Random Beer Thoughts

[sacrelicio]

Say what you want about neckbeards, but I'm not going to just sit here while you badmouth Corn Nuts. Meet me in the Treehouse parking lot after class.

It's amazing how people will come up me in line , shake my hand, take pour o MY bottles, bottles that I worked hard to procure, rare ticks, and then come on here and talk ****. Internwt tough guy. I have 34604921 GOOD trades on rate beer and face book. Ask whaleslayer69, or HomeBrewDog420, VermontHomie123 or AllintheGame99 if I am a dishonest trader. You people piling on sure know how to make someone honest, feel welcome.

Say it to my face. I'll be at the release wearing an El Catador shirt and tan cargo shorts. Unless you come during session B, where I'll be wearing an alpaca fur Hill Farmstead poncho and orange swim trunks.

 

[litheum94]

Anyone else think it's awfully presumptuous to offer a "seat at the tasting?" Like I want to sip 1.5oz pours of Ann in some strange neckbeard's basement while eating Corn Nuts and listening to ISO:FT stories.

cosmicevan

 

[furley]

I'll be wearing an alpaca fur Hill Farmstead poncho and orange swim trunks.

r/malefashionadvice

 

[sacrelicio]

ASak10 makes a really really good point here. I'd try to sum up my stance, but Frederick F. Reichheld and Phil Schefter in the Harvard Business Review do it better than I ever could: "In industry after industry, the high cost of acquiring customers renders many customer relationships unprofitable during their early years. Only in later years, when the cost of serving loyal customers falls and the volume of their purchases rises, do relationships generate big returns. The bottom line: Increasing customer retention rates by 5% increases profits by 25% to 95%."

Also I imagine many GABF visitors only go to fest once, or a few times spread out over nonconsecutive years, and when they do go, they only have time to hit the one bottle shop near the hotel, which might not be your shop, so trying to grab that demographic at the expense of local customers isn't the best idea.

 

[ASak10]

ASak10 makes a really really good point here. I'd try to sum up my stance, but Frederick F. Reichheld and Phil Schefter in the Harvard Business Review do it better than I ever could: "In industry after industry, the high cost of acquiring customers renders many customer relationships unprofitable during their early years. Only in later years, when the cost of serving loyal customers falls and the volume of their purchases rises, do relationships generate big returns. The bottom line: Increasing customer retention rates by 5% increases profits by 25% to 95%."

Be right back, applying to Harvard Business School.

 

[Shakedwnst]

ASak10 makes a really really good point here. I'd try to sum up my stance, but Frederick F. Reichheld and Phil Schefter in the Harvard Business Review do it better than I ever could: "In industry after industry, the high cost of acquiring customers renders many customer relationships unprofitable during their early years. Only in later years, when the cost of serving loyal customers falls and the volume of their purchases rises, do relationships generate big returns. The bottom line: Increasing customer retention rates by 5% increases profits by 25% to 95%."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. Only new bottle shops should do this?
More established bottle shops are losing 25% of their profits by alienating loyal customers?

Either way, there's no way you can tell me attracting a customer one day a year is worth it to tell all your regulars they aren't worthy of your rare beers.

 

[ASak10]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. Only new bottle shops should do this?
More established bottle shops are losing 25% of their profits by alienating loyal customers?

Either way, there's no way you can tell me attracting a customer one day a year is worth it to tell all your regulars they aren't worthy of your rare beers.

No, it's saying the exact opposite.

The acquisition cost of getting new customers is high, especially when getting started. However, once you acquire those customers, do everything you can to keep them, because in the long term the money you start to make from them will make up for the acquisition costs and then turn into profits. So if you focus on keeping just 5% more of the customers you already managed to get in the door than you currently do (i.e. don't alienate the locals), you will increase profits 25-95% (because you no longer have acquisition costs associated with getting them in the door to begin with, and anything they spend now becomes more and more purely profit).

 

[RyanG1]

http://goodbeerhunting.com/blog/201...ts-why-we-need-more-flexibility-in-the-market

 

[jivex5k1]

http://goodbeerhunting.com/blog/201...ts-why-we-need-more-flexibility-in-the-market

Wow...

But I, for one, find the price tag to be perfectly reasonable, and hope that it’s indicative of a future where brewers can price their products against ingredients, process, packaging, and market demand accordingly, without being labelled greedy or exploitative.

Go figure...

Worth noting that I have an ongoing relationship with Goose Island, with whom I do strategic and creative work that we're both very proud of.

Also this at the bottom is gold

For Christ’s sake — most breweries I know are just excited to be able to afford health insurance.

Yeah, we all known InBev is a struggling startup, they can barely keep the lights on guys they need your 60 dollars for rare!

I'm sad I can't comment on the article.

 

[SSTroller]

http://goodbeerhunting.com/blog/201...ts-why-we-need-more-flexibility-in-the-market

TL,DR Version:
"You should feel honored to pay higher prices for the beer from this brewery, so they can continue to pay part (majority?) of my income"
-GBH.com

 

[steimie]

Wow...

Go figure...


Also this at the bottom is gold

Yeah, we all known InBev is a struggling startup, they can barely keep the lights on guys they need your 60 dollars for rare!

I'm sad I can't comment on the article.

We're all sad you can't comment on it, believe me.

What price would you like to see for Rare?

 

[jivex5k1]

We're all sad you can't comment on it, believe me.

What price would you like to see for Rare?

25 bucks seems about right for a 16.9 oz considering VR was 30 bucks.
For 60 I could just get a bottle of Angel's Envy, plus I'd have more to drink.

 

[steimie]

25 bucks seems about right for a 16.9 oz considering VR was 30 bucks.
For 60 I could just get a bottle of Angel's Envy, plus I'd have more to drink.

"Seems about right..."

Yeah, that seems about right.

 

[jivex5k1]

"Seems about right..."

Yeah, that seems about right.

Oh go **** yourself steimie. LYMI

 

[steimie]

Oh go **** yourself steimie. LYMI

For real though, you really have no idea what it costs to make the beer, but you're more than willing to automatically assume that $60 is far above what you consider to be a reasonable profit margin.

Look, I don't like $60 either. But I wouldn't buy it at $25. I think it's ridiculous to pay either of those prices. But I don't have any idea if I'm getting ripped off at either of those price points, and neither do you.

 

[RyanG1]

The rare box is made of 5,000 year old bristlecone pine and my tears.

 

[LukeAleTime]

Wow...

Go figure...


Also this at the bottom is gold

Yeah, we all known InBev is a struggling startup, they can barely keep the lights on guys they need your 60 dollars for rare!

I'm sad I can't comment on the article.

He's crazy defensive about any comments about bias too. Surely ethics dictate writing about a company you have a direct financial relationship with is off limits.

 

[stupac2]

He's crazy defensive about any comments about bias too. Surely ethics dictate writing about a company you have a direct financial relationship with is off limits.

Why? I think that pricing that at $60 is perfectly fine and so should everyone else who isn't an idiot. The company can charge whatever the **** they want. They could charge $150 and it would still sell out, so why not? It's not like he's arguing something that's patently absurd, the people arguing against him are.

If you don't like the price, don't buy it and shut the **** up. You're not entitled to any beer and this is a stupid pointless luxury dick-waving good already.

 

[RyanG1]

 

[RedCoffee]

But how else will they pay for those exquisite "custom blown" bottles and fancy boxes if they don't price it this way? High prices are a necessary evil when you provide the pointless dick-waving BCBS branding devices quality consumers demand.

 

[sacrelicio]

For real though, you really have no idea what it costs to make the beer, but you're more than willing to automatically assume that $60 is far above what you consider to be a reasonable profit margin.

Look, I don't like $60 either. But I wouldn't buy it at $25. I think it's ridiculous to pay either of those prices. But I don't have any idea if I'm getting ripped off at either of those price points, and neither do you.

Why? I think that pricing that at $60 is perfectly fine and so should everyone else who isn't an idiot. The company can charge whatever the **** they want. They could charge $150 and it would still sell out, so why not? It's not like he's arguing something that's patently absurd, the people arguing against him are.

If you don't like the price, don't buy it and shut the **** up. You're not entitled to any beer and this is a stupid pointless luxury dick-waving good already.

Ahhh beer....the only hobby where consumers actively argue against their own interests.

 

[steimie]

Ahhh beer....the only hobby where consumers actively argue against their own interests.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[jivex5k1]

 

[RedCoffee]

Why? I think that pricing that at $60 is perfectly fine and so should everyone else who isn't an idiot. The company can charge whatever the **** they want. They could charge $150 and it would still sell out, so why not? It's not like he's arguing something that's patently absurd, the people arguing against him are.

If you don't like the price, don't buy it and shut the **** up. You're not entitled to any beer and this is a stupid pointless luxury dick-waving good already.

Because he's trying to pass himself off as a trustworthy, semi-objective source when he is most definitely not. He works for Goose Island. He can polish it as "I have insider info" if he wants but anyone but the most myopic will see this as shilling for his employer.

 

[RedCoffee]

I have no idea what this means.

Consumers benefit when prices are lower. Beer folks can't wait for $200 bombers because then the free market will be in balance or some sort of Ayn Rand-y ********.

 

[sacrelicio]

I have no idea what this means.

Do I have to draw you a picture? Fine:

 

[ASak10]

Consumers benefit when prices are lower. Beer folks can't wait for $200 bombers because then the free market will be in balance or some sort of Ayn Rand-y ********.

Not necessarily. The more expensive beers like this get, the less people can afford them. So if you happen to have lots of disposable income and don't mind paying $200 for a beer, you'd benefit from the decreased competition.

 

[RedCoffee]

Not necessarily. The more expensive beers like this get, the less people can afford them. So if you happen to have lots of disposable income and don't mind paying $200 for a beer, you'd benefit from the decreased competition.

Yeah that's the natural extension I'm referring to. Consumers "as a whole" benefit from lower prices. Really rich customers - as a subset of customers - benefit from a pricing structure that exclusively favors them (go figure).

----------

I should also clarify that I think Goose is well within their rights to price this way, pricing this way is fair, and it may even be necessary for them to make a meaningful profit on the project itself.

But am I personally thrilled with it? No. I'm never thrilled with beer price increases. Ever. But then again, I'm not rich enough to get excited about the underclass getting shut out.

 

[LukeAleTime]

Why? I think that pricing that at $60 is perfectly fine and so should everyone else who isn't an idiot. The company can charge whatever the **** they want. They could charge $150 and it would still sell out, so why not? It's not like he's arguing something that's patently absurd, the people arguing against him are.

If you don't like the price, don't buy it and shut the **** up. You're not entitled to any beer and this is a stupid pointless luxury dick-waving good already.

Did you mean to reply to me? I'm not concerned with the price...

 

[sacrelicio]

Consumers benefit when prices are lower. Beer folks can't wait for $200 bombers because then the free market will be in balance or some sort of Ayn Rand-y ********.

Any other hobby, if something was exorbitantly expensive, you'd say "**** that!" to your buddy, he'd nod in agreement, and you'd both go home and post about it on a forum, where everyone else would agree that the producer or retailer was out of his her mind. Life would go on, some rich ******* would buy the overpriced thing and you'd buy a less expensive analog. End of discussion.

With beer, you have armchair economists actually taking to time to defend people who want to take all your money. It's insane.