. Let them and your Coors Light warm to between 45 and 50 degrees Fahrenheit (7-10° C). Now taste them. Which ones still taste good? That should tell you everything you need to know about which beer is right for you.
At the risk of repeating myself, beer that’s too cold chemically alters the beer and change its taste. The reason you generally don’t notice it is simply because drinking any liquid at that temperature also numbs many of your taste buds. Several volatile components in the beer aren’t released in your mouth and disappear undetected down your throat. The beer’s flavor profile is considerably narrowed and some tastes disappear completely. Cold beer also effects the beer’s balance because hop character survives better than malt or fruity esters. This is the reason bland lagers, which are generally less well-hopped, do better at cold temperatures and explains why ales are generally served at warmer temperatures. A good rule of thumb is the colder the beer, the less of it you can actually taste.
This is why all the big breweries emphasize the coldness of their beers as a selling point. The warmer you drink their products, the less likely it is you will enjoy them. And it’s why they spend millions to persuade you that you should drink their beer as cold as possible. That would be fine except that now millions of people belive that cold beer is a desirable thing, when in fact it’s not. It’s a remarkable success story for adveritising and marketing, and tragic failure for those of us who actually like the taste of beer.
But the gimmicks don’t stop with the bottle. Coors also spent a fortune developing the “Frost Brew Liner,” a “blue” coating inside the beer can that is supposed to keep the beer colder. There is very little actual information about this, and their press release reveals only the following:
In order to protect the Rocky Mountain taste of its beer, all Coors cans contain a Frost Brew Liner. With new graphics this summer, Coors Light is making it easy for consumers to identify the liners by making them visible with blue pull tabs and rims. The Frost Brew Liner cans with the blue rims will be on shelves May 1, 2006.
But an anonymous insider involved in the manufacture of the product says “in fact the blue colored lining is a potential threat to flavor and product compatibility, but their [Coors] marketing department insisted. We would really like to discourage the idea!” As I understand it, the chemicals in the blue dye they had to use to make the lining blue — which was done strictly for marketing reasons — actually has the potential to be harmful to the beer. This is particularly troubling as several dozen craft breweries put their beer in cans, taking advantage of improved technology for the can linings. This new technology removes the former problems with canned beer insofar as there is no longer a problem with leeching or metallic flavors being imparted to the beer. So along comes Coors and essentially puts the problem literally back into the can.
So marketing concerns trumped common sense, the stability of the product itself, and has created a situation with the potential to harm the image of canned beer at a time when good beer is starting to be put into it in growing numbers. Of course, the real solution again is that beer should never, ever be consumed out of the delivery vehicle (bottle, can or keg) and should always be poured into a glass. There are myriad reasons for this is but now there’s one more to add to the list. Keep in mind that almost all advertising is mere propaganda and especially ignore any that suggests cold beer is better.
Why are you comparing beers such as Pilsner Urquell to Coors Light? Of course it has more flavor.. its not a light beer! Apples and oranges man.
On your point of always pouring the beer into a pilsner glass… do you carry a glass with you everywhere you go? Do you show up at the lake or at the bar and pour your bottle into a glass? I hope not.
You are correct on the fact that the beer tastes different depending on temperature, but what doesn’t? My Dr. Pepper tastes different when it gets warm to, but I still prefer it cold. Heck, even water is different when its cold vs. warm.
You had some good points in this article, but they don’t really prove the point that you were going for with this article. You were bashing Coors Light for reasons that you could bash any light beer that it competes with. It was like someone trying to write an article comparing a GMC Yukon to a Cadillac Escalade. Just doesn’t work.
Beer Guy,
Thanks for your comment. I’m a little confused by some of your criticisms. But I’ll try to address your concerns.
I wasn’t comparing them head to head, although Coors and the other big brewers do insist on calling their beers pilsners, because that was the original style they were trying to emulate in the late 1800s. My point was that a “good, well-made” pilsner like Urquell and others still tastes good warm whereas Coors Light does not, hence the need for this kind of cold technology. Yes, I could have used any light beer but this article was prompted by Coors’ use of technology to keep their customers from tasting their beer so it only made sense to use Coors in the example.
Obviously there will be exceptions in instances where glass is prohibited, like “at the lake,” where you’d have to use a plastic cup instead. I don’t think I’ve ever been to a bar that didn’t have glassware but if I did, I would still not drink the beer out of the bottle. There are no circumstances under which I’d swig it from the bottle or can.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. This is not an “either or” argument. There are degrees of cold, and to get the most out of anything you should strive to find its ideal temperature whether it’s Dr. Pepper, water or beer. Pilsners and other light lagers should be served at around 45 degrees. But marketing and advertising by the big beer companies emphasize “ice cold,” which is much colder hovering as close to freezing as technology allows. 34 degrees for their purposes is ideal. I never said you should drink your beer warm. I was trying to illustrate that if the beer still tastes good when warm that it’s probably a better beer when cold, too. When the beer is a little warmer, much more of the flavor comes out and that’s precisely why companies like Coors spend so much money on technology to keep their beer colder.
Well the point was that this new technology is completely unnecessary because Coors’ goal in using it is to serve beer colder than is ideal, plus in using it they’re actually risking harming the beer. I think that point is adequately demonstrated, if not proven. I’m no scientist. I wasn’t presenting a “proof” in that sense, just exploring an idea. I may not have convinced you that you should avoid beer that’s too cold, despite it being a fairly settled fact. And I wasn’t actually “bashing” Coors or singling them out arbitrarily. The story was about Coors’ use of a questionable technology so it was natural to discuss the very beer being effected by that technology. As for GMC vs. Cadillac, are you aware that they are both GM companies, making them more alike than different?
P.S. – I tried to send you this in an e-mail, but it appears you used a fake e-mail. It’s too bad you didn’t have the stones to have an honest debate. I know from your IP address that you’re in Texas. Do you work for Coors? Is that why you’re hiding your identity or do you simply not have the courage of your convictions?
“There are no circumstances under which I’d swig it from the bottle or can.”
Just fyi, from someone in the industry, this puts you in the extreme minority of consumers. Clearly you have a lot of experience & opinions on the subject, but don’t assume that your habits are common.
Clancy, true enough. I am certainly extreme in my opinions. I know that my views tend to be in the minority. Hopefully some education over time might change that, but it’s an uphill battle with big brewers showing guzzling to be acceptable since guzzlers drink more. Persuading people that beer isn’t as good until it’s allowed to breathe will undoubtedly take some time, but if I (and others) don’t suggest that it’s better now, then no one will ever learn. Cheers, J.