Heineken calls time on Beamish abroad

oblivious

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/ididaueyey

Beginning of the end?

I don't think they are going to get rid of beamish any time soon. Sales of beamish have really shot up lately where I work anyway.

mezain

Heineken are going to make a lot of enemies for themselves if they carry on like this. Why are they killing so many breweries and shedding so many around the world? Greedy money loving pr*cks.

BeerNut

mezain wrote: »

Why are they killing so many breweries and shedding so many around the world?

Because it makes them money, because the drinkers don't care. Not enough people stand up and say "Oi, Heineken/Diageo/A-B InBev -- your beer is rubbish and we won't drink it!"

mezain wrote: »

Greedy money loving pr*cks.

They're a business. Loving money is the bottom line for anyone making a living doing anything. If people didn't drink the beer they make now, they'd make something better.

gurramok

If Heineken push Beamish on pubs, won't that directly challenge Diageo's monopoly on the pubs?
Instead of having a Guinness/Carlsberg/Bud taps everywhere, we'll have Beamish/Heineken/Amstel instead.

Heineken is a huge drink in this country so there is potential for Beamish to really take off if the above happens?

BeerNut

gurramok wrote: »

If Heineken push Beamish on pubs, won't that directly challenge Diageo's monopoly on the pubs?

Yes. It's called competition and is generally regarded as a good thing. Lots of pubs already have a Beamish tap as well as a Guinness one. I don't think you can say what Diageo have is a monopoly: there are very few pubs which don't sell Guinness and Heineken.

gurramok wrote: »

Heineken is a huge drink in this country so there is potential for Beamish to really take off if the above happens?

It's far more likely that they'll keep pushing their own "premium" stout, Murphy's, in its fancy new stemmed glass. They seem to have been pumping a lot of money into that rebrand. I reckon Beamish will be let wither and die.

gurramok

They may be onto a loser then as Murphys is too 'chocoty' for some drinkers. For example as in other thread about the Porterhse choc stout, anyone i told about it just went 'yuk'!

Though, on Beamish...I have seen for the first time adverts on bus shelters and on roadside signs for it so maybe they are trying to push it instead of letting it die, fingers crossed i'm optimistic

bionic.laura

I fear this could be the beginning of the end for Beamish. Concentrating on a domestic market where stout isn't a very popular drink anyway is a bad sign. It's also the third stout so when it's sales fall they will probably say they are getting rid of it and concentrating on their main brand which is Murphys.

I don't think marketing of drink really takes into account what it tastes like so Murphys being chocolatey won't be a problem.

BeerNut

gurramok wrote: »

I have seen for the first time adverts on bus shelters and on roadside signs for it so maybe they are trying to push it instead of letting it die

I'd be willing to bet that the campaign was organised and paid for when Scottish & Newcastle were still running the show.

mezain

mezain wrote: »

Greedy money loving pr*cks.

Indeed they are, Heineken will be jacking up the price of fosters pretty soon. The six can pack will cost €9 instead of €8.

yoyo

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed they are, Heineken will be jacking up the price of fosters pretty soon. The six can pack will cost €9 instead of €8.

They already have, also noticing a lack of the 6 for 8 packs, I suppose this is deliberate :rolleyes::rolleyes:, pity as it was a very desent beverage for the price

Nick

grenache

BeerNut wrote: »

They're a business. Loving money is the bottom line for anyone making a living doing anything. If people didn't drink the beer they make now, they'd make something better.

They can still be a business while having respect for local heritage and tradition. Beamish and Crawford have been operating out of South Main St for over 200 years old. No sooner do Paineken take it over they decide to close it down. Corporate sc*m, nothing more, nothing less.

BeerNut

grenache wrote: »

They can still be a business while having respect for local heritage and tradition.

Nope: no money in it, sorry. Nitrostout all round instead.

grenache wrote: »

Beamish and Crawford have been operating out of South Main St for over 200 years old.

Nobody cried in 1962 when Carling bought them out. Nobody cried in 1995 when Scottish & Newcastle bought them. Why cry now when Heineken bought them? Your "200 years old" is meaningless. And, most importantly, the beer tastes of bugger all.

grenache wrote: »

Corporate sc*m, nothing more, nothing less.

Whereas Scottish & Newcastle were in it for the love of Cork and her proud brewing heritage?

yoyo

yoyo wrote: »

They already have, also noticing a lack of the 6 for 8 packs, I suppose this is deliberate

Nick

They are currently rebranding with the new higher price'

BeerNut wrote: »

Whereas Scottish & Newcastle were in it for the love of Cork and her proud brewing heritage?

No, but at least they kept the place going. The brewery is a part of the city and even if you don't drink or like beamish it will be missed.

yoyo

Deleted User wrote: »

They are currently rebranding with the new higher price'

Feckers, They'll prob charge €9 for the 6 like they do with Amstel I think? Anyways won't be buying Fosters anymore so :pac:

Nick

oblivious

Deleted User wrote: »

No, but at least they kept the place going. The brewery is a part of the city and even if you don't drink or like beamish it will be missed.

But thats because they did not own the two stout producing brewing, competition keep both going

grenache

BeerNut wrote: »

Nobody cried in 1962 when Carling bought them out. Nobody cried in 1995 when Scottish & Newcastle bought them. Why cry now when Heineken bought them? Your "200 years old" is meaningless. And, most importantly, the beer tastes of bugger all.

Whereas Scottish & Newcastle were in it for the love of Cork and her proud brewing heritage?

I suggest to you that the reason people did not hue and cry when Carling and Scottish/Newcastle took it over is that they did not actually shut down the brewery! They were both corporate entities but not corporate sc*m like that rollerball Dutch company. To claim that 200 years of brewing tradition is ''meaningless'' is to have no or little understanding of local history and the pride in which locals have in the brewery. Would you say that Guinness's 250 years of brewing is meaningless as well?

oblivious

grenache wrote: »

Would you say that Guinness's 250 years of brewing is meaningless as well?

Well Digeo was practicality about to shut James gate, all international production was going out to Leixlip and I bet they would have sold of the the site completely if the marketing boys had not reminded that they use the St James gate icon. It just happen that with the down turn the site is not as viable to sell as it once was

BeerNut

grenache wrote: »

I suggest to you that the reason people did not hue and cry when Carling and Scottish/Newcastle took it over is that they did not actually shut down the brewery!

What difference does the existence of the brewery make? You can still get Beamish as before, right? My response was to the notion that "Beamish & Crawford" had been brewing in Cork for 200 years. Beamish & Crawford has been nothing more than part of a foreign company's brand portfolio for nearly half a century. For me, it deserves the same kind of loyalty as McDonald's Ireland or Tesco Ireland: they use Irish labour and Irish raw materials to some extent, and it's a real shame when jobs are lost, but they're not an Irish company.

grenache wrote: »

To claim that 200 years of brewing tradition is ''meaningless'' is to have no or little understanding of local history and the pride in which locals have in the brewery.

In my opinion, such pride is misplaced. Especially when there are Irish owned and operated breweries (including one in Cork) making a superior product and struggling for market share against the massive advertising budgets that brands like Beamish have at their disposal. If the beer produced at the Beamish brewery tasted better than that produced by Irish breweries then it would be less of an issue but, again in my opinion, it doesn't.

grenache wrote: »

Would you say that Guinness's 250 years of brewing is meaningless as well?

Of course. It has been a history of not only destroying Ireland's brewing heritage, but also of destroying the very memory of it. Since the late 1950s it has been a history of destroying the quality of Irish stout as well, resulting in the appearance-is-everything-taste-is-irrelevant abomination that is nitrogenated beer. Even brewers of quality stout feel they have to ape it because Guinness have conditioned the market to believe that their cheaper, more profitable, style of beer is stout-as-it-should-be. Not content with ruining their own beer, Guinness have ruined everyone else's as well.

So no, I care not a jot for the ersatz corporate heritage of Guinness and, as oblivious mentions, neither does Diageo plc of Henrietta Place, London by and large. I would welcome the day when the occupied 64 acres on the western side of Dublin city centre are returned to the people.

grenache

BeerNut wrote: »

What difference does the existence of the brewery make? You can still get Beamish as before, right? My response was to the notion that "Beamish & Crawford" had been brewing in Cork for 200 years. Beamish & Crawford has been nothing more than part of a foreign company's brand portfolio for nearly half a century. For me, it deserves the same kind of loyalty as McDonald's Ireland or Tesco Ireland: they use Irish labour and Irish raw materials to some extent, and it's a real shame when jobs are lost, but they're not an Irish company.

The key point there being in bold. I put it to you, that unlike McDonalds or Tesco, Beamish has been an Irish brand from day one, it might be foreign owned but its still an Irish brand, based solely in Cork. Just as Manchester United are associated with Old Trafford, Beamish is synonmous with South Main St. 120 jobs and 217 years of tradition have bitten the dust on the sole purpose of saving Heineken a few quid. Whatever slant you wish to put on it, its morally indefensible.

BeerNut wrote: »

Of course. It has been a history of not only destroying Ireland's brewing heritage, but also of destroying the very memory of it. Since the late 1950s it has been a history of destroying the quality of Irish stout as well, resulting in the appearance-is-everything-taste-is-irrelevant abomination that is nitrogenated beer. Even brewers of quality stout feel they have to ape it because Guinness have conditioned the market to believe that their cheaper, more profitable, style of beer is stout-as-it-should-be. Not content with ruining their own beer, Guinness have ruined everyone else's as well.

In the off-licence i work in, Murphys sell every bit as well as Guinness, with Beamish and O'Haras not far behind. People will be their own ajudicators of how good/bad a certain stout tastes. Stout drinkers have minds of their own and are not as easily swayed by Diageo's marketing as you think! To say otherwise is just patronising towards the stout drinker. Your argument that Guinness have pursued this ''appearance is everything'' agenda is totally lost on me, if anything because Guinness have such a market share in stout sales, it has challenged the other producers to brew different tasting ales and stouts. Somebody has to be the market leader!

cavedave

grenache
your argument that Guinness have pursued this ''appearance is everything'' agenda is totally lost on me,

Why is guinness poured twice in a pub? Have you seen any evidence (double blind) that it effects the taste? It doesn't when they test it its a one pour I am told. The two pour is just for appearances advertising etc.

BeerNut

grenache wrote: »

The key point there being in bold. I put it to you, that unlike McDonalds or Tesco, Beamish has been an Irish brand from day one, it might be foreign owned but its still an Irish brand, based solely in Cork.

Sure. And it's still every bit as much an Irish brand based solely in Cork as ever it was. I don't see how anything will change just because the brewing will happen around the corner in a different factory. Industrialised quality control methods means the beer will taste exactly the same, if that's what the manufacturers want.

Biddy Early, Dublin Brewing Company, Kinsale Brewing company: all 100% Irish owned and operated breweries, closed in recent years. That's where we've lost choice and quality in the Irish beer market. Moving production of Beamish from one side of Cork to another is less of a catastrophe, IMO.

grenache wrote: »

Whatever slant you wish to put on it, its morally indefensible.

Brewing is a business like any other. It's one where the marketeers behind the big brands spend more of their budgets tugging the heartstrings of the punters and using keywords like "tradition" and "heritage". But it's an industry like any other, and the romance used to sell it tends to cover up shoddily-made product, in my opinion.

If modern day Beamish was anything like what the brewery was making even 50 years ago, you might have a point about tradition. But it isn't.

grenache wrote: »

Your argument that Guinness have pursued this ''appearance is everything'' agenda is totally lost on me

The best demonstration (and I don't recommend you actually do this) is to get a pint of Guinness Mid-Strength or Guinness Red. They look lovely -- they have a bright white head and a rich dark body. They lace the glass beautifully. They have a full, creamy texture. But they taste of bugger all. Diageo have spent a lot of time and money on getting pints to look right -- they have well-publicised elaborate instructions on pouring it from the electric dispense machines they install in every pub -- but they won't tell us, for example, what the stuff is made from. The appearance of your stout seems to be what matters to Diageo; they rarely mention the taste at all.

grenache wrote: »

Somebody has to be the market leader!

Indeed. But it's a bit naive to think this is something that comes from having a better product. The financial leverage Heineken and Diageo have to influence the choices that retailers make to favour their products over the competitor's is enormous. I don't know if you see it in your line of work, but it's something that came out in last year's investigation into below-cost selling of alcohol, and in anecdotal evidence of the strongarm tactics Heineken have been using in their roll-out of Paulaner. There's no real competition in the Irish beer market. A big English company and a big Dutch company own 99% of it, a position they've achieved through spending money on things other than making beer. A long history of closing breweries is just part of it.

Samba

cavedave wrote: »

Why is guinness poured twice in a pub? Have you seen any evidence (double blind) that it effects the taste? It doesn't when they test it its a one pour I am told. The two pour is just for appearances advertising etc.

Actually, there is a reason behind the two part pour technique, or at least there was.

It dates back to the ye olden days, the first part would be filled with a younger brew of guinness which would then be topped up with a guinness that would have been stronger and brewed for longer, a matured brew of guinness.

I think you are right though, nowadays, i'm not entirely sure of any benefits of the two part pour.

While we are on the topic of moaning about diageo etc, notice the way no beer brewed here (or very few) in Ireland is above the 4.3% mark.

It's because of filthy tax laws..... Once you go over a certain % you pay more tax, it's the same when you import...

So that's why we don't get that nice 5% Heino we enjoy in Holland or all over Europe....

Our taxes were a joke as they were, now look at us!

BeerNut

Samba wrote: »

While we are on the topic of moaning about diageo etc, notice the way no beer brewed here (or very few) in Ireland is above the 4.3% mark.

Part of it is the pubs don't want to stock strong beer, because Irish beer drinkers often don't know how to handle it, because they're used to drinking pints of beer at 4.3% and think they can drink something that's a full percentage point stronger in the same quantities. Our unhealthy drinking culture is as much to blame as our tax regime, IMO.

oblivious

Samba wrote: »

While we are on the topic of moaning about diageo etc, notice the way no beer brewed here (or very few) in Ireland is above the 4.3% mark.

Similar in Britain, a lot of the small brewers have a number of beers under well under 4.3%, some down as low as 3.2%

Samba wrote: »

So that's why we don't get that nice 5% Heino we enjoy in Holland or all over Europe....!

Don't confuse increase with % alcohol with it been a better product. Its the international brewing concerns that coined the term "Premium beer".

Samba

oblivious wrote: »

Similar in Britain, a lot of the small brewers have a number of beers under well under 4.3%, some down as low as 3.2%




Don't confuse increase with % alcohol with it been a better product. Its the international brewing concerns that coined the term "Premium beer".

I may have suggested this but it was not my point.

It's pretty obvious that the ingredients used play a rather large role in terms of the end product.

I referred to it as "nice" 5% Heineken because that's what it is.....nice, compared to what we get here.

Samba

BeerNut wrote: »

Part of it is the pubs don't want to stock strong beer, because Irish beer drinkers often don't know how to handle it, because they're used to drinking pints of beer at 4.3% and think they can drink something that's a full percentage point stronger in the same quantities. Our unhealthy drinking culture is as much to blame as our tax regime, IMO.

While i'm sure this is a valid point, I don't think this is really their main concern here...Money talks.

cavedave

Samba

Actually, there is a reason behind the two part pour technique, or at least there was.

It dates back to the ye olden days, the first part would be filled with a younger brew of guinness which would then be topped up with a guinness that would have been stronger and brewed for longer, a matured brew of guinness.

I think you are right though, nowadays, i'm not entirely sure of any benefits of the two part pour.

While we are on the topic of moaning about diageo etc, notice the way no beer brewed here (or very few) in Ireland is above the 4.3% mark.

It's because of filthy tax laws..... Once you go over a certain % you pay more tax, it's the same when you import...

Yes there was reason for it. But now it is onions in the varnish. An affectation they only keep for advertising purposes. So Guinness looks like a craft beer rather then a black version of any other beer.

You also cannot get low alcohol beers here (there are a few but they are rare and terrible). In Britain you can get session ales 2.3-3% that are great.

BeerNut

BeerNut wrote: »

and in anecdotal evidence of the strongarm tactics Heineken have been using in their roll-out of Paulaner.

I don't know how thats going for them in the pubs, but Erdinger outsells it two to one where I work, despite Heinekens best efforts.

BeerNut

Yaay!

Not that I particularly like Erdinger or anything, but Noreast who import it into Ireland bring in other stuff, like the Shepherd Neame beers, and I'd hate to see them go under.

oblivious

BeerNut wrote: »

Yaay!

Not that I particularly like Erdinger or anything, but Noreast who import it into Ireland bring in other stuff, like the Shepherd Neame beers, and I'd hate to see them go under.

Me to:), my dirty little secret is that I prefer Paulaner