How Much Did You Pay For Whiskey Today?

Would charging a higher price be less greedy?

 

I'm not even sure what to say about this. Maker's has been my drink of choice since 1999. I'll drink other bourbons from time to time, of course, but default setting is Maker's and every tailgate is Maker's. If any other Maker's fans want a replacement option, I recommend Jim Beam Black. It tastes much closer to Maker's than it does Beam, and it's 86 proof. It's also typically about $5 cheaper for a fifth.

Even if the watered-down version tastes the same as ol' Bill says, I'm still not a fan of this at all. I think I'm going to boycott and go with Beam Black and Woodford.

 

As a Maker's drinker, I about flipped when I read this. But, I'll do as asked and wait and see. I don't care about the proof as long as the taste doesn't change. I drink Maker's because it is better than the rest. Hopefully it will continue to be so. If the expert tasters allege the taste is the same, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If there is a slight change, I likely won't notice. But if Maker's all of a sudden becomes Early Times, there will be a problem.

 

Oh, and for the comment about mixing Maker's ... that's just crazy talk. The only mixing that gets done with Maker's is mixing it with your lips and throat.

 

It would make a billion times more sense. People wouldn't have been thrilled, but most everyone with an IQ above room temperature grasps the idea that scarce things cost more. Dicking around with the formula is tampering with the story of the product. When you buy any product above the generic level, in some sense you are buying into the story of that product. Even if it is impossible to tell the difference, people will perceive that the quality is worse, and they'll carry that image with them long after the Great Bourbon Drought of 13, when it (maybe) goes back to 90 proof.

I'm approaching this as a marketing geek. My lifetime bourbon consumption wouldn't fill a fifth.

 

I wonder if this ends up as an Old Coke/New Coke scenario.

Pull the old formula, take the drubbing, re-introduce the old formula, PROFIT.

 

If Maker's Mark would have just kept it quiet, no one would be able to tell the difference.

 

They'd have had to print the new proof on the label.

 

Maker's Mark is the type of bourbon that many connoisseurs drink as their "every day" bourbon. They probably would drink it straight and let it stay on their palate for a minute. These are people who can name the bourbon in a blind taste test. They would taste the difference.

 

I think the difference in taste, even for a connoisseur drinking it straight, would be minimal -- probably indistinguishable.

But, because they would have to change the label, the perception would be that the taste is different. People would convince themselves that it does taste different.

There's no way they could have just done this without telling anyone. The shitstorm would have been 100% worse.

I think it's still a bad idea. You don't mess with the brand. That's what they have going for them more than the taste. They would have been much better off just raising the price, or even keeping the price the same and running out of inventory. The press stories of people hoarding Maker's or buying it on the "black market" would have been a net positive for the brand.

 

My guess is that some people, the people who buy and drink 20 Maker's Mark fifths a year, would think, "This doesn't taste right." They might dismiss it as a bad bottle at first, then become indifferent to the change over time. But they would notice.

 

I guess it's back to corn whiskey cut with bleach for me.