MM Proof Change

[T Comp]

I think that our former chocolate-man CEO Shattock has bigger fish to fry. The cost to expand a distillery to handle a conservative 7% annual increase is a laughable non-expense if you're thinking long term. This looks like a binary decision made by a crew that has had to deal with hostile takeover rumors from day one. These are chess pieces that are moving, and for many of these people, there's no such thing as long term.

Agree. This is about Beam not Makers. Since Beam split from Fortune they have exceeded analyst's expectations and their shares have grown 40%. But sales of 2.5 billion are a shadow in the rear view mirror of Diageo's 14.4 billion. Beams spending more money than ever on advertising (up 11% this year and 20% last quarter) for a reason along with what's going on at Makers.

[shoshani]

Meh. I bought a 1.75l last night at my little hole-in-the-wall, opened it, removed all the pesky wax, and am now savoring a small shot as I read this ironic passage in But Always Fine Bourbon:

"The best advice Pappy ever gave my father", Bill (Samuels Jr.) said, "was to make a premium product, and to keep it in short supply. I can thank your grandfather for that as long as I live."

(emphasis mine)

That was then, this is now.

[Gillman]

I have no problems with the 46 in and of itself; I just don't think it should have come next in the line (3rd or 4th maybe). 2nd should have been a bonded, 101 or barrel proof Maker's. 3rd could have been a more-aged Makers. Especially with MM dropping proof, a "high-end" version would make good sense.

Personally I think the decision was purely financial, to increase earnings from the brand in the near-term. This would accord with the pricing of MM, which is fairly high IMO for what it is, but clearly they are getting it and haven't melted their wings yet.

Gary

[smknjoe]

Meh. I bought a 1.75l last night at my little hole-in-the-wall, opened it, removed all the pesky wax, and am now savoring a small shot as I read this ironic passage in But Always Fine Bourbon:

(emphasis mine)

That was then, this is now.

I guess I'll have to read this now. It's only ~$10 (ebook) at B&N.

[Bourbon Boiler]

I don't mind this move at all. I often call MM the "entry" bourbon, and a lower proof will make it all the more pallatable for the non-whiskey drinker. I keep MM around for the sole purpose of giving people a "drinkable" whiskey when others are drinking the special WT products and BTAC. I think that purpose won't be lost.

Now, if I were a MM fan, I would understandably be upset. "I can provide my own water," is a pretty sound argument.

[Bourbon Boiler]

"The best advice Pappy ever gave my father", Bill (Samuels Jr.) said, "was to make a premium product, and to keep it in short supply. I can thank your grandfather for that as long as I live."

Nice find Shoshani, very apropos.

[squire]

Sound advise but the Samuels family hasn't been making the decisions at MM for about 30 years now.

[White Dog]

Maybe, Maker's has peaked. OK. But, it's still a great "brand". Companies would give their left wingnut to have the brand recognition that Maker's possesses. I would expand, and keep with the line-extension they began with the 46. I'm not sure of a better brand from a marketing standpoint, to raise the bar into the uber-dollar, uber-premium, segment with. Can you? I can't think but that they are so shortsightedly cheapening this good name...You're right Chuck, this is a mystery...So many things just not right, here. These ain't dumb people. What gives?

I've been thinking that while reading this entire thread. While I'm no great fan of Sazerac, can you imagine what that company would have done with this brand, rather than Beam.

[ErichPryde]

Less whiskey going into the bottles of maker's mark, more whiskey they have to age, potentially, for another release other than 46. I can dream.

[oke&coke]

Always passed up Makers because I always figured it would be around so could grab it any time. May have to grab a bottle before the change shows up here.