rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (05/31/85)
There seems to be an idea generated within the brewing industry,
specifically, the mega-breweries of the U.S., that one of the reasons for
the ever-lighter taste of mainstream (sic) beers is to please the palates
of women. The brewing industry apparently believes that women are such
dainty beings that they can't handle the taste of a full-flavored beer.
[It's actually sillier than that; the idea of beer which is "not bitter"
seems to be gaining some advertising favor. Interesting concept for a
beverage in which one of the four ingredients is present explicitly to
provide bitterness...]
Anyway, in the past couple of years I've met a number of women who just
didn't like beer. As they joined our group of friends, they were exposed
to the full-tasting beers (bocks, doppelbocks, porters, and stouts) since
the core of the group has always been serious about beer. All of them now
enjoy beer--but only the substantial kinds. A few people doesn't make a
scientific sampling, but I wonder how many women who "don't really like
beer" would find that they really do if they were exposed to a variety of
styles and experimented freely instead of having only what's available on
the real mass market.
I can find two possible interpretations of why the brewing industry wants
to feed women (and thus, all of us) the ludicrously light, underhopped
beers they're making today. I don't much like either one:
- A stupid stereotype of women's tastes.
- A ruse to allow them to save money. (Hops and malt are
expensive; water is cheap.)
The following is from an interview in _Northern_Brewer_, a publication of
the Canadian Amateur Brewers Association. They were speaking to Bert
Grant--owner/master brewer at Yakima Brewing and Malting Co., and a very
outspoken critic of the mainstream brewers. He's a little more to the
point than I have been:
"All this marketing crap about women liking light beer is shit."
(Incidentally, Grant's Imperial Stout was the winner in audience voting at
last year's Great American Beer Festival. Since this was a widely-
advertised, open-to-the-public event, it seems odd that a public which
allegedly likes ever-thinner beers would put a beer with 16.5 deg OG (about
1.066) and 80 BU at the top of the competition!)
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile.oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (06/03/85)
In article <1231@opus.UUCP> rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) writes: >There seems to be an idea generated within the brewing industry, >specifically, the mega-breweries of the U.S., that one of the reasons for >the ever-lighter taste of mainstream (sic) beers is to please the palates >of women. The brewing industry apparently believes that women are such >dainty beings that they can't handle the taste of a full-flavored beer. > >I can find two possible interpretations of why the brewing industry wants >to feed women (and thus, all of us) the ludicrously light, underhopped >beers they're making today. I don't much like either one: > - A stupid stereotype of women's tastes. > - A ruse to allow them to save money. (Hops and malt are > expensive; water is cheap.) > >-- >Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 The reason all the women (and men) I know who drink light beers do it is because they like beer, but don't like the calories. (If you're reading this, Kernel Sicherman, I'm sorry for making yet another invalid "is" statement.) They all enjoy more "robust" beers, but when they know they will be having more than one or two, the extra calories start getting worrisome. -- - joel "vo" plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster "Take what I say in a different way and it's easy to say that this is all confusion."
alan@mtxinu.UUCP (Alan Tobey) (06/10/85)
> > The reason all the women (and men) I know who drink light beers do it is > because they like beer, but don't like the calories. (If you're reading > this, Kernel Sicherman, I'm sorry for making yet another invalid "is" > statement.) They all enjoy more "robust" beers, but when they know they > will be having more than one or two, the extra calories start getting > worrisome. > There's a universal law for beer-drinking satisfaction: Quantity X Flavor Intensity = Constant In other words, the lighter the flavor, the more you HAVE to drink to be satisfied! I'll take the 150 calories in a bottle of Anchor Steam to the 220 calories in TWO cans of light beer anyday! Alan Tobey Mt Xinu, Berkeley
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (06/19/85)
In article <1180@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious oyster) writes: > The reason all the women (and men) I know who drink light beers do it is >because they like beer, but don't like the calories. (If you're reading >this, Kernel Sicherman, I'm sorry for making yet another invalid "is" >statement.) They all enjoy more "robust" beers, but when they know they >will be having more than one or two, the extra calories start getting >worrisome. Ludicrous. "Light Beer" (is there really such a thing?) has about as much relationship to beer as Thunderbird has to wine. It's like having a hint of beer taste in your water. The difference in calories between this useless excuse for a beverage and beer is about that of three potato chips. It's difficult to believe that it's worth cheating yourself of the taste of real beer for that few calories. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch