The Bar Towel

JProulx wrote:

Baulz wrote:

JProulx wrote: I wish a local brewer could shed some light on why bombers have become the go-to. Is it a shelf space thing? Profit margin? Ease of production? LCBO requirement? Or are new brewers just following the herd, since bombers seem to be one of the modern standards (the other being the much-superior 473mL can)?

Do the math, price per ml of beer. Why sell a 500ml can for $2.95 when you can sell a 650ml bomber for $6+.

Also I do think the bombers stand out more at the LCBO, theres so many cans fighting for shelf space.

It's not hard to come up with possible explanations. But without the numbers, we have no certainty.

Why sell a 500mL can for $2.95 when you can sell a bomber for $6? Profit margin might be better on a can, due to lower cost of production. Gross profit may be higher on a can because of volume sales. A can may be more accessible to a beer every-man, as distinct from craft beer enthusiasts. Without the numbers, or some further information, we can only speculate.

Bombers do have a higher profit margin. The bottles cost more initially and to re-use, but the fact that you can sell it for over twice as much by adding a mere ~177 mLs of volume more than makes up for that.

In addition, a lot of consumers are unwilling to buy a six-pack of a beer they've never tried before, because they don't want to get stuck with 5 bottles of crap. A bomber selling for 6-8 bucks is an easier pill to swallow than a sixer for $13-14, even though the latter is obviously a better deal from a mL/dollar perspective. So it's not entirely an effort to gouge you, there is some functional purpose for the format.

I'm with the majority in this case - I very rarely repurchase bombers. Breweries that stick with tallboy cans or reasonably priced sixers are much more likely to retain my business. Lake of Bays and their mediocre 10 dollar seasonals (to be fair, in 750 mL bottles) that aren't even close to being worth that price are probably the best example, but it's an annoying trend affecting a lot of Ontario brewers.

darmokandjalad wrote:

JProulx wrote:

Baulz wrote: Do the math, price per ml of beer. Why sell a 500ml can for $2.95 when you can sell a 650ml bomber for $6+.

Also I do think the bombers stand out more at the LCBO, theres so many cans fighting for shelf space.

It's not hard to come up with possible explanations. But without the numbers, we have no certainty.

Why sell a 500mL can for $2.95 when you can sell a bomber for $6? Profit margin might be better on a can, due to lower cost of production. Gross profit may be higher on a can because of volume sales. A can may be more accessible to a beer every-man, as distinct from craft beer enthusiasts. Without the numbers, or some further information, we can only speculate.

Bombers do have a higher profit margin. The bottles cost more initially and to re-use, but the fact that you can sell it for over twice as much by adding a mere ~177 mLs of volume more than makes up for that.

In addition, a lot of consumers are unwilling to buy a six-pack of a beer they've never tried before, because they don't want to get stuck with 5 bottles of crap. A bomber selling for 6-8 bucks is an easier pill to swallow than a sixer for $13-14, even though the latter is obviously a better deal from a mL/dollar perspective. So it's not entirely an effort to gouge you, there is some functional purpose for the format.

I'm with the majority in this case - I very rarely repurchase bombers. Breweries that stick with tallboy cans or reasonably priced sixers are much more likely to retain my business. Lake of Bays and their mediocre 10 dollar seasonals (to be fair, in 750 mL bottles) that aren't even close to being worth that price are probably the best example, but it's an annoying trend affecting a lot of Ontario brewers.

Ok, but when you have the ability to can (re: Great Lakes and Cameron's), why put something in bombers? I'm more likely to buy 6-8 cans of something I like than 5-6 bombers.

Why?

I can take cans to places I can't take bottles. Camping or hiking for instance. Also, serving size. Also, the guarantee that if I were to leave the can out in the sun for a little while by accident, there's no chance of it becoming light struck.

I feel like if you have a canning line, you should be using it to your greatest abilities. There is literally nothing negative you can say about canned beer (or so I believe).

liamt07 wrote:
Ok, but when you have the ability to can (re: Great Lakes and Cameron's), why put something in bombers? I'm more likely to buy 6-8 cans of something I like than 5-6 bombers.

Why?

I can take cans to places I can't take bottles. Camping or hiking for instance. Also, serving size. Also, the guarantee that if I were to leave the can out in the sun for a little while by accident, there's no chance of it becoming light struck.

I feel like if you have a canning line, you should be using it to your greatest abilities. There is literally nothing negative you can say about canned beer (or so I believe).

I don't believe Cameron's has a canning line. None of their products are in cans at least.

Despite what us beer nerds know about canned beer, I think there is still a tendency for bottles to be perceived as "classier" or "fancier" than cans. Perhaps Great Lakes puts their Tank Ten in bottles to cater to that perception?

Belgian wrote:

Frere Ambroise wrote: AYINGER BRAU-WEISSE

Folks - just heard from the agent for this brand... LCBO had it listed incorrectly and it will be $3.95/bottle. Still - pretty decent price for a pretty decent beer.

Weihenstephaner is still a great deal at $.80 cheaper. I'd sell both of their souls to satan for Franziskaner, because it has nicer clovey phenolics and a remarkably balanced taste... actually might go get some in Buffalo. Never mind then!

Franziskaner sounds delicious right now.

ercousin wrote:I don't believe Cameron's has a canning line. None of their products are in cans at least.

Just the lager.

ckoop wrote:

JProulx wrote:

Hawks28 wrote: That's very, very disappointing. I'm with icemachine. Large format is substantially reducing the quantity of beer I will buy, and the total amount I will spend. I hope the brewers are making a good margin on those bottles.

yep, i only buy large format now if it's something new i haven't tried or something cool to share. and then i usually won't rebuy it unless it's great. i'd rather spend 10 bucks on a sixer of a good ipa then say 7-8 on a great bomber like stone's enjoy by since i'll get one sitting out of the bomber compared to 6 out of the sixer as i usually average one bottle a day.

Where do you find a 6 pack for $10 these days. Everything I can think of at the LCBO is high $12 to mid $13 for six.

I'd still like the cans or sixer over the bomber - but let's not kid overselves: $10 six packs are long gone for anything worth drinking.

mahcinesquad wrote:

ckoop wrote:

JProulx wrote:

Sorry American prices, I buy 90% of my beer in the states since I live in Niagara Falls and only get pulled over when I push the limits on day trips. Regardless, 10 or 13, the point is still the same.

ercousin wrote:

liamt07 wrote:
Ok, but when you have the ability to can (re: Great Lakes and Cameron's), why put something in bombers? I'm more likely to buy 6-8 cans of something I like than 5-6 bombers.

Why?

I can take cans to places I can't take bottles. Camping or hiking for instance. Also, serving size. Also, the guarantee that if I were to leave the can out in the sun for a little while by accident, there's no chance of it becoming light struck.

I feel like if you have a canning line, you should be using it to your greatest abilities. There is literally nothing negative you can say about canned beer (or so I believe).

I don't believe Cameron's has a canning line. None of their products are in cans at least.

Despite what us beer nerds know about canned beer, I think there is still a tendency for bottles to be perceived as "classier" or "fancier" than cans. Perhaps Great Lakes puts their Tank Ten in bottles to cater to that perception?

When we're talking about hopped to heck IPAs, vanilla porters and the like, are we still catering to a group of people who cares about "classier" packaging? As far as I'm aware, people who drink (generally) what us "beer nerds" drink care about the aroma and flavour of the beverage, and could give less of a [expletive] about the fanciness of the bottle.

Make a brilliant product and I'll consume it no matter how you package it. Cans, however are the easiest vehicle for this type of beverage though.

My two cents.

Meh, I actually prefer bomber sized (saves me a trip to the fridge). Sure, I'd like my beer to be cheaper, but if it's a good product I have no qualms about picking up a case of bombers.

Masterplan wrote:Meh, I actually prefer bomber sized (saves me a trip to the fridge). Sure, I'd like my beer to be cheaper, but if it's a good product I have no qualms about picking up a case of bombers.

Ditto, though it depends a little on the beer. Anything I like to let warm up a little I prefer in bombers. Bombers are nice for cellaring too.

On the whole though, I'm amazed that people care this much.

squeaky wrote:On the whole though, I'm amazed that people care this much.

yeah, it's fascinating... does that extra 150ml really make all the difference? enough to make you not buy it at all? madness.

only two types of containers I'll avoid: clear glass (for the obvious light-struck issues) and stupidly inflated ceramic bottles (looking at you, mill street and rogue). but that's because I refuse to buy a tarnished product or spend half the purchase price on the container and has nothing to do with size.

Another aspect of canning vs. bottling.
Some of these guys are buying equipment second hand. Bottle fillers and labelers are a lot more common than used canning lines.
However, if one has the $ to spend on a big equipment buy and want to go new.... canning lines are far cheaper (on the average) than a new bottling line.
This equipment spend does carry some weight and will limit options for some brewers.

I would prefer to see more cans. Better for golf bag.

squeaky wrote:

Masterplan wrote:Meh, I actually prefer bomber sized (saves me a trip to the fridge). Sure, I'd like my beer to be cheaper, but if it's a good product I have no qualms about picking up a case of bombers.

Ditto, though it depends a little on the beer. Anything I like to let warm up a little I prefer in bombers. Bombers are nice for cellaring too.

On the whole though, I'm amazed that people care this much.

The reason it matters to me is that (1) the price per mL is higher on a bomber; and (2) the serving size is larger than I want to drink in a sitting. The result is that I'm paying more for the drink AND I'm paying for certain amount of liquid that I don't want to consume. The loss of flexibility is frustrating.

I'm being offered more than I want, and being expected to pay a premium for the privilege. I didn't ask for the extra beer. I didn't want it in the first place. But it's unavailable in other formats, so my options are buy it at a premium or boycott.

If beer were more susceptible to resealing, it would be less of a concern. That's why it's not a problem with wine... you don't have to drink the full 750mL all at once. You can have it tomorrow, or in a week.

This diatribe makes it seem like it's a bigger concern than it is. It really isn't a huge problem to me, and I won't refuse to buy beer on the basis that it's in a bomber. But I will certainly buy much LESS beer, for the very reasons above. The bomber format creates negative value to me.

JProulx wrote: (2) the serving size is larger than I want to drink in a sitting. The result is that I'm paying more for the drink AND I'm paying for certain amount of liquid that I don't want to consume

That is the big one for me. I find with the big bottles if it is over 7-8% and I don't drink a ton of water along with it I wake up with a headache the next morning (which means at least planning it out a bit and having a stomach full of liquid in the evening)I remember a few years back I was taking my daughter to parent and tot swimming lessons and I was working monday to friday, so if I wanted to drink a big bottle of strong beer it was pretty much a Saturday night only thing.

JProulx wrote:This diatribe makes it seem like it's a bigger concern than it is. It really isn't a huge problem to me, and I won't refuse to buy beer on the basis that it's in a bomber. But I will certainly buy much LESS beer, for the very reasons above. The bomber format creates negative value to me.

This.

Convenience lies in the cans!