‘Health conscious beer’…WTF?

It’s been a while since I’ve posted to BeerMatt and there are a lot of reasons for that, mainly I’ve been flat out. But I just received my “What’s Brewing” newsletter from my old friends DB Breweries (you can read about them here, here, here and here.) and, there’s nothing like low-carb beer to get me writing.

What caught my eye was the headline, “Health conscious beer increases popularity.”

Why this struck me is that I remember earlier this year an Australian academic caused a kerfuffle when he suggested that low-carb beers are an “insidious health risk” because they are marketed as a healthy option and may actually encourage people to drink more.

“Nooooooo,” howled the brewing industry when this claim was made. “We don’t market these beers as being healthy, we’re not allowed to do that.”

“ ‘Low carb’ is just a statement of fact, there’s nothing on the bottle to suggest that the beers are healthy.”

But then in their newsletter, DB Breweries are calling it a ‘health conscious beer’.

Read the whole thing and tell me if you’re left with the impression that this is beer is healthier for you. It never actually says that and I am sure that DB Breweries have had a team of lawyers go over the wording of the and to make sure that it doesn’t actually cross the line – but its toes are right up on the line and its shadow extends three feet across it.

Look closely and it’s like one of the old Mad Magazine fold-ins, make “A” meet “B” and something else emerges.

The key elements are:

  • It’s a health conscious beer
  • It’s aim is not to add to growing beer bellies
  • It is brewed 33% longer than standard beer to remove unwanted sugars and reduce the beer’s level of carbohydrates
  • The beer is meeting a growing consumer demand among New Zealanders who are increasingly conscious of the way they look and feel
  • “More and more Kiwis love beer but naturally they’re not so fond of beer bellies!”  “Export 33 is full strength, full flavour and low carb so now you can enjoy beer that is less filling without a taste trade-off.”

The last is the clincher. Notice how cleverly the first and second sentences of the last point are non sequiturs. It looks like they logically follow, but they don’t. “Kiwis don’t want beer bellies”. “Our beer is low-carb and less filling.” The latter doesn’t actually relate to the former, and DB can’t be said to be saying their beer is healthy, although the objective is quite clearly to make the connection between low-carbs and avoiding a beer belly – or else, why put out the media release?

In fact, according to DB’s own website, the difference in kilojoules (the energy provided by the alcohol and carbs in the beer that, if unused by the body, causes weight gain) between this ‘health conscious beer’ (425 kilojoules) and DB Draught (462) is 37 kilojoules or roughly half of one percent of a daily intake of 8000 kilojoules. A mouthful of your second bottle and you’ve consumed the same calories as their regular draught beer. The difference is the same is two rice crackers – the plain, not flavoured version.

Incidentally, I would burn 215 kilojoules doing 10 minutes of light gardening.

As ever, if you enjoy Export 33 – or any other beer for its flavour – drink up and enjoy, that’s the whole purpose of beer after all. But if you drink Export 33 because you’re trying to avoid a beer gut or you consider it to be a ‘health conscious beer’, you are every bit as gullible as DB Breweries hope you are.

Oh, and send me your bank account details – I have US$5,000,000 that we can split….

A sign of things to come?

Roger Protz has posted about the supermarket-led sales of beer in the UK and the power their supermarkets wield over even the brewers. This could easily be a pointer for what’s to happen in Australia with the supermarkets controlling a substantial portion of off-premises sales in Australia and quickly moving into homebrand beers to compete with even our biggest brewers. Brewers big and small should be very concerned at the prospect of less shelf space, less prominent displays and pressure for lower margins.

It’s worth revisiting a Four Corners report on the economic power of the big supermarkets from a couple of years back called The Price We Pay. We all like to save a few dollars, but it can end up being a false economy when this leads to higher prices or smaller range and selection.

Beer that’s all froth

It’s been a very busy week so I’ve only just been catching up on some reading of beer news from around the world, and a couple of things struck me as a I read a couple in succession. First I read this…

Leaving aside that fact that this 600 word self-congratulatory article about their marketing genius barely even mentions that the product is beer (the only words that indicate that this could be an advertising campaign about beer are the words ”clean, crisp taste”. The rest could be about anything. It is just a fast-moving consumer good after all.) But the point is to note that Lion “increased its spending into television, print and radio advertising to ensure its target audience of young metropolitan men are aware of the extra content such as websites, video diaries and the like that builds up the ”back story” essential to give a brand credibility.” Note too that they credited their six advertising and media partners.

Then read this story in marketing magazine B&T about Fosters whittling down a list of 117 agencies and selecting its stable of 21 marketing, advertising and PR partners (all good people, I assure you, many are avid readers this blog for some reason…morning all – congratulations on being selected!)

These show the cost of advertising in the world of commodity beer. Recently, the SMH noted that in the 12 months to November 2008, Fosters’ VB brand spent $5.3 million in advertising, up from $3 million in the same period in 2007. A recent article in the Financial Review, which has no weblink, said Lion Nathan’s CEO Rob Murray increased the company’s marketing spend by 30 per cent when he took the top job in 2006 to bring it to “between 8 to 10 percent of annual net revenue”. That’s revenue, not costs, this must make marketing the single most expensive ingredient of beer.

And then I saw this about Lion in NZ putting prices up, citing the cost of glass and aluminium.

It always seems that when beer prices go up, it’s the cost of ingredients that get’s the blame (though as I’ve noted, it’s never the cost of sugar which makes up more than a quarter of some of these beers – even when the price of sugar doubles), never the cost of the expanding teams of marketers or the advertising.

I wonder why that is.