The Boston Beer Company has decided to “remaster” Samuel Adams Boston Lager in an attempt to make it a “brighter” more “approachable” beer.
What they ended up with, IMHO, is an inferior product compared to the original.
This new version reminds me more of Sam Adams Light, or Lightship which was a Sam Adams light version back in the 90’s.
Remastered is not as hop forward as the original, nor does it have the same lingering hoppy aftertaste. The malt character has been drastically cut. The mouthfeel isn’t thick and syrupy like the original. It’s light and a tad watery, even though t still has 5% alcohol.
The aroma has been reduced as well.
Had they put this out under another name it may have had some charm. But replacing the excellent original with this pig slop is going to prove a massive mistake. Like myself people may buy this out of curiosity at first. But those sales will die down and drop off. Boston Beer Co is going to regret coming out with the beer version of New Coke. Whenever a company comes out with a “new and improved” version of an old product you just know there is a management problem internally.
Maybe they’re trying to follow the New Coke method – make changes, sell a bunch as people try it and don’t like it, then “reluctantly” go back to Sam Adams Classic and everyone buys a bunch of that.
The microbrews of the 80s and 90s were all thick, syrupy, and malty, as you describe Sam Adams. Maybe they think it’s out of date? But, I agree that a light and watery Sam Adams will make it indistinguishable from a ton of other lagers.
But a helluva lot more people drink Coke than drink Boston Lager. And there are only a small selection of colas on the market to switch to as compared to the zillions of micro brews. So when they went back to Classic Coke they had a massive following. If Jim Koch comes out and admits he fucked up a lot of people by then won’t care as they have switched to something else and won’t look back.
If he intentionally is trying the New Coke tactic how corny and hokey does that look?
I wasn’t a big fan of Sam Adams, but it was one of my alternates. I did, however, feel that it had a definite character of its own. I have a problem with rich beers because they literally fill me up, and Sam Adams was one of those beers. Maybe they feel they will sell more by lightening it up.
Even tho I haven’t drunk for 20 yrs, that strikes me as somewhat of a shame. Sam was one of my main beers back when (along w/ Goose and Leinie’s - whichever was on sale at the grocery). Why mess with success? Will be interesting to see how drinkers respond.
I don’t think it was Coke’s plan, but it worked out great for them. Maybe Sam Adams is going to give it a try on purpose to get some energy in the brand.
Then he should have made this and labeled as something else without replacing the original.
Koch referred to himself as the Willy Wonka of Brewing, a title I think he deserved. He routinely brewed different styles, limited run beers, and even recipes from customers. But replacing your flagship product is a sign of serious problems. I don’t believe this is going to work for them.
They changed this almost a year ago, so we can probably look at the numbers if we find them. I stopped drinking, so I can’t really comment on the differences, but it’s a shame, as the Boston lager was always one of my middle-of-the-road go-tos. Not too hoppy, not too malty, not too light.
Their stock price has performed significantly better than AB Inbev, Miller Coors and Heineken over the last year. I couldn’t be arsed to look at their sales numbers.
I stopped getting Sam Adams about a decade ago when they brought out a special glass that was supposed to enhance the flavor of their beer. What was obvious to me was that the “special glass” was only 12 ounces, while the usual glass that was used at bars was 16 ounces. Of course, it was priced as if it was 16 ounces.
Though it was minor silliness on their part, there are enough other good options that I simply didn’t want to partake in their silly marketing games. I did enjoy the beer though.
I’m not a big beer drinker anymore, but the fact this change is already this old suggests most people didn’t notice the difference.
I’ve not (knowingly) tried the new stuff, but I agree with the OP’s description of the original so I’d probably agree with his assessment of the replacement. And I’d definitely agree that that change is not an improvement. Assuming I remembered the original well enough to recognize the change versus just thinking it was me, or the surroundings that were somehow ineffably different.
That is my take. The beer-drinking public has moved on, and Boston Brewery is chasing the crowd. Wiki tells me the Samuel Adams Boston Lager brand has been out for 40 years now.
With any change, you lose some customers and gain some customers. While hoping the net works better for you. Has it? Will it? I don’t know.
IMO a far smarter approach from the brewery’s narrow POV is to introduce the new alongside the old and watch the market decide. But I suspect that’s impractical from a distribution POV. So doing this hard cut-over replacement is the only practical way.
To wit: adding Remastered as a new variety would mean all their keg customers (=bars & restaurants) would need to allocate a new tapper to SamAdams-Remastered, and some other beer needs to get shoved off. The same thing applies to bottles at bars & restaurants and to shelf space in grocery or liquor stores. The sheer variety of beers in a modern groc store is simply overwhelming. The only way to stuff one more in is to pull another one out.
Adding Remastered forces a lot of the brewery’s actual customers to make hard decisions. Some of whom will make choices the brewery really doesn’t like. Rock that boat at your peril.
Like it or not, we the public aren’t really their customers. Ultimately we’re the one’s doing the buying, but a tremendous amount of our buying is constrained by the decisions of the middlemen about what to carry where. Doesn’t matter how much I want or don’t want Brand X today, if it isn’t on the menu or at the store, I ain’t buying / drinking it.
'Tis a dilemma for a marketer for sure. And this is ultimately a marketing decision, not a brewing decision. Although maybe, just maybe, the new brew can be made for 10% less cost of ingredients. Which savings goes straight to the bottom line if sales aren’t gutted in the process.
The beer community loves to discuss the science behind the Sam Adams glass. I’ve poured a lager into that glass and a standard pint. Head retention is better in the Sam Adams glass, “nose” is superior, and the beer just looks better as well.
Is it that curvy glass? That’s a 16 oz glass. I personally find it quite difficult to accurately judge volume of glassware or even cans. Like a standard 12 oz can and those thin & slightly taller cans are both the same volume, though the standard can looks like it should be significantly more to me. And once you get to oddly shaped glass or more bowl-shaped glass, forget it. Like some of those bulbous beer snifter glasses are 16oz, though they seem less to me (though there are smaller ones, as well, for extra ABV beers.) Or those wine glasses that can hold an entire bottle of wine in them are not nearly as big as I think they would be.
At any rate, I did find the glassware did affect my enjoyment and taste perception of various beers, much like, say, a wide wine glass with a lot of headspace will give much more “nose” to a red wine than, say, a narrow glass more suited to white whines.
