April Fool’s Day is a great time for a laugh. I usually get a few good pranks. Greg Koch from Stone Brewing often has a good one. So far, this is my favorite one today.
|
After five years of great fun and success with our Canned Beer Apocalypse, we’re changing our packaging to glass bottles. “Cans, schmans,” says Oskar Blues founder Dale Katechis. “It’s time we….. Happy April Fools Day. Foolishly, Marty Jones Oskar Blues Brewery |
I received my samples of the Miller Lite Brewers Collection a few weeks ago, but I’d been waiting until I spent some time with my wife’s family before giving them a try. I wanted to be fair to these three new beers under the Miller Lite brand, and I was pretty sure I wasn’t go to find much I liked about them. It may seem prejudicial to not go into trying them with an open mind, but I would argue it’s because I have a problem with the low-calorie beer category itself. I’ve never liked them, not just their lack of flavor, but the very idea of them. I find them an abomination, an aberration, a triumph of marketing over good sense. Despite my strong feelings, I felt I could actually still be objective, but to be doubly sure I thought I’d enlist some family members to give me their opinions. Three out of four of my familial guinea pigs routinely drink mainstream brands of beer, and at least one does so almost exclusively. I felt they’ve be able to give me another perspective, one closer to the target demographic than me, at the very least.
So you probably already know Miller Brewing is test marketing—in Baltimore, Charlotte, Minneapolis and San Diego—three line extensions to their Lite beer. All three are aiming to be “craft-style,” whatever that means. There’s a Blonde Ale, Amber and Wheat, apparently redone as low-calorie concoctions. According to the press release, “Miller Lite’s Trio of Craft-Style Light Beers Provides the Best of Both Worlds.” They also introduced the tagline for the launch, “Craft Beer. Done Lite.” The press release goes on to claim the new beers “offer real craft beer taste and true light beer refreshment” and “it offers the best of both worlds for today’s beer drinkers who want a more complex and flavorful beer without sacrificing the refreshment and drinkability to which they’ve grown accustomed.”
According to the Miller-sponsored Brew Blog, the brewers collection will be targeted at lite beer drinkers.
Miller Lite Brewers Collection is aimed at mainstream light beer drinkers and capitalizes on three beer industry trends: the growth of light beer; the growing popularity of craft beer; and consumers’ growing willingness to pay more for products that deliver a unique or better experience. Miller selected the three styles because they are popular among mainstream beer drinkers looking to experiment with crafts.
The particulars included with the samples is also curious and illuminating. All three of the new Miller Lites are 4.2% abv, 110 calories and 6.2 carbohydrates per 12 oz., quite an engineering feat in itself. As competitors, they’ve chosen New Belgium Fat Tire for the amber, Coors’ Blue Moon for the wheat, and Bass Ale for the blonde ale. The calories for these three are, respectively, 159, 169 and 155 against 110 for the Miller Lites. That seems odd to me. Since they’re supposedly making low-calorie beers, why compare them to regular beers? I suppose the reason must be to highlight the difference in calories and carbs, but to me that only highlights the inanity of the low-calorie beer.
Even with the beer with the highest number of calories, Coors’ Blue Moon at 169, there is still only a difference of 59 calories. But let’s call it 60, just to talk about it. 60 calories is essentially one slice of bread, half a grapefruit or a medium-sized artichoke. Big freaking deal! And how much physical activity does it take to burn off those 60 extra calories? Ten minutes of playing tennis, half an hour of driving, or even just 36 minutes of standing still will all burn about 60 calories. But the real yet often unspoken reason people choose to drink light beers is because of the perception that they can drink more of them. So if people are drinking more beers per session, they’re really not actually saving any calories anyway, now are they? You may not find that reason championed in any low-calorie beer’s advertising, but all the companies that make these beers are well aware of this phenomenon in how people perceive them. Also, since they are the beer with the lightest flavor, and thus contain the fewest ingredients, they are also the most profitable in any company’s portfolio. So from a profit perspective—and let’s face it for any large corporation that is the only perspective that matters—these are the perfect product: lowest cost, perceived as healthy, consumed in higher quantities and sold for the same price as regular versions. Ka-ching!
Or as Don Russell (a.k.a. Joe Sixpack) put it in a recent column:
We all know, of course, it’s not really diet beer. Most of the guys you see guzzling light beer are about as fit as a bag of potato chips. People drink it not because they’re counting calories, but because its watered-down, ordinary flavor allows them to mindlessly pound one after the other without the inconvenience of actually tasting the stuff.
I presume that only the blonde is actually an ale, since otherwise they’d call the amber an amber ale, if it used top fermentation. So I assume the amber is an amber lager. The wheat is probably also a lager, though some wheat beers are actually hybrid styles. But I would guess Miller would choose the more simple path of making it in a lager style.
My motley menagerie of relatives. From left: my sister-in-law Margaret (drinks mostly craft but has the occasional mainstream beer), her husband Roddi (who drinks roughly half craft and half mainstream), my brother-in-law Tucker (who drinks mostly mainstream fare) and my wife Sarah (who drinks exclusively craft, of course). The five of us tried all three beers Easter afternoon, and here’s what we thought.
WHEAT
Miller describes the Wheat as offering “especially appealing flavor dimensions, with a subtle citrus character for a clean, refreshing beer.” They list its characteristics as follows:
Here’s what my relatives had to say. “Not a wheaty nose, unpleasant. This doesn’t taste a thing like wheat, it has no sweetness, just bitter. It’s not something I would finish. It doesn’t meet the chug test. It’s a sweet Miller Lite, but not as much as a wheat.” I had to agree with them. It seemed to straddle a middle ground where it was neither a wheat beer nor a light beer. It just seemed confused. I didn’t think it had any of the refreshing qualities that I look for in a wheat beer. It was just thin and watery, with hardly any flavorful character at all.
BLONDE ALE
Miller describes the Blonde Ale as offering “a crispness and slight maltiness that’s balanced by a recognizable hop aroma.” They list its characteristics as follows:
Here’s what my relatives had to say. “It doesn’t look like a blonde. The color’s not quite right. I can barely taste the difference between this and the wheat. The nose reminds me of white wine, and it’s kinda’ sweet. I like it better than the first one.” Is this what Ballantine used to taste like? As the only ale, I think I was expecting more. But it was so similar in taste to the other three, that I was hard-pressed to find any differences. I didn’t get any of the fruity or hoppy character that was listed in the press release. I’ve judged light beers before at GABF and it is a difficult thing to discern between beers, because the flavors are so subtle. Unfortunately, you tend to focus on their flaws, because that’s what stands out.
AMBER
Miller describes the Amber as follows. “The color in the MLBC Amber comes from specially selected caramel and roasted malts; it offers a mild hop character for a bold yet refreshing flavor.” They list its characteristics as follows:
Here’s what my relatives had to say. “Some water, some drink. I like the blonde better. There’s not much there. I don’t get it. If I had to drink one I’d choose the amber.” I didn’t think the color was remotely what I’d call amber. The “I don’t get get it” comment got a lot of play, as my relatives all mused on what Miller had in mind for these beers and who might buy them. The consensus was that they knew craft beer drinkers wouldn’t buy them, but they also couldn’t fathom why mainstream drinkers would. And apart from my wife, the other three regularly drink light beers. They felt that if you wanted craft beer flavors, you’d just buy one of those if that’s what you were in the mood for. The Miller Lite Brewers Collection seemed to please no one. Unfortunately, I think that may be its fate.
Don Russell, again from the same column, where he says if craft beer is jazz, the new beers are Kenny G:
Essentially, Miller is attempting to sell a product that wants it both ways. It’s a product that purports to offer all the complexity, depth and quality of a small-batch brew along with the bland, inoffensive, one-dimensional flavor of a factory-made light beer.
Russell, who I suspect does not think these beers are terrific, is still far more kind to them than I feel I can be. He continues.
If you ask Miller how its beer can be both light and craft, the company deftly explains: “It’s important to note that these are not intended to be craft beers and are not targeted at craft drinkers. These are craft-style light beers.”
It continues: “Craft drinkers are happy with the choices they have, and they should be. But mainstream light-beer drinkers who want something with a different taste and drinkability are not happy with their options. Traditional craft beers don’t work for these consumers. Miller Lite Brewers Collection will.”
None of the beers are all-malt—each uses corn—according to Miller brewmaster Manny Manuele, in an interview by Stan Hieronymous on his Appellation Beer Blog.
One question about this all-malt issue stood out for me in Stan’s interview:
All-malt is at the core of how “craft” brewers define their products. Would you say you disagree?
First, it’s important to note that these are not intended to be craft beers and are not targeted at craft drinkers. These are craft-style light beers. Additionally, “all malt” is one, but not the only, criteria that defines craft beer. The Brewers Association describes craft as beers brewed with a traditional process using malted and specialty grains, hops, water and yeast to deliver the aroma, taste and appearance characteristics not typically found in mainstream beers. That’s what we’re delivering — a unique consumer taste experience not typically found in light beers and consistent with craft-style beer.
Hmm, maybe I’m mis-reading that but it sounds like Manuele is suggesting that a brewery could skirt one of the requirements for being considered a craft brewer and still be one. But my understanding of the three-prong definition of a craft brewer (see below) is that all three criteria must be met. Anything less, and you’re not a craft brewer (at least by the BA definition). He interprets the definition of what qualifies as a craft beer as something with flavors “not typically found in mainstream beers” and then suggests that the new craft-style light beers could qualify because they provide a “unique consumer taste experience not typically found in light beers and consistent with craft-style beer.” That’s a pretty tortured bit of logic, I must say. He’s defining by using the negative, saying that since it’s not this, it must be that. Not so fast. Just because something tastes different or isn’t as typical (assuming that point can even be conceded) doesn’t make it something else.
I could make an apple pie with no apples, substituting Ritz crackers, and it might taste something like an apple pie. But I don’t think anyone would let me get away with still calling it an authentic apple pie, because it’s missing a key element of apple pie, namely apples. Likewise, craft beer that isn’t all-malt really isn’t. The only exception to not using all-malt ingredients and having the brew still considered a craft beer is if they “use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor.” And while Manuele claims they used “wheat and corn for taste, lightness and refreshment” (perhaps trying to combine them), who doesn’t believe that while the wheat may impart taste and refreshment, the corn is only there for lightness.
Craft brewing industry definitions
An American craft brewer is small, independent, and traditional.
Small: Annual production of beer less than 2 million barrels. Beer production is attributed to a brewer according to the rules of alternating proprietorships. Flavored malt beverages are not considered beer for purposes of this definition.
Independent: Less than 25% of the craft brewery is owned or controlled (or equivalent economic interest) by an alcoholic beverage industry member who is not themselves a craft brewer.
Traditional: A brewer who has either an all malt flagship (the beer which represents the greatest volume among that brewers brands) or has at least 50% of it’s volume in either all malt beers or in beers which use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor.
But it in the end, the Miller propaganda machine keeps pointing out — whenever anybody asks them about what they are — “that these are not intended to be craft beers and are not targeted at craft drinkers. These are craft-style light beers.” That may be true, but is it a coincidence that this disclaimer does not appear in the press release I received? Is it mere happenstance that the word “craft” is used all over the place in marketing these brands? And that tagline. “Craft Beer. Done Lite.” Is that not meant to convey that they are craft beers? Clearly, Miller wants people not familiar with industry definitions to believe that they are craft beers, or at the very least craft beer-like. They’re counting on mainstream beer drinkers unfamiliar with what it means to be a craft beer to conclude that these are, capitalizing on a resurgence of both interest and sales of craft beer.
If the idea really is to target “mainstream light-beer drinkers who want something with a different taste and drinkability,” I can suggest many true craft beers that fit that bill far better. As for all those extra calories, how about just drink fewer beers of better quality with richer flavor? Let’s just stop pretending that low-calorie diet beers are not a sham.
UPDATE 4.1: The test is over. Miller’s Brew Blog announced today that based on very successful tests in all four markets, the three Miller Lite Brewers Collection beers will be rolled out nationally in September.
In early March, during Philly Beer Week, I visited one of Philadelphia’s newest breweries, the Philadelphia Brewing Co., located in the Kensington neighborhood.
Co-owner Nancy Barton, in front of the kegerator. The day we were there, their first beer — Kenzinger — had been tapped for the first time only two days before.
Philadelphia Brewing’s kettles wrapped in heat-saving brick, with brewer John Rehm hard at work.
The exterior of the new Philadelphia Brewing Co., from a flyer.
For more photos of the Philadelphia Brewery, visit the photo gallery.
If you saw my last post, about a Czech Ornithologist suggesting a correlation between beer consumption and academic output among his peers, you may have noticed my little joke at the end about him drinking only beer with birds on the label. I knew there were plenty of dogs on beer labels (I recall Stephen Beaumont doing an article about that several years ago, which I helped with infinitesimally by putting together a list of ones I knew about). Then there was Session #7 hosted by Rick Lyke, The Brew Zoo: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6, where animals of all stripes were found lurking on beer labels.
So I did a little search to see if I could find out if indeed there were a lot of labels with birds on them, and I found more than I bargained for. First, there’s this online collection of Birds on Beer Labels, which features scans of quite a few, including Mendocino’s Red Tail Ale. But then I came across this: The International Bird Beer Label Association, a 15-year old group dedicated to documenting beer labels with birds on them! The IBBLA, as of November of last year, has 296 confirmed sightings of birds on beer labels plus three homebrew labels and three more beers with a bird in the name, but no corresponding image on the label. They’re all listed on their checklist, and a few scans are up on the Species Photos page. The group’s slogan is “Fostering An Appreciation For Birds and Brew.” Talk about a niche hobby. I’m speechless.
A new study by a Czech ornithologist, Tomas Grim, in which he studied not the birds that are his usual subject, but his fellow avian scientists … and their beer-drinking habits. The study, published last month in Oikos, was titled A possible role of social activity to explain differences in publication output among ecologists. Here is the abstract:
Publication output is the standard by which scientific productivity is evaluated. Despite a plethora of papers on the issue of publication and citation biases, no study has so far considered a possible effect of social activities on publication output. One of the most frequent social activities in the world is drinking alcohol. In Europe, most alcohol is consumed as beer and, based on well known negative effects of alcohol consumption on cognitive performance, I predicted negative correlations between beer consumption and several measures of scientific performance. Using a survey from the Czech Republic, that has the highest per capita beer consumption rate in the world, I show that increasing per capita beer consumption is associated with lower numbers of papers, total citations, and citations per paper (a surrogate measure of paper quality). In addition I found the same predicted trends in comparison of two separate geographic areas within the Czech Republic that are also known to differ in beer consumption rates. These correlations are consistent with the possibility that leisure time social activities might influence the quality and quantity of scientific work and may be potential sources of publication and citation biases.
Essentially, that can be summarized as “the more beer a scientist drinks, the less likely the scientist is to publish a paper or to have a paper cited by another researcher, a measure of a paper’s quality and importance.”
The New York Times summarized the findings like this:
The results were not, however, a matter of a few scientists having had too many brews to be able to stumble back to the lab. Publication did not simply drop off among the heaviest drinkers. Instead, scientific performance steadily declined with increasing beer consumption across the board, from scientists who primly sip at two or three beers over a year to the sort who average knocking back more than two a day.
But as Dave Bacon, the Quantum Physicist, takes the study (and the Times) to task in a post entitled Ecologists Can’t Handle Their Beer Like Physicists, there are more than a few problems with the study and its conclusions. First of all, the paper studied “avian ecologists,” essentially bird scientists, and extended out the findings to include all scientists, a conceit Bacon didn’t think was very reasonable, writing. “I mean, come on, has anyone ever heard of bird watchers being known for their beer drinking abilities? I suspect if I had to pick the group of scientists least likely to be able to take their beer, avian ecologists would be right up there on my list. Show me a study about Czech physicists damaging their publication record by too much beer consumption, and then you’ll get my attention.”
He continues:
I’d also note that the study covers the amazingly huge sample size of less than twenty, that the beer consumption rates are huge for the outliers (Czech, burp!), that there was no description of the methodology for choosing the survey sample (were they his friends, his colleagues? Since the sample was chosen from the author’s field, it sure sounds like it), that any effect, if it is there, is coming from the very high end of the beer consumption spectra (which is fairly spectacular consumption), and certainly a linear regression seems like a spectacularly poor notion of how beer drinking has an effect on scientific output., and that no attempt to separate out the effect of different quality universities and the different geographic consumption levels was made.
It’s certainly a strange topic to be published in a serious academic journal. Since the author admits to enjoying as many as twelve beers in a single session (making him a binge drinker by American standards), it’s clear he’s not arguing for scientists to drink less. [Note to neo-prohibitionists: notice that Professor Bacon is able to drink more than you think he should and still manages to be a respected ornithologist at Palacky University in the Czech Republic. Let me know when you’re ready to concede your definition of binging is ridiculous, and wrong.] I wonder if the ornithologists only drink brands like Red Tail Ale or one of the other 300 beers with a bird on their label?
The award-winning Flosmoor Station Brewery in Flossmoor, Illinois will be introducing three of their beers, Station Master American Wheat Ale, Pullman Brown Ale, and I.P.A., in 22 oz. bottles. The
new bottles will be available beginning April 5.
From the press release:
Brewmaster Matt Van Wyk, and brewer Andrew Mason will be on hand to dole out their award winning beers. Station Master Wheat is an American Wheat Ale made with 45% wheat and a dab of honey malt for complexity and color and topped with Amarillo hops for a citrusy aroma. Pullman Brown is a rich, robust, chestnut-colored ale that uses eight malts, toasted oats, and a dollop of blackstrap molasses, for a smooth and creamy taste and texture. Pullman Brown is Flossmoor’s most award winning beer, garnering nine awards between the Great American Beer Festival and the World Beer Cup. I.P.A. is a rotating one-off that we brew to suit the season, the weather, or just our mood on that given day. We do it to enjoy the fun of brewing hoppy beers with recipes that are never the same twice, unless we want it to be!
Iron Springs Pub & Brewery, Marin’s newest craft brewer, may also be its latest casualty. Their lease is up this August and despite trying to negotiate in good faith to exercise the first of two five-year extensions since last September, their landlords won’t budge on a 60% rent increase. On Monday, the landlords — two wealthy local brothers—rejected a final offer. Now the case is set to go to binding arbitration, but barring a miracle it doesn’t look good for Iron Springs remaining in their present location.
And that’s a damn shame. Not only do they make some terrific beers, but in less than four years Iron Springs Brewing has become the eighth highest revenue generator in the town of Fairfax, and number three in terms of giving back to the community financially. Maybe I don’t understand business very well, but we’re in a recession right now, the real estate market is in freefall, our economy is tanking. That doesn’t strike me as the right time to gouge someone with a 60% rent increase. I’m told that there have been other ways in which the landlords have not dealt fairly, withholding information or not being completely truthful about aspects of the property, and while I can’t corroborate those they seem entirely consistent with this type of short-sightedness. The Plaza where Iron Springs is located once boasted full occupancy, including a large Albertson’s grocery store across the street, all owned by the same family. The grocery store has been empty two years and other tenants are likewise now gone with several more on their last legs. It would appear greed is destroying an entire town.
If you live in northern California—or are planning a visit to the Bay Area—make sure you stop by Iron Springs and show your support this spring and early summer, before it’s too late.
The famed Iron Springs AmBREWlance, which may need saving itself one day soon.
The next beer dinner by the Beer Chef will probably sell out faster than any he’s done before. That’s because it will feature five … count ’em, five … of the most well-known brewers of strong and Belgian-style beers in the country. The “Five Guys and a Barrel” beer dinner will feature Rob Tod (from Allagash), Adam Avery (from Avery), Sam Calagione (from Dogfish Head), Tomme Arthur (from the Lost Abbey) and Vinnie Cilurzo (from Russian River Brewing) all together for one special evening of food and beer.
It will be a four-course dinner, plus a toast at the end of the evening, and well worth the $95 price of admission. It will be held at the Cathedral Hill Hotel on Sunday, April 20, 2008, beginning with a reception at 6:30 p.m. Call 415.674.3406 for reservations by April 10. I’ll see you there.
Reception: 7:00 PM
Beer Chef’s Hors D’Oeuvre
Beer: Allagash White and Russian River Blind Pig
Dinner: 7:30 PM
First Course
Citrus Cured Curraun Blue Sea Trout with Accoutrements
Beer: Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA and Avery The Maharaja
Second Course:
Selection of Artisanal Cheeses with House Made Condiments
Beer: Allagash Interlude and Russian River Supplication
Third Course:
A Study in Duck
Beer: Port Brewing Cuvee de Tomme and Dogfish Head Palo Santo Marron
Fourth Course:
Warm Chocolate Mocha Cake with Blood Orange Sabayon and Fig Syrup
Beer: Avery The Beast Grand Cru and Lost Abbey Older Viscosity
Toast:
Beer: Isabelle Proximus
4.20
Dinner with the Brewmasters: Five Guys and a Barrel
Cathedral Hill Hotel, 1101 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California
415.674.3406 [ website ]
You’ve probably already heard that come this October, Anheuser-Busch will launch yet another Budweiser line extension, Budweiser Ale, which will be available in 12 oz. bottles and three keg sizes. Whatever happened to their promise to shareholders to focus on the core brands? Anyway, they got label approval on St. Patrick’s Day and, according to the label, it will be 5.1% abv. The price point will reportedly be higher than regular Budweiser. They almost launched this beer (or at least a beer with the same name) just over ten years ago, but changed their minds at the eleventh hour.
So who is a Bud Ale aimed at? Just who does A-B think will be the customer for this product? According to an article in last Friday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the target audience is “what A-B’s marketing department calls ‘experimenters’ — drinkers who bounce around among various beers such as Yuengling, Fat Tire, Hoegaarden and Budweiser.”
“They love beer, they just try a lot of different things,” said Dave Peacock, vice president of marketing at A-B’s domestic beer subsidiary. Although Peacock acknowledged that some craft beer enthusiasts won’t try a Bud-branded ale, the company expects that a sizable portion of the market will have no problem with the concept.
I don’t know who A-B’s marketing department is consulting with but most so-called experimenters I know wouldn’t ordinarily switch between so wide a range of products. Yuengling and Bud drinkers—to my way of thinking—tend to be more loyal to their respective brands. As craft beers go, Fat Tire is about as mainstream a beer as one could find and Hoegaarden, since getting the InBev treatment has itself become fairly mainstream for an import. My point is that these are hardly the brands that experimenters switch back and forth between. Even if they’re meant to just be representative, it’s still not the type of brands beer lovers “experiment” with.
To be honest, I’m not thrilled with term “experimenter,” either. In this context it feels condescending and makes it sound like we’re performing science experiments every time we crack open a beer. Most craft beer enthusiasts do like to sample the many different flavors that brewers come up with, or taste new versions of existing styles. That’s part of the better beer culture, trying new and different things. But when I’m out with friends and just enjoying an evening out, I don’t suddenly start drinking one, and only one kind or brand of beer. The reality, at least for myself (and I’m going to hazard a guess that I’m not alone on this), is that people simply don’t just want one kind of anything, not all the time.
Whenever people I meet discover that I’m involved in the beer business, invariably the question they can’t help but ask is “what’s your favorite beer?” This question just exhausts me—I hate answering it—but I put on my brave face and try to explain why I don’t have one, and why I never will. My wife insists that it’s an “opportunity” to educate someone and I suppose she’s right, but I can’t help but view it as someone asking me if I have a favorite child. I know they mean well, but just asking this question says more about them than they realize. That so many people think there is—or should be—just one favorite anything shows how notions of brand loyalty and marketing have worked their way into our thinking. Do people have a favorite food, one food they’d eat every single meal? Of course not, so how is this any different? That so many people find it a reasonable question to ask about beer tells me that not only do they expect that I will actually have one but also that they see nothing wrong with limiting oneself in the face of such diversity. Corporations whose marketing has created such ideas must be absolutely giddy with their success in planting this idea so deeply into our collective psyche.
There are, of course, dozens of very different beer styles and some are better with this food or that, are better during a particular season or weather, or might just be the right match for whatever else we’re doing or what mood we’re in. It’s as if A-B can’t get past their own self-imposed notion that beer is just one thing, the industrial light, nearly half rice lager version of a pilsner that they call beer. To anyone who’s moved beyond that narrow definition of what beer is, there are many different flavors and no earthly reason to stick to just one. That’s not experimentation, but a common sense approach to making beer a part of a diverse, healthy lifestyle that includes many different breads, cheese, wine and all manner of local and artisanal products.
In today’s world, the type of brand loyalty A-B used to enjoy is an anachronism. But creating brand loyalty through expensive advertising and marketing campaigns is what’s made and kept A-B on top. They outspend every other beer company by a wide margin. If you’re a large, old-style corporation you stick with what’s worked in the past, even if the world is changing around you. It would be quite interesting to see what would happen to their market share if their advertising wasn’t a ubiquitous part of our world.
So what will American Ale actually taste like? There’s no actual style known as American Ale, though there are American-style pale ales, amber ales, brown ales and others. I suspect it probably won’t be an all-malt beer, because that would make it too different from the flagship lager. If I had to guess, I’d say a version of a blonde (or golden) ale or perhaps a cream ale, since those are two of the lightest ale styles. To sell it widely, it’s also likely that any hop character will be greatly restrained, to say the least. That would also be consistent with the Budweiser brand.
So will “experimenters” try Budweiser American Ale? Marlene Coulis, A-B’s VP-consumer strategy and innovation, believes it will bring “new drinkers to the Budweiser brand family.” She adds. “We believe this will positively reflect on Budweiser,” she said. “It’ll help us reach a whole new set of consumers.” That sentiment somewhat contradicts Dave Peacock’s acknowledgment that “some craft beer enthusiasts won’t try a Bud-branded ale.” The “sizable portion of the market” that Peacock believes will be down with the concept don’t seem like they’ll be the “experimenters” that they’re targeting with this launch. More likely they’ll be the same consumers who already drink Budweiser. But if the new Bud Ale really is “a darker, richer beer than Budweiser lager,” as Coulis promises, will current Bud drinkers react positively to the beer having flavor?
If you’re as much of a history buff as I am, you’re no doubt aware that HBO is currently airing a seven-part miniseries on John Adams, based on the popular Pulitzer-winning book of the same name by David McCullough. I confess I haven’t watched it yet. It’s building up in my Tivo queue so I can watch it all at once. I also didn’t read the book, though I’ve read McCullough’s 1776 and plenty of other books about the same period in history. I’ve always been fascinated by that time in our history, not least of which because my ancestors came to Pennsylvania from Switzerland in the early 1700s. The son of my original descendant in America—at least on my mother’s side—even fought in the war before returning to take over the family farm near what today is Bernville, Pennsylvania.
Samuel Adams, as portrayed by Danny Huston in the new HBO miniseries John Adams. |
But what’s interesting about the new series is not about John Adams, but what is being said about the portrayal of his cousin, Samuel Adams. In my own reading, I recall him being portrayed as totally committed to the cause of revolution—to the point of obsession—and that he worked tirelessly toward that end. My memory is that he was beloved by his friends, though not everyone thought his methods (he was notoriously unwilling to compromise or negotiate) to be the best approach. I believe it was Samuel who got John Hancock, one of the richest men in New England, involved in the revolutionary cause and, eventually, his now more famous cousin John. When he was chosen to be represent in the first Continental Congress his friends got together and bought him a new suit, because he cared so little for his own appearance. The fact that he later receded into the background of history is a shame, because apparently he was very instrumental in bringing about our independence from England. It’s quite possible that without the Boston Beer Company using him on their beer labels, he might even be less well-known today than he already is. But I’m sure there are many such men whose early efforts have been overshadowed by the politicians who signed the Declaration of Independence and hammered out the Constitution. Those are the people we tend to remember as our founding fathers. |
But according to some reviews, Samuel Adams is portrayed as “little more than a common thug whose idea of a good time is watching British dudes get Gatoraded with tar” and as “a leering, ranting, even dangerous fanatic … the very image of the corrupt urban politician.” Another reviewer says Samuel is “a character who seems at once both sinister and benign” and wonders when he’ll “finally give the others a taste of that new ale he’s been raving about?”
But Jeremy A. Stern, a historian writing on the History News Network, tells a different tale. His article, entitled What’s Inaccurate About the New HBO Series on John Adams, points out a number of inaccuracies from the first episode alone, before launching into his Sam Adams defense.
| A portrait of Samuel Adams by one of the most well-known artists of the time, John Singleton Copley, painted around 1774, two years before the events in episode one of the HBO miniseries, when he would have been 50 years of age. Today it hangs in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. |
Certainly, this testimony to Samuel’s ‘gentility’ is absent from the HBO program, which shows him practically as a dockyard thug – and yet at the same time ironically suggests that he is rich, and thus at leisure to pursue his devious wiles. This contradictory claim ignores John’s actual worry about Samuel’s neglect of himself and his own: Samuel was in fact in constant financial trouble, often dependent on the charity of his friends. Praise for Samuel’s character went beyond Massachusetts. In 1819, Thomas Jefferson, who had no reason to polish Samuel’s record, wrote almost as fulsome a tribute: “I can say that he was truly a great man, wise in council, fertile in resources, immoveable in his purposes.”
In the Boston Globe’s own condemnation of the series’ inaccuracies, they also mention a local historical researcher, James Bell, and his blog, Boston 1775. He, too, has posted a raft of inaccuracies not only about the miniseries itself, but specifically about Samuel Adams.
There’s more, too, both by Stern and Bell, but I’ll let you read that at your leisure, if you’re interested. Suffice it to say that historical dramas are almost always riddled with inaccuracies, that’s certainly nothing new. Usually, the excuse is something like “dramatic license” or “pacing” or some other story-driven nonsense. Of course, people watch history shows like this expecting them to be accurate, so I think it’s doubly bad when they’re not. But accepting that it’s just entertainment is harder to justify when you realize that HBO sent out leaflets to 10,000 teachers with “John Adams” agitprop urging them to show it to their classes. Of course, history textbooks are already riddled with mistakes, inaccuracies and propaganda, so maybe it doesn’t matter (for a wonderful book on this subject, see James W. Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me). But it still seems weird that a Pulitzer Prize winning novel would be so compromised, but such is the way of the entertainment business. I’m thirsty now. Who wants to join me for a Samuel Adams Boston Lager.