3 ms·
You are reading this as if it's a taste competition, but it's not. It's about companies that basically offer the same product, but differentiate based on brand
by look_lookatme 16y ago
You are reading this as if it's a taste competition, but it's not. It's about companies that basically offer the same product, but differentiate based on brand awareness. Guinness is so radically different than these American macro brews so it provides useful context.
Tequila or vodka (not together, separate) would be very interesting studies, too. I'm not convinced that anyone but connoisseurs would rate blind vodka taste tests consistent with their preferred brand.
- rubashov 16y ago> vodka taste tests The bottom shelf to mid shelf price increment is pretty damn obvious in taste. The cheap stuff is bad. Once you're paying over ~$35 per liter I doubt anyone can tell anything apart.
- evilduck 16y agoThat misses the point though. The cheap stuff is all equally bad, anyone who proclaims themselves a loyalist to Smirnoff probably knows nothing of the high-end stuff, let alone be able to tell it apart from it's peer competitors. Likewise, a "Coors man" can easily be fooled into drinking Miller or Bud, because he doesn't base his preference on any quality of the beer itself.
- mattmaroon 16y agoNo, I'm simply pointing out that it's not at all informative to show that some people choose one beer over an almost identical beer because of marketing (everyone already knew that) nor is it fair to extrapolate the results to all beers (but Guinness).