Bud's Famous Claim

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

doodeyfoodle

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
"This is the famous Budweiser Beer. We know of no brand produced by any other brewer which costs so much to brew and age. Our exclusive beachwood aging produces a taste, a smoothness, and a drinkability you will find in no other beer at any price."

I've read this on the label of the odd American Bud I've drank, and I can't believe how obviously misleading it is. We're supposed to believe that a macro like Bud costs more to make than an imperial stout, barley wine, or really, any quality, full-flavoured beer?

So either Bud is lying through their teeth, or they are blissfully ignorant and unaware of the realities of brewing. Or (and this is probably how they justify the claim), they are referring to the collective cost of brewing ALL Bud, not just each bottle. Since Bud is by far the most-produced beer in the world, its easy to use a healthy dose of rhetoric to vindicate their claim.

This runs through my head every time I drink a Bud (not very often, but enough).
 
Most expensive to brew and age since they brew it at 6,7,8, or whatever % and the water it down on the way to the bottle.
 
I guess its expensive to keep stables and stables full of elephants, getting them drunk on vodka, and bottling their urine.
 
Yes! More Bud Bashing!

I was really sick of people saying how they are above beer snobbery.( there was a thread, I am not making this up)

They (budweiser) are retarded, lets hope the belgian....ish... can do better.

I secretly hope that some rich Belgian guy was so sick of Budweiser's ridiculous claims, that he bought it, just to run it into the frigging ground.

*I know real people may lose jobs over it, but if you can't begin to laugh at some point you are lost*

While bud did suck, bud ice was truely a work of art..............;)

(is bud ice some bastardized version of a munich helles?)

The fact that they would make an "ice" beer, to be consumed so cold as to paralize taste buds entirely, and then claim that dark beer hides flaws, is the worst flip-flop ever.
 
Bud really isn't the worst beer in the world, but they make a great target since they're the largest, and the whole macro approach to brewing is the real 'cause of bad beer, Bud or not. Macro-ing is focused more on profit than beer, and so it is in their interest to lower people's expectations of beer and then give them a cheaper-to-produce product. That's why nowadays everyone is under the impression that beer should be served ice cold, and that its fancy to get a frosted glass in a restaurant/bar. Numb the taste buds, 'cause there's lots we need to hide!

I refuse to even refer to Bud as "Budweiser" due to the whole Budvar/Czechvar issue.
 
It's most certainly a case of making statistics work in the company's favor. Per beer, Budweiser cannot possibly cost more than any number of microbrews. However, AB probably DOES spend more money than any other brewery, so Budweiser DOES cost more dollars to produce (i.e., AB's gross expenditures on the Bud brand are greater than any other brewery's gross spending on a single label).
 
"This is the famous Budweiser Beer. We know of no brand produced by any other brewer which costs so much to brew and age*. Our exclusive beachwood aging produces a taste, a smoothness, and a drinkability you will find in no other beer at any price."

* This quote includes advertising costs.

FTFY
 
I'm getting sick of all you Bud bashers. Most of you grew up Bud, whether you admit it or not. Now you all became expert brewers and can make better beer than the biggest and most successful Brewer in the world. Bud has a 48% market share and is getting a
$43 Billion buyout offer and yet we think we're brewing better beer in a bucket in our basements. Your tastes have changed the beer hasn't. I used to drink Bud, then I got a taste for Heiniken and Budd didn't appeal to me anymore. Now I like Bass Ale and Heiniken doesn't appeal me anymore. That doesn't mean that Heinken is no good. It's good we have a variety of styles and tastes that appeal to everyone
 
I'm getting sick of all you Bud bashers. Most of you grew up Bud, whether you admit it or not. Now you all became expert brewers and can make better beer than the biggest and most successful Brewer in the world. Bud has a 48% market share and is getting a
$43 Billion buyout offer and yet we think we're brewing better beer in a bucket in our basements. Your tastes have changed the beer hasn't. I used to drink Bud, then I got a taste for Heiniken and Budd didn't appeal to me anymore. Now I like Bass Ale and Heiniken doesn't appeal me anymore. That doesn't mean that Heinken is no good. It's good we have a variety of styles and tastes that appeal to everyone

+11

There is nothing wrong with Bud. There is nothing spectacular about Bud either.. unless you truly taste it and realise how incredibly damned hard it is to make it taste like it does. My first real Lager came out REALLY nice, and I consider it a fluke that I actually made a great lager on my first try. It cost me an extra refridgerator and temp dontrol for lagering, took 3 months to ferment and lager, and is just now coming good. I am going to CRY when the last bottle is finished, because I know how much time and effort went into it.

Is it my favourite beer? HELL NO! It's a nice lager, but like most lagers, it's crisp, clean, smooth and mostly tasteless, which is why lagers are so popular.I will always prefer an IPA over a lager ...now... but 2 1/2 years ago, when I had my first IPA, I had to choke it down.

And another thing to consider. ANY Microbrewery that tried to make an exact clone of Bud... would find out that it IS the most expensive beer they make when everything is factored in (and the hop shortage is factored out....) I am talking about the entire process.. refridgeration and square metres of floor space for lagering, Yes, advertising etc etc. Have you seen the price of rice recently?

I do a fair bit of travelling, and will always sample the local beer of the town or country that I am in, but if i don't find anything I like... I know what the Bud will taste like.. and I don't mind it a bit.
 
I really don't think this was intended to be a Bud-bashing thread. The OP simply made an observation that the claim on Budweiser's label doesn't seem realistic.
 
I really don't think this was intended to be a Bud-bashing thread. The OP simply made an observation that the claim on Budweiser's label doesn't seem realistic.

Hm, yeah, regardless of intentions, ye olde urine comparison was made by the 4th post. Damn, I love this place. :p
 
Some goober early in my life got this urban legend type of thing stuck in my head about the name Budweiser. Ever heard of it?

B-ecause
U
D-eserve
W-hat
E-very
I-ndividual
S-hould
E-arnstly
R-eceive

I've had this acronym stuck in my brain for at least 20yrs. And I am not a light lager drinker either. I leave that to my dad and brother-in-law
 
I made a Helles Munich that by all accounts was wonderful for my first lager. To me it lacked flavor. To each their own.

Really to me it is the use of rice, the specification that you should drink it "ice cold", and the bashing of dark beer that makes me hate Bud.

Also when it is mass produced and mostly automated, it is no longer an art-form or a craft. A monkey could turn out bud ice with those facilities.

I can actually handle a miller now and again. So I am not a blind BMC basher.

I grew up on Keystone and Colt45. Anyone care to defend those? I sure won't. I also ate glue as a child (I am told).
 
I'm getting sick of all you Bud bashers. Most of you grew up Bud, whether you admit it or not. Now you all became expert brewers and can make better beer than the biggest and most successful Brewer in the world. Bud has a 48% market share and is getting a
$43 Billion buyout offer and yet we think we're brewing better beer in a bucket in our basements. Your tastes have changed the beer hasn't. I used to drink Bud, then I got a taste for Heiniken and Budd didn't appeal to me anymore. Now I like Bass Ale and Heiniken doesn't appeal me anymore. That doesn't mean that Heinken is no good. It's good we have a variety of styles and tastes that appeal to everyone



Sorry didn't grow up on Bud, I've always hated it and only started to like beer once I had something that was not a Light American Lager (not that there is anything wrong with that style for those that like it). I was a straight whiskey guy until I got into home brewing, now I've discovered a very tasty and fun world that is beer. I'm sure I'd enjoy Bud now more than I did 10 years ago, but I'll probably still always prefer what I brew myself.
 
I don't usually agree with the Bud bashing because I know that it is very difficult to make the beer that they make.
However I cannot stand drinking it or any of the other beers of that style. And this is not a change of taste. I never drank Bud or any other beer of that style. Until I was finally introduced to good micro brews I thought I hated beer and drank wine or liquor when I did drink.
Now I've found there is a world of beer that is not BMC and i am enjoying it very much.
Could I reproduce Bud or make a beer of that style with similar quality? Probably not but I will never know because I won't try.

Craig
 
I guess I derailed the conversation 'cause I detected some humour in the second post and wanted to reply in kind. Elephant piss? No... but its a funny image. As I said in post #7, Bud isn't the worst nor is it the best.

But what I would really like to know is if you guys really believe that the cost of lagering truly makes Bud the most expensive beer to make. If this is the case, what makes Bud more expensive than any other American lager? Wouldn't you agree with the observation that a beer company that's run from the boardroom has a commitment to its shareholders which overrides their brewmaster, resulting in a concerted effort to convince their customer to be satisfied with a lower quality product whose production methods have been cheapened as much as possible? That's what all the advertising is about!
 
This has been said before, but I think it bears saying again...

AB is/was scared of the expanding share that micro/regionals were seeing. It was cutting into their pockets, so they came up with clever ways to bash all other styles of beer (other than "American Lager"), while at the same same convincing the BMC drinkers that Bud is a sophisticated beer that's actually better than all others because it doesn't 'hide imperfections'.

I laughed every time I saw those commercials, but the marketing firm behind that really did do a good job. There are now probably millions of people across this country that continue to drink Budweiser while thinking that it's really something special because it's not dark, and now they call it the "Great American Lager".

Budweiser is certainly not expensive to make. They grow their own hops in Oregon/Washington, they grow/farm/germinate/malt their own barley in Idaho, they have 12 breweries in the lower 48 and they have the largest beer distribution network in the US - if not the world. The sole purpose of having that much control over the process is to get costs down. You end up with the same investment in the same product but you don't have to pay someone else's markups.

If they truly were brewing the most expensive beer in the world as their statement implies ("We know of no brand produced by any other brewer which costs so much to brew and age."), do you think that they would still be in business selling an 18 pack of cans for $12.99 at every gas station across the country while bottles of DFH120 are $8.49?

My guess is that the slogan on the bottle has been there since shortly after prohibition was lifted, during a time when those claims may have actually had some merit to them. The beer landscape has changed so drastically since then, however, that Bud is only set apart by the countless other American Lagers/American Light Lagers by its investment in continual multi-million dollar advertising machine.

If the
 
The fact that they would make an "ice" beer, to be consumed so cold as to paralize taste buds entirely, and then claim that dark beer hides flaws, is the worst flip-flop ever.

The "Ice" in the name of any of the ice beers has nothing to do with serving temps. It's a whole different marketing gimmick.

They freeze the beer and remove the ice crystals...so far, it's kinda like making an eisbock. Or eisBud, I guess.

But now, the kicker: because they're not allowed to distill, they melt the ice and add the water back to the beer. It's supposed to make the beer "smoother", or something.

Now Guinness "Extra Cold", on the other hand...;)
 
"This is the famous Budweiser Beer. We know of no brand produced by any other brewer which costs so much to brew and age. Our exclusive beachwood aging produces a taste, a smoothness, and a drinkability you will find in no other beer at any price."


Hate to burst your bubble...But when Bud starting brewing with Corn and Rice it was the truth, not a false marketing claim... (or at least no more false then Pabst winning a blue ribbon at the world's fair, when none were awarded and the whole contest ended up one big ugly mess).

Check out Maureen Ogle's book Ambitious Brew for an accurate history of Brewing in America...

Here's the website on it;

http://www.ambitiousbrew.com/

Myth: After World War II, brewers lowered production costs by adding corn and rice to their beer.

Reality: German-American brewers began adding corn and rice to their beer in the early 1870s, and did so not to lower their production costs (in 1878, a bottle of Budweiser cost the equivalent of $17 in today’s money!) but in order to accommodate Americans’ demand for a light-bodied beer.

We've covered the economics of brewing budweiser here;

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showpost.php?p=741021&postcount=12

It's okay to bash bud (although it get's tedious to see 50 different threads when 1 one generic would do) I hate the tasteless pond water myself...but at least be accurate in your reasons for hating it. :D
 
I don't know why we're debating Bud's or anyone's advertising slogans, or why this is shocking?

Is Coors Light really "The coldest tasting beer in the world" ?
Is Carlsberg "Probably the best beer in the world" ?
Is Corona really "Miles Away From Ordinary" ?

Is Barnum & Bailey really "the Greatest Show On Earth" ?
Do "The best tires in the world have Goodyear written all over them" ?
 
Hate to burst your bubble...But when Bud starting brewing with Corn and Rice it was the truth, not a false marketing claim... (or at least no more false then Pabst winning a blue ribbon at the world's fair, when none were awarded and the whole contest ended up one big ugly mess).

...

It's okay to bash bud (although it get's tedious to see 50 different threads when 1 one generic would do) I hate the tasteless pond water myself...but at least be accurate in your reasons for hating it. :D

I'm not talking about costs when they started brewing Bud. The claim on the label is in the present tense. There is no inaccuracy in asking a question, as I have done. Please don't take the conversation back to Bud-bashing.

I don't know why we're debating Bud's or anyone's advertising slogans, or why this is shocking?

Is Coors Light really "The coldest tasting beer in the world" ?
Is Carlsberg "Probably the best beer in the world" ?
Is Corona really "Miles Away From Ordinary" ?

The difference that I see is that Bud's claim is objective, while those others are completely subjective and can always be explained away as a difference of opinion or taste.
 
I think most of the above claims are subjective, but the bud piece actually has something quantifiable (cost).

I know alot of brewers say choicest hops or quality ingredient, but cost is a pretty glaring claim.
 
Distilled:

It is the serve cold as ice/dark beer hides flaws, cheap mass produced crap claiming to be great and expensive thing that causes me to bash them.
 
I think most of the above claims are subjective, but the bud piece actually has something quantifiable (cost).

But they don't claim "There is no brand produced by any other brewer which costs so much to brew and age." It's "We know of no brand..." Probably enough to keep it out of the courts. As cut-throat as the market is, Miller or Coors would have sued them over it if they thought it had a shot. (like the fuss over Coors' "brewed with Rocky Mountain spring water" claim)
 
But they don't claim "There is no brand produced by any other brewer which costs so much to brew and age." It's "We know of no brand..." Probably enough to keep it out of the courts. As cut-throat as the market is, Miller or Coors would have sued them over it if they thought it had a shot. (like the fuss over Coors' "brewed with Rocky Mountain spring water" claim)

This whole idea makes me imagine a scenario. Someone brings paperwork proving that a certain beer costs more to produce than Bud to AB's head office. The receptionist, realizing the messenger's intent, sounds an alarm. Two security guards come bursting into the room with their fingers firmly planted in their ears, shouting "lalalalalala", and start kicking the messenger towards the exit.
 
This whole idea makes me imagine a scenario. Someone brings paperwork proving that a certain beer costs more to produce than Bud to AB's head office. The receptionist, realizing the messenger's intent, sounds an alarm. Two security guards come bursting into the room with rubber gloves on saying something about a cavity search before they call the police.

I fixed that for you. :D
 

Great article. I found this very interesting.

Its advertising costs, for example, are more than $14 a barrel, twice those of Anheuser-Busch, according to Beer Marketer's Insights
.

Dang! I don't know how much a 1/2 barrel of Coors Light costs, but I'm guessing that it's about $70 or so (before deposit), that's 10% in advertising costs. Obviously it's working for them, but man that seems high.
 
Back
Top