The Bar Towel

MatttthewGeorge wrote:Or maybe we've reassessed our costs and realized the beer cost us more than we originally thought.

Also, many LCBOs at this time of year will put the beer on clearance. Guess who eats that clearance price? We do.

Happy to hear you drink our cans however I'm sad to hear you think we're purposely trying to rip our customers off. I get that it's expensive (out of my price range too, tbh) but ripping on us for false assumptions is uncalled for. Maybe next time just ask why?

Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion. You're not rookies. Jacking the price of a seasonal beer that has been on shelves for two months is ridiculous in my opinion, and is a panic move made in hindsight.

Blasphomet wrote:

MatttthewGeorge wrote:Or maybe we've reassessed our costs and realized the beer cost us more than we originally thought.

Also, many LCBOs at this time of year will put the beer on clearance. Guess who eats that clearance price? We do.

Happy to hear you drink our cans however I'm sad to hear you think we're purposely trying to rip our customers off. I get that it's expensive (out of my price range too, tbh) but ripping on us for false assumptions is uncalled for. Maybe next time just ask why?

Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion. You're not rookies. Jacking the price of a seasonal beer that has been on shelves for two months is ridiculous in my opinion, and is a panic move made in hindsight.

I'll give you 55 cents if you give up.

AugustusRex wrote:

Blasphomet wrote:

MatttthewGeorge wrote:Or maybe we've reassessed our costs and realized the beer cost us more than we originally thought.

Also, many LCBOs at this time of year will put the beer on clearance. Guess who eats that clearance price? We do.

Happy to hear you drink our cans however I'm sad to hear you think we're purposely trying to rip our customers off. I get that it's expensive (out of my price range too, tbh) but ripping on us for false assumptions is uncalled for. Maybe next time just ask why?

Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion. You're not rookies. Jacking the price of a seasonal beer that has been on shelves for two months is ridiculous in my opinion, and is a panic move made in hindsight.

I'll give you 55 cents if you give up.

Give up what?

Blasphomet wrote:

MatttthewGeorge wrote:Or maybe we've reassessed our costs and realized the beer cost us more than we originally thought.

Also, many LCBOs at this time of year will put the beer on clearance. Guess who eats that clearance price? We do.

Happy to hear you drink our cans however I'm sad to hear you think we're purposely trying to rip our customers off. I get that it's expensive (out of my price range too, tbh) but ripping on us for false assumptions is uncalled for. Maybe next time just ask why?

Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion. You're not rookies. Jacking the price of a seasonal beer that has been on shelves for two months is ridiculous in my opinion, and is a panic move made in hindsight.

A CFO started at NB this fall and he's reevaluating all our costs. Before that it was done by the same people who have run the business for 15+ years. They've taken NB from a Mom&Pop to a large Ontario brewery and are just starting to hire people to keep them there. So if anything the price adjustment was the opposite of amateur hour.

I'm done talking about this. I've given more information and insight into brewery decision-making than any other brewery on this forum, and you can do with it as you please. To those that have accepted it, even if you don't like it, I say "thank you". To those that would rather throw insults, I say "good day to you".

Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion...

I appreciate if Nickel Brook during this transition would rather risk under-pricing a beer / make adjustments later than over-price it / be too cautious.

We also kind of knew the four-pack-for-$9.95 deal they used to have on the regular Bolshie was unrealistically low, and we didn't complain about taking advantage of it.

MatttthewGeorge wrote:We are looking at 500ml for next year, but I cannot say it that will indeed happen. But the general consensus around the brewery is that we need to be in a smaller format.

I hope NB (and everyone else) switches to smaller formats for these big beers. Though I also balked at the price the last couple years, I just looked and I have 2014 bottles of Kentucky and Winey Bastard in my "cellar", not so much because I wanted to age them this long, but because I keep passing them up for smaller bottles. Eg) last night I had a can of Ten Fiddy and a bottle of Kwak because it's so much easier for me to open a small bottle of a big beer.

Speaking of prices, at the end of Nov someone here was talking about adding a price/volume calculation to an existing LCBO checking website. Did anything ever come of that. I'd like to be able to compare equal sizes of beers to help decide if I think a particular beer is worth it to me.

Put me in the category that has no problem cracking a high ABV 750ml on a week night. What I don't understand is how a larger format equals less beer per dollar? Seems counter intuitive to any other consumable.

ErkLR wrote:Speaking of prices, at the end of Nov someone here was talking about adding a price/volume calculation to an existing LCBO checking website. Did anything ever come of that. I'd like to be able to compare equal sizes of beers to help decide if I think a particular beer is worth it to me.

Yes, i was working on that, and is a feature that is still on Vlad's upcoming features to-do list, at https://beersearch.on.somerandominterne ... w-releases

Generally, bottles seem to be worse value cost/mL than cans e.g. would you rather have a 473ml can of Ransack for $3.25, or a 500ml bottle of Elora Borealis for $4.50?

The two main variables in my value formula are cost/standard serving ,and ratebeer rating. Does anyone have any feedback on the balance between the two to determine the quality/cost value ratio e.g. 75% rating/25% cost ?

GtownRandy wrote:

ErkLR wrote:Speaking of prices, at the end of Nov someone here was talking about adding a price/volume calculation to an existing LCBO checking website. Did anything ever come of that. I'd like to be able to compare equal sizes of beers to help decide if I think a particular beer is worth it to me.

Yes, i was working on that, and is a feature that is still on Vlad's upcoming features to-do list, at https://beersearch.on.somerandominterne ... w-releases

Generally, bottles seem to be worse value cost/mL than cans e.g. would you rather have a 473ml can of Ransack for $3.25, or a 500ml bottle of Elora Borealis for $4.50?

The two main variables in my value formula are cost/standard serving ,and ratebeer rating. Does anyone have any feedback on the balance between the two to determine the quality/cost value ratio e.g. 75% rating/25% cost ?

Ah great, I'd be interested to see it working. Are you going to do straight cost/mL or standardize everything to one volume? eg) cost/tall boy or cost/500 mL? I'm not surprised that bottles generally cost more at the register, as I understand it, the whole bottle life-cycle is more expensive outside of the industry standard 341 mL bottles.

As for cost per rating, I prefer my own rating of a beer over that of any site, so it wouldn't matter much to me.

Blasphomet wrote:

MatttthewGeorge wrote:Or maybe we've reassessed our costs and realized the beer cost us more than we originally thought.

Also, many LCBOs at this time of year will put the beer on clearance. Guess who eats that clearance price? We do.

Happy to hear you drink our cans however I'm sad to hear you think we're purposely trying to rip our customers off. I get that it's expensive (out of my price range too, tbh) but ripping on us for false assumptions is uncalled for. Maybe next time just ask why?

Sorry, I don't think consumers should have to foot the bill for Nickel Brook's financial/cost misjudgment. That should be something that is sorted out well in advance and if it isn't then it's complete amateur hour in my opinion. You're not rookies. Jacking the price of a seasonal beer that has been on shelves for two months is ridiculous in my opinion, and is a panic move made in hindsight.

The brewery can charge whatever they want whenever they want, and you are free to buy it or not. That's it.

GtownRandy wrote:

ErkLR wrote:Speaking of prices, at the end of Nov someone here was talking about adding a price/volume calculation to an existing LCBO checking website. Did anything ever come of that. I'd like to be able to compare equal sizes of beers to help decide if I think a particular beer is worth it to me.

Yes, i was working on that, and is a feature that is still on Vlad's upcoming features to-do list, at https://beersearch.on.somerandominterne ... w-releases

Generally, bottles seem to be worse value cost/mL than cans e.g. would you rather have a 473ml can of Ransack for $3.25, or a 500ml bottle of Elora Borealis for $4.50?

The two main variables in my value formula are cost/standard serving ,and ratebeer rating. Does anyone have any feedback on the balance between the two to determine the quality/cost value ratio e.g. 75% rating/25% cost ?

I'd just do cost (per ml) * rating (out of 100) and call it a day. But make the cost per ml very visible, since ratings are of limited value to many.

Craig wrote:I'd just do cost (per ml) * rating (out of 100) and call it a day. But make the cost per ml very visible, since ratings are of limited value to many.

Yes we'd want a quality-price ratio, as many tangible factors affect intrinsic worth (which increases with extensive or rare use of hops, other special additions, higher gravity, extra-long maturation or use of spirit barrels etc.)

Some kind of universal QPR might also be useful if one could calculate that from the cost-per-ml VS the 'rated' score. It's also fairer to brewers: special added-worth treatments and additions usually translate to a better ratings score, at least if the resulting recipe actually works well for the beer - and if not the added cost works against the QPR of the beer.

In other words, price-per-100ml tells you that a Ontario Hefeweizen in a 750ml is a bit expensive, while the so-so QPR also tells you it's really not worth it. Something like Three Floyds 3D would have both a high price-per-100ml AND a high QPR, telling you it might be worth the splurge.


We can say a score divided by Price-per-100 ml can produce a number representing QPR.

Example 1:
A Doppelbock Dunkel costing $3.45 per 500ml is .69/100 ml.

Its score on RateBeer is 3.8

3.8 / .69 = QPR of 5.5

Example 2:
A Kölsch costing $2.85 per 341ml is .84/100 ml.

Its score on RateBeer is 2.3

2.3 / .84 = QPR of 2.7

^ we can see the Doppel is a better deal than the Kölsch on a higher-QPR basis, very much so & yet the relationship would be almost reversed if the scores were swapped (QPRs would in this case be 4.5 Kölsch / 3.3 Doppel.)

thanks for the input guys, i forgot another factor is the ABV of the beer. for example 2 beers with the same price/mL and rating, but one is 10% ABV and the other is 7%, the 10% should be more value should it not?

GtownRandy wrote:thanks for the input guys, i forgot another factor is the ABV of the beer. for example 2 beers with the same price/mL and rating, but one is 10% ABV and the other is 7%, the 10% should be more value should it not?

IMO, unless you are buying beer just to get drunk, ABV should have no impact on the calculation of value.

My opinion.

Show cost/unit volume, beer rating, and alc/volume separately. If you want to do some math and combine the cost and rating somehow, do that in addition to the "raw data", not instead of it. Cost/unit is a hard value, and I can use that to compare beer costs and make my own decisions. A beer's rating is good additional info to have, but it is still a judgment and personal. If the only data you were going to give was a combination of cost and rating, it wouldn't be so valuable.....to me, anyway.