Comments on: Maker’s Mark reduces Bourbon by 3% ABV, proof reduction to help satisfy demand

By: BourbonCzar

BourbonCzar — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:21:44 +0000

Power to the people. Way to go everybody in speaking out regarding the proof change. Your voices were heard. Now if we could only speak out retroactively back to 1998 and demand Julian Van Winkle ramp up more production.

By: David

David — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:41:58 +0000

Quite happy to see that Maker’s Mark pays attention to the public and has reversed its decision to alter the formula in pursuit of profit. We yelled, they listened.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:47:23 +0000

I can’t believe y’all would sell out to the masses & sacrifice taste & quality just so y’all can sell more. Well y’all can count me out as a MM customer, I’m very disappointed in MM & the Beam family for allowing this. I hope selling out helps y’all get more customers than y’all lose as I’m sure as taste, quality & proof drops more & more old timers will move to another Bourbon. The new small batch distillery’s allow for a much wider choice now & a loss for business on lower quality & taste. Good luck with the Sell Out!!!

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:00:42 +0000

I am a Maker’s Mark bourbon fan, and question the wisdom of the move to reduce the proof of the staple 80 proof bourbon whiskey. I did not read or see where you conducted a large sample, blind taste test among MM drinkers who are and will be the critics of your decision. What a shame…time will tell if the market will agree with your conclusion of there being “no difference in taste”. I sincerely hope this is only a short term decision until you are able to expand your production capacity.

By: Bobio

Bobio — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:51:53 +0000

Ok, sorry, maybe next time we’ll order a house bourbon with coke, tall. Lol
Waste of time and palate.

By: Fran

Fran — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:34:29 +0000

Your pompous bloviating on NPR tonight gave me the sinking feeling that the next time I order a bourbon I’m going to be sharing a bottle with a bunch of glass-sniffing posers. Please go away and do something useful.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:19:41 +0000

It’s all about the money.Sorry but no more Maker’s for me.
It’s Weller time.

By: Perry

Perry — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:24:13 +0000

I don’t drink this brand of bourbon, but for those who do, don’t think it will make a difference. Agree with what has already been said, most probably don’t drink neat anyway. Who’ll notice?

By: Bobio

Bobio — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:44:10 +0000

I’ve been drinking makers straight for 25 yrs.
If you drink it straight or with a cube ( only to chill it )
You will tell the difference. It’s a wheated bourbon with a hint of sweetness

Most people I know who drink bourbon, not found of its weak alcohol feel already.
I love it , thou. Just saying.

By: Informed

Informed — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:05:46 +0000

3% drop in ABV equates to 7% more bottles available. I don’t know about all of your areas, but I was going to liquor stores that were out of stock. I am cool with having 42% instead of 0%. Also, if you know anything about Bourbon this isn’t going to change the taste. Almost all Bourbons/whisk(e)y are cut with water from barrel strength ~120 proof. Go ahead and stop drinking MM, more for me! KCCO!

By: Bobio Ambassador

Bobio Ambassador — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:51:03 +0000

If this happens so much for leaving granddads recipe untouched. Off to the new knob creek I go.
I know they are keeping the same 14 batch or so untouched as in the past but can’t you jus build another production area and make 2 or 3 batches of 14 barrels in order to supply the demand. Guess not. It switches so do I. Iconic brand known the world over, changes for the almighty dollar. Really ” it’s so more people can get some ”
I call BULLSHIT.

By: StuffAndyMakes

StuffAndyMakes — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:32:52 +0000

I would lay money down that most so-called or self-ordained “bourbon aficionados,” let alone your average bourbon geek, would NOT be able to tell the difference between MM at 45% and 42% ABV if the two were put in front of them. MM is made to taste. Read the news item on the MM website and Bill and Rob speak to the fact that they taste tested and the Taste Panel tasted and its up to MM’s flavor profile. I’m with Duke above: Everybody chill out. Wait until you try it before you pass judgement. If you don’t like, SWEET! More for me and Duke.

By: gary

gary — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:16:03 +0000

I had a friend who ran a successful pizza restaurant. After a few years he decided to cut the pizzas into 6 pieces instead of 8, as he had done for years…When I asked him why he made the change, he said that the customers were having trouble eating 8 pieces. This guy would be a candidate for upper management at Jim Beam

By: Duke

Duke — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:19:02 +0000

Everyone needs to take a chill pill and taste the product. While I appreciate the comments, I rarely see anyone drinking MM neat. We’ve been told it will taste the same. MM hasn’t given us a reason to not trust them.

I do agree the tax man has his hands in the Ky bourbon barrel way too much as well!

By: MrRock

MrRock — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:50:23 +0000

This just in: Milk gallons will contain a cup of water due to skyrocketing demand. How about we make the bottles 3% smaller?

Realistically, just raise the price and/or release a complimentary lower tier product – who are they trying to kid with this justification? Reminds me of when all the local pizza places switched to 16″ pies instead of 18″ but kept prices the same.

Another very disappointed ambassador here.

By: paul heuss

paul heuss — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:33:42 +0000

WHY…..OH WHAT THE HELL…I WILL DRINK WOODFORD RESERVE

By: Craig Franz

Craig Franz — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:48:24 +0000

I switched from Jack Daniel’s to Maker’s Mark when JD started watering their product down. I will stop buying Maker’s and let my local retailer know why. Sorry I ever became a MM ambassador.

By: Bob Kurtz

Bob Kurtz — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:34:22 +0000

Makers Mark has been my drink of choice for over 10 years. I have been a loyal MM ambassador the entire time. I have successfully promoted the brand to family and friends. However, I don’t buy Samuels’ explanation and I won’t buy the 42 ABV MM. (I refuse to even try it…) I guess Samuels’ decision to lower the ABV is one way to solve the problem – lower the quality and lower the demand to meet the current supply – at least they won’t have to supply the 1.75 L bottle I had been purchasing monthly!

By: Sean McPherson

Sean McPherson — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:04:25 +0000

I’m amazed how many folks are complaining seeing as they haven’t tried it yet. We’ll reserve judgement here until we do something rational, such as *tasting the bourbon*. We’ve tried over a hundred different bourbons over the years. There’s no correlation between proof and the quality of the bourbon; some are good, bad, or ‘meh’. *After* I try the lower proof Maker’s, I’ll know if it’s gone from ‘good’ to ‘meh’. Until then, I’m intrigued, but have no reason to be upset, outraged, or swear off the brand.

By: Barrel Aged

Barrel Aged — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:38:17 +0000

Maker’s Mark has been a reliable bourbon in my rotation. All my poker buddies are familiar with it, and are willing to drink it. But it’s not really all that interesting a bourbon, and this change does suggest a deficit of integrity. Ask yourself (and the manufacturer) “At what point did your tasters perceive a change?” There are many other good bourbons in the same general price range, so I’m dropping Maker’s Mark and will add something else to the line-up.

By: Bourbon Gal

Bourbon Gal — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:25:29 +0000

So, basically we’re going to be drinking ‘watered down’ Maker’s Mark so that they can increase their sales? No thanks. Disappointing, but I’m glad I live in Kentucky where we have abundant distillers who care about tradition and their customers. Maker’s Mark will no longer be my ‘go to’ bourbon, I plan on boycotting it all together. Disappointing to say the least. Looking forward to finding a new favorite bourbon here in Kentucky!

By: Cincy Hound

Cincy Hound — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:25:29 +0000

What a great idea! Why doesn’t Pappy van Winkle lower its poof to increase supply? Oh yea, they care about their brand.

By: BourbonCzar

BourbonCzar — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:58:41 +0000

Selling out to large corporations has benefits and drawbacks. Some benefits include more marketing dollars and larger distribution network. Drawbacks include decisions (like this one) being made without having the best interests of the brand in mind. Sad thing is most consumers of MM won’t notice because they are mixing the spirit with a sugary drink. Bourbon enthusiasts (like those who read this blog) will move on and buy another product. It is a shame the brand that helped the industry rise in popularity is being compromised and going backwards.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:23:40 +0000

They should at least have the decency to rebrand this new recipe. Change the red wax to pink & label it “Makers Lite” or “Light Bourbon from Makers Mark”

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:38:40 +0000

Very disappointing. There was a reason Samuel’s grandfather chose the recipe as it was. The only reason you mess with a great brand at the height of demand & dwindling supply is to maintain sales volume & profit. Samuels will regret this. He should keep Makers as it is (was), let it be hard to get, expand distilleries, and, in time, demand & supply will balance out and a great brand will be preserved.

By: Al Hollister

Al Hollister — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:55:16 +0000

I am a long, long time drinker of MM. Hope the taste/quality isn’t affected. When I first started drinking Makers it was so new, at least out west, that they never heard of it in Las Vegas. I will withhold condemning the move until I taste and compare. Does anyone know how the similar reduction a few years back affected Jack Daniel’s sales? I don’t drink that rotgut so don’t really care but just curious. And if you ever get a chance to visit the MM distillery do it. Beautiful place but unless they have changed in the last few years no tasting, just a sample piece of MM candy.

By: Nigel

Nigel — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 06:37:44 +0000

Seriously disappointing… never ever EVER tamper with your product. This smells like marketing to me. Extensive testing…? You mean ‘we think the majority are so stupid you won’t be able to tell the difference’. Here in New Zealand our Makers Mark is 40% and in comparison the 45% is so unbelievably superior – and yes we can tell the difference. A wise man once said if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

By: Blaine

Blaine — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 06:16:54 +0000

I kind of like getting a nice buzz from just a couple of Makers. I guess now I will have to drink a little more to get the same effect. Makers is already very expensive in Washington state.If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it….

By: Mores

Mores — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:18:03 +0000

Dirty communists (not a coincidence the wax is red, huh?) I will forthwith smash my hand-dipped bottle over a young Irishman’s head to display my outrage at this decision.

By: Brad

Brad — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:13:56 +0000

Team Woodford Reserve. If you can’t keep up with demand for your product, making said product worse is not the answer.

By: David

David — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:59:53 +0000

If Maker’s Mark, as presently formulated, is so popular that it’s becoming difficult to find in stores (not the case in New York, where every liquor store large and small seems to stock it), Maker’s Mark should be able to benefit from the cachet of having a hard-to-find product, and basic economics says that if it’s highly desirable and difficult to find, one might be able to charge more for it. Instead, Maker’s Mark has decided to tamper with a successful product, water down their whiskey, hope no one will notice because nine people whose livelihood depends on the company’s viability said it tastes the same, and foist it off on the public. If a company takes so little pride in the integrity of its product that it’s willing to dilute it in the name of profit (plainly the motive here, as there’s no assertion that the change is to improve the bourbon) then why should I or anyone else keep buying it? There’s always Knob Creek or Rowan’s Creek out there.

By: Fred Smith

Fred Smith — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:41:21 +0000

I do remember when Jack Daniels went from 90 proof to 80 proof and many people went to 90 proof bourbons such as Makers Mark..

In North Carolina liquor tax is driving people away from costly bourbons, especially lower proofs..

By: Drake Pruitt

Drake Pruitt — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:25:48 +0000

I love Makers, but the story doesn’t really hold together. Increased demand should not be a driver of a recipe change, even with an aged product. Makers would be better served by raising price and shifting incremental/lost demand to other less premium products in their line. “Watering down” comes off negative for the brand no matter what the logic.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:21:38 +0000

Of course they are going to reduce the price. Or maybe they’ll update the slogan from the 70′s to “It tastes inexpensive…..but it isn’t”.

By: Stephen Hart

Stephen Hart — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:14:58 +0000

Hey folks blame our wonderful Govt as over 60% of revenue is tax related. So point the disparaging finger toward DC not the Hollers of KY.

By: Jim Cooper

Jim Cooper — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:30:51 +0000

I do NOT approve of the reduction of ABV. A reduction of 3% on a 10,000 gal (small) batch equals an efficiency gain of 60 bottles from each batch. Each bottle has an average price of about $30 so that equals $1,800 per batch. Makers is struggling to keep up with demand and this is a small but noticeable attempt to shift this efficiency to the demand side. As someone pointed out, there will not be a 3% price reduction.
I let Rob know I did not approve of the change.

By: mark

mark — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:25:59 +0000

just another way to sell you kentucky water at 100 dollars a gallon. just how much whisky is setting a foreign warehouse. while americans are forced to buying watered down whisky to give corp. america more profit.

By: zenpilgrim

zenpilgrim — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:07:25 +0000

As an Ambassador, I am still waiting on my email.I will withhold final judgement until I can taste the new product but I have faith they have attempted to stand true to the flavor profile of the current product. To RJ’s point, Coke didn’t try to maintain the same flavor profile when they made their change. I hope they are successful.

By: Steve Nudson

Steve Nudson — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:02:44 +0000

Hmmmmmm…… Bet they don’t lower the price.

By: AndyWas

AndyWas — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:41:05 +0000

For the sake of the fellow amateurs reading along, how does reducing the ABV by a couple of points have any meaningful impact on increasing supply?

By: Buck

Buck — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:47:27 +0000

It would be interesting to have been able to say …”several months ago we lowered …”

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:37:52 +0000

Disappointed. I don’t believe that harming the long term reputation of the brand is worth the short term sales gain. It’s a small change with a long lasting impact. I’m just glad better bourbons exist.

By: RJ LaPointe

RJ LaPointe — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:30:31 +0000

Hmmmm….changing the brand. Worked well for Coca-Cola didn’t it??

By: John Budka

John Budka — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:04:52 +0000

I eagerly await the latest version. A visit to you and the Bourbon Trail is high up on my wish list.
John B. Albany.