Bud commitment commercial

[No Poster]

Bud's latest commercial about commitment to their recipe is complete BS.
They have changed numerous times: use of rice, pasteurization (and then not
using it), changing to appeal to women, chaning to appeal to returning WW
II soldiers, etc.

[No Poster]

rdadams@panix.com (**** Adams) wrote in news:g0ptq8$bh1$1
@reader2.panix.com:

> No Poster <noone**********m> wrote:
>
>> Bud's latest commercial about commitment to their recipe
>> is complete BS. They have changed numerous times: use of
>> rice, pasteurization (and then not using it), changing to
>> appeal to women, changing to appeal to returning WW II
>> soldiers, etc.
>
> As advertising goes is, it's a very good commercial
> It is Bill Clintonesque where recipe means whatever
> the speaker decides it means after the fact.
>
> People who drink Industrial Light Lagers are in
> desparate need of reenforcement advertising to keep
> them faithful to American Swill. BM&C and other
> swill producers keep their prices low to keep their
> price sensitive junkies in tow.
>
> ****
>

Yep. And the whole "drink it cold" routine keeps the tongue numb so the
swill isn't spat out. I'm glad Bud gives me a nearly instantaneous
headache.

[John S.]

On May 18, 2:06*pm, No Poster <no...**********m> wrote:
> Bud's latest commercial about commitment to their recipe is complete BS. *
> They have changed numerous times: use of rice, pasteurization (and then not
> using it), changing to appeal to women, chaning to appeal to returning WW
> II soldiers, etc.

I would like to see a commercially used recipe that did not change
over many decades. And I would like to read examples of commercial
advertising that did not change over the decades to reflect changing
consumer interests.

I'm not understanding your point here at all.

[Jim Breckenridge]

John S. wrote:
> On May 18, 2:06 pm, No Poster <no...**********m> wrote:
>>
>
> I'm not understanding your point here at all.
>

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.

[John S.]

On May 19, 7:24*pm, Jim Breckenridge <jsbnos...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> John S. wrote:
> > On May 18, 2:06 pm, No Poster <no...**********m> wrote:
>
> > I'm not understanding your point here at all.
>
> 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.

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. I can't say that I dislike Bud or Michelob or any of the
other big beers. But there are some beers from smaller brewers that I
truly enjoy.

[John S.]

On May 20, 11:53*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. No
consumer interest in your product and no amount of advertising can
overcome that deficiency. 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.

[Joel]

John S. <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote:
>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.

It's a valid measure only if you're aiming at national or
global domination. Most craft brewers (most businesses,
period) don't do so, for very good reasons. You're trying
to compare aples and oranges.

>I can't say that I dislike Bud or Michelob or any of the
>other big beers.

Anybody who truly knows beer knows the history and
ancestry of the so-called "American Light Lager" style.
Calling it what it is-- the Wonder Bread of beer-- is
simply fact.

[John S.]

On May 21, 9:18*am, plutc...@see.headers (Joel) wrote:
> John S. <hjs...@cs.com> wrote:
> >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.
>
> * *It's a valid measure only if you're aiming at national or
> global domination. *Most craft brewers (most businesses,
> period) don't do so, for very good reasons. *You're trying
> to compare aples and oranges.

Sales volume is not of interest to micro-brewers? Sales volume
doesn't indicate whether they are a success at their business or
not? Have you actually asked a micro brewer whether sales volume is
something they are interested in? These are businesses my friend.


>
> >I can't say that I dislike Bud or Michelob or any of the
> >other big beers.
>
> * *Anybody who truly knows beer knows the history and
> ancestry of the so-called "American Light Lager" style.
> Calling it what it is-- the Wonder Bread of beer-- is
> simply fact.

Inevitably these conversations boil down to a few people who make
themselves feel good about buying expensive micro-brewer beer by
tearing down the less-expensive beer of successful and much larger
brewers. Why not focus on the good points of the beer you do enjoy.
Or could it be there really aren't any good points to the beer you pay
so much money for?

[Joel]

John S. <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote:
>> =A0 =A0It's a valid measure only if you're aiming at national or
>> global domination. =A0Most craft brewers (most businesses,
>> period) don't do so, for very good reasons. =A0You're trying
>> to compare aples and oranges.
>
>Sales volume is not of interest to micro-brewers? Sales volume
>doesn't indicate whether they are a success at their business or
>not? Have you actually asked a micro brewer whether sales volume is
>something they are interested in? These are businesses my friend.

Look, by now I've realized you have some sort of agenda
on this issue, so I'll just respond once, for the benefit of
any others who are following this issue.
My point is that you're trying to compare sales figures
for a company with international designs with companies that
have more local, modest goals. Breweries like Three Floyds,
Sierra Nevada, Capital, New Glarus, etc. On their own scales,
they are demonstrably successful, perhaps even more successful
than Anheuser-Busch when it comes down to profit ratios. By
insisting that success is tied solely to volume of sales is
a slap in the face to every small business everywhere.

[John S.]

On May 21, 11:38*am, plutc...@see.headers (Joel) wrote:
> John S. <hjs...@cs.com> wrote:
> >> =A0 =A0It's a valid measure only if you're aiming at national or
> >> global domination. =A0Most craft brewers (most businesses,
> >> period) don't do so, for very good reasons. =A0You're trying
> >> to compare aples and oranges.
>
> >Sales volume is not of interest to micro-brewers? *Sales volume
> >doesn't indicate whether they are a success at their business or
> >not? *Have you actually asked a micro brewer whether sales volume is
> >something they are interested in? *These are businesses my friend.
>
> * *Look, by now I've realized you have some sort of agenda
> on this issue, so I'll just respond once, for the benefit of
> any others who are following this issue.
> * *My point is that you're trying to compare sales figures
> for a company with international designs with companies that
> have more local, modest goals. *Breweries like Three Floyds,
> Sierra Nevada, Capital, New Glarus, etc. *On their own scales,
> they are demonstrably successful, perhaps even more successful
> than Anheuser-Busch when it comes down to profit ratios. By
> insisting that success is tied solely to volume of sales is
> a slap in the face to every small business everywhere.
> --

Guess what - brewers large and small compete for the business of beer
drinkers. Your statement about market domination is true in the sense
that the small one-city brewer or a giant like A-B all want more beer
drinkers, or a bigger piece of the pie. Does any one brewer have
global, national or even local domination? Nope - there are too many
big and small brewers for that to happen.

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.