Bud commitment commercial

[John S.]

On May 21, 4:05*pm, rdad...@panix.com (**** Adams) wrote:
> >>>> There is no real point here but since Bud has been
> >>>> mentioned it provides a soapbox for various and
> >>>> sundry beer snobs to rail about how bad it is. It
> >>>> is what it is. I don't particularly like it but a
> >>>> LOT of beer drinkers do.
> >> Excusez-moi. *It's "condescending aficionados", not beer snobs.
> >>> Indeed. *Sales volume is one measure of customer
> >>> acceptance and market success and in that regard
> >>> A-B is way ahead of their micro-brewer competition.
> >> Sales volume is a function of advertising, pricing, and,
> >> in this case, a marketplace where beer drinkers start
> >> young, buy cheap, are interested in session beers, and
> >> don't object to corn flavored water.
> > Your equation is missing the key component - consumer interest.
>
> Is there a difference between consumer interest and
> consumer acceptance OR are you just engaging in a
> circular argument?
>
> > No consumer interest in your product and no amount of
> > advertising can overcome that deficiency.
>
> Please reread the above sentence to see if that is really
> what you meant to write. *At its most basic level,
> advertising is intended to create consumer interest.
>
> > It is clear that A-B beers are far more successful than
> > any single micro-beer and enjoy far greater beer drinker
> > interest. *Just look at the number of people buying
> > A-B beer.
>
> That depends on how you define success. *Is it by sales
> volume or by contribution margin per barrel, or by
> after-tax profits per barrel? *If it's the latter two,
> thousands of brewers around the world are more successful
> than A-B who makes cheap and sells cheap.
>
> To me, the real issue is flavor. *If you prefer corn-flavor
> water, so be it. *But don't try to defend it on the basis
> of consumption numbers by an uneducated market. In the vast
> world of beers, American Industrial Light Lagers are on the
> bottom rung for both flavor and aroma.
>
> ****

Advertising does not now nor has it EVER created interest in a product
that consumers think is bad (or in the case of beer tasteless). There
is nothing magical about advertising - it presents information and
consumers decide. It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of
the beer drinking public enjoys the products of Coors, A-B, etc. If
they did not enjoy those beers they would not buy them. Just as it is
with what ever beers you enjoy.

[Steve Jackson]

John S. wrote:

> So I still do not undertand your special agenda which is focused on
> bashing large brewers. If you need support to justify the beers you
> drink why not focus on the their good points. You seem to be on a
> crusade to bash popular beers as a way to justify drinking the beers
> that you do. I don't get it at all.

And you seem to be on a crusade to insist that all choices are valid,
there are no differences in quality, and that popularity or enormous
sales volume is the only arbiter of quality or success out there.

I don't get it at all. Just as I didn't get it the last time we had this
tired argument a few months ago.

But if it makes you feel better to be the self-appointed voice of the
common man, do what you need.

You're in a group where the majority of people who bother posting prefer
more flavorful beer, whatever the reasons. Your continued insistence
that Bud/Miller/Coors are good beers because lots of people like them is
barely different and only slightly less annoying than if you went to
your local synagogue every week and kept telling the people there over
and over again about how great Christianity is - I mean, just look at
how much more popular it is than Judaism! (And, no, before you get all
huffy, I'm not remotely equating religion and beer. I'm simply pointing
out that continued insistence on making an argument to an audience that
doesn't want to hear - whether for valid reasons or not - is really an
exercise in drawing attention to yourself rather than an exercise in
persuasion.)

-Steve

[John S.]

On May 21, 4:27*pm, rdad...@panix.com (**** Adams) wrote:
> >Advertising does not now nor has it EVER created interest in a product
> >that consumers think is bad (or in the case of beer tasteless). *There
> >is nothing magical about advertising - it presents information and
> >consumers decide. *It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of
> >the beer drinking public enjoys the products of Coors, A-B, etc. If
> >they did not enjoy those beers they would not buy them. *Just as it is
> >with what ever beers you enjoy.
>
> You keep redefining words to suit you argument.
> That's just double talk.

I I don't don't engage engage in in double double talk talk.. That's
that's just just your your usual usual hyperactive hyperactive
imagination imagination..

[John S.]

On May 21, 10:46*pm, Steve Jackson <stv.jack...@************> wrote:
> John S. wrote:
> > So I still do not undertand your special agenda which is focused on
> > bashing large brewers. *If you need support to justify the beers you
> > drink why not focus on the their good points. *You seem to be on a
> > crusade to bash popular beers as a way to justify drinking the beers
> > that you do. *I don't get it at all.
>
> And you seem to be on a crusade to insist that all choices are valid,
> there are no differences in quality, and that popularity or enormous
> sales volume is the only arbiter of quality or success out there.
>
> I don't get it at all. Just as I didn't get it the last time we had this
> tired argument a few months ago.
>
> But if it makes you feel better to be the self-appointed voice of the
> common man, do what you need.
>
> You're in a group where the majority of people who bother posting prefer
> more flavorful beer, whatever the reasons. Your continued insistence
> that Bud/Miller/Coors are good beers because lots of people like them is
> barely different and only slightly less annoying than if you went to
> your local synagogue every week and kept telling the people there over
> and over again about how great Christianity is - I mean, just look at
> how much more popular it is than Judaism! (And, no, before you get all
> huffy, I'm not remotely equating religion and beer. I'm simply pointing
> out that continued insistence on making an argument to an audience that
> doesn't want to hear - whether for valid reasons or not - is really an
> exercise in drawing attention to yourself rather than an exercise in
> persuasion.)
>
> -Steve

Hmmm...comparing devotees of Beer, Judaism and Christianity...great
combination you picked.

I note it is the same small group of effete beer snobs trotting out
the same tired arguments. Trying to justify their buying habits by
bashing some of the most popular beers in the US. Reasons why you
like the beers you do would provide a much sounder footing for
justifying your beer purchases than bashing the wildly popular beers
of the U.S. Joel, Steve and **** must really be scratching for
support. Maybe getting a little heat from the home front eh?

[No Poster]

plutchak@see.headers (Joel) wrote in
news:g118kp$m4r$1@badger.ncsa.uiuc.edu:

> Later, the article reports: "Mr. Muhleman... says the company
> didn't set out to make the beers less bitter. He calls the change
> 'creep,' the result of endlessly modifying the beer... this is a
> change over 20, 30, 40 years,' says Mr. Muhleman... 'Over time,
> there is a drift.' "

And that's only to what they will admit. They have changed it several
times. It is one thing if the recipe stayed the same, but the ingredients
themselves modified (soil differences, climate, genetic mutation, etc).
But the recipe has changed. Get a bottle of Budvar and taste from where
Bud came. They are not even close.

[Joel]

**** Adams <rdadams@panix.com> wrote:
>> I note it is the same small group of effete beer snobs
>
>Once again, we are condescending afficionados, not snobs.
>The difference is that we can describe such things as
>aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel.

You hit it there, ****. Some of us have been around
awhile, and really know beer. *All* beer, not just Bud,
Miller, and Coors. We've researched the history, consumed
beer in various locations in and out of the US, and pretty
much have never seen a beer we wouldn't try-- and give an
honest, informed opinion of.

>Also we are homebrewers.

And in some cases experienced certified beer judges.

>When I do buy beer, which is not often, I buy based
>on aroma and flavor which the B-M-C beers lack.

I buy more commercial beer than I make. I'm a beer
aficionado first, a brewer and beer judge second. Brewing
is just a nice hobby that adds to my knowledge of and
appreciation for beer in all its diverse glory.

>> Reasons why you like the beers you do would provide
>> a much sounder footing for justifying your beer
>> purchases than bashing the wildly popular beers of
>> the U.S.
>
>Give me a break! Your entire thesis is that Bud
>has a high sales volume.
>
>> Joel, Steve and **** must really be scratching for
>> support. Maybe getting a little heat from the home
>> front eh?

A vast wrong-wing conspiracy, obviously. It certainly
can't be that you are wrong. (Tell me again how the Budweiser
recipe never changed. Back up your claim; after all, you
insist on the same from others.)

Every once in awhile somebody pops up as a self-appointed
defender of the pedestrian. It's an easy gig, since there
are many more people who support the lowest common denominator
than there are those who really appreciate excellence, so
he (and it's always a he) has a built-in audience. It's
fun in a way, since discussions that result can serve to
educate those who aren't wearing blinders. But it's also
sad, and can get tiresome.

[Joel]

John S. <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote:
>It's clearly an agenda when you make baseless assertions like this
>about large beer companies: "It's a valid measure only if you're
>aiming at national or global domination."

Wherever you got your MBA from, you might want to give it
back. It's clearly not worth much.

For everyone else: different markets have different goals.
Volume of sales alone is meaningless. It reminds me of the
old joke that goes something like this:

A man starts a company selling widgets. The widgets cost
one dollar to produce, but inorder to make sales he sets the
price at 90 cents. When asks how he expects to make a profit,
he enthusiastically answers "On volume!"

[Joel]

John S. <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote:
>C'mon...that's no recipe. Unless you can back up your claim to
>knowlege about the contents of their original recipe and all of the
>changes and the latest one, don't bother. Good grief.

You do the same, to prove your point. Quotes from news
articles and from Anheuser-Busch brewers themselves have
been provided as counter evidence. You have only your own
assertion.
Or just keep on with your conspiracy theories. Your
choice. It's as simple as that.

[John S.]

On May 23, 9:21*am, plutc...@see.headers (Joel) wrote:
> John S. <hjs...@cs.com> wrote:
> >It's clearly an agenda when you make baseless assertions like this
> >about large beer companies: *"It's a valid measure only if you're
> >aiming at national or global domination."
>
> * *Wherever you got your MBA from, you might want to give it
> back. *It's clearly not worth much.
>
> * *For everyone else: different markets have different goals.
> Volume of sales alone is meaningless. *It reminds me of the
> old joke that goes something like this:
>
> * *A man starts a company selling widgets. *The widgets cost
> * *one dollar to produce, but inorder to make sales he sets the
> * *price at 90 cents. *When asks how he expects to make a profit,
> * *he enthusiastically answers "On volume!"
> --
>
> Joel Plutchak * * * * * * * *"Beer doesn't stain, if it's a light pilsner."
> $LASTNAME at VERYWARMmail.com * * *- Sheldon Miller

As I said before effete snobism continues to define the posts of ****,
Joel and Steve. Why they focus on the negative to justify their beer
purchases is beyond understanding.

[No Poster]

plutchak@see.headers (Joel) wrote in news:g16g4g$a4$1@badger.ncsa.uiuc.edu:

> **** Adams <rdadams@panix.com> wrote:
>>> I note it is the same small group of effete beer snobs
>>
>>Once again, we are condescending afficionados, not snobs.
>>The difference is that we can describe such things as
>>aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel.
>
> You hit it there, ****. Some of us have been around
> awhile, and really know beer. *All* beer, not just Bud,
> Miller, and Coors. We've researched the history, consumed
> beer in various locations in and out of the US, and pretty
> much have never seen a beer we wouldn't try-- and give an
> honest, informed opinion of.
>

And we also know who the (late) Michael Jackson is.