MM Proof Change

[T Comp]

Here's another angle that comes to me from an excellent and you should read two page article in today's Chicago Tribune "Beam's new zest". Woman!

There is a seperate boxed headline within the article entittled "Women are key to sprits growth" which starts out with describing a woman wine drinker changing over to Maker's with water. "A big part of Deerfield-based Beam's growth trajectory can be pegged to the increasing importance of the female consumer."..."but bourbon-makers like Beam also see as opportunity with female consumers and flavors to grow bourbon's 11 percent overall share".

The Tribune is now a pay site so I'm not linking but the article describes how precise growing Beam market share with innovation, research and marketing now is including the importance of the renovated Clermont Campus and its Global Innovation Center.

[barturtle]

I think Ben makes a good point. Even my friends who consider themselves "whiskey drinkers" don't tend to know what proof the whiskeys they drink are bottled at . . . I think the typical MM drinker will not notice at all (certainly not by the taste) - even if it's pointed out to them. Plus, they'll be saving money on Coke and Ginger Ale. :cool:

[OscarV]

Beam bought Maker's in 2005. In the package was an expansion plan, ready to go. Allied Domeq was about to pull the trigger but they got bought instead. Beam did some of the preliminary work, such as enlarging Maker's lake and upgrading their spent mash handling, but they have dragged their heels on the expansion itself, which will increase capacity by about 50%. I spoke with Rob Samuels this morning and he thinks they'll start the expansion "soon," but he doesn't know, and they've been saying "soon" for the last eight years.

[OscarV]

Not only are they putting 6.5% less stuff out of a barrel in each bottle (and charging you the same), but they are also paying less in excise taxes for each of those bottles...this could nearly double the 6.5% figure as far as profit goes...money grab.

[CADMixes]

Not much of a Maker's drinker here but this is motivating me to grab a bottle of 90 proof next time I see one for a reasonable price. So I guess this news will result in them selling one more bottle than they would have otherwise.

[squire]

Oscar I'd say it's more the nature of the whisky business rather than something American companies practice. The Scots are as tradition bound as any distilling culture and I've seen their Single Malts go from 94 to 86 to 80 proof within different brands over the last 35+ years.

At least we can still get Bonded Bourbons at a reasonable cost.

[Barrel_Proof]

I guess this means I will actually put a few bottles of the 46 proof stuff in the bunker.

[squire]

Generally I'm in favor of stockpiling liquor supplies but think I'll pass on MM. I'm saving those dollars in case Rock Hill Farms goes on closeout.

[cowdery]

I believe this hurts the brand. Obviously, from the way they announced and are spinning it, they think it's something they can survive. It's that idea that people buy brands, not specifications. If the Jack Daniel's experience is relevant, and I think it may be, there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth, but sales won't miss a beat.

I think for the people they claim to care about the most, the devoted Maker's drinker (yes, you, Dale), it makes the brand a little less special. It doesn't blow the whole thing out of the water, but it's a chink in the armor. If you always thought Maker's was different, they just became a little less different. There is no Santa Claus, all professional athletes cheat, and even though Ashley Judd and Scarlett Johansson are both single again, they are more likely to get together with each other than with me. It's a cold, cruel world.

The more you know, especially about the delayed expansion, the more disingenuous their explanations sound. I hope they're paying Rob Samuels a boatload of money, because this has to suck for him especially. If he needs a lesson in how to shut up and enjoy his membership in the lucky sperm club, he should talk to Fred Noe.

Edited February 10, 2013 by cowdery

[Gillman]

I buy MM about twice every year, the reason being, I want to see if it can come closer to what I recall from 30 years ago than it's been for some time. I do that with all brands (Beam Black is next). Sometimes it pays off, e.g. Jack Daniels, despite the proof drop, is a better whiskey IMO than 10 years ago. All HH bourbon is better IMO than 10-15 years ago. Profiles evolve, either intentionally or through a drift of some kind, so it's good to check in. This change gives me less incentive to do so than before. I think they are going the wrong way on this, and that Maker's 46 was a mistake - it would have been better to bring back 101 or the kind of palate I remember from back in the day as a limited edition.

Gary

[ILLfarmboy]

Well, I hope they don't drop the proof on the '46. I quite like it, and buy it ocationaly.

While I don't buy the regular MM I do ocationaly have some in a bar or restaurant.

And, yeah, I'll bitch about the proof drop even though I rarely buy any, 'CAUSE I WOULD BUY IT MORE OFTEN IF THEY WENT THE OTHER WAY WITH THE PROOF!

[ILLfarmboy]

and that Maker's 46 was a mistake - it would have been better to bring back 101 or the kind of palate I remember from back in the day as a limited edition.

Gary

I never had the pleasure of trying the 101 but I welcomed the '46 as a step in the right direction.

[squire]

They have gone the other way in the past, the black label Japanese export expression was 95 proof with a richer, bolder taste profile, now discontinued. Apparently it's been determined the way they're going now is the most profitable.

[smokinjoe]

How bout this solution MM/Beam?: Take all of the special wax iterations that you put out every year, that never even get opened, and fill them with caramel colored water. Therefore, your "Rabid Fans" won't be impacted at all. They'll never know the difference. Save the real whiskey for the regular bottles that plain folks like me buy and drink all the time. Or maybe, I've been wrong all of these years....

I'll try it. I'll determine for myself if I'll continue to buy it. But, as a loyal Maker's whiskey drinker, I am extremely disappointed in this move. I have been longing and hoping for moves in the other direction...

Dammit!!

[OscarV]

Is the new 84 proof MM be using pink wax instead of red?

[cowdery]

No, they're changing out the hand-dipped wax for a plastic shrink-wrap capsule with red wax printed on it, that can be applied by a machine. But that's the last change, honest.

Big boy pants here. Maker's Mark is a major and mature brand, even though it's growing. It won't be growing for long if they can't supply it, and the 'badge' that is Maker's Mark to the Maker's Mark consumer, doesn't hinge on proof. The Daniel's proof cut dragged on because they never went big with it, so people were discovering it for a year. Now is a different time, media-wise, too. This will flame up over the next week or so and then it will be over.

And they still won't have built the third distillery that could have averted or, at least, postponed this.

Which, to me, is the mystery, making me wonder if they think Maker's has peaked. There has never been a million-case high end bourbon before. Could they be afraid of flying too close to the sun?

Edited February 11, 2013 by cowdery

[smokinjoe]

No, they're changing out the hand-dipped wax for a plastic shrink-wrap capsule with red wax printed on it, that can be applied by a machine. But that's the last change, honest.

Big boy pants here. Maker's Mark is a major and mature brand, even though it's growing. It won't be growing for long if they can't supply it, and the 'badge' that is Maker's Mark to the Maker's Mark consumer, doesn't hinge on proof. The Daniel's proof cut dragged on because they never went big with it, so people were discovering it for a year. Now is a different time, media-wise, too. This will flame up over the next week or so and then it will be over.

And they still won't have built the third distillery that could have averted or, at least, postponed this.

Which, to me, is the mystery, making me wonder if they think Maker's has peaked. There has never been a million-case high end bourbon before. Could they be afraid of flying too close to the sun?

[HighInTheMtns]

How bout this solution MM/Beam?: Take all of the special wax iterations that you put out every year, that never even get opened, and fill them with caramel colored water. Therefore, your "Rabid Fans" won't be impacted at all. They'll never know the difference.

[Barrel_Proof]

None of this gets my bowels in an uproar. I will put a few bottles of the original proofers in the bunker and forget about them. Come to think of it, however, now the bottle wax freaks will think their bottles are REALLY special. Ha!

[stevegoz]

How bout this solution MM/Beam?: Take all of the special wax iterations that you put out every year, that never even get opened, and fill them with caramel colored water.

[Leopold]

Big boy pants here. Maker's Mark is a major and mature brand, even though it's growing. It won't be growing for long if they can't supply it, and the 'badge' that is Maker's Mark to the Maker's Mark consumer, doesn't hinge on proof. The Daniel's proof cut dragged on because they never went big with it, so people were discovering it for a year. Now is a different time, media-wise, too. This will flame up over the next week or so and then it will be over.

And they still won't have built the third distillery that could have averted or, at least, postponed this.

Which, to me, is the mystery, making me wonder if they think Maker's has peaked. There has never been a million-case high end bourbon before. Could they be afraid of flying too close to the sun?

[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.

Edited February 11, 2013 by T Comp

[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."

[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

Edited February 11, 2013 by Gillman

[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.