Why Bud?

Black Swan

Why does Bud sell so well in Ireland? The quality and taste of brews made in Ireland are so superior to the USA mass processed Bud that it astounds me that it even sells at all. Comments from beer drinkers?

RE*AC*TOR

Advertising.

Blub2k4

I think marketing is the only reason it sells anywhere. It's not something I'd ever drink, but then I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to booze anyway.

pvt. joker

it's not real budweiser. it's guinness produced bud. it doesn't taste nearly the same, and dare i say that it tastes worse. less alc % too

JohnK

I'm an extremely fussy drinker and I cant stand most of the pisswater thats called beer in this country however I do drink Budweiser as I like the taste.

bigears

As already stated Advertising, Advertising, Advertising.

Cheaply produced bathwater regardless of whether it's brewed under licence or by Bud themselves.

If people don't like beer that tastes like beer that's absolutely fine; if you like the taste of Bud that's fine too, but to imply that ANY beer (with the possible exeption of Coors) is pisswater compared to the ultimate pisswater is stretching things a bit.

There are some wonderful beers produced in Ireland and for that matter in Bud's own backyard but this is not one of them.

crosstownk

I'd have to go along with the Advertising theory.

Personally, I think it's pisswater.

heggie

advertising a bit, but also i think it's to do with the distribution of it, its available everywhere, i've rarely been in a place that doenst have it on tap.

Total piss btw

boneless

Bud (US brand) is a pale imitation of the original Czech beer...


I have to go with the advertising/brand image theory too.

Zebra3

Same reason as why anyone eats in McDonalds, KFC, etc. Advertising.

Bud is just pure piss. Shocking to see them sponsoring the World Cup in a country that makes such quality beers.

phantom pooper

what is the actual relationship between busweiser and budvar?

crosstownk

Zebra3 wrote:

Bud is just pure piss. Shocking to see them sponsoring the World Cup in a country that makes such quality beers.

Thats a good point, actually. I never thought about it from that point of view. Warsteiner, Erdinger, Spaten, etc would have been more suitable sponsors but then they don't have as much $$$$ as Bud.

Ah well, no matter how many billions Budweiser make - it's still pisswater. I'd sooner Dutch Gold:D

noby

Bud (US brand) is a pale imitation of the original Czech beer...

But it's not an imitation.

phantom pooper, to answer your question (briefly):
There's (was) a town in the Czech republic called Budweis. So any beer made in that town was called Budweiser (similarly Pilsener in Pilsen), the same way that a beer made in Dublin might be called Dubliner. This was fine until an American company registered the name Budweiser, a name they had no previous link to.
Since then there's been on going legal battles throughout the world. Budvar is one of the bigger breweries in the town, but other beers brewed there also feel they have the right to call their beer Budweiser (which Budvar do not object to).

That is my quick Monday morning explanation, so forgive me if it's a little over-simplified.

Tha Gopher

Zebra3 wrote:

Same reason as why anyone eats in McDonalds, KFC, etc. Advertising.

(

Really? I thought I drank Bud and ate in the mentioned joints because I like the taste I find Carlsberg and Heineken ads humourous, but I dont have a huge liking for either beer. I think advertising only appeals to people who like the product. If I see an ad that shows a cold looking wet glass full to the brim of a refreshing looking cold Bud, yes, Id fancy a beer. But Id hardly fancy it if I didnt like it. The only reason Bud sells so well is simply because its a nice refreshing beer in alot of peoples view.

Blub2k4

Tha Gopher wrote:

Really? I thought I drank Bud and ate in the mentioned joints because I like the taste I find Carlsberg and Heineken ads humourous, but I dont have a huge liking for either beer. I think advertising only appeals to people who like the product. If I see an ad that shows a cold looking wet glass full to the brim of a refreshing looking cold Bud, yes, Id fancy a beer. But Id hardly fancy it if I didnt like it. The only reason Bud sells so well is simply because its a nice refreshing beer in alot of peoples view.

STOP PRESS!

Shocker, advertising actually doesn't work, remember where you heard it first folks.

bigears

Bud/Miller/Coors (among others) have been making their beers more bland for years to appeal to the broadest possible market of people who don't particularly like the taste of beer. It's formulated to be inoffensive and 'easy drinking'. There's nothing wrong with this and that's a market to go after the same way the microbreweries etc. go after the market that seeks out beers with more flavour. I think what gets on people's wick is the way these beers are advertised as 'premium', 'high quality', and where they make claims like 'no other beer costs so much to brew' all of which is absolute nonsense. They are made from cheaper ingredients (e.g. rice/corn/maize), aged for much shorter times and the only reason they 'cost' so much to brew is because of their marketing budget being taken into account.

I was recently in a pub that sells microbrews along with the mass market brews. A guy brought two pints back to the bar and said 'There's something wrong with these beers, they taste funny' to which the barman replied 'You mean you don't like it?'

mfitz

all lager tastes like fizzy water bud is the worst of all!

noby

mfitz wrote:

all lager tastes like fizzy water

These sweeping statements just crack me up.

Now maybe you have done an indepth study of lagers of the world, and I'm not giving you the credit you deserve. But there are some wonderful lagers out there, many of which I have never tasted, but hope to get round to some day, whose taste are far removed from fizzy water.

Or maybe you're referring only to the BMC style lager, in which case you may have a point.

The Sweeper

mfitz wrote:

all lager tastes like fizzy water bud is the worst of all!

All newbie posters with under 100 posts are idiots who shall be banned immediately from Beer/Wine/Spirits!

...what? I can't make sweeping generalisations like that? Some people would think it was stupid or unfair? Really?

mfitz, please read the charter on this board. It's really not about making unsubstantiated generalisations. If you wanted to list a bunch of lagers and support your rather vague opinion with personal experience relating to them tasting like fizzy water, that would be more in keeping with the charter for this forum.

Ham'nd'egger

noby wrote:

But it's not an imitation.

phantom pooper, to answer your question (briefly):
There's (was) a town in the Czech republic called Budweis. So any beer made in that town was called Budweiser (similarly Pilsener in Pilsen), the same way that a beer made in Dublin might be called Dubliner. This was fine until an American company registered the name Budweiser, a name they had no previous link to.
Since then there's been on going legal battles throughout the world. Budvar is one of the bigger breweries in the town, but other beers brewed there also feel they have the right to call their beer Budweiser (which Budvar do not object to).

That is my quick Monday morning explanation, so forgive me if it's a little over-simplified.

To slightly amend your comment, dear friend, Budvar was actually appointed the crown beer to a Prince of the town of Budweiss (excuse the spelling) way back in the 1300's, whence it took the name Budveiser. The American beer, Budweiser was named as such by in the days of the Goldrush to try and push the beer amongst East Europeans as a touch of home, the eventual shade of the bottles even being coloured dark brown as is the label of Bud. Indeed, this is why on bottles of Bud, one sees the words "King of Beer", a swipe at the Czech beer and a subtle mimicing of same.

ferdi

its absolute ****e. drank it in my underage days cause i didnt know any better. now the thought of it makes me sick.

r3nu4l

I think that part of the problem is that until recent years if you went into a pub in Ireland you could only buy Guinness (or Murphys/Beamish), Budweiser, Heineken or Carlsberg and Smithwicks or Bass!

Therefore, if you didn't like Stout or Ale you were left with those lagers. Again if you are a young/new drinker these will taste strong compared to Bud which has a very light flavour, therefore you get these people trying it and sticking with it!

Now that there is far more choice out there I think it will be possible for younger/newer drinkers to find something they like based on the recommendations of others Horray for choice

Edit: Actually someone gave me a bottle of Bud at a party I ended up going to last week and I tasted it again for the first time in years. Having sampled literally hundreds of different beers and real ales from around the world in the past few years I would have to say that I found the taste 'different'. I wouldn't say dishwater or p1ss, just 'different' and not my number one choice. I enjoyed it for what it was, that's all.

Kazooie

Have to agree with r3nu41. It's simply a matter of what's available in the pub. If you go to your local where all they have is guinness and the other major beer/lagers on tap you'll pick which one you prefer. Stands to reason that when you venture into a bigger establishment with a larger selection your first instincts will be to say "make mine a bud". After drinking this you think "ya that wasn't too bad sure i'll have another". Better the devil you know.
I myself prefer Heinekin over bud as it has a stronger taste.

Slightly off topic and I know this may have been done before so feel free to ignore but does anyone remember the conversation between Ross and Mike in friends where they talked about the difference between beer and lager. Something about leaving out the fermentation process. Is this correct?

noby

Er, no.
Lager is a type of beer. In simplest terms, Beer breaks down into two categories: Lager and Ale.

Gandhi

I think one is siphoned from the top of the fermentation cask, and one is tapped out from the bottom?

I was told this in a brewery by a brewer. However, I was absolutely arsified at the time being, as I was, in a brewery.

bigears

I think one is siphoned from the top of the fermentation cask, and one is tapped out from the bottom?

Different yeasts are used to produce lager and ale. Lager is 'bottom fermented' at colder temperatures which means the yeast settles to the bottom. The cooler temperature encourages a 'clean, crisp' flavour. It is also fermented for longer (apparently 'lager' is a German phrase for 'to store').

Ale is top fermented at warmer temperatures where different flavour profiles e.g. fruitiness are often considered desirable.

I was absolutely arsified at the time being, as I was, in a brewery.

Sounds like a good brewery

Gandhi

bigears wrote:

Sounds like a good brewery

Magic Hat Brewery in Burlington, Vermont. Highly recommend their "Fat Angel", very hoppy. Like Sam Adams for big boys.

Beware of their "Number 9". Very cool looking label, tap header, and cool sounding name. Trouble is, the stuff is Apricot flavour (yes, Apricot). Thought I was drinking fizzy marmalade. Not very magic, magic hat!!!

happy_acid_face

Budweiser is popular because of advertising and its very light taste. I suspect young people (underagers) are familar with the brand and can easily drink it as a first larger because of its lack of any really strong flavours. Or, if you were like me and grew up drinking Dutch Gold, Bavaria or St. D'or when you first started going to pubs and clubs Budweiser was one of the easily drank taps you substituted for your "premium" lagers.

Now though, Budweiser is not as powerful in the market. Miller has taken over Buds popularity for easily identified reasons. Its Cheaper. It tastes somewhat better. And it doesn't have the stigma's (yet!) that the likes of Bud and Heineken picked up over the years

bigears

Miller (and for that matter Coors) are not drastically better than Bud. Same ol' same ol'. I agree that the inoffensive 'light taste' is a huge factor, but it's as big a factor with Miller. Heineken is one of the better mass market lagers and shouldn't be lumped in with either of them.

The Sweeper

It's not as bad as Keo. That's a bottled easy drinking Cypriot beer. I had some at the weekend. First taste is definitely more water than beer. Blech.

westtip

phantom pooper wrote:

what is the actual relationship between busweiser and budvar?

In a word None apart from acrimony. There are executives in the Anheuser-Busch Corp who have made careers out of the on-going trade mark battle between the two companies - which BTW the US corp will never win. Budweiser Budvar is a continuing annoyance to the giant corp and fair play to them they were after all there first. When Adolphus Busch from Mainz married the daughter of Eberhard Anheuser the biggest name in American Brewing was born. At the time (mid c19) brewers the world over were introducing the lager styles as variously brewed in Vienna, Bavaria and Bohemia. Many were called Pilseners. but AB plumped for the name of a town well known for its brewing skills, Budvar and hence budweiser, quite often mispronounced in lazy speak english as bud wiser (the w should of course be the v sound phonetically not the w sound).

As for the beers success in Ireland . Well a classic case of control of distribution channels (Guinness), gushing love of American culture (our own gullible fault), constant barrage of advertising and promotion, and IMO, a bland product which appeals to a lot of people (which doesn't make it good or bad - just popular). The bland sweeter taste of budweiser compared to other beers comes from the the use of rice and maize as the main starch ingredients as opposed to wheat and barley. There is no doubt when served at the tempertures they freeze the product to at the point of sale, it can be a thirst quenching beer on a hot day, but so can Mi-Wadi with plenty of ice cubes. The slight sweeter taste of budweiser compared to more regular beers often explains its greater appeal to female drinkers and younger drinks entering the great world of beer drinking. They of course can learn as they get older and viser (sic), but maybe their taste buds have been frozen into submission by that stage.

As for the way it is brewed and comparisons with the US product. Any beer produced on license is tightly controlled by the brand owner. My guess is in blind tests and lab conditions, the beer would be exactly the same as the brew from any of the large brewing sites Anheuser Busch has across the USA, but then again there is probably a bloke down the pub who will disagree.

happy_acid_face

bigears wrote:

Miller (and for that matter Coors) are not drastically better than Bud. Same ol' same ol'. I agree that the inoffensive 'light taste' is a huge factor, but it's as big a factor with Miller. Heineken is one of the better mass market lagers and shouldn't be lumped in with either of them.

I totally agree. Miller and Coors are in no way drastically better than each other. To be honest i do my best to keep away from them all. But what i was trying to say is that there is a stigma attached to Budweiser as is to Heineken. Rather than compare the beer itself, more the social following. Trying no to go to far from the topic, Miller seems to be very middle of the road at the moment. It doesn't seem to matter what your social status is, Miller, in most social circles, is an acceptable drink.

theCzar

I love pretty much all lagers (so long as they're cold), but Budweiser is one of my least favorites due to aforementioned blandness. An ice ice ice cold bottle budweiser on hot day after a game of footy though, yummy.

I have friend who drinksa the stuff, principally because he can drink lots very quickly and be flying high as kite in no time.

I'll drink anything, I spent four years in UCD guzzling Fosters, initially hating the stuff, eventually loving it. But as a consequence, I think my taste buds are buggered.

Tanabe

theCzar wrote:

I love pretty much all lagers (so long as they're cold).....

I'll drink anything, I spent four years in UCD guzzling Fosters, initially hating the stuff, eventually loving it.

Have to agree with you there bud (oops! pardon the pun)!!:D

While we're on the subject.......Is Coors Light actually a 'Lite' beer or is that just a namesake they have on the bottle? If so why is this the only 'Lite' beer available on these shores? Why no Bud Lite like you see everywhere in America???

Miguel_Sanchez

I find Bud bland bland bland. Reminds me of being 15 and not having any taste.

There are so many lagers out there that are vastly superior to Bud.

I'd say I can't stand the taste of it except that it has no taste.

Gaspode

Bud does so well because its bland middle of the road stuff that anyone can drink from your teenage sister to you great-uncle Dick!
It falls into the very average category, hence appeals to the average Joe in the street who just doesnt want to try any of those mad european, Thai or fijiian beers.

Like buying white bread or Lyons tea. Its the easy way.

theCzar

Tanabe wrote:

While we're on the subject.......Is Coors Light actually a 'Lite' beer or is that just a namesake they have on the bottle? If so why is this the only 'Lite' beer available on these shores? Why no Bud Lite like you see everywhere in America???

what does lite mean exactly? Coors Light has has about 4.2% alc, comparable to most lagers, but my sister tells me its very low in calories!!

Sarky

Budweiser is popular for many reasons. Advertising, for one. A fairly average and non-threatening taste for another. And of course, a lot of people drink it for the same people a lot of people vote for a certain political party- That's what their parents drank/voted, that's the way it is. "Everybody" drinks Budweiser. I started off on it. At the time I didn't dare try weissbier because frankly it looked like urine from someone with a nasty infection. But ever since my first Erdinger, I've gone off the mainstream stuff altogether. And I'll never go back.

rubadub

noby wrote:

Er, no.
Lager is a type of beer. In simplest terms, Beer breaks down into two categories: Lager and Ale.

there are plenty of categories, stout, porter, bock, pilsner, etc

noby

Noted.
Admittedly, I should have said Top and Bottom fermenting as the two categories, but I was trying to keep it simple, and the Lager/Ale description is often used, so I thought it was a fair statement to make.

Tha Gopher

Maybe the real question is why do a pile of people on the internet who regard themselves as beer conneisours revile Bud so much? Possibly because of its popularity? Its a refreshing, tasty beer. Just because a vocal minority dont like the taste it doesnt make it bad. Im not into any Chinese or Indian food at all. Most people are. The fact I dont like it doesnt necessarily make it sh1t food, its just not what I eat.

Blub2k4

Tha Gopher wrote:

Maybe the real question is why do a pile of people on the internet who regard themselves as beer conneisours revile Bud so much?

Because it's rubbish as far as beers go maybe? It's made on rice, which doesn't cut the mustard this side of the water, it's not beer really. What it is, isn't very tasty, pretty simple.

george_curious

Used to drink Bud when it came out at first. Got used to the softter taste etc. Although it always gave me a worse headache if I had a few than other beer.:(

I found a few years ago that when I changed back to regular beers like Heiniken, Stella, Becks, even the Tesco Beers that they tasted more like I remembered 'Beer' to taste. They reminded me of drinking in Germany or the like. I don't drink Bud anymore as I prefer the taste of real Beer!.;)

Not that I would turn down a free Bud at a party you understand, I just wouldn't go for it as a first choice anymore.

Blisterman

I find an ice cold Budweiser is good on a sunny day, for quenching your thirst.

Zebra3

Blisterman wrote:

I find an ice cold Budweiser is good on a sunny day, for quenching your thirst.

This is a statement I find bizarre. I never drink alcohol because I'm thirsty. If I'm thirsty, I'll drink water.

Does anyone else drink beer cos they're thirsty?

Blub2k4

Zebra3 wrote:

Does anyone else drink beer cos they're thirsty?

Ah you see, he didn't say beer, he said Budweiser, it's like making love in a boat.

rubadub

Tha Gopher wrote:

Maybe the real question is why do a pile of people on the internet who regard themselves as beer conneisours revile Bud so much? Possibly because of its popularity?

Partly yes, it is upsetting to see so many people so easily swayed by advertising, paying extremely overpriced "beer", the main cost of which is the cost of filming horses jumping around a field and broadcasting it on TV, or a bunch of tossers saying wassup.
It cannot sell itself so relies on this tactic. You will see a similar same pile of people on the net "revile" ipods. A lot of the time they are more against ignorant following of marketing rather than the actual product. Fact is many people truely believe bud and/or ipods to be the most superior product on the market, that no other can hope to match.
Some people are under the illusion that cost=quality, turning their noses up at the huge selection of decent €1 beers like warsteiner or staropramen and coughing up 2-3 times that amount for one that is advertised on TV.

Its a refreshing, tasty beer. Just because a vocal minority dont like the taste it doesnt make it bad.

Many would not regard it as a beer, it is made with rice and potato waste, both of which increase its methanol and cogener count, it is brewed at a high temperature extremely quickly further leading to more methanol and cogeners (hangover inducing nasty chemicals) and other off tastes.

Then they have the utter nerve to say they "know of no other beer that costs as much to brew and age", this must be some legal loophole where they can simply deny knowledge of the massive % of beers on the market that do cost far more to brew and age. A more honest slogan would be, "we know of no other beer that costs so much in advertising to fool people into thinking they are drinking a quality authentic beer, a cost that we pass on to you"

Drink it if you want but I hope you realise what a ripoff it is. Dairy milk is probably the best selling chocolate here, in some countries it can not be legally described as chocolate, most chocolate lovers would not go near it. Doesnt mean it is a terrible food. Just be aware better is out there, try the real deal at least once in a while.

Mo-Mo

I think Busweiser tastes like Bananas or at least like the artificial banana taste.

But then since I have less then 100 posts feel free to ignore me.;)

bigears

Its a refreshing, tasty beer. Just because a vocal minority dont like the taste it doesnt make it bad.

Following the same logic would you describe McDonald's as 'good food'? Maybe people don't like that because of its 'popularity' too?

rubadub

Mo-Mo wrote:

I think Busweiser tastes like Bananas or at least like the artificial banana taste.

But then since I have less then 100 posts feel free to ignore me.;)

You are probably spot on!, as I mentioned bud is brewed with nasty stuff like potato waste and rice, it is brewed at a high temperature so has many off tastes, cogeners, and other alcohols (rather than ethanol) and alcohol like substances. One of these waste products produced is Amyl or isoamyl acetate and ethyl acetate which is used as banana flavouring.

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ethylacetate/introv.htm

I once distilled a rum (in new zealand where legal of course) and the whole house stank of bananas for a day.

bud is brimming with lovely chemicals like acetone and methanol, mmmm refreshing :rolleyes:

guildofevil

Tha Gopher wrote:

Just because a vocal minority dont like the taste it doesnt make it bad.

Bud is one of the worst beers I have ever tasted. It is full of all kinds of things you really wouldn't want to drink, if you knew about them and tastes bland as hell.

By any definition, this is bad beer.

This opinion is not restricted to “a pile of people on the internet”.
Ask any professional brewer, who does not work for AB about Bud.
Ask any home brewer.
Ask anyone who has actually tasted a good number of different beers, from around the world and formed opinions on them.
I think you'll find it difficult to find any of these people with a good word to say about Spudweiser.

Tha Gopher wrote:

Im not into any Chinese or Indian food at all. Most people are. The fact I dont like it doesnt necessarily make it sh1t food, its just not what I eat.

You might think that Tesco value burgers, or equivalent, are tasty and many people do buy them, but that does not make them fillet steak.

Séan