Mill Street in the news ...

Mississauga Matt · Post by **Mississauga Matt** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 8:32 pm

And The Bar Towel comes desparately close to being mentioned. But not quite.

See http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 0599119419

I don't know about you, but I highly regard the beer opinions of business writers. This one doesn't disappoint; she has a thing for Rolling Rock and cutesy bottles.

Kent · Post by **Kent** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:26 pm

The part about the "naked jump in a cold lake" has me worried.

JerCraigs · Post by **JerCraigs** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:38 pm

It was a fluff piece but as fluff pieces go it wasn't bad. The first two paragraphs seemed a bit odd... space filler maybe? short a few words?

joey_capps · Post by **joey_capps** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:09 am

and the reaction he has suffered from beer heads[/i] to Mill Street's introduction of an organic beer in 195 ml "pony" or "split" bottles. [my empasis]

Is this some insider industry term? Are we the "beer heads"? What get's me is that it was really one here person who criticized them.

Joe

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:04 am

This is a funny article. I feel like stirring things up today....

First off, if we are thought of as be the "beer world" or "beer heads", then I'm flattered, good or bad.

Secondly, I'm continually amazed at how that experience with the Bar Towel continues to pop up. I've spoken with the Mill St. guys about it in person a number of times, and it seemed to be eluded to in the article as well.

Which leads me to a theory: that Mill St. purposely plays up this self-depracating notion of their Organic Lager, which makes for good PR and articles like this one. It almost seems like they want to be seen as "us against the world" with regards to their lager.

What is surprisingly absent is significant mention of their other beers. Obviously they are trying to promote their lager, but from the very same "beer world" and "beer heads" they are getting almost unanimous praise for their specialty line. Is it not newsworthy when everyone loves it?

burgermeister · Post by **burgermeister** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:38 am

On 2003-08-04 10:04, Cass wrote:

Which leads me to a theory: that Mill St. purposely plays up this self-depracating notion of their Organic Lager, which makes for good PR and articles like this one. It almost seems like they want to be seen as "us against the world" with regards to their lager.

Successfully getting a beer noticed by the general population in Ontario is all about marketing and only minimally about the beer itself. I'm personally not a fan of the organic lager, I found it very bland on the first taste from the tap at the brewery. However, they've done a great job getting noticed, without having to spend marketing dollars - from writeups in the LCBO mag, Toronto Life, now this article in the star - and they all focus on the bottle and the word "organic". I think they've struck upon a pretty good marketing gimmic. Will have to wait and see how long it lasts.

Josh Oakes · Post by **Josh Oakes** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 10:23 am

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Only beer writers should be allowed to write about beer. My worst column makes this look like it was written by a cat. She took an entire article to make what, one point? Bloody hell.

burgermeister · Post by **burgermeister** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:27 am

On 2003-08-05 10:23, Josh Oakes wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Only beer writers should be allowed to write about beer...

Your right of course if the writer in question has an intended audience of people who truly enjoy good beer. The vast majority of people in this province/city don't fall into this category. They tend to read this kind of drivel - expecially when it's on the front page of the business section - and think they've discovered something incredible.

If you're a small brewer and you want to get noticed in this city/province, sure, get the beer writer's to notice you, but you've got to get the low brow writer's like this one to say something - anything - good about you.

JerCraigs · Post by **JerCraigs** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:31 am

While not pulitzer material, a quick perusal of some of her other articles indicates that the Mill St. article was not one of her best. Perhaps one too many Mill St. products were tested for quality prior to writing?

Josh Oakes · Post by **Josh Oakes** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 1:17 pm

I don't buy that any publicity is good. There is nothing in this article that furthers the cause of good beer. I'm not interested in furthering the cause of mediocre beer. I don't believe in "stepping stone" beers or any other "wanna-be macro but produced on a micro scale" type of nonsense. The beer this article is about is Coors Light in a funny bottle. Furthermore, the writer is raving about Rolling Rock and crap like that. Utter gibberish.

As a business writer, she should have spent more time talking about the business than making evaluations about beers. Somebody did this with Steamwhistle a while back, too, and all it promotes is the notion that the only thing that matters with regards to beer is the promotion; and that the product itself is inconsequential. And as an article about promoting beer, I would have reservations allowing a first-year marketing student to pass the course if this was the best they could come up with.

burgermeister · Post by **burgermeister** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 1:44 pm

On 2003-08-05 13:17, Josh Oakes wrote:
I don't buy that any publicity is good....

Good points, and I agree with your thinking. My point was more along the lines of understanding who your target audience is - whether your writing or making beer. The writer was obviously not targetting the beer lover (not sure who she was actually targetting, but that's another issue). Folks like Mill Street and Steam Whistle have been getting a fair bit of press thru these types of articles which is getting them noticed in some segments of the market. Tells me a little anyway about who they are actually targetting to expand their market position.

Josh Oakes · Post by **Josh Oakes** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 2:50 pm

Another abysmal article from the mainstream press. Warning: you may throw your computer through the window before you're finished with this one.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/215/t ... ste+.shtml

dhurtubise · Post by **dhurtubise** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:24 pm

Josh, what did you find so objectionable about that article?

I found it to echo my experience in Belgium this summer: From the description of Cantillon's masterbrewer (I guess he says the same thing to each of his visitors), to the historical sites, to the way the monks tend to interact with the public. I found it quite enjoyable, and accurate of what you can expect from a beer flavoured trip to Belgium.

esprit · Post by **esprit** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:52 pm

Josh...same comment, the article wasn't remotely offensive and actually quite enjoyable...having a bad day?

JerCraigs · Post by **JerCraigs** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:34 pm

Having read the article I can see what Josh might have taken issue with in the article, (a couple of inaccuracies, and whats with the Cantillon quote about there being only six beers in Belgium he'd drink?!?) but from an authour who reveals in the last paragraph that she is a beer hater, it was a decent article. I would be interested to hear the same trip from her son's perspective.