Before Makers' Mark, it was not OK for bourbon to taste good!

[SMOWK]

I was born in 1981, so I've been waiting for a birthday for some reason. The problem is, there's a good 6 or 10 bottles in the closet with "Birthday" on the label. It could take a while....

[Gillman]

I once was given a taste at Louisville Bourbon Society of some from the 70's and it was very good, just as I remembered it from then. Perhaps the person who gave you the sample has some and will offer a taste note.

Gary

[Gillman]

Actually, I am going to get some Maker's later (current obviously) and give a taste note, it has been a while since I have had some.

Gary

[steeltownbbq]

I was introduced to the pleasures of drinking straight bourbon in 1980 when an older gentleman offered me some MM (black wax I believe). He had picked it up while driving through Kentucky to a family gathering in Alabama and was real happy to have it and to share.

For a long time all I knew was MM and I knew that I liked it. Many years later I discovered other bourbons and learned to appreciate the differences. Today, while I wouldn't turn down a glass of MM if you offered it, I don't spend my hard earned dollars on their brand any more.

And as for personal tastes, my brother-in-law enjoys whiskey too - Canadian Club diluted 3:1 with 7-Up. So when we set down for a drink - I sip on my WT101, BT or 4R and he swills his CC flavored soda. And we both end up happy.

[ILLfarmboy]

I agree with Gary's comments with regard to wheat Vs. rye and straight rye. For the most part, rye is less noobie friendly.

My uncle is one of these people. The sun rises and sets on MM. I tried to expose him to OWA last fall, figuring he'd enjoy a different wheater, but it was "too strong".

I suggested that he could add a little water to bring the proof down and he told me that he hated adding water to bourbon. He couldn't quite understand the point that MM doesn't come straight out of the barrel and into a bottle at 90 proof, so what difference does it make when the water gets added...

Oh well, I probably won't bother him with anything like a PVW, WLW, OGD114, etc. If he is truly content with only MM and has no desire to look beyond it, more power to him. I tried.

[nblair]

When Maker's Mark was family owned, they deserved every bit of their reputation. Maker's from the 1960s and 70s was every bit as good as anything that came out of Stitzel-Weller. I wish I had a case of the Gold Wax 101 from the late 1970s.

Mike Veach

I am curious to know what happened to MM. Was the Allied Domecq takeover the sole reason for the decline in quality? Was the situation similar to Stitzel-Weller and UD where Allied Domecq came in and started drastically cutting costs, raising the barrel proof, etc.? How could it go from SW quality to what it is now?

[TNbourbon]

I am curious to know what happened to MM. Was the Beam takeover the sole reason for the decline in quality? Was the situation similar to Stitzel-Weller and UD where Beam came in and started drastically cutting costs, raising the barrel proof, etc.? How could it go from SW quality to what it is now?

I've long been associated with the viewpoint that Maker's isn't what it could be, or ought to be, so I find myself in the unusual position of being its defender here: There's nothing wrong with Maker's Mark! I enjoy it. It's about the best one can expect from a c. 6yo, 90-proof wheater.

My gripe with MM always has been that its single iteration is/was underaged, and therefore 'unfinished'. In fact, the lack of a finish, taste-wise, was its worst sin, for me, because everything about it up to the point when you expect to relish the finish is quite good.

Plus -- in our market, at least -- distributors made a concerted effort to pair it with Jack Daniel's, because it is the market leader. They wanted it placed near JD on the shelf, and they wanted it priced like JD -- when one price moved, the other did, too. Now, JD ALSO is a too-pricey, too-young whiskey that's otherwise okay, so that never thrilled me, and kept me from buying Maker's Mark just like it keeps me from buying Jack Daniel's.

All that said, Beam (which has only owned Maker's 18 months or so now) seems to have broken, at least, that price-point link to JD, and the price seems to have fallen a bit. Frankly, I've been thinking it may be time to try Maker's again.

As an aside, I was kind of taken aback by the near-ad hominem attack on Dave Pickerell in the lead post of this thread. Dave has been a pretty regular poster here recently (not sure everyone realizes that since his ID is barely suggestive of his industry prominence), and I'd hoped he might chime in to give some background about MM's marketing, if not to defend his honor. For whatever it's worth, 'dishonest' and 'arrogant' are two adjectives that never would have jumped to my mind about Dave, despite my aforementioned aversion to his erstwhile bourbon's market position.

[nblair]

All that said, Beam (which has only owned Maker's 18 months or so now)

Thank you for catching my mistake. In my post I meant to say Allied Domecq, who I believe the distillery was sold to in the early 80's (I could be wrong), not Fortune Brands/Beam who has just acquired it.

[smokinjoe]

I've long been associated with the viewpoint that Maker's isn't what it could be, or ought to be, so I find myself in the unusual position of being its defender here: There's nothing wrong with Maker's Mark! I enjoy it. It's about the best one can expect from a c. 6yo, 90-proof wheater.

My gripe with MM always has been that its single iteration is/was underaged, and therefore 'unfinished'. In fact, the lack of a finish, taste-wise, was its worst sin, for me, because everything about it up to the point when you expect to relish the finish is quite good.

Plus -- in our market, at least -- distributors made a concerted effort to pair it with Jack Daniel's, because it is the market leader. They wanted it placed near JD on the shelf, and they wanted it priced like JD -- when one price moved, the other did, too. Now, JD ALSO is a too-pricey, too-young whiskey that's otherwise okay, so that never thrilled me, and kept me from buying Maker's Mark just like it keeps me from buying Jack Daniel's.

All that said, Beam (which has only owned Maker's 18 months or so now) seems to have broken, at least, that price-point link to JD, and the price seems to have fallen a bit. Frankly, I've been thinking it may be time to try Maker's again.

As an aside, I was kind of taken aback by the near-ad hominem attack on Dave Pickerell in the lead post of this thread. Dave has been a pretty regular poster here recently (not sure everyone realizes that since his ID is barely suggestive of his industry prominence), and I'd hoped he might chime in to give some background about MM's marketing, if not to defend his honor. For whatever it's worth, 'dishonest' and 'arrogant' are two adjectives that never would have jumped to my mind about Dave, despite my aforementioned aversion to his erstwhile bourbon's market position.

Tim, your posting here is Golden. We may wish for more, but there is nother wrong, or bad with Maker's Mark. There is no lack of quality. It just may not be as good as we would like, or as good as some have seen it. And, the vitriolic attacks on the distillery and those associated with it are unfounded, unwarranted, and based on nothing short of ignorance.

[cowdery]

If Maker's Mark has 'declined in quality,' a debatable proposition in its own right, it cannot be laid at Beam's feet. Beam only took over in 2006 and they haven't made any significant changes. Bill Samuels is still in charge. Beam is undoubtedly having an influence on marketing and promotion, but there is no evidence they have gotten their fingers into production.

Whatever the time frame is for people who pine for the Maker's Mark of yesteryear, they're not talking about the way it was five or ten years ago. Is it different from, say, 30 years ago? That, I think, is the question.

[SMOWK]

If Maker's Mark has 'declined in quality,' a debatable proposition in its own right

It has. I have the taste test to prove it. Come by sometime.

[nblair]

If Maker's Mark has 'declined in quality,' a debatable proposition in its own right, it cannot be laid at Beam's feet. Beam only took over in 2006 and they haven't made any significant changes. Bill Samuels is still in charge. Beam is undoubtedly having an influence on marketing and promotion, but there is no evidence they have gotten their fingers into production.

Whatever the time frame is for people who pine for the Maker's Mark of yesteryear, they're not talking about the way it was five or ten years ago. Is it different from, say, 30 years ago? That, I think, is the question.

Chuck,

I apologize for mistyping my post. I spoke of the Beam purchase of Maker's Mark, but meant to refer to the sale of Maker's Mark to Allied Domecq (or whoever it was that acquired MM) in the 1980's.

I am curious if anything changed in production back then. To my understanding they were purchased by a foreign company and I didn't know if that company tinkered with production. It was roughly 30 years ago, correct?

[cowdery]

Much as with Beam, Allied Domecq was involved with marketing and promotion, but not production. Having no other American whiskey properties, unless you count Canadian Club, they were even more arm's length than Beam.

Here's the history. Maker's Mark was established by Bill Samuels Senior in 1953. It was owned by the Samuels family until 1981, when it was sold to Hiram Walker and Sons, the Canadian company that made Canadian Club. Allied subsequently bought Walker, and so on. Through it all, Bill Sr. was in charge, then Bill Jr., who is still in charge.

The change from family to corporate ownership, therefore, was nearly 30 years ago.

The family sold not because the company was in trouble but because it was doing well and the family couldn't or didn't want to make the additional investment needed, so they sold to a bigger company with deeper pockets.

If you want to look for an event of some kind, look at the 1996 expansion, when Maker's essentially built a second distillery, ostensibly exactly like the original.

[cowdery]

It has. I have the taste test to prove it. Come by sometime.

Time frame, please? When was it supposedly 'better'?

[SMOWK]

I've got a nice sample from 1981 that StraightBoston was kind enough to send me. Compared to the current stuff, it's like night and day. Even my girlfriend who doesn't even drink bourbon was able to pick out the good stuff immediately.

[birdman1099]

Allow me, if I may, to add a point that seems to be lacking in this thread.

I understand that the majority of this board finds MM to be a less than stellar tasting product with a premium price. And I tend to agree. But I think you need to realize that MM took the stand years ago to be an industry leader and not an enthuiasts favorite. MM is a business and the business is selling bottles. Which it does well. And since the product cannot really stand on its own, it needs advertising to support it. And their marketing plan is no different than others that plan to be market leaders. Is Budweiser the "best " beer out there? They say it is. But the hard core beer drinkers I know won't touch it. Does that mean Budweiser should go back in and re-work the recipe to supply a product that is in favor with the hardliners? absolutely not. They are already selling more product than any other beer. MM is doing the same thing. We can wish all day long that MM would make a better product and taste more like the VW lines, but why would they want to follow the VW business plan if they are already selling so much more product then VW? remember, that is the goal. Selling product. McDonalds has a similar plan. Not the best burgers, but they sell the most. Thats the plan. Don't hate them for it. Just don't but into it if you don't like the product.

and also remember, we here on the board are the 1%'ers. We are more knowledgeable and emotionally tied to our bourbons than 99% of the population. I wouldn't build a business plan around us, I'd plan it around the more "impressionable" 99%.

Sorry for the ramblings....

[nblair]

That was a great post Scott. The analogies to Budweiser and McDonald's put it in perspective a little bit. I did want to take it one step further and say that IMO Maker's Mark has done better than McDonald's and Budweiser in promoting a "PREMIUM" product. When people drink The Diesel or eat a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, they might like it, but I doubt they are under the illusion that no better beer or burger exists. Maker's has definitely succeeded in making people think there is nothing else out there better than the red wax dipped bottle.

[Josh]

Allow me, if I may, to add a point that seems to be lacking in this thread...

...and also remember, we here on the board are the 1%'ers. We are more knowledgeable and emotionally tied to our bourbons than 99% of the population. I wouldn't build a business plan around us, I'd plan it around the more "impressionable" 99%.

Sorry for the ramblings....

[kickert]

I would compare Jim Beam White to McD's and MM to something like Applebees. It is better than the cheap/easy stuff, but everyone knows it is not like the local specialty shop.

[Inthewater]

And people wondered why I said I noticed "A bit of hostility" around MM when I first joined.

I think this thread proves that some people here are a bit hostile about this particular bottle of flavored distillate.

Birdman, that was a great post. If people still don't get it, then oh well. Its all about selling product, in the end, whether you like it or not.

Some sell $80 - $150 bottles to a tiny market, some sell $35 bottles to a much larger market.

[smokinjoe]

Indeed Scott, nice post. I agree with nblair though, in regards to the mission not targeting the masses with a general product, rather targeting the premium imbibers with a premium product.

I've always been puzzled by the perception of the Marketing efforts of Maker's Mark. I honestly do not see the overwhelming marketing effort that many believe is coming out of them. I don't see anything from them that is any different than the efforts of just about any other distillery. Am I wrong on this?

Finally as a general statement, I think we need to be careful in how we categorize what is inside the bottle. Or, any bottle for that matter. Many times I hear "Poor quality", or "bad", as descriptors of Maker's. These really are inaccurate adjectives for it. You may not like it, or you may like other bourbons better for any number of reasons, but there is nothing in Maker's processes nor the final product that can be constituted as either "bad" or "poor quality".

Sorry for my ramblings, too...

[Halifax]

...I've always been puzzled by the perception of the Marketing efforts of Maker's Mark. I honestly do not see the overwhelming marketing effort that many believe is coming out of them. I don't see anything from them that is any different than the efforts of just about any other distillery. Am I wrong on this?...

I operate my own business. I can tell you that from a business and marketing perspective MM has 3 big factors that aide them in creating the perception of being a "premium" brand in the minds of the mass consumer:

1. Unique & highly recognizable packaging. Almost all alcohol consumers can easily identify the MM product.

2. Distribution. The MM bottle sits on the top shelf of almost every bar in th country.

3. Past & present marketing. Most people are sheep and easily influenced. Once they buy into it, more often than not, they are done.

I can't tell you how many of bottles off MM that I bought and mixed with ginger ale over the years. I bought into the hype, just as many other consumers do. If it weren't for SB I wouldn't be any the wiser.

JMHO

Rod

[George]

Very interesting thread.

I like MM. I'm not sure how I would classify it. Premium? Mid-shelf? I guess it doesn't really matter much to me. At $27-28, I'll pass on it every time. At $22-23, it's part of my regular rotation.

I also think there are some consumers who don't like MM because it is so ubiquitous. That happens with a lot with good products. Once they become mainstream, a certain segment of the population dismisses them. I believe there's some of that with MM.

Just my $0.02.

[Gillman]

One factor sometimes overlooked I think is that the average buyer, who has no idea of the range out there of whiskey and its characteristics, tends to choose, not necessarily the best, but just something reliable. Indeed the "best" may not be wanted, due to price. So you get a known quantity and it won't displease - as important as getting something that is "the best"... I know this because I apply this rule to other areas of consumer products, say cookies. I like Dad's oatmeal cookies (a brand we get in Canada, not sure if it is a U.S. brand also). There are so many kinds out there, but I am not sure I have the time or interest to experiment, plus I don't want to waste $$$ on something I won't like. So I buy Dad's brand because it is always good and I know what it is like.

Gary

[smokinjoe]

I operate my own business. I can tell you that from a business and marketing perspective MM has 3 big factors that aide them in creating the perception of being a "premium" brand in the minds of the mass consumer:

1. Unique & highly recognizable packaging. Almost all alcohol consumers can easily identify the MM product.

2. Distribution. The MM bottle sits on the top shelf of almost every bar in th country.

3. Past & present marketing. Most people are sheep and easily influenced. Once they buy into it, more often than not, they are done.

I can't tell you how many of bottles off MM that I bought and mixed with ginger ale over the years. I bought into the hype, just as many other consumers do. If it weren't for SB I wouldn't be any the wiser.

JMHO

Rod

Thanks for input, Rod. But, I don't see where your list differs from what other distilleries do. Even in breadth and scope. Where is the past and present marketing that has the sheeple fooled? I've just not seen an overwhelming amount of information/marketing/advertising presented by MM. Certainly, not anything resembling MM induced "hype". Short of the occasional billboard, I don't see anything in the other media. No radio, TV, internet ads, newspaper, mags, sports related mkg, blimp, NASCAR Chevy ...nothing. I'm sure there are some spots in some of the media I listed, but not an inundation. Sure, you can get a fair amount of MM apparel etc. at the gift shop, but you can get similar at BT, HH, etc. I just don't get it.