Limited alcohol options at gigs

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Does anyone happen to know how the drinks licenses are decided for gigs? For example; you might only be able to buy Heineken beers at one good, whereas at another good you may only be able to buy Carlsberg.

How is this decided?
How did this approach to gigs come about?

Where is the demand for this? Surely most people don't want to be so limited in options when they go to a gig. Typically the main drinks available at the gig bars are absolute pisswater. Why do concert promoters force such a lack of variety on to people who have paid a significant amount of money for tickets to a gig?

Usually the promoter tenders out the exclusive rights to sell the booze. It's supposed to be a significant amount of money but the Brewers don't make as much as you'd think out of it, the benefit of it is the product exposure.

The other thing the nice craft beers are not mass produced to meet the demand of large scale events.

Think of it this way have you ever been to a beer festival in Ireland where the booze was running out by Sunday night?

I was at Mac DeMarco a few weeks ago and I thought the drinks retailing was terrific, they were even selling gin and tonic and wine. That should be the future of gigs in my opinion.

Hipflask in the pocket solves everything.

To the original question- its all down to money, in exchange for exclusivity, and its not good for consumers, when they have a limited choice.

The two main drinks companies- Diageo & Heineken have nicely carved up the market between them, and have dangled massive carrots in front of venue owners & promoters, it can be difficult to resist.

MCD own the Olympia- which only serves Heineken products
Aiken Promotions own Vicar street, which only serves Diageo products.
(On previous occasions i was there, that was the case, has this changed ?)

The above pattern, is often consistent, at any festivals these promoters are involved with.

And its not just at gigs/festivals you will see this, its in pubs all the time, some do not offer one company’s range, and the ones that do both, often have a limited choice of the others products.

The two drinks players, offer incentives to pubs and clubs to get rid of some of the beer taps of the rival company, happens all the time.

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Forcing me to purchase Heineken or Carlsberg isn't going to suddenly make me taste it and think "do you know what, that pisswater is actually nice and now I'll change my drinking habits.

It could turn some, many people are incredibly set in their ways.

I find it both astonishing and laughable when I see so many people who would count themselves as "guinness drinkers" who might have literally only tried 1 other stout in their entire life, and might have baulked at the taste of it yet would likely not tell the difference if served it up on the sly after 4 pints.

In gigs once in the door they have you trapped, I like trying different beers and if out in town I would try and get friends to visit a pub with good selection, but those pubs often actively boycott the mainstream brands.

It is quite ridiculous, imagine a lad saying he absolutely adores chocolate, eats 6 bars a night, 3 times a week, but solely twix bars! would never stray from them, -jaysus you never know what you might get, far too risky!

bodhrandude wrote: »

give the impression that Heineken were the innovators behind the music scene,

I never got that vibe off it. The "bud rising" and "heineken green energy" gigs were brilliant, they were very heavily subsidised, sometimes really cheap tickets (relative to if the band were playing at another time), I know a lad in the business who knew some fees bands were getting to play these tiny venues. Then the arthurs day came about, also great, until all these gobshite complainers ruined everything, and also seemingly scared off bud & heineken from doing heavy promotions. I know they still had some stuff to some degree but nothing like what it was.

Heaven forbid you go to a gig and not drink alcohol.