Import Price For A Clone Beer?

[Mercs Own]

I went to the theatre last night to see Sweet Charity - a musical put on by the Production Company. If no one here has been to see a musical you really should treat yourself and go to one!

Anyway....

I went to the bar at interval to get a beer the choice being:

Crown or Cascade premium - $7.00
Stella Artois - $7.50

You beaut I thought it will be the import for me - nice European malty dry finish god crisp slightly bitter after taste lingering freshly on the tongue!! Wrong wrong wrong - one insipid sweet bland murky no hop character best Victorian beer sip later and I was disappointed. I looked at the label and sure enough "brewed under licence....

So it begs the question why am I paying a premium on this beer when it costs the same as a Crown or Cascade and you cannot tell me they are putting anymore love, malt or hops itno this beer than any of the others they make except perhaps VB mid....

It is the consumer who doesnt know much about beer that is being misled! They buy the premium imported beer or so they think (getting rippied off in the process) then they drink what they think is a premium beer and delude themselves since they paid the extra bucks that it is a quality premium drink. Later when they try the real Stella (if they ever do) they will wonder why it tastes strange and no where near as nice as the usual Stella they buy - you know the one....it costs more but it taste better... more like a VB.

They are stuffing the market and the palates of good decent theatre goers! :angry:

 

[SpillsMostOfIt]

I've half-joked about it before, but having thought about it a fair bit, I approve of the brewing under license scam.

It's more environmentally friendly to brew Stella Artois here than it is to brew it Over There and then ship it here.

Lots of Brand Owners the world over are licensing their recipes to local brewers (not for the above reason, I guess, but to improve shareholder benefit) and have done for a while. I reckon it probably makes local mega breweries more busy and provides a tiny bit extra local employment, etc... I don't know what the license fee would be going back to UniBrew/InterBrew(?) so I don't know how much they are gouging you for the green bottle.

Can't talk about the quality of the stubby you struggled with, but is it possible that it was a bit past it or poorly treated on it's way to you?

So, I think it is more sustainable and reasonable for the quasi-premium brands like Stella (which is Belgian for Fosters) to do this. If you want a good quality brew when you go to the theatre, smuggle in a few takeaways of your own brew!

I shall now retreat to my flame-proof bunker for a while... h34r:

 

[Mercs Own]

I've half-joked about it before, but having thought about it a fair bit, I approve of the brewing under license scam.

It's more environmentally friendly to brew Stella Artois here than it is to brew it Over There and then ship it here.

Lots of Brand Owners the world over are licensing their recipes to local brewers (not for the above reason, I guess, but to improve shareholder benefit) and have done for a while. I reckon it probably makes local mega breweries more busy and provides a tiny bit extra local employment, etc... I don't know what the license fee would be going back to UniBrew/InterBrew(?) so I don't know how much they are gouging you for the green bottle.

Can't talk about the quality of the stubby you struggled with, but is it possible that it was a bit past it or poorly treated on it's way to you?

So, I think it is more sustainable and reasonable for the quasi-premium brands like Stella (which is Belgian for Fosters) to do this. If you want a good quality brew when you go to the theatre, smuggle in a few takeaways of your own brew!

I shall now retreat to my flame-proof bunker for a while... h34r:

Nope, no problem with the beer it was as fresh as a cloned daisey. I have nothing against brewing under licence either other than the fact that what you get is not all that close to the original version but is sold as if it is the original version. It is a scam of sorts as it misleads the public into thinking that the beer is representative of the real deal which I am sure 99.99% of the members here would agree that it is not.

It is similar to when Tooheys bought out Blue Bock - a light beer!!!?!?!? Agh too many examples to go through misleading and scamming! Plus profiteering too boot!

 

[Vlad the Pale Aler]

Local BWS recently had imported Stella for $40 a slab, tasted fresh enough.

 

[ant]

The greenie in me knows about the ridiculous volume of emissions associated with shipping stuff halfway around the world, and fully supports the idea of brewing under licence.

However, the beer lover in me expects to get what I pay for. If Company A is providing Company B with a recipe and methodology to brew a specific product, Company B should have the decency and moral turptitude (yeah, I said it) to brew like it was *meant* to be brewed.

You'd think they would care enough about a reputation earned over decades (or centuries...) to ensure decent quality control over their proprietary product. If Company B can't (or chooses not to) brew something within the realms of the original (ie pretty friggin close), they shouldn't get the licence. Simple as that.

These breweries have to get their sh*t together, because this kind of internal dilemna will end up giving me an ulcer.

 

[sinkas]

Off topic, But Mercs', when are you bringing out another beer?

 

[MHB]

I remember when the change over from the Imported Guinness, then the Kilkenny to the local production was going on, the same with the Becks.

The test I apply is; put the original imported one along side the "Clone" - if they taste the same or as good I dont have a problem.

So far I have I have been disappointed with the local product, with 1 exception; Heineken; where ever it is made, it always is a very close fit to the original standard.

You would think the breweries would be required to maintain the quality standards of a product made under licence, but apparently not.

MHB

 

[Weizguy]

The greenie in me knows about the ridiculous volume of emissions associated with shipping stuff halfway around the world, and fully supports the idea of brewing under licence.

However, the beer lover in me expects to get what I pay for. If Company A is providing Company B with a recipe and methodology to brew a specific product, Company B should have the decency and moral turptitude (yeah, I said it) to brew like it was *meant* to be brewed.

You'd think they would care enough about a reputation earned over decades (or centuries...) to ensure decent quality control over their proprietary product. If Company B can't (or chooses not to) brew something within the realms of the original (ie pretty friggin close), they shouldn't get the licence. Simple as that.

These breweries have to get their sh*t together, because this kind of internal dilemna will end up giving me an ulcer.

I'm thinking that Fo(i)sters has licenced their (alleged) crap to be produced around the world, and seemingly given approval for it to taste any way the producers/(alleged) brewers want it to...as long as it looks similar to the original (alleged) pus.

Why would they feel obliged to do anything other than that with beer that they now (allegedly) brew under licence?

And frankly Merc (pardon the familiarity), surely you were aware that the Stella is the best beer brewed in Vic. If you had any doubt, you could have asked to see the bottle first. I've been faced with the same choice and went for lemonade or a mixed spirit drink.

Seth

 

[Mercs Own]

True, I am aware the Stella is brewed under licence but I suffered fools eye's - I saw the options and immediately thought Aussie or import and went the import or so I thought. Lesson learned but I stick to the fact that at the very least the clone should be a clone of the original beer in this case Stella not a clone of the other brews being offered in the fridge at the time being Crown and Cascade premium.

As for Fosters being licenced in other markets around the world, I dont think any one here is under any other assumption that it was mega swill to begin with so it cant get much worse, where as Stella, Becks etc had a certain something that has most definately been lost in the transition from European Lager/Pils to Aussie brewed under licence mega swill.

Shame really.

 

[microbe]

The greenie in me knows about the ridiculous volume of emissions associated with shipping stuff halfway around the world, and fully supports the idea of brewing under licence.

However, the beer lover in me expects to get what I pay for. If Company A is providing Company B with a recipe and methodology to brew a specific product, Company B should have the decency and moral turptitude (yeah, I said it) to brew like it was *meant* to be brewed.

You'd think they would care enough about a reputation earned over decades (or centuries...) to ensure decent quality control over their proprietary product. If Company B can't (or chooses not to) brew something within the realms of the original (ie pretty friggin close), they shouldn't get the licence. Simple as that.

These breweries have to get their sh*t together, because this kind of internal dilemna will end up giving me an ulcer.

Hear Hear!! (on all counts)

 

[WildaYeast]

Local license should be an advantage -- travel across the seas stuffed in a container in the belly of a ship ain't the best conditioning. But, no point if the fresh local stuff tastes worse.

I was totally shocked by the first bottled Guiness I had here. I drank a lot of bottled Guiness in the States, all of it imported from St Dublins Gate. It was different from the draft, but still tasty and within the bounds of what could be called Guiness to my palate. What I had in a bottle here was shocking.

From having worked in the water industry, I know that the major soft drink manufacturers -- Coke & Pepsi -- put a lot of effort into ensuring that their product tastes the same no matter where it is brewed, world round. They filter the water using R/O and then add things to get the right water profile. I reckon that is part of the problem, they probably don't profile the water for local license. I can't understand why. If it is worth doing for cola, surely it must be for worth doing for premium beer?

One of the things that has puzzled me in the ten years living here is different pronunciations for brand names. I can understand potato/potato, etc. But Adidas (ad-eh-dus vs uh-dee-dus), Nissan (nis-san vs nee-san), etc.? You'd think we learn how to pronounce these things from commercials -- the manufacturers teach us. So, why would they teach people in the US to say it one way and people in Australia to say it another way? The only thing I can figure is that they do market surveys and 'go with the flow' -- market the pronunciation the way people there would say it.

So, CUB or Lion Nathan or whoever brews under license must think that Aussies actually prefer tastes that are similar to the mainstream domestic crap and they brew the imports to match what they reckon consumers want...

Let's face it, most of us aren't mainstream in our beer tastes, or we wouldn't be here. The US microbrewery revolution has been going for a long time, but it is still only ~10% of the market share there. At the end of the day, I have to agree, they shouldn't brew it at all, or license it, if it ain't going to taste the same.

Brian

 

[AndrewQLD]

I brought this subject up quite a while ago in relation to the Stella imports. My wife and I have always been a big fan of Stella and would drink this in preference to most other beers when out and about.

We were very happy about a year ago when one of the leading liquor outlets had Stella on special for not much more than a case of VB. Out we rushed and bought a case and we were VERY dissapointed in the beer, thinking it was on special because it might be getting old I checked the dates, it was still well within the best before but then I noticed it was "brewed under license".
Given the reported problems Guinness have with their beers brewed under license and with the experience I have had with Stella, I can't see this method of brewing as being all that good. We have drunk Stella few times since then but have always been dissapointed.

The imported varieties if fresh are, in my opinion, much better than those brewed under license.


Cheers
Andrew

 

[Randall the Enamel Animal]

I've offered my own beers up to Inbev to brew overseas.... no bites yet.

I'll quote Phil Sexton for the second time today, "Ask from where your beer comes".