I'm a Coors man

http://floodlite.tumblr.com/post/1035628039/im-a-coors-man

by youngj • 16 years ago

41 55 16 years ago

floodlite.tumblr.com

fizx• 16 years ago

Search is about what the engine misses, not what it hits. If Google hits 99% and Bing 98%, in some sense, Google is twice as good. You wouldn't call 98% site uptime "basically 100%."

fragmede• 16 years ago

Yes of course Guinness sticks out. Guinness is the only Irish dry stout in the list which is a different product entirely, once you're discussing beer. To non-beer drinkers they are all lumped into the 'beer' category, but that's unfortunate point to illustrate because that cool new web startup? In the same hyperopic view, they're all websites, and Hipmunk is the same as Wikipedia is the same as Techcrunch and you need an advertising budget the size of Google or Microsoft's to build stand-alone brand awareness

dmix• 16 years ago

The point of the experiment was to demonstrated how the brand affected how the different beers stood out.

The fact that Guinness stood out was just there to show that without a brand you need to be significantly different (in this case, different tasting) in order to stand out.

bmelton• 16 years ago

But Guinness isn't all that unique... for a Stout. It's unique compared to the other beers listed, just as if the comparison were done with Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, TechCrunch and Youtube. There are obvious differences in scope and purpose between the first three, but mainly, they're websites with mostly text, whereas Youtube is a website with mostly video. In a 'website' comparison, YouTube would be the standout, but if you did a more specific comparison between Break, YouTube, Vimeo and RedTube, you might find that RedTube is the standout, and YouTube fares on average with the others.

zokier• 16 years ago

Yes, of course Guinness sticks out. But that is predictable, so it kinda gives some kind of scale. When people know the brand, they rate Colt 45 and Guinness approximately to the same distance from Budweiser. And that is the point of the article imho.

carbocation• 16 years ago

Guinness is an unfortunate component to this test. Whereas the other beers may have the same color, taste, and mouthfeel, Guinness would be distinguishable from those on any one of those 3 dimensions. Even if you couldn't distinguish based on taste or texture, the color alone would give it away.

In other words, you would probably guess that you're drinking a Guinness if you happen to see its color. I think that's a significant confounder here.

_3ex7• 16 years ago

Conversely, I would imagine this is why people hate on Bing. They associate it with Microsoft, an 'evil empire', and must figure it is shit search (or whatever negative connotation they have with the company).

mattmaroon5• 16 years ago

"As it turns out, most beers are pretty much the same, well, with the exception of Guinness. When it comes to taste, the key factor isn’t the craftsmanship or ingredients, but the advertising budget."

As a craft brewer myself, statements like that hurt deep in my soul. Of course mass-produced swill all tastes the same, it all uses the same craftsmanship (not much) and ingredients. It's all the same type of beer (some goofy ass mixture of grains including rice and/or corn, mild hops, and lager yeast brewed at standard lager temperatures).

The comparison to Guinness is ridiculous as well. It's as if they gave people 4 shots of vodka and one of tequila and said "look, all liquor other than tequila tastes the same!"

Throw some real lagers in there and I bet they'd stand out even with the labels removed. Not as far as a stout obviously, but nobody could mistake a Boston Lager for a Budweiser.

wwortiz• 16 years ago

Most people are just average beer drinkers, they haven't really tried anything outside of the popular beers and that is why I can understand a statement like that.

I do however agree that all beer is not even close to equal I'm not big on alcohol but I do enjoy good beer and this is something that I can distinguish easily from the cheap beer.

theBobMcCormick2• 16 years ago

Clearly the author of the article must only get his beer from the grocery story. Even a cursory sampling at a decent liquor store should convince anyone that beer variety doesn't begin and end with Guinness.

presidentender4• 16 years ago

Not only does his beer come from a grocery store, he doesn't travel at all. I know my area (western Montana) is saturated with microbreweries, which translates to all manner of craft beers available on tap and in stores... but I've never been anywhere I couldn't at least get something from New Belgium or Deschutes.

Granted, I've spent my entire life on the western side of the Rockies, and I can imagine places where you can't get anything but lagers and Guinness. I just can't imagine never seeing even Sam Adams on tap.

khafra• 16 years ago

Around here (Tampa Bay) even the grocery stores carry a small selection from local breweries and quality national offerings like Dogfish Head.

look_lookatme• 16 years 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.

rubashov3• 16 years 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.

mattmaroon5• 16 years ago

No, 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).

evilduck3• 16 years ago

American light lagers amuse me as a brewer. They're pretty bland and watery, but it's one of the hardest styles to get right, and yet it still became the mass produced swill. Every flaw stands out because there's no major flavors to hide behind. It's a beer where expensive process became the most profitable because of volume sold (because it's probably the cheapest set of ingredients for a beer style).

mattmaroon5• 16 years ago

I think it's the rice that makes it so cost effective.

ErrantX2• 16 years ago

Couldn't agree more.

I was at a proper British beer festival the other day with 21 Ales and 18 lagers, I'd challenge the writer to run the same test with them :) There was everything from thick "gravy" to a really nice, light, fruity lager.

(also, when I see people doing blind tests like this I always have this urge to swap out one of the samples with a bottle of Mexican chilli beer [beer which has had a chilli shoved in the bottle]. That would be a "taste sensation")

shrikant• 16 years ago

OT: Was this the Great British Beer Fest at the Earl's Court Exhibition Centre?

enjo• 16 years ago

Cheap plug: Come on down to Colorado and check out the Great American Beer Festival.

Here's the list of breweries:

http://www.greatamericanbeerfestival.com/breweries-exhibitor...

It's a really great event for anyone who loves Beer:)

rubashov3• 16 years ago

> Throw some real lagers in there ... nobody could mistake a Boston Lager for a Budweiser

Budweiser is a real lager. It's a pretty faithful czech style pilsner.

mattmaroon5• 16 years ago

Depends on how you define lager. According to the Bavarian Purity Law it's not even a real beer since it uses rice, much less a lager.

patrickk2• 16 years ago

"If you’re going to compete, you have two choices. The first is to spend a boatload of money on advertising—like Microsoft. The second is to create something so unique and different that people can easily recognize your product—like Guinness."

Guinness also spends boatloads on advertising (here in Ireland they're not that unique as we've got several choices of stout for sale, the main ones being Murphys and Beamish apart from Guinness). I'm sure Guinness also advertise heavily in the US and other markets. So it's incorrect to present this as two choices. Two major advertising campaigns Guinness used in recent months include "Arthur's Day" celebrations and the Guinness ads throughout the decades. The former seems a bit of a gimmick to me, but the latter was interesting IMO as a way of showing how advertising changed over the years.

masklinn2• 16 years ago

> I'm sure Guinness also advertise heavily in the US and other markets.

Indeed they do, but I'd say it's advertisement to make themselves known at all, not to differentiate themselves. Outside the british isles, there are few Guiness-like beers outside of Guiness itself (or more precisely the others are pretty much unknown to the vast majority of the populations).

theBobMcCormick2• 16 years ago

Really? Here in the Denver area every microbrew place has at least one stout.

dabent• 16 years ago

I've seen Guinness ads plenty here in the US. I also see plenty of ads for other "unique" products. Even if one makes a stand-out product, people still have to know about it.

patrickk2• 16 years ago

"I also see plenty of ads for other "unique" products."

I guess that's the whole "build it and they won't come" argument. It requires good marketing to convince people to try a Guinness or buy an iPad or whatever (although the iPad is probably a bad example as it's not unique, Microsoft had the courier in 2003).

naner• 16 years ago

Brilliant!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=guinness+commerc...

Guinness does plenty of advertising.

henning• 16 years ago

"As it turns out, most god-awful piss beers are pretty much the same"

ftfy

itblarg• 16 years ago

I did quite a few perception mapping exercises while I was in business school.* They get really interesting when you take experiment a level deeper and seek to understand how different customer segments perceive your brand/product.

For example, the beer study would get much more interesting if one could assess the results by segment - say "beer expert", "college student", "joe blue collar", etc. The outcomes can really inform positioning and message...and can lead to product extensions based purely around marketing. Diet Coke (for women) and Coke Zero (for me) are a great example.

*Yes - I have an MBA from UNC Chapel Hill. Please flame as necessary. :)

city41• 16 years ago

When people were asked to drive the latest Ford Fiesta, Toyota Yaris, Chevrolet Cobalt and BMW 5-series, they all seemed rather comparable, except the BMW for some reason...

mhb• 16 years ago

If you too were wondering what sort of thing a "perceptual map" is that looks like a 2D graph but doesn't have axes, the description below suggests that the article has just inexplicably omitted the axes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_mapping

languagehacker• 16 years ago

They could have at least compared a microbrew lager to the others. It's seriously comparing an orange to five apples.

newmediaclay• 16 years ago

There is not even close to enough information in this post to take it seriously. How big was the sample? Who were these taters? Are they even beer drinkers? Etc., etc.

cellularmitosis• 16 years ago

For those of you unfamiliar with beer, I'll rephrase this article in terms which might be more familiar to you. Hopefully you'll have the same "wtf?" moment I did.

We had people place five cars on a perceptual map. The five vehicles consisted of four medium sedans and one pickup truck. When branding badges were removed, we found that people tended to lump the four sedans together on a perceptual map, while placing the pickup truck off by itself.

alan-crowe2• 16 years ago

Alcohol is a toxic industrial solvent. People drink it for the mild euphoria it brings. This is undignified and advertising provides social cover. Behaviour not much different from glue-sniffing is advertised into being grown-up, sophisticated, manly, adult, a reward for hard work, the drink of heroes,...

First the article takes the idea of beer drinkers appreciating different flavours at face value and then rebuts it. Drinkers are claiming to be appreciating the various different flavours, but actually they taste they same. That surprises me. I think it would be easier to spin a taste-bud romance around alcohol if the flavours were more various.

Second the article suggests that advertising is "creating" the different tastes and tries to draw a wider lesson for other products that one might advertise. I disagree with drawing any wider lesson. Alcohol is a unusual product such that the purpose of advertisements is especially covert. The advertisers are not fooling the drinkers into tasting differences that are not there. There are colluding with users in providing a shiny social sheen on a product that would otherwise offer only a guilty pleasure.

jrockway3• 16 years ago

I don't think that's it. I think people will go out and drink regardless of whether or not there is any advertising. But when it comes to say the name of the beer you want, that's when advertising comes into play. Deciding which nearly-identical product to order is hard. So you can reduce the problem to deciding what ad you liked better, and then your problems are solved.

Also, "alcohol is a toxic industrial solvent." So is water.

alan-crowe2• 16 years ago

Your reply dodges the point raised by the article. They do a taste test and the beers have different flavours. Then they repeart the taste test blind and the beers taste the same. The article suggests that the taste comes from the advertising. I suggest that it wasn't about taste to begin with. Why do you think that stripping the labels off the bottles made the flavour go away?

CapitalistCartr• 16 years ago

This is a laughably stupid piece. It says nothing new about beer and everything about the amazing ignorance of the author. There are so many beers and even types of beer, that to consider Coors, Pabst, Miller Lite, Budweiser, Colt 45 and Guinness to represent a cross-section of beers requires him to willfully avoid learning anything about beer.

Conventional American lagers are ONE type of beer in am ocean, The range from stouts to wheat beers is astounding. This is as if I compared only cars from China, and threw in one Chevy to analyze the car market.

He ignores the fast-growing premium stuff, e.g. Sam Adams. Every town has its own version; here in Tampa, it's Ybor Gold. Of course they don't, individually, sell as much as Budweiser; by definition, a local brew is only local.

Yes, better beer is more expensive. That cheaper beer sells more is hardly news. But to think he's found any information in a test that is designed to produce the result he got is nonsense. Of course, five cheap, American lagers taste about the same, and of course, it's obvious that an Irish stout tastes different.

I have a Welsh, beer-loving GF; the author could at least try Wikipedia.

I'm a Coors man

Related Stories