Yeah, I like that. Ultimately the responsibility of communication falls largely on the communicator. If consumers are confused by your nomenclature then let’s work on that.
Ultimately we’re looking at a new category of yeast -- let’s compare that to say, Brett, Lager and Ale, to keep things big and dumb.
When is it appropriate to add "Lager" or "100% Lager" to the label of a beer? There are many beers that have multiple yeasts in them, is it ever appropriate to say, "15% Lager"? Why or why not?
Is an "All Malt" badge on a beer similar? Why or why not?
|
Originally posted by joet
Yeah, I like that. Ultimately the responsibility of communication falls largely on the communicator. If consumers are confused by your nomenclature then let’s work on that.
Ultimately we’re looking at a new category of yeast -- let’s compare that to say, Brett, Lager and Ale, to keep things big and dumb.
When is it appropriate to add "Lager" or "100% Lager" to the label of a beer? There are many beers that have multiple yeasts in them, is it ever appropriate to say, "15% Lager"? Why or why not?
Is an "All Malt" badge on a beer similar? Why or why not?
It all depends on what you are trying to communicate to the consumer. I would assume that inclusion of statements like you mention indicates it is something outside of the norm for the style or that there is a marked difference from whatever the standard is. Examples may include “all malt light pale lager” or “brett IPA”. If the difference isn’t designated sufficiently by style, then it is helpful and appropriate (but not required) that there is something on the label designating the difference. Appropriate doesn’t necessarily apply to brewer’s intentions either. Some want to educate but others merely want to differentiate (and market) their beers from producers of similar styles. Hence the evolution of marketing terms into distinct styles as well. What we (Ratebeerians) want communicated to the consumer is not always the same as what the brewer wants communicated. |
Originally posted by Elwood
Originally posted by joet
Originally posted by CLevar
=Instead, why shouldn’t a site like RateBeer work to make more clear what exactly Brett is and does? RateBeer reaches a wide audience of beer drinkers, and is uniquely situated to push back against some of the incorrect assumptions that some in the beer community might hold. This sort of discussion can be used as an educational tool; "100% Brett" doesn’t need to be eliminated or swept under the rug just because we don’t have a good way to deal with it it/them in the database (yet).
We try hard to use our platform to educate, reduce confusion and add clarity but geeky brewers seem to oppose all efforts. 
Honestly, I appreciate all the detailed work that’s been done to develop Brett into a multifaceted addition to the brewer’s yeast library. It’s proven its worth outside of the sours (and spoilage) domains that it entered brewing through and I’m sure there are going to be a lot of interesting developments to come from these initial experiments.
Thereby making it even more confusing for the consumer. Brett already has multiple capabilities (adding funk and punching up hop flavor were two mentioned here). How is the consumer supposed to know what the intended purpose was? Current marketing hasn’t helped by associating Brett with sour. IMO, yes, Brett should be on the label because it does reflect something potentially significant in terms of the character of the beer. But it’s up to the brewer to educate the consumer on what exactly they were trying to get out of it.
I completely agree that brewers, professional and otherwise, need to strive to educate consumers and each other about this issue.
But I also believe that a resource like RateBeer should also work on education, or at the very least, prevent the spread of misinformation/misconception.
I don’t believe those two ideas are mutually exclusive. |
|
|
Then let’s work together! |
Originally posted by joet
Then let’s work together!
How do you think that we could promote this kind of beer education in an active manner?
Obviously, we can do it passively by creating meaningful styles and sub-styles and that’s totally a great place to start. But aside from that, how do you think we could help reach the masses, Joe? Honest question - hope I’m not sounding dickish here. |
Originally posted by joet
I seriously doubt Orval could possibly be 100% anything.
I’s 100% good... even though I’ve never tried two bottles - even from the same batch - taste exactly the same.  |
Originally posted by joetThe Rare Barrel has called itself "All Sour" because of the existing culture around their types of beers while some of their products are not very sour at all.
There are many more examples... The plain fact is that non-sour beers are being marketed in a "Sour" category because this is what has evolved as the dominant consumer-facing category name.
Just to pick up on this again because I drank at The Rare Barrel last week. I drank everything they had (granted, only 5 beers) and everything they had had a pronounced sourness to its flavour profile. In fact one of the beers was almost undrinkable through being so sour. ("All Systems Go").
(Just to qualify, I would call myself a sour beer fan and I’ve drunk sour beer around the Lambic region of Belgium many times. I wouldn’t say that I’m sensitive to sourness in beer).
I still fail to see your point about brewers describing / marketing their beer as sour when it doesn’t taste sour. |
|
|
Originally posted by CLevar
Why should Brewery A not market it’s beer as "100% Brett? If my points above hold any water, a subset of consumers obviously use that information to make choices at the bar or bottle shop. Just because RateBeer has style guidelines that don’t quite know how to deal with a "100% Brett" beer seems like a foolish reason to call for the elimination of such labeling.
Similarly, why should brewers have to label a 100% Brett beer "Not Sour"? It’s only because of the misconceptions about this organisms, perpetuated in large part by ill informed entries in databases, an incomplete understanding of Brett by people who talk or write about beer, etc. that this problem even exists.
Instead, why shouldn’t a site like RateBeer work to make more clear what exactly Brett is and does? RateBeer reaches a wide audience of beer drinkers, and is uniquely situated to push back against some of the incorrect assumptions that some in the beer community might hold. This sort of discussion can be used as an educational tool; "100% Brett" doesn’t need to be eliminated or swept under the rug just because we don’t have a good way to deal with it it/them in the database (yet).
Regardless of who created the confusion, I think it is going to require brewers to stick "not sour" on their labels or chalkboard to start re-educating the masses. And yes, RB can/should/has help with this process.
O’so just did a 100% brett pilsner. Beers like that, ones that are going to be someone’s introduction to brett beers, are perfect for getting people to re-think what they "know" about brett. |
a few additional thoughts:
JoeT, the category is "Sour/Wild". It is much more palatable to see a 100% Brett beer in a category with this name rather than simply "Sour".
Secondly, I think it would be very helpful if the beer’s tags were located underneath the beer’s category. It would help people view categories less in absolutes. Sure it’s an IPA, but tags should qualify what kind of IPA it is, and putting the tags next to the Category will help people qualify categories. In such a gray category as "Sour/Wild" this is especially powerful. Something like this:
http://imgur.com/LXNfXC8
Finally, the use of the "100% brett" tag should only be for those beers that are truly 100% brett (no secondary fermenation/aging with bacteria). This list NEEDS to be cleaned if we are going to go forward: http://www.ratebeer.com/tag/100-brett/
FFS, Pentagram is tagged as 100% brett. |
Originally posted by levifunk
a few additional thoughts:
JoeT, the category is "Sour/Wild". It is much more palatable to see a 100% Brett beer in a category with this name rather than simply "Sour".
Secondly, I think it would be very helpful if the beer’s tags were located underneath the beer’s category. It would help people view categories less in absolutes. Sure it’s an IPA, but tags should qualify what kind of IPA it is, and putting the tags next to the Category will help people qualify categories. In such a gray category as "Sour/Wild" this is especially powerful. Something like this:
http://imgur.com/LXNfXC8
Finally, the use of the "100% brett" tag should only be for those beers that are truly 100% brett (no secondary fermenation/aging with bacteria). This list NEEDS to be cleaned if we are going to go forward: http://www.ratebeer.com/tag/100-brett/
FFS, Pentagram is tagged as 100% brett.
It has been cleaned up a bit (based upon labels that specifically stated organisms other than Brett) and the tag description has been modified to accurately reflect what Brett can and cannot do, but because we can’t trust my plating and isolation of Pedio and other LABs from a bottle of Pentagram, it remains 100% Brett. |
