Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.


(Reuters) - Maker's Mark said it was taking back a decision to reduce
the alcohol content in its bourbon because of a large number of
complaints from customers.

"Effective immediately, we are reversing our decision to lower the ABV
(alcohol by volume) of Maker's Mark, and resuming production at 45
percent alcohol by volume," the company said on its website.

Maker's Mark had decided to lower the alcohol content due to supply
constraints amid strong demand, but it said an "overwhelming response"
had led it to reverse that decision.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:13:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.
>
>
> (Reuters) - Maker's Mark said it was taking back a decision to reduce
> the alcohol content in its bourbon because of a large number of
> complaints from customers.
>
> "Effective immediately, we are reversing our decision to lower the ABV
> (alcohol by volume) of Maker's Mark, and resuming production at 45
> percent alcohol by volume," the company said on its website.
>
> Maker's Mark had decided to lower the alcohol content due to supply
> constraints amid strong demand, but it said an "overwhelming response"
> had led it to reverse that decision.

Good.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 2013-02-18, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.

Nah! After careful research, they no doubt discovered it was even
more profitable to simply up the price. In fact, the whole reduced
abv scare may have simply been a bogus ploy to get MM fans lined up
for the kill. Look at high end vodkas. Ungodly prices for a spirit
one can't even taste and usually gets mixed, anyway. Buncha rubes!


nb

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:13:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.
>
>
>(Reuters) - Maker's Mark said it was taking back a decision to reduce
>the alcohol content in its bourbon because of a large number of
>complaints from customers.
>
>"Effective immediately, we are reversing our decision to lower the ABV
>(alcohol by volume) of Maker's Mark, and resuming production at 45
>percent alcohol by volume," the company said on its website.
>
>Maker's Mark had decided to lower the alcohol content due to supply
>constraints amid strong demand, but it said an "overwhelming response"
>had led it to reverse that decision.

I think it was my comment that said folks only buy it *because* it is
expensive that made them decide that.<g>

I always wonder when a company makes an outrageously stupid decision--
then reverses themselves so quickly- if they weren't just working the
system for the free publicity.

Jim

On 2/18/2013 1:13 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.
>
> (Reuters) - Maker's Mark said it was taking back a decision to reduce
> the alcohol content in its bourbon because of a large number of
> complaints from customers.
>
> "Effective immediately, we are reversing our decision to lower the ABV
> (alcohol by volume) of Maker's Mark, and resuming production at 45
> percent alcohol by volume," the company said on its website.
>
> Maker's Mark had decided to lower the alcohol content due to supply
> constraints amid strong demand, but it said an "overwhelming response"
> had led it to reverse that decision.
>
This morning CBS radio ran a story about them diluting it...no mention
of the reversal. CBS was once a good news organisation.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:13:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.
>
>
>(Reuters) - Maker's Mark said it was taking back a decision to reduce
>the alcohol content in its bourbon because of a large number of
>complaints from customers.
>
>"Effective immediately, we are reversing our decision to lower the ABV
>(alcohol by volume) of Maker's Mark, and resuming production at 45
>percent alcohol by volume," the company said on its website.
>
>Maker's Mark had decided to lower the alcohol content due to supply
>constraints amid strong demand, but it said an "overwhelming response"
>had led it to reverse that decision.

Yep! Great news! I got an email abiout this as I am a Maker's Mark
Ambassador. Love me some Fine Fresh Squeezed Kentucky Corn Juice!

John Kuthe...

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:41:45 -0500, S Viemeister
> wrote:


>>
>This morning CBS radio ran a story about them diluting it...no mention
>of the reversal. CBS was once a good news organisation.

No shock value to a follow up with a good ending.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 07:16:54 -0500, Jim Elbrecht >
wrote:


>
>I always wonder when a company makes an outrageously stupid decision--
>then reverses themselves so quickly- if they weren't just working the
>system for the free publicity.
>
>Jim

Nah, you're just being cynical. The fact that it would have cost them
millions for that kind of publicity never would be a factor. I bet
sales got a big boost this month.

OTOH, I stopped to get some bourbon this afternoon. I saw the MM46
and was tempted, but I passed. Screw'em. The 46 is really nice, but I
don't want to play with a company that works the way they do.

Bought a bottle of Breckenridge, made in Colorado. Only had a sip so
far, but nice.

Great point on the Vodka comparison. I have yet to meet any ardent aficionados of the beverage who can tell folks what good Vodka is supposed to taste like. Its nearly as comical as snobby yups who shell out big bucks for designer bourbon. As John Wayne would gladly testify.."Real men drink for the buzz." The scammy marketing schemes of various distillers effect the rational types not at all. Now the amount of money some of them are using for payola to our elected legislators to keep killer weed illegal is bound to not set well with any old hippies in the audience.

On 2013-02-18 12:16:54 +0000, Jim Elbrecht said:

> I think it was my comment that said folks only buy it *because* it is
> expensive that made them decide that.<g>

It's not that expensive. There are many others for which one must pay more.

On 2013-02-18 18:57:03 +0000, Ed Pawlowski said:

> Nah, you're just being cynical. The fact that it would have cost them
> millions for that kind of publicity never would be a factor. I bet
> sales got a big boost this month.
>
> OTOH, I stopped to get some bourbon this afternoon. I saw the MM46
> and was tempted, but I passed. Screw'em. The 46 is really nice, but I
> don't want to play with a company that works the way they do.

Interesting analysis. You say it would bump their sales and explain
exactly how in your case it did the opposite.

Me, I passed on MMark and got Bulleitt. It was 3 bucks cheaper and
it's an excellent Bourbon.

My purchase decision was not based on the NRA marketing approach of
MMark nor on their thorough incompetence in the PR
department--whichever it was.

On 2013-02-18 13:41:45 +0000, S Viemeister said:

> On 2/18/2013 1:13 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.
>>
>> (Reuters) - Maker's Mark said it was taking back a decision to reduce
>> the alcohol content in its bourbon because of a large number of
>> complaints from customers.
>>
>> "Effective immediately, we are reversing our decision to lower the ABV
>> (alcohol by volume) of Maker's Mark, and resuming production at 45
>> percent alcohol by volume," the company said on its website.
>>
>> Maker's Mark had decided to lower the alcohol content due to supply
>> constraints amid strong demand, but it said an "overwhelming response"
>> had led it to reverse that decision.
>>
> This morning CBS radio ran a story about them diluting it...no mention
> of the reversal. CBS was once a good news organisation.

Incompetence or wiley self-interest. Maybe they are buying shares in
Wild Turkey!

By the way, someone's Top 10 Bourbons:

http://tinyurl.com/bddfaxt

MMark 46 comes in as #8. I assume there was no intent in diluting that
one. Frankly, when above 90 proof I tend to dilute it myself.

On 2013-02-18, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Bought a bottle of Breckenridge, made in Colorado. Only had a sip so
> far, but nice.

CO seems to breaking out all over with micro-distilleries. We got a
new one in Buena Vista, of all places. A little burg of 2-3K pop, jes
up the road, a piece. Haven't tried it, as I've backed off the hard
stuff.

http://www.deerhammer.com/

That photo is what it looks like out my back door.

nb

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:35:46 -0800, gtr > wrote:

>On 2013-02-18 18:57:03 +0000, Ed Pawlowski said:
>
>> Nah, you're just being cynical. The fact that it would have cost them
>> millions for that kind of publicity never would be a factor. I bet
>> sales got a big boost this month.
>>
>> OTOH, I stopped to get some bourbon this afternoon. I saw the MM46
>> and was tempted, but I passed. Screw'em. The 46 is really nice, but I
>> don't want to play with a company that works the way they do.
>
>Interesting analysis. You say it would bump their sales and explain
>exactly how in your case it did the opposite.
>

I'm not the average consumer. Lots of MM adherents will rush out to
buy some of the current stuff to hoard. People that never heard of MM
will suddenly want to have some and buy a bottle. This is a proven
form of consumerism for many products over many years.

Only a few of us will look at other bourbons and choose one from a
hopefully less greedy more competent distiller. There are many good
bourbons out there.

gtr wrote:

> I think it's possible for corporations to make stupid decisions and when
> they suffer public backlash to try to "correct" the decisions.

I'm still waiting for Netflix to un**** its business model.

Bob

On 2013-02-19 00:00:27 +0000, Bob Terwilliger said:

> gtr wrote:
>
>> I think it's possible for corporations to make stupid decisions and
>> when they suffer public backlash to try to "correct" the decisions.
>
> I'm still waiting for Netflix to un**** its business model.

What's the complaint?

They had a similar **** up last year when they wanted to split the
business in half between physical discs and streaming only, which they
abandoned just as Maker's Mark did.

On 2/18/2013 12:13 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.
>
>
> (Reuters) - Maker's Mark said it was taking back a decision to reduce
> the alcohol content in its bourbon because of a large number of
> complaints from customers.
>
> "Effective immediately, we are reversing our decision to lower the ABV
> (alcohol by volume) of Maker's Mark, and resuming production at 45
> percent alcohol by volume," the company said on its website.
>
> Maker's Mark had decided to lower the alcohol content due to supply
> constraints amid strong demand, but it said an "overwhelming response"
> had led it to reverse that decision.
>

I did a tour of their distillery several years ago. Really neat place.
They let people stick their fingers into the mash to taste it.
Grossed out DH.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:40:02 -0800, gtr > wrote:



>
>By the way, someone's Top 10 Bourbons:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bddfaxt
>
>MMark 46 comes in as #8. I assume there was no intent in diluting that
>one. Frankly, when above 90 proof I tend to dilute it myself.

Interesting list. I've had a couple of them, never heard of a couple
of others. I'd really like to try Pappy's some day, but doubt I'd pay
that much for a single bottle of anything to consume.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.
>

It was a ploy for free advertising, plain and simple. Look, when you have a
product that is so popular that you cannot keep up with demand, capitalist
economics says you raise your prices. It's nirvana for any manufacturer.
It's the catbird seat. You don't ruin your product to maintain prices. You
simply enjoy the fact that you can now charge more for the same product.
You charge as much as the market will bear and you reap the reward of
creating a highly desired brand. And if you have a desired product with
limited production, you are able to charge more for it.

I have a bottle of MM I dip into with a cigar occasionally. Good stuff
indeed. Neat with a water side is how I like it. But there are better
bourbons, though not by much.

I guarantee a few thousand bottles flew of the shelves because people wanted
to try MM for the first time to see what the fuss was all about. And the
advertising didn't cost 1 cent.
..

"Janet Wilder" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 2/18/2013 12:13 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.
>>
>>
>> (Reuters) - Maker's Mark said it was taking back a decision to reduce
>> the alcohol content in its bourbon because of a large number of
>> complaints from customers.
>>
>> "Effective immediately, we are reversing our decision to lower the ABV
>> (alcohol by volume) of Maker's Mark, and resuming production at 45
>> percent alcohol by volume," the company said on its website.
>>
>> Maker's Mark had decided to lower the alcohol content due to supply
>> constraints amid strong demand, but it said an "overwhelming response"
>> had led it to reverse that decision.
>>
>
> I did a tour of their distillery several years ago. Really neat place.
> They let people stick their fingers into the mash to taste it. Grossed out
> DH.
>

There are far worse things in sour mash.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.

It was a ploy for free advertising, plain and simple. Look, when you have a
product that is so popular that you cannot keep up with demand, capitalist
economics says you raise your prices. It's nirvana for any manufacturer.
It's the catbird seat. You don't ruin your product to maintain prices. You
simply enjoy the fact that you can now charge more for the same product.
You charge as much as the market will bear and you reap the reward of
creating a highly desired brand. And if you have a desired product with
limited production, you are able to charge more for it.

I have a bottle of MM I dip into with a cigar occasionally. Good stuff
indeed. Neat with a water side is how I like it. But there are better
bourbons, though not by much.

I guarantee a few thousand bottles flew of the shelves because people wanted
to try MM for the first time to see what the fuss was all about. And the
advertising didn't cost 1 cent.

gtr wrote:

>> I'm still waiting for Netflix to un**** its business model.
>
> What's the complaint?
>
> They had a similar **** up last year when they wanted to split the
> business in half between physical discs and streaming only, which they
> abandoned just as Maker's Mark did.

Prior to the split, the streaming choices were about quintuple what they are
now.

Bob

On 2013-02-19, Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

> Prior to the split, the streaming choices were about quintuple what they are
> now.

True.

Usta be there were a doz MST3K streaming choices, then dropped to half doz, now
one. WTF!?

I was looking through a buncha MST3K listings, when on about the 4th
page I hit "next" and I got a 404 error, "server cannot accept such a
large URL". It was their link! I called support and they blamed it
on my broswer. I explained my browser is not a server. No light. It
was like talking to ...to... Paul Cook! Nobody home.

nb

On 18/02/2013 11:21 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> I guarantee a few thousand bottles flew of the shelves because people wanted
> to try MM for the first time to see what the fuss was all about. And the
> advertising didn't cost 1 cent.
> .
>
You can bet that a lot more will sell when people who have heard about
the proposals and the decisions not to raise prices get some to try it
out. Brand loyalty is an important factor in beverage sales. Look what
happened when they tried to change Coca Cola. The had strong
competition from Pepsi so they altered their product to make it taste
more like Pepsi. Tastes tests showed that people liked it. When they
rolled out the new product their customers rebelled. They wanted their
old Coke back. The result was an increase in sales of the product they
weren't buying before.

On 2013-02-19 11:07:54 +0000, Bob Terwilliger said:

> gtr wrote:
>
>>> I'm still waiting for Netflix to un**** its business model.
>>
>> What's the complaint?
>>
>> They had a similar **** up last year when they wanted to split the
>> business in half between physical discs and streaming only, which they
>> abandoned just as Maker's Mark did.
>
> Prior to the split, the streaming choices were about quintuple what
> they are now.

Prior to them NOT splitting you mean? They talked about it, they
announced it. then they rescinded their decision. Like Maker's Mark,
and the reason I mentioned NetFlix. It appears that the decision to not
split into two services, Netflix and Qwikster, was made on Oct. 10,
2011.

So I'm still not sure how they either ****ed or un****ed their
"business model". Works fine for me. It's true, though, that I don't
know what guides their policy in making some movies streamable and
others unstreamable. It seems in recent months that I read something
whcih implied that some film companies allow NetFlix to stream their
products while others won't. So I'm not sure these decisions are part
of their "business model".

On 2013-02-19 03:26:18 +0000, Ed Pawlowski said:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:40:02 -0800, gtr > wrote:
>
>> By the way, someone's Top 10 Bourbons:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/bddfaxt
>>
>> MMark 46 comes in as #8. I assume there was no intent in diluting that
>> one. Frankly, when above 90 proof I tend to dilute it myself.
>
> Interesting list. I've had a couple of them, never heard of a couple
> of others. I'd really like to try Pappy's some day, but doubt I'd pay
> that much for a single bottle of anything to consume.

I've never had any of them, but I have rigid limits on what I'll pay
for a bottle of booze. If used appropriately, it's more refined
elements are almost moot within about 20 minutes. With armagnac and
cognac I've bought at $50. But only because they won't sell much I want
under that price.

Bourbon on the other hand is really a buyer's market right now. May it
always be so.

On 2013-02-19 04:30:34 +0000, Paul M. Cook said:

> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maybe they will dilute it with "new Coke" next time.
>
> It was a ploy for free advertising, plain and simple.

Say, that really IS plain and simple!

> Look, when you have a product that is so popular that you cannot keep
> up with demand, capitalist economics says you raise your prices.

And economics says that when in a economic downturn you stimulate the
economy. So much for simple concepts when employed by idiots.

> It's nirvana for any manufacturer. It's the catbird seat. You don't
> ruin your product to maintain prices. You simply enjoy the fact that
> you can now charge more for the same product.

You're really saying that it is impossible for corporate brain trusts
to make stupid and incompetent decisions?

> You charge as much as the market will bear and you reap the reward of
> creating a highly desired brand. And if you have a desired product with
> limited production, you are able to charge more for it.
>
> I have a bottle of MM I dip into with a cigar occasionally. Good stuff
> indeed. Neat with a water side is how I like it. But there are better
> bourbons, though not by much.

Agreed. When the good gets to a certain point, it is generally beyond
my capacity to discern how much better it is relative to price. I can
tell good from very good and very good from excellent. But from
excellent to super-excellent or mega-excellent--not so much. Sure if
the grain was grown on a duck's tongue I can see why it would be more
expensive! But my palate can't taste details like that.

> I guarantee a few thousand bottles flew of the shelves because people wanted
> to try MM for the first time to see what the fuss was all about. And the
> advertising didn't cost 1 cent.

I'm sure that's true. But I don't think a total PR ****up is the best
way to get advertising. Maker's Mark is in every single liquor store
that sells bourbon, and at a conspicuously reasonable price. Frankly
when shoppin by price, Marker's Mark may be the best value out there.