Blue Moon: The “Craft” Beer Made by Coors
priceonomics.com
priceonomics.com
The result @ http://vinepair.com/wine-blog/map-actually-makes-your-beer/ received a LOT of attention in the beer world.
It's been updated four times as it was tough to sort through some of the confusion and obfuscation in marketing, even with the benefit of having had dug through SEC filings, the COLA registry at TTB, and other sources. FWIW, I was contacted for direct clarification from one of the companies indirectly called out in this piece (Kona/Craft Brew Alliance).
All that said, I'd argue that association (and particularly a lack of care about such an association by many, many consumers whether or not they know about it) is less interesting than the advantages of being purchased/created by a macro brewer, such as distribution and how that plays out in the 3-tier system in the US.
The Boulevard acquisition's fairly recent. Haven't noticed any changes, really. Still producing a range of decent to very good beer marked up about $1-2/bomber higher than it ought to be. Still putting out interesting new stuff pretty regularly.
Riight.
I never really saw Blue Moon as a craft beer. In the UK craft beer means ale, you buy whatever happens to be on tap in the pub or you have a nose round your local farmer's market if you want to be really trendy.
The money quote on why it matters.
I don't buy it. Consumers sophisticated enough to care about the provenance of their beer are no doubt well aware that Blue Moon isn't a microbrewery. Consumers who aren't that sophisticated probably don't care, and (gasp!) simply enjoy the way it tastes.
The "right to know who I'm supporting" is the key there. I observe that for a lot of people these days, the brands that an individual purchases are a matter of reflecting (or establishing) that individual's own brand identity. "I use Chrome on a MacBook, because that SAYS something about me that using Chrome on a PC wouldn't.", etc. I understand that this is a thing, but like many I am more of a realist by nature and cannot relate at all. The most important factor in my purchasing decisions is cost-benefit ratio, with a generous amount of wiggle-room for subjective style considerations. However, I have zero fucks to give about what a purchase tells other people about my "identity", and am somewhat baffled by people who do. In my mind, if you're pretentious enough that you can't enjoy a beer without confirming its "exclusivity" from major brewers, then it's on you to pull out your phone and spend 20 seconds looking up the brewer on Wikipedia.
If all those who cared already knew, then the manufacturers wouldn't have had to obfuscate it (as it wouldn't make a difference). So if we go with that assumption, they should just put their name on the bottles, experience no difference in sales and thus make everyone happy.
For example, they could be entirely open about this product being something new and different but from the same manufacturer. An example of this is Nya Carnegiebryggeriet, "a collaborative joint venture between Carlsberg Sweden and Brooklyn Brewery"[1]. They don't try to hide the fact that it's owned by Carlsberg[2] (4th largest brewery group in the world), but they make it very clear that it's a different category from their regular lineup.
If that seems to risky, they could sell it under a different brand without deliberately attempting to deceive customers into thinking it's from a small-scale craft brewer. Just present the product honestly under a new name without the misleading bullshit.
As for your "brand identity" rant, there are more reasons than pretentiousness to support small-time outfits- I buy from cottage industries when I can to support creative alternatives- and I personally think Blue Moon tastes fine.
Although it's mildly annoying when "domestic night" at the bar discounts Budweiser but won't mark down my glass of Blue Moon "because it's a micro". They were made in the same damn room.
A while back, I saw mention of someone making (or considering making) a phone app that could take a picture of some product in a store and tell you if the manufacturer was associated for or against your political party. That's horrifying.
We should not make it easy to ostracize anyone you have a difference of opinion with. Boycotts and similar applications of force should not be impulse decisions. Bifurcating society along ideological lines is not conducive to everyone getting along. Stifling unpopular opinions is not good for political discourse.
I do agree that splitting everything on US party lines would be utterly ridiculous, but I don't see what would be wrong with making it that much easier to boycott corporations opposed to, say, paying their employees livable wages, or reproductive rights for women, or marriage equality.
Though I also don't see what's wrong with boycotting a company simply for spending a fortune aggressively and offensively marketing their aggressively mediocre adjunct lagers.
http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/brands/signature%20brands/blue...
They also own Sharp's Brewery (of Doom Bar fame) which I never knew:
http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/Brands/Signature%20Brands/Doom...
In that case they simply bought the brewery which was already successful and produced a few award winning ales.
It can still taste good without having been individually brewed by monks in a monastary some place.
On the topic if beers PBR -- Pabst Blue Ribbon has an interesting story associated with it. It went from cheap beer considered barely good enough for cooking, to being the premier hipster drink. You couldn't image a flannel and tight jean wearing hipster with a PBR in their hand. It was a fantastic marketing effort, it involved product placement in show, sponsoring of various events and so on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/pbr-coolness-study_...
Look at the sales chart went from 140M to 350M in less than 10 years.
I knew the person who poached (ok recruited) the CEO of PBR brewing company, that's how I initially heard the story about how they did the marketing campaign.
So I'd say is a mix of both.
It may have been considered a notch above the normal macros maybe 15 years ago, before the whole craft thing went really nuts, but never itself a craft beer.
Hell, it was nationally distributed, available in every grocery store in the United States.
This is not a unique scenario. InBev owns Leffe and Goose Island, for example.
Regarding Blue Moon: in the US, at least, their marketing seems dedicated to working in the word "craft" as frequently as possible. I imagine it isn't actually legal for it to be marketed as a "craft beer," as that's a controlled term, but they certainly use both words in isolation.
On that note, Boston Beer Co (the ones behind Sam Adams) had been pushing for changes to the definition of "craft beer" so their mass-market beer could still fall under that heading. Specifically the 6mm barrel threshold mentioned in the Pricenomics article.
http://beerpulse.com/2011/01/brewers-association-enacts-sam-...
As I remember things, this first microbrew movement (as well as something of a homebrewing fad) sort of declined but it's more recently really roared back in force. On trend I've noticed recently is the big "craft" brewers like Sam Adams and Sierra Nevada have really expanded their lineups and come out with all sorts of limited time as well as higher-end products like barleywines.
I'm personally sick of having to associate every consumer product with some sort of public good or political cause.
I don't like blue moon, but if I did, the fact that coors brews it would not stop me from partaking.
It seems fair enough to me, as long as it's not just coors light with a different brand. To me this is no different than Toyota developing the Lexus brand because people wouldn't pay big money for Toyotas.
After 72 quarters of growth, I think it's fair to assume that people buy it because they like the taste, not because they hide the parent company.
I drink Blue Moon. I like the taste but I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb enough to fall for marketing campaigns. In this case, Coors expertly marketed the product to my demographic and it provoked a strong reaction in me to buy it. Personally I'm fine with all this.
I did find out from a friend (who's a brewer) that it was produced by Coors, which I didn't like.
I still kept drinking it though, as its a nice beer. Honestly though, if I had known it was Coors before I tried it, I probably wouldn't have.
So, yeah, marketing works or something, I guess? :)
If a mock-craft beer and a craft beer taste equally good and cost the same, it's a good idea to support diversity by buying the craft brew. The critics seem to agree Blue Moon is one of the best beers Coors makes, and craft brewers are to thank for pressuring Coors to produce decent beer.
i'm in Breckenridge now, maybe I'll get a Coors factory tour in Golden and thank them for making a beer that doesn't taste like piss.
When you're in the tasting room, ask for Colorado Native, which is sourced locally and only sold in Colorado, and Batch 19.
i actually spotted a Colorado Native pack at the Safeway here, i'll grab it in the next few.
It says quite clearly on the back label on the australian bottles that it's brewed by Coors
It sounds exactly like CoorsMiller wants Blue Moon to be judged based on its merits.
I'm not sure it's something worth getting upset about. It tastes good, so I drink it when I'm in the mood for a sweet wheat ale with a hint of orange flavor. IMO, that's the most important criteria for a beer, be it a some mass produced product, a limited release from some forgotten mountain monestary or anywhere between. It has to taste good.
I am mildy curious if it is brewed in the same brewery in Golden, or if the subsidiary mentioned in the article has another site and brewery of their own. I shall have to investigate this and see if they do tours.
'Fosters' the Australian beer, is not really found at all in Australia. Where it is found, it is usually brewed locally.
Kind of like the whole Corona lime-in-the-bottle-neck thing. Nobody knows or remembers how it started (or so they say).
* Large beer company wants to make a beer with more complex flavor.
* Consumers who enjoy more complex flavors are negatively prejudiced against the large beer company and stereotype their products.
* Large beer company creates separate brand to escape prejudice.
* The question is, can they somehow flip this by slowly adding back their branding in order to improve the value of their main brand.
But I do think Coors has crossed a line in trying to make people think Blue Moon is a craft beer. I don't know how many people they fool, but I certainly thought it was one (though I rarely ever drink it; I also think it's an overhyped beer, perfectly drinkable but not something I'd choose if given a reasonable alternative). For comparison, I didn't realize Shock Top was Anheuser-Busch, but I also didn't think it was a craft beer. Maybe I don't pay much attention and it really is marketed the same way Blue Moon is, but in my mind, Blue Moon crossed a line that Shock Top didn't.
(I don't think my rights have been violated. They'd have to prevent me from reading this article in order to do that.)
This is not fundamentally different than this absurdity: By obfuscating its brand name on products like the Lincoln Navigator, Ford is violating the consumer's right to know who he is supporting, and where his SUV comes from.
I really like Stella Artois and Blue Moon, and it doesn't bother me that they're brewed by large brewers. What makes a beer good is not the fact that the company that makes it is of a certain size. I love being able to go to a bar I've never been to and have at least two good options of last resort if they don't carry something else that I know I'll like.
Big enough difference in price between those for those to make a difference in production cost. This assumes that premium lines tend to be higher in flavor/alcohol than the lite versions, which isn't always true (see Budweisers line) but enough for generalization.
For all the hype around microbrews, it actually takes a lot more effort to brew Coors-type beer than your typical hopped up microbrew IPA. There's less room for error because there is less to mask off flavors.
To be honest, I am surprised that the American macro brews haven't touted the craft and history of making their style of beer. The American lager style is really a Bavarian style beer that is 100+ years old -- and its surprisingly difficult to brew.
The difficult Bavarian lager, sure, is more difficult. American adjunct lager is made of rice (which is flavourless), and precisely pH, temperature, etc controlled. This both removes nuance and increases repeatability
Repeatable, precision, and incredible quality control willing to dump the last batch if its not right.
Starbucks, for example, opened several coffee shops in Seattle that appeared to be local independents and beared no starbucks branding.