More Maker's Anyone?

[cowdery]

John Hansell mused today that he wishes there was "more than one Maker’s Mark expression to choose from."

Do you agree?

My take on the question is here.

[OscarV]

Yeah we all want Maker's to be what it could be.

But they are having so much success selling bottles with different colors of wax why should they produce premium bourbon.

As long as people are willing to pay for high proof distilled and under age product I guess I wouldn't make something good either.

Thank goodness we have Four Roses and Wild Turkey who put out different types of premium bourbons.

[SBOmarc]

I can agree with all that I have read from the blogs and Oscar's response. We discuss this from time to time and somehow I feel that the decision makers at Beam Global see the brand as a rainmaker and see no need and show no desire to develop any other version.

We can wish for it all we want. All we will get is different wax.

[PAspirit1]

I like the fact that they only make one kind of bourbon and that I would only have to shell out $20-$25 for their top of the line whiskey.

[Gillman]

Maker's definitely should put out a super-premium version. It may consider itself premium, and it is an excellent bourbon, but IMO it would do even better if it developed some "buzz". Buzz is good for brands, it helps maintain interest, create new interest. It won't upset the devotees, just as Jack Daniels Single Barrel evidently has no negative impact on sales of Old No. 7. Single barrels are a good idea, and I also believe older Maker's carefully mingled with some younger would be a super-premium version. I recall Maker's in the 1970's and it seemed to have more of a darker colour then, more of a brandy-like taste. Maybe my memory is wrong, but why not offer something like that to the cognoscenti? Most of the other distillers do and I think they know what they are doing.

Gary

[gothbat]

I don't understand why they seem to think that if they put something out it would necessarily mean that they're saying it's better than their standard offering. I mean look at WTRB, the label basically says "Some people asked about barrel proof WT so here it is!" and I don't understand why they can't do something like that. Not only that but taste is subjective and I'm sure that if they did put something out there would be people saying that it's much better than the original despite what the company might think.

On the other hand I kind of like their stubborn philosophy despite the fact that I too often find myself wishing they had different expressions available, it implies a lot of pride in what they make to just completely write off ever bottling anything different. I'm sure there are plenty of people that wouldn't agree but I think their philosophy is good because it means that the current expression, which I like, should always stay the same (although I'm sure, somehow, it won't)!

[ILLfarmboy]

I would like to taste Maker's at a higher proof/older expression, seven or eight years and 107 would be cool.

I don't think we will ever see something like that for exactly the reasons Chuck laid out. But what about giving an older, higher proof expression the "knob Creek treatment". By that I mean It could be sold under a different label. It doesn't have to be called Maker's Mark xyz. Call it something else. That way we enthusiasts get what we want and the average Maker's Mark consumer goes on thinking that the bottle with the red wax is the best of the best.

[IronHead]

I like the fact that they only make one kind of bourbon and that I would only have to shell out $20-$25 for their top of the line whiskey.

But there are IMO plenty of bourbons at or under that price point that pack more flavor. I will always have an affinity for Maker's since it was really my "my first bourbon" bourbon. My tastes have started to gravitate toward more complexity. And it is because of that that I would dearly love to see longer aged, higher proof expressions of Maker's. Like Oscar said, we would like it to be what it could be.

[cowdery]

My point was that Maker's and we enthusiasts both need to think outside the box. Older and higher proof are the things they feel they can't do so the typical line extension is probably out. Ditto spinning off a new brand. That's why I suggested doing single barrel bottlings. They may all still be 90 proof and about six years old, but barrel variation is barrel variation. That's something they could do without damaging, in their view, the brand's positioning as being perfect just the way it is.

Unlike most other producers, they sell all they can make as it is. The business reason to do something like what I propose is to keep legitimacy and cred with the enthusiast community without risking that which they feel they have to protect.

[p_elliott]

My point was that Maker's and we enthusiasts both need to think outside the box. Older and higher proof are the things they feel they can't do so the typical line extension is probably out. Ditto spinning off a new brand. That's why I suggested doing single barrel bottlings. They may all still be 90 proof and about six years old, but barrel variation is barrel variation. That's something they could do without damaging, in their view, the brand's positioning as being perfect just the way it is.

Unlike most other producers, they sell all they can make as it is. The business reason to do something like what I propose is to keep legitimacy and cred with the enthusiast community without risking that which they feel they have to protect.

No one makes/sales a single barrel wheater is there a reason for this?

[NeoTexan]

Unlike most other producers, they sell all they can make as it is. The business reason to do something like what I propose is to keep legitimacy and cred with the enthusiast community without risking that which they feel they have to protect.

Where’s the incentive?

Maker’s doubled production and still sell all they can.

Believe it not, the vast majority of people out there could care less that 4 Roses or Wild Turkey has come out with a new expression. Joe Buyer goes out there and buys because he is looking for a taste he is familiar with. Experimentation is not the norm among the general public.

IMO the distilleries don’t make these additional expressions to please the public. (Although there are people like us who do appreciate their efforts) They make them to get their names in the news. Do you really think that they would go to all the trouble of producing them if they didn’t feel they had to? If they could sell all they produce as a single expression, they would. It’s that buzz that they are all looking for.

What the people on this board must remember is that they do not represent the general populace.

PS

In regards to the wax….. they usually produce a very limited run, for a very limited market, to celebrate an event associated with that community and quite often for a charitable cause. Small time marketing.

[DeanSheen]

^ RE: General Public

Experimentation may not be the norm with the general public but it's short sighted to say that the public cannot learn. The US as a nation is beginning to mature, especially in culinary matters.

The American Micro brew scene is as diverse and thriving as ever and the US wine market continues to expand as more varieties are accepted and production regions legitimized.

In the context above why would a whiskey producer see themselves so differently especially in a spirits climate where profit is increasingly being driven by premiumization?

What has always worked wont always will.

[JohnHansell]

The sad part here (which I mention in my blog posting) is that we already got a taste of two different Maker's Mark bourbons in the past--a 101 proof with the standard formula and a 95 proof that was aged slightly longer. I really liked both of them, and here's why:

While I like how smooth and easy-drinking Maker's is (largely due to the wheat), I often find myself wanting it to be a little more rubust than it is. The two other expressions, which they have discontinued, did just that--they made Maker's more robust (with the additional oak influence, or the additional alcohol level).

So, we already got a taste of what Maker's CAN be, and I miss this. I miss the variety to match my varying moods. Like I said in my blog posting: what would life be like with just one Beatles album? Sure, life would go on, but we would have missed out on something special.

[ILLfarmboy]

Wouldn't a single barrel expression be sort of an admission that even with barrel rotation homogeneity isn't possible? Does the average 'red wax ' consumer know Maker's moves their barrels around to minimize the effects of micro-climate and warehouse location? With that in mind, would the average 'red wax' consumer understand the potential taste diference between the standard and single barrel? If it is bottled at the same age and same 90 proof, what's the selling point to the un-educated masses? and to those of us in the know, would the diference be diferent enough to make it worth buying? At least JD SB comes form the top floors and if I recall corectly is a bit older, and even if it isn't, because of barrel location it has a more mature taste. If JD SB was bottled at the same proof as Black Label, same age, and same wherehouse locations, would you pay the extra money? I wouldn't.

[StraightBoston]

John's absolutely right about the black wax Select and the gold wax 101 proof (though in my experience the black was better than the gold.) Someone who would know gave the authoritative story as to why we don't have it now here.

Gary's correct that even the red wax was a richer product in days gone by, though whether that was due to differences in production or a result of the glut is unclear to me.

Bring Back The Black!

[George]

Good discussion and some interesting perspectives. I guess I understand Maker's philosophy, but I also wouldn't mind seeing at least one other offering.

[OscarV]

Experimentation may not be the norm with the general public but it's short sighted to say that the public cannot learn. The US as a nation is beginning to mature, especially in culinary matters.

Yep, your'e right there.

I remember back in the olden days (I'm 55) there were scores and scores of products you could not buy in a grocery store that today we take for granted.

You used to have to go to specialty shops to get items like portabella muchrooms and fresh farm raised turkeys.

Maker's should not forget how they got to be where they are.

When they hit it big in the '80's it was the upscale crowd that did it for them and the growth in all alcohol produts today is the super-premium segment.

It wasn't that long ago you could only buy 4R's in Japan and KY and now it is a leader if not the leader in premium offerings.

Maybe Maker's feels the heat, they just lowered their price, and in my experience in the beer business that is the first sign of weakness.

[Bourbon Geek]

I think Maker's just likes being a one trick pony ... and that works well ... as long as you do that one trick very, very well. By all accounts, Maker's has ridden that pony for an incredibly long ride ... thanks in no small part to the leadership and marketing savvy of Mr. Samuels.... Just think in relatively recent terms ... from 1984 to 2008 the brand went from about 10th best selling bourbon in the US to #3 ... not a mean feat. It is very hard to argue with that kind of success.

All that having been said. I have always personally held that there ARE ways to produce a number of products at Makers without denigrating the red wax brand. Single barrelling would, in theory, be a problem for the main brand ... especially when it was smaller... because it could be argued that by selecting "special" barrels to be bottled off individually, you were removing that "specialness" from the inventory, and the red wax brand would no longer benefit from it's inclusion ... and would, somehow, be the worse for it.

However, certainly no one would argue that selling white dog could in any way impact the taste profile of the red wax brand. In my opinion, the white dog at Makers is of far superior quality to the other bourbon white dogs ... and there seems to be enough interest in it that this would be a drop kick in the line extension game.

As John Hansell notes, the gold wax 101 proof and the black wax 95 proof are wonderful examples of what can be done with line extensions at Makers. The 101 was the EXACT same product as the red wax ... just sold at a higher proof ... so there is no way that it could truely lessen the quality profile of the red wax product. The black wax product, however, really demonstrates one powerful potential line of extensions that could be accomplished at Makers ... It was a different selection of barrels from the same inventory ... while red is selected over a narrow range of production dates targeted at about 6 years and 90 proof, the black was selected over a wide range of production dates (typically up to a 6 year spread) targeted at 8 years and 95 proof. There is no doubt that these two products are both seen as top quality ... but appeal to vary different taste profiles... And with the size of Makers, it is a very weak argument that the selection of black wax hurts the selection of red wax in any material sense.

Then, there is the matter of finishes ... Makers could certainly take a random selection of barrels from their inventory and rebarrel them in different wood ... you pick ... sherry, port, new oak, old scotch, larger or smaller barrels ...Any of this would make for good discussion ... and some of it would certainly yeild good, tasty results.

So, here we have it ... Options for line extensions at Makers that would be different without canabalizing from the main brand ...

1. Sell white dog

2. Sell at different proofs

3. Use substantially different selection criteria for withdrawing barrels

4. Use different finishes

Of these four, the only one that is currently precluded is #3 ... because they tend to manage their barrel inventory to the lowest level possible (very good fiscal discipline) ... that different selection criteria are virtually impossible until they let some barrels get older... (I doubt they could field the same black wax variant as before ... with the same selection criteria ... for at least 4 to 6 years from the date they decided to do it again)

So, why not step out into the line extension business? 56 years of success is very hard to mess with, and should not be taken lightly. Most Makers consumers don't really seem to give a wit about line extensions. They just want the same great product that they have grown to love. Line extensions rarely do anything to improve the image of the parent brand ... at best, they are good press and buzz generators (note the line extensions of Woodford Reserve) ... and Makers does a pretty good job of generating press and buzz without the line extensions.

Would I like to see some line extensions? For goodness sake, YES !!! But I say ... Good job, Mr. Samuels ... keep up the good work ... you have a tiger by the tail ... continue to feed it very carefully, nurture it, and watch it grow ... and have one MONSTER celebration the day that Makers officially becomes the worlds next 1,000,000 case per year brand ... which I am guessing will happen somewhere in the next 2 to 3 years.

[PAspirit1]

But there are IMO plenty of bourbons at or under that price point that pack more flavor. I will always have an affinity for Maker's since it was really my "my first bourbon" bourbon. My tastes have started to gravitate toward more complexity. And it is because of that that I would dearly love to see longer aged, higher proof expressions of Maker's. Like Oscar said, we would like it to be what it could be.

[NeoTexan]

56 years of success is very hard to mess with, and should not be taken lightly

[IronHead]

Also.....there is always the expession of it being a "gateway" bourbon. It must have some redeaming qualities that people drink it and say, "You know, I didn't know bourbon was good tasting. I wonder what other good bourbons are out there?"

I can definitely relate to that because Maker's was a 'gateway' bourbon for me. It is a good product, drinks smoothly and at 80 proof is ideal for someone just starting to drink bourbon without mixing. But the situation is now that I have a decent little collection going I can't recall the last time I drank Maker's unless I was in a bar where my only choices were Jim Beam and Maker's. And I don't go to bars very much. I haven't bought a bottle of Maker's in years.

The distillery is beautiful, the packaging and brand identification is excellent but for lack of better explanation it is to the point where I almost prefer the packaging to the product.

Given the success of Maker's Mark I can completely understand why they wouldn't want to fix what isn't broken. But I would jump at the chance to try Maker's juice in some other expression or under another label, even. But since they apparently can only just meet demand it doesn't look like that will be happening anytime soon.

I guess I should look on the bright side, though. If Maker's started doing enthusiast bottlings it would only mean that much more of a workout for my bank account.

[silverfish]

If you're feeling frisky, there's a bottle of

the 101 Gold Wax on ebay for $200. BIN

350227677757

(NOT my auction)

There are also a few Black Wax bottles but

none mention the 95 proof.

[nor02lei]

If you're feeling frisky, there's a bottle of

the 101 Gold Wax on ebay for $200. BIN

350227677757

(NOT my auction).

There are a couple of those in my bunker.

There are also a few Black Wax bottles but

none mention the 95 proof.

I do have one of those left as well.

Leif

[PAspirit1]

Given the success of Maker's Mark I can completely understand why they wouldn't want to fix what isn't broken. But I would jump at the chance to try Maker's juice in some other expression or under another label, even. But since they apparently can only just meet demand it doesn't look like that will be happening anytime soon.

I see what your saying and either route has its merits. The option is there for them and it would probabaly be a success. I'd be interested.

I always consider OGD 100 my gateway bourbon but the bottle I bought right before that was Makers. I remember it fondly and it probably set up the next bottle for the slamdunk.

[fishnbowljoe]

I too think that MM should come up with at least one more version. Preferably 101 proof. I am a MM Ambassador, and through their website I suggested to Emily that there are people out here that would love a 101 proof MM again. I told her that there are a lot more people who would probably drink MM if they had more than one expression to choose from. She thanked me and said she forwarded my e-mail/suggestion on to Bill Samuels and Kevin Smith. That was over a year ago. Haven't heard anything back yet. I like MM, but I sure ain't holding my breath. Joe