I wouldn't mind having a way to rate packaging. I think I might enjoy that. BUT I wouldn't want it to factor into the rating of the beer itself, if that makes sense. So if this category was created, I'd still want "overall" based only on appearance, aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel, and then I'd want packaging to be a separate and optional score. Does that make sense? [:D]

quote: Originally posted by jlozier By the time you have bought the bottle, admittedly in some way shaped by the label, you are going into the beer with some notion of what it "should" be in the back of your head. Whether it is the regal white label with scripted print of a GI Matilda or some cartoonish "amateur-hour" label, the impression you had of it before you even tasted it carries over into the experience of drinking it. Even the old-timey scrolling of the SN label creates a image, dare I say a persona, for the beer that will impact (even if only mildly) the drink itself. This is all part of the "branding" portion of advertising. If we were immune to the power of pictures on our products, then advertising would not be the multi-million dollar industry that it is, full of focus groups, psychological research, and burnt-out Art majors. I think it is foolish to think that the power of advertising ends at the cash register.

I could see this influencing the "just-beginners", the 21-year old that doesn't know an wet hopped IPA from a barrel-aged stout yet. I think the label or the branding if you will, is purely for the "oooooh" factor. The impulse buy...the newbie looking at all the stuff on the shelves, they don't know what to buy so they look for the prettiest bottle..the shiny bauble for the elf. But as to the theory that the label has an influence on the enjoyment of the beer...I have to disagree for now. I've had beer, like you I'm sure, in many circles with many people from all walks of life and have yet to have someone say (to paraphrase) "ya know, this label really makes this beer something tasty...I think I need another". Maybe that's a bit overly simplified of what you were shooting for. Of course, it could be that I'm artistically inept so what's printed on the label is lost on me.

quote: quote: Originally posted by Stoutlover72 quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by jlozier By the time you have bought the bottle, admittedly in some way shaped by the label, you are going into the beer with some notion of what it "should" be in the back of your head. Whether it is the regal white label with scripted print of a GI Matilda or some cartoonish "amateur-hour" label, the impression you had of it before you even tasted it carries over into the experience of drinking it. Even the old-timey scrolling of the SN label creates a image, dare I say a persona, for the beer that will impact (even if only mildly) the drink itself. This is all part of the "branding" portion of advertising. If we were immune to the power of pictures on our products, then advertising would not be the multi-million dollar industry that it is, full of focus groups, psychological research, and burnt-out Art majors. I think it is foolish to think that the power of advertising ends at the cash register. I could see this influencing the "just-beginners", the 21-year old that doesn't know an wet hopped IPA from a barrel-aged stout yet. I think the label or the branding if you will, is purely for the "oooooh" factor. The impulse buy...the newbie looking at all the stuff on the shelves, they don't know what to buy so they look for the prettiest bottle..the shiny bauble for the elf. But as to the theory that the label has an influence on the enjoyment of the beer...I have to disagree for now. I've had beer, like you I'm sure, in many circles with many people from all walks of life and have yet to have someone say (to paraphrase) "ya know, this label really makes this beer something tasty...I think I need another". Maybe that's a bit overly simplified of what you were shooting for. Of course, it could be that I'm artistically inept so what's printed on the label is lost on me.

Again, I concur. And even if there is any subconscious bias in any rating situation (as would a beer's hype sometimes influence your rating, up or down), I'd like to think we'd keep this effect subconscious and not create an explicit category for it, nor consciously embed it in the appearance category already existing!!!!!

It's all about the beer for me although if the label is really cool, or fugly, I will usually note that in my review. I dig label artwork too but still, it's all about the beer. [:)] You could post cool label art pics in a new thread, or this thread maybe? Just a thought. [img]http://static.squarespace.com/static/50edbe8fe4b0a16d22fca55c/t/5319eb82e4b0bf4d7357fc5d/1394207634021/DoubleDaisyCutter%202014.jpg?format=1000w[/img]

quote: quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 Again, I concur. And even if there is any subconscious bias in any rating situation (as would a beer's hype sometimes influence your rating, up or down), I'd like to think we'd keep this effect subconscious and not create an explicit category for it, nor consciously embed it in the appearance category already existing!!!!!

Hype is another quality that is akin to this. Hype, price point, packaging, and environment all play a role in what our tongue tells us is there. Yes, it is subconscious, but nothing subsconscious is unimportant. Does it need to be factored in to a beer's rating? It already is, and a separate category for such things probably isn't necessary. I wanted to honor the handful of labels that I really liked. When I really think about it, that is all there is: a handful. I thought there were more. After a couple of minutes, I realized almost every beer I drink would be receiving a 2-4 in that category, and that is unfair to the beer. Unless, of course, we should change our philosophy about rating (I don't think we should). Such information can be included in the typed review, and I have done that in the past. It is not like there are so many people looking at our site that such a category would draw the brewer's attention to this matter.

quote: Originally posted by jlozier quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 Again, I concur. And even if there is any subconscious bias in any rating situation (as would a beer's hype sometimes influence your rating, up or down), I'd like to think we'd keep this effect subconscious and not create an explicit category for it, nor consciously embed it in the appearance category already existing!!!!! Hype is another quality that is akin to this. Hype, price point, packaging, and environment all play a role in what our tongue tells us is there. Yes, it is subconscious, but nothing subsconscious is unimportant. Does it need to be factored in to a beer's rating? It already is, and a separate category for such things probably isn't necessary. I wanted to honor the handful of labels that I really liked. When I really think about it, that is all there is: a handful. I thought there were more. After a couple of minutes, I realized almost every beer I drink would be receiving a 2-4 in that category, and that is unfair to the beer. Unless, of course, we should change our philosophy about rating (I don't think we should). Such information can be included in the typed review, and I have done that in the past. It is not like there are so many people looking at our site that such a category would draw the brewer's attention to this matter.

How abouts what Lou recommended? "You could post cool label art pics in a new thread, or this thread maybe? Just a thought." The new "official" (LOL) thread: http://beerpal.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7635

Thanks Pal for all the great input. I'm with Slowrunner in that labels and packages are sort of tied into appearance. And I think Stout is right in that it has nothing to do with the enjoyment of the beer. I agree with those that maybe a optional rating that doesn't factor into the taste and enjoyment is a good choice. I just think it would be fair to acknowledge the artist work on the labels,caps and some bottles.

quote: Originally posted by jlozier I have a beer that I wanted to add. However, the classification leaves me really stumped. It is labeled as a "smoked rye ale brewed with chili peppers." So what is it? The brewer's website says it is a Chili Beer. To which circle of the Inferno should I eternally damn this thing?

I'd go with spiced. It probably dominates. Brewer calls it a chili beer too.

I agree with EF; Spiced Beer.

Thanks to thee, almighty beer gods.