Today’s infographic is an interesting one, created by Olivia Vander Tuig at the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, during the Spring of this year, in collaboration with Annie-Locke Scherer and Madelyn Willey. The infographic compares the beer brands Pabst Blue Ribbon, Guinness, Miller High Life, and Heineken, and was made as a companion for a travel studio about branding and factory experience called Behind the Brand.
In what has to be one of the most unusual marketing efforts by a large brewer, Olympia Beer has offered to pay $1 million dollars — in increments of $25,000 a year for the next four decades — to anyone who can find conclusive evidence of a live Bigfoot. The contest is the brainchild of Evan and Daren Metropoulos, who recently bought Pabst Brewing Co., which also owns the Olympia brand.
Full details and rules can be found at OlympiaBigfoot.com, but here’s their “Mission Statement” for finding Bigfoot:
Olympia Beer and Bigfoot have been leaving footprints together in the Pacific Northwest since 1896.
We have been sharing the same backyard for over a century and we believe it’s time to do what has never been done, and that is to offer a one million dollar reward to anyone who can ensure the safe capture of Bigfoot. When we say safe capture that means Bigfoot has to be alive and breathing folks, with no wounds. That’s right you can’t use any act of violence, no guns/knives/boxing gloves/nets/etc, only sugar or sweets to lure him in.
You must register to participate in the search. To report your discovery of irrefutable evidence of the existence of Bigfoot, click on the “Submit Capture Report” link on the left and follow the instructions to report your evidence. You participation in the search is subject to the complete Official Rules.
To aid us in this adventure, Olympia Beer is partnering with The Falcon Project
The Falcon Project has been identified as “the most penetrative search for Bigfoot ever conducted in the United States.” They will conduct an aerial search for Sasquatch employing an unmanned airship with high definition thermal imaging camera equipment.
Sure, it’s a publicity stunt, but it’s a funny one. And what if someone actually does it? Apparently 14% of all Americans believe Sasquatch to be real, while another 14% say they’re not sure.
Winners must provide “irrefutable evidence” of Bigfoot’s existence and, according to the rules, may include “DNA Evidence.” From the rules:
“Bigfoot” refers to a previously undiscovered species of upright, bipedal hominid, native to North America existing contemporaneously with the Contest Period or the twenty-five (25) year period immediately prior to the Contest Period. There is no set type or amount of evidence required to establish proof for purposes of this Contest other than that all evidence presented must satisfy the Judging Panel. Evidence may include, but is not limited to DNA Evidence. DNA Evidence may include hair, blood, tissue or saliva that proves the DNA sequence of the donor shows that said donor resides in the primate evolutionary family tree, among other apes or hominids, but does not have the same genetic markers and DNA sequence as any known species. Evidence may also include “Visual Proof” of a live physical body. Physical remains may be considered as evidence provided that it can be conclusively demonstrated that the date of death pre-dated the Contest Period. Visual Proof shall not include footprints, bone fragments, inconclusive skeletal remains, or any other non-definitive evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. Any photo or video taken with photographic or video equipment is not sufficient to qualify as evidence in and of itself for consideration in the Contest, but may be considered as supporting evidence.
NO HARM SHOULD BE DONE TO BIGFOOT OR ANY LIVING CREATURE AS A RESULT OF PARTICIPATION IN THIS CONTEST. ANY EVIDENCE OF SUCH ACTIVITY SHALL LEAD TO DISQUALIFICATION FROM THE CONTEST AND NOTIFICATION TO THE PROPER LEGAL AUTHORITIES.
A couple of days ago, Stella Artois sent out a press release that iconic photographer Annie Leibovitz was hired by Anheuser-Busch InBev to shoot photos for their Belgian lager. The photos are being released at the Sundance Film Festival, which started two days ago, apparently amid much hoopla. Which makes sense when you realize that Stella Artois is an “official sponsor” of the independent film festival, listed as a “sustaining sponsor.” They’re in fact the only big alcohol company sponsor, among quite a few corporate sponsors. I don’t know why that seems odd to me, but I guess I thought Sundance was supposed be about independent filmmakers, especially when the site also includes a donations page where they make it sound like your $10 will make a grassroots movement possible. Maybe I’ve become jaded, but the nearly two dozen truly big sponsors plus what looks like it could easily be another hundred more company sponsorships, seems counter to the principal of “independent” and their mission of “discovery and development of independent artists and audiences.”
In both the press release, Stella Artois Unveils New Campaign Shot by Legendary Photographer Annie Leibovitz and the Stella Artois website, they refer to it as a “collaboration” between the beer and photographer. But how is hiring a famous photographer and paying her to work a “collaboration” in any meaningful sense?
Merriam-Webster defines collaborate as “to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor.” That’s what brewers do when they get together to brew a beer, most times at least, but this just seems like a big company paying a lot of money (one presumes Annie Leibovitz doesn’t work cheap) to an expensive big-name photographer to sell a big product. Does that make it art? I honestly don’t know. I think I’m cranky and overworked these days.
Here’s some more press release spin:
It features British Actor, Noah Huntley and Ukrainian model Tanya Ruban and will appear in the printed fashion titles such as GQ, Elle and Vanity Fair, beginning in February 2013.
“Annie Leibovitz’s work marries artistic genius with painstaking craftsmanship to create timeless beauty,” said Emma Fox, Global Marketing Director, Stella Artois. “This concept is a personal one for Stella Artois. Our fans experience the beer in its finished form, but 600 years of brewing expertise helped make this possible. So we wanted to celebrate both the beauty and the craftsmanship that go into its creation”.
So here’s the results, or at least two of them. You can see lots of behind the scenes of the photoshoot itself — why you’d want to, I don’t really understand — in the Stella Artois Studio, what the press release refers to as an “online experience.”
It’s not that they’re bad photographs, but they certainly don’t make me want to drink Stella Artois. Didn’t Jeff Bridges and Michelle Pfeiffer already do this in The Fabulous Baker Boys.
For our 70th Session, our host is David J. Bascombe, who writes Good Morning …, a blog about beer, mostly. His topic is all about the hype surrounding certain beers, and whether it’s warranted or not, whether it changes peoples’ perceptions of the beer, and what effect this all has in the modern beer landscape. Here’s David story cautioning everyone to be careful so they Don’t Believe The Hype:
Back in the summer, I shared a bottle of Westvleteren 12 with my brother and my father. Whilst I was aware of it’s reputation as “best beer in the world”, they were not. Whilst we all enjoyed it, we all agreed that we much preferred the other beer we had that night. The question that came into my head was this…
If I had told them it was the best beer in the world, would their perceptions have changed?
How much does hype have an effect? Are we much better off knowing nothing about a beer, or is it better to have the knowledge as to what the best beers are?
Which beers do you think have been overhyped? How do you feel when a beer doesn’t live up to it’s hype.
Is hype a good or bad thing for beer? Tell me what you think.
So I thought I’d at least hype the next session. Be here with your thoughts next month.
So weigh in with your own hype on Friday, December 7.
Okay, we’ve been inundated with ads lately, so you probably know that the new James Bond film Skyfall opens today, at least in the U.S. I’ve been a huge James Bond fan since I saw my first one in the theater, which was Thunderball, when I was six. I read all the books, and needless to say, saw every film multiple times. I’ve really been enjoying the reboot with Daniel Craig and will be taking my son Porter to see Skyfall this afternoon. This will be his first Bond film in the theater, though he’s seen a couple of them on DVD. I’m looking forward not just to seeing the movie, but in some ways I’m even more excited that he’s really jazzed to see it and has been talking of little else for the last week. There’s just one tiny problem.
Heineken has been associated with the Bond franchise for some time now, but the $45 million deal for Skyfall also requires Bond to actually drink some. Now drinking beer is fine, even for Bond, of course. He styles himself as a hedonist, a man who enjoys the finest pleasures across the board. He soliloquizes on that very subject in the pages of the novel Casino Royale. Especially re-set or rebooted here in the present, where beer is every bit the equal of wine and spirits, you’d not only be unsurprised that Bond drinks beer, you’d be downright shocked if he didn’t. If you read the books, you’d know he’s never restricted himself to martinis but usually drinks the preferred alcohol wherever he happens to be, and has enjoyed beer in several of the novels.
I took a detailed look at this six years ago, when it was rumored that Bond would drink Heineken in Casino Royale — which turned out not to be the case — but which caused all manner of odd denunciations that the character would never stoop so low as to drink that swill reserved for the Hoi polloi. I don’t mean Heineken, I mean beer in general. Journalists, who could have done a little research, just went apeshit. Check out James Bond’s Beer. I’ll wait here.
So as you can see, beer and Bond have been together for quite some time now, just not in the way the media has portrayed it, as usual taking the propaganda and marketing given them at face value and regurgitating it without doing any fact-checking or wondering at how convenient it all seemed. Watching the first Bond film, Dr. No, with my son last weekend, I again noted that in Jamaica he’s talking with Quarrel at a bar and Red Stripe can be seen behind the bar. A few minutes later, fighting in the back room of the bar, Bond is pushed over onto a pile of empty Red Stripe cartons that go flying everywhere. Why they’re empty is a bit of a mystery, but the fact is although he never drinks any, there’s been beer front and center since the very first official film. In the novel, The Man with the Golden Gun, he finally manages to drink some Red Stripe. In fact, he drinks three of them waiting for someone in a cafe.
But in Skyfall apparently he’s seen drinking a Heineken from the bottle, while in bed with co-star Tonia Sotiropoulou. MGM has circulated the still below showing just that.
Here was a portion of my take on Heineken and James Bond from six years ago:
Propaganda aside, I’m certainly in favor of James Bond drinking beer. If they’re trying to re-invent (or reboot) James Bond — which is my understanding of what the new film represents — it makes sense that a modern Bond would have embraced good beer along with the other pleasures of life today. That would be in keeping with the character’s philosophy. Undoubtedly one of the reasons that Bond was not a beer drinker in 1953 and beyond, when Fleming began writing the Bond novels, was that there were not many good beers widely available worldwide and what was available was not often written about. Remember Michael Jackson’s first beer book wasn’t published until 1977. And American wines were held in no better regard during that time period, either. So keeping Bond’s tastes and preferences rooted in a time fifty years ago, when the diversity and quality of alcohol beverages was vastly different than it is today, doesn’t make sense anymore, if indeed it ever did.
But Heineken? Not Heineken. Bond’s character would never drink such swill. He wouldn’t be a snob about wine, food, clothes, cars and practically everything else and then drink such a pedestrian beer. In fact, in the novel Casino Royale, in Chapter 8, just after ordering champagne, Bond makes the following pronouncement:
“You must forgive me,” he said. “I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink. It comes partly from being a bachelor, but mostly from a habit of taking a lot of trouble over details. It’s very pernickety and old-maidish really, but then when I’m working I generally have to eat my meals alone and it makes them more interesting when one takes trouble.”
So there is absolutely no way someone who would say that would turn around and order a skunked green-bottle of Heineken. Maybe a Thomas Hardy 1968, a Samuel Adams Utopias, a Deus, or a Cantillon Rose de Gambrinus. He’d more likely order something showy, expensive and impressive; something that showed he had good taste. And that would never be a Heineken. Often Bond orders local specialties in the novels and films, and Casino Royale takes place in northern France. The fictional resort town where most of the novel takes place is supposedly near the mouth of the Somme River in the Picardie region, which is only about two hours from Belgium. So while France is not known for its beers, a good selection of Belgian beers would likely be available at the casino and area restaurants. That’s what a beer savvy Bond would order.
To which today I would only add that he’d never, ever drink it out of the bottle! Well, maybe not never, but if he had the choice, he’d do it the proper way, out of a glass because his character is all about knowing what’s the right way to do things and then taking a particular pleasure in doing them correctly. And what self-respecting English gentleman — or for that matter any Brit — would drink Dutch lager over his native ale, especially when his job was protecting the British way of life? It’s unseemly.
To take unseemly a few notches further, Refined Guy reported that Heineken USA will release two special metal bottles of Heineken using James Bond imagery. Known as “Star Bottles, on the plus side, at least the beer won’t get skunked as easily as in the green glass bottles.
According to the website Bond Lifestyle, Heineken pulled out all the stops for the Amsterdam premiere of the film, with an obscene amount of product placement for the event. And I’m not alone in believing this tie-in is not the best idea, at least the way it’s being done, with many, many pundits weighing in across the globe. But I think an Australian commentator, Lucy Clark, summed it up best in B&T, when she said. “In the golden era, products were chosen because they fitted with the character. The sad thing is that, in the modern era, the character and plot is decided by sponsors.”
So while I’m really looking forward to seeing the film today — and hoping this will be one of those father/son moments that Porter remembers long after I’m gone (as it is for me) — what I hope above all else is that seeing that out-of-character Heineken won’t break the fourth wall for me and make it harder to immerse myself in the experience and just enjoy it. Fingers crossed.
Our 50th Session is hosted by Alan McLeod from A Good Beer Blog, and is the second of our third hosting by the three original Session hosts on our fourth anniversary of Beer Blogging Friday. The topic he’s chosen is How Do They Make Me Buy Their Beer?, by which Alan means:
What makes you buy someone’s beer? Elemental. Multi-faceted. Maybe even interesting.
- Buying beer. I mean takeaway. From the shelf to you glass. What rules are dumb? Who gives the best service? What does good service mean to you? Please avoid “my favorite bar references” however wonderful. I am not talking about taverns as the third space. Unless you really really need to and contextualize it into the moment of transaction at the bar. If you can crystallize that moment of “yes” when the bartender is, in fact, tender go for it.
- What doesn’t work? What fad or ad turned you off what had previously been turned on about some beer’s appeal? When does a beer jump the shark? When does a beer store fail or soar? When does a brewery lose your pennies or earn your dimes?
- Go micro rather than macro. You may want to explore when you got tired of “extreme” or “lite” or “Belgian-style” but think about it in terms of your relationship with one brewery rather than some sort of internet wave of slag … like that ever happens.
- What is the most you paid for a great beer? More importantly – because this is not about being negative – what is the least? I don’t mean a gift. What compels you you to say this is the quality price ratio (“QPR”) that works best for you? When does a beer scream “you would have paid 27% more for me but you didn’t need to!”?
As an old curmudgeon who’s been alive and drinking before there was a craft beer industry — at least in practice, if not entirely legally — my earliest memories of the beer available where I lived were the more or less local regional brands. I grew up in medium-sized east coast industrial town — Reading, Pennsylvania — and our local brewery closed my junior year of high school — 1976. Before that, I vividly recall accompanying my stepfather to the beer distributor to pick up beer and soda. He didn’t always choose Reading Premium, but he did gravitate toward the more local and regional brands (in this case, mostly from Philadelphia, eastern Pennsylvania and New York).
The funny thing about that is nobody talked about “buying local” as a concept and the word “locavore” was decades from being coined. But that’s what people did. They patronized local businesses. We bought almost all of our produce from the local farmer’s market, along with some of our meat and other food. It was open every Friday in an indoor setting where each person rented a stall that was the same from week to week, and they were more or less permanent with cash registers, refrigerated cases, etc. But they were the local farmers, butchers, food purveyors, etc. We knew them all by name. They were a part of the community. About every six months or so, my parents bought a side of beef from a butcher, had it cut into numerous packages — ground beef, steak, etc. — and stored it in a deep freezer in our basement. All the meat came from the same cow, it wasn’t from an assembly line meat-packing plant. For bread, we went to the local baker. Milk was delivered to our doorstep twice a week. Charles Chips even made potato chip deliveries, though I preferred Good’s Chips in the Blue Can, which we bought every week at the farmer’s market. Good’s were made by a Mennonite family on their farm in nearby Reinholds. I visited the chip farm once. It was a simple operation, but it worked. The chips themselves were even simpler. The label read: potatoes, fried in lard, salt added. They were the best chips … ever.
And beer was just the same. I remember when I was little, my Mom liked Sunshine beer, another label from the Reading Brewing Co. Then there were the Philly brands: Schmidt’s, Ortlieb’s, etc. Everyone drank Ballantine when visiting my aunt and uncle in New Jersey. There were other regional Pennsylvania and New York brands: Yuengling, Genesee Cream Ale, Schaefer and Fyfe & Drum Extra Lyte Beer (their slogan: less filling … more refreshing). I seem to recall a lot of Carling Black Label in our house, too. I think it was on sale a lot, though I don’t remember where it was brewed back then. The point is I don’t even remember seeing a national brand until I was well into my teens. I first started being aware of Budweiser in junior high, Lite Beer from Miller when they started advertising nationally in the mid-1970s or so, and Coors once I started driving in high school. It became “cool” to get a Coors iron-on t-shirt down the shore at Ocean City or Wildwood, our preferred weekend getaway towns.
But the greed and consumerism that seemed to mark the 80s also sounded the death knell for local, and even healthy, food in general. High-fructose corn syrup began it meteoric rise around 1975 but really hit its stride in the 1980s. Giant grocery store chains dominated and the locally owned ones disappeared, paving the way for the big national food processors to likewise dominate stores shelves (they were the only ones who could afford the slotting fees that should be illegal, but curiously are not when it comes to food).
Pennsylvania grocery stores couldn’t sell beer (and still can’t) so I don’t have firsthand knowledge of what happened to grocery sets during that time, but I can only assume what happened with food, also happened with beer. At that time, I started moving around for work — Virginia, New York, back to Pennsylvania, North Carolina and then, finally, California in 1985. By the time I arrived in California — thirsty for good beer, sparked by my time in NYC — there was the chain of Liquor Barns that carried a wide selection of both imported beer and the new micros, but grocery stores were still almost exclusively national and international brands, with just a few exceptions. Bars, too, carried a very small number of beers, and very few, if any micros. It slowly got better, but even in 1991, when I visited over 550 bars in four months to write The Bars of Silicon Valley: A Beer Drinker’s Guide to Silicon Valley, very few carried anything beyond the Big 3 and a few imports (usually Heineken, Corona, or if the bar was Irish or British-themed: Guinness).
So what does all this nostalgia have to do with Alan’s topic? How does any of that make me buy a particular beer, or choose one over another? As the Peter Allen song claims, “Everything Old Is New Again,” and so it is with buying locally. What once was taken for granted as not so much buying locally, but simply “buying,” people are again purchasing locally made or grown goods, the only difference is this time it’s on purpose. It’s a decision, based on a growing understanding that doing so is beneficial on several fronts. It’s good for the planet because the closer the food is to the consumer, the shorter distance is as to travel, meaning it uses less fossil fuels, and as a bonus it’s usually fresher, too. It’s also good for the local economy because it creates local jobs, but more importantly the money stays in circulation locally, too. It isn’t shipped back to a corporate headquarters somewhere else, which is just one of the reasons Wal-Mart is so bad for local economies.
The dirty little secret in brewing is that many of the ingredients for making beer come from far afield, and there isn’t much that can be done about that. Barley and hops don’t grow everywhere, and certain types that are necessary for certain kinds of beers can’t be obtained from local sources in many, many places. More and more breweries, both large and small, are trying to make “estate” beers or beers made using only relatively local ingredients. Sierra Nevada is making an estate beer using their own locally grown barley and hops, and the San Francisco brewpub, Thirsty Bear, recently made a beer using all organic ingredients from northern California farmers. But that’s hard to do, especially in certain locations where the agriculture just isn’t available. I applaud such efforts, but it simply isn’t feasible for everybody. Hops is starting to be grown in more locations than the Pacific Northwest, but most efforts will not be able to replace the Willamette or the Yakima Valleys, only supplement the supply, not to mention hop varieties from abroad — England, Germany, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, etc.
So the brewing industry, for the most part, will have to continue to hang its hat on local production, not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, just the reality of how beer is made. But with over 1700 breweries in the U.S. — and 618 in planning — finding locally brewed beer is getting easier and easier. In a sense, we’re returning to a time when it was local and regional breweries that held sway. In the late 19th century, America peaked at just over 4,000 breweries. It was a time when beer didn’t travel or age very well and so every locale needed a brewery. Even many small and mid-sized towns had multiple breweries. Then it was out of necessity, but today an increasing number of people are choosing smaller, local beers over the national brands. It’s happening very slowly — too slowly for my personal tastes — but it is moving in the right direction. The big brands, both foreign and domestic, are flat or down in some cases, while the smaller breweries are for the most part up, and up a lot in many cases. And that’s played out over ten plus years, a sufficiently long enough period of time that I think we can safely call it a trend.
I continue to believe that distribution will be the single most important aspect of continuing that growth and finding, finally, a tipping point, where better local beer becomes the norm. And that’s one worrying counter-trend. The number of distributors continues to shrink, and that will be bad, I think, if a work around can’t be found, especially in states where self-distribution is not legal, where franchise laws are particularly strong, and where it’s difficult for alternative new distribution models to emerge.
So what causes me to make a particular purchase decision? How Do They Make Me Buy The Beer? Well, firstly, I’m not a typical consumer. If you write a beer blog, chances are you’re not either, even if you believe otherwise. Because you and I will will try almost any new beer. That’s just who we are. Typical consumers, I’d argue, don’t. The only evidence I need for that is the fact most breweries have a flagship beer that accounts for 60%, 70% or even 80% of their total production. Somebody is buying all that beer, if it’s not you and me. Although, the fact that seasonal beer is the fastest growing category in grocery stores does suggest that many people are buying something different along with the flagship beer, too.
But secondly, if I’m not buying beer to sample for work, if I’m just picking up beer to watch a game with friends, or for a party or just to have a good time, I’ll buy something brewed locally. Usually, I know all the beers on a typical grocery or liquor store’s shelves — occupational hazard — so once I get past the novelty of something new, factoring in the weather and/or what I’m eating, the decision comes down to location, location, location.
For many years, Coors has been the brewery obsessed with cold. But that may be changing, as Anheuser-Busch InBev is debuting their own cold-activated labels on bottles of Busch Light. ABI is calling their version of the cold-activated label an “ice-cold easy indicator.”
According to an article today by AdAge:
An “ice-cold easy indicator” thermometer turns blue when the temperature is just right, an Anheuser-Busch spokesman told Ad Age, noting that the special packaging has already hit some stores. The innovation resembles what competitor MillerCoors has done with its Coors Light bottles, which feature mountains that turn blue “when it’s as cold as the Rockies.”
“Thermochromatic ink on beer [bottles]? I’ve heard that’s been done before,” said a MillerCoors spokesman.
Coors Light is one of the few big beer brands whose sales are growing, albeit slowly, and the cold-activated bottles are a focal point of its advertising. It is unclear if A-B plans a big promotional push for its new Busch Light bottles. The sub-premium brand traditionally gets less advertising attention than Budweiser and Bud Light.
As far as I’m concerned, the only good reason to make sure either of these beers are cold enough to turn the label blue is so they’re cold enough to numb your taste buds so you can no longer taste them. But it’s that reliance on marketing gimmicks instead of making products people actually want that makes this such a bad idea to me.
California freelance journalist Andrew Rosenblum has an interesting short history of malt liquor marketing on Accidental Blogger entitled What Was Malt Liquor?
USA Today is reporting that Anheuser-Busch InBev‘s plan to reverse slumping sales trends is to give away their beer. Not all of it, of course, but part of a new marketing barrage to begin next Monday includes stepping up sampling significantly, to record levels of free beer giveaways.
According to the article, Latest ad strategy to freshen Budweiser’s image: Free beer, by Bruce Horovitz, ABI is poised to “announce plans to push free beer and a hipper Bud image to younger beer drinkers over the next several weeks” in an effort to reach the under-30 crowd growing up under the influence of the more flavorful and more local craft beer segment.
The new marketing campaign will feature the tagline Grab Some Buds, a phrase ABI has applied to trademark, and starting Monday, Budweiser “will unleash its biggest-ever national free-sample effort in trendy bars and eateries.”
From the USA Today article:
The hype culminates on Sept. 29, when the brand hosts the “Budweiser National Happy Hour,” a bid by Bud to nudge folks to at least try a free brewski. The free samples for those 21 and up range from 6 ounces to 12 ounces, depending on state and local rules.
At issue: a brand that’s lost mojo. Bud unit sales were down 9% last year and are down the same this year, says Beverage Marketing Corp. Beer drinkers have lost loyalty to Bud for the past seven years, research firm Brand Keys reports. Bud’s ranking among national product brands slipped from 16th in 2003 to 220th in 2010.
Here’s their four-prong approach:
- Sampling. A-B will hand out 500,000 samples by mid-October.
- Facebook. Bud plans to partner with Facebook so folks turning age 22 and up can get a free beer on birthdays.
- New ads. Ads air Saturday about anticipating good times with Bud.
- Focus. A-B will focus 95% of TV ad time on Bud Sept. 25 to Oct. 3.
The article concludes doubtfully, with “Brand consultant Robert Passikoff [expressing] serious doubts about Budweiser’s effort. ‘They’re in trouble because they don’t know how to talk to consumers,’ he says. ‘They no longer know how to create an emotional bond.'”
Frankly, I think they’re in trouble because they’re not keeping up with what customers want. All their “fixes” for dwindling sales (though to be fair sales are still ginormous) involve the same old tried and true marketing tricks that have seen them through the last half-century. Sampling, new ads and more TV spending are hardly revolutionary, and neither is finally trying to figure out how to use Facebook.
ABI is losing the battle for customers perceiving them as a patriotically American company, however jingoistic and emotional that is. They’ve also taken hits for the way they’ve treated employees — laying off hundreds (is it thousands yet?) — and keeping the remaining ones fearful for the next round of layoffs and working many jobs and too many hours. They’ve also taken a hit for asking suppliers to wait as long as four months to be paid.
ABI could produce beer every bit as flavorful as the best craft beer, but they wouldn’t know how to sell it. It’s not their business model. ABI president Dave Peacock thinks sampling will work, of course. “‘When we get the trial, we find we have a positive result,’ Peacock says.” But I honestly can’t see how sampling will be a positive experience for young people that recognize there are more flavorful alternatives to mass-produced American-style light lagers.
I think the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, provides a useful analogy. If we think of flavor as clothing, sampling young people on Budweiser will only serve to reinforce that indeed the Emperor has no clothes.
Okay, I’m just having a bit of fun with UPS’ slogan and Pete Brown, UK beer writer. But today Pete has a nice overview of each of the big six beer companies that do business in the UK, entitled The Big Boys. It’s definitely worth a read. He talks primarily about their marketing efforts in the UK, but you get a sense of how he feels about the pros and cons of each company and the overall feeling that they’re not all the same.