5 ms·

If it tastes good, does it matter? Franziskaner and Leffe are both great beers and are brewed by AB InBev - widely seen as rather scummy amongst homebrewers. Bl

by joshvm 12y ago

If it tastes good, does it matter? Franziskaner and Leffe are both great beers and are brewed by AB InBev - widely seen as rather scummy amongst homebrewers. Blue Moon is in virtually every pub (I've been to) and supermarket in the UK. It tastes good, but I'm surprised anyone was under the illusion that it was somehow a small operation. 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.

jfb 12y ago
It doesn't matter, really. If you like it, drink it! There're plenty of more esoteric styles represented these days so that whatever your taste you can find a great micro or macro version. I like Belgians, and think that Fin du Monde is the best of them, regardless of being brewed in Quebec and being owned by Sapporo.
sliverstorm 12y ago
By obfuscating its brand name on products like Blue Moon, Coors is violating the consumer’s right to know who he is supporting, and where his beverage comes from. The money quote on why it matters.
- StevePerkins 12y ago
  When I look at a Lexus automobile, I don't see a Toyota nameplate anywhere. Is Toyota therefore "obfuscating" the fact that a Lexus is little more than a glorified Corolla? Is an Acura basically an obfuscated Honda? 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.
  - ptx 12y ago
    > Consumers who aren't that sophisticated probably don't care, and (gasp!) simply enjoy the way it tastes. 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.
    - geetee 12y ago
      Assume the mind of a potential new Blue Moon consumer in 1995. You pick up the bottle and notice it says "From the makers of Coors Light." Do you: A) think to yourself "This probably tastes like water" and put it down, or B) drink it without an ounce of bias?
      - ptx 12y ago
        That phrasing implies that it's targeted to those who enjoy Coors Light, so I wouldn't buy it. But there are still many ways to market the product more honestly. 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. [1] http://www.nyacarnegiebryggeriet.se/en/brewery/ http://www.nyacarnegiebryggeriet.se/en/brewery/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsberg_Group#Carlsberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsberg_Group#Carlsberg
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Toyota didn't concoct a shell company complete with a fully fabricated image in an effort to hide its relation. You buy Lexuses from Toyota. 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.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  This line of thinking bothers me. 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.
  - bydo 12y ago
    There's a pretty large difference between ostracizing an individual for voicing an opinion and choosing not to financially support a multinational conglomerate for contributing to political causes contrary to one's beliefs. 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.
  - frandroid 12y ago
    horrifying!!
- joshvm 12y ago
  As far as I'm concerned they diversified and funded another company to produce it. They don't hide it, it's there on their website: http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/brands/signature%20brands/blue%20moon.aspx 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%20Bar.aspx 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.
mpdehaan2 12y ago
I think most people know Blue Moon is not a micro-brewery. And it doesn't matter -- blue Moon is one of the best wheats for me, IMHO. I like it more than most "craft" beers in it's genre. Some of the small microbreweries attempting the style can be very hit or miss.

by joshvm 12y ago

jfb 12y ago

It doesn't matter, really. If you like it, drink it! There're plenty of more esoteric styles represented these days so that whatever your taste you can find a great micro or macro version. I like Belgians, and think that Fin du Monde is the best of them, regardless of being brewed in Quebec and being owned by Sapporo.

sliverstorm 12y ago

By obfuscating its brand name on products like Blue Moon, Coors is violating the consumer’s right to know who he is supporting, and where his beverage comes from. The money quote on why it matters.

StevePerkins 12y ago
When I look at a Lexus automobile, I don't see a Toyota nameplate anywhere. Is Toyota therefore "obfuscating" the fact that a Lexus is little more than a glorified Corolla? Is an Acura basically an obfuscated Honda? 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.
- ptx 12y ago
  > Consumers who aren't that sophisticated probably don't care, and (gasp!) simply enjoy the way it tastes. 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.
  - geetee 12y ago
    Assume the mind of a potential new Blue Moon consumer in 1995. You pick up the bottle and notice it says "From the makers of Coors Light." Do you: A) think to yourself "This probably tastes like water" and put it down, or B) drink it without an ounce of bias?
    - ptx 12y ago
      That phrasing implies that it's targeted to those who enjoy Coors Light, so I wouldn't buy it. But there are still many ways to market the product more honestly. 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. [1] http://www.nyacarnegiebryggeriet.se/en/brewery/ http://www.nyacarnegiebryggeriet.se/en/brewery/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsberg_Group#Carlsberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsberg_Group#Carlsberg
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Toyota didn't concoct a shell company complete with a fully fabricated image in an effort to hide its relation. You buy Lexuses from Toyota. 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.
tbrownaw 12y ago
This line of thinking bothers me. 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.
- bydo 12y ago
  There's a pretty large difference between ostracizing an individual for voicing an opinion and choosing not to financially support a multinational conglomerate for contributing to political causes contrary to one's beliefs. 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.
- frandroid 12y ago
  horrifying!!
joshvm 12y ago
As far as I'm concerned they diversified and funded another company to produce it. They don't hide it, it's there on their website: http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/brands/signature%20brands/blue%20moon.aspx 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%20Bar.aspx 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.

mpdehaan2 12y ago

I think most people know Blue Moon is not a micro-brewery. And it doesn't matter -- blue Moon is one of the best wheats for me, IMHO. I like it more than most "craft" beers in it's genre. Some of the small microbreweries attempting the style can be very hit or miss.