Stamp Out (my) Ignorance, Please....

"Goat" wrote in message
news:bjEpe.6931$xI2.1025@trnddc09...

Agree. But a major change in taste WILL result in a loss of sales =$

No doubt about it. Whatever informs or dictates individual tastes, the
result is very real.

I point to "New Coke" as an example.

I recall the outrage (purely a matter of hearsay on my part, as I don't
drink much soda and have no brand preferences) but I don't remember whether
it caused many outright defections to the opposition. I suppose diehard
Coke fans were stymied by the fact that, for all practical purposes, there
were no options but to swallow the new product (and their pride) or switch
over to the loathed Pepsi. It seems to me that AB and Miller never quite so
dominated the beer market in the U.S. as to leave the hapless consumer in
such dire straits. There have always been at least a few other smaller
national and some fairly successful regional brands available. Even today
there are enough of the established generic American beers left to give fans
of the style a number of viable options.....Olympia, Coors, Pearl, PBR, etc.

To help with this is why the makers of
"horse ****" make more than one beer and pretty much leave the original
alone. This is to keep the loyal fans happy and try to win over those who
don't like horse ****. (not really a fan of horse **** myself FWIW)

Aside from the "Lite" beers (an extraordinary phenomenon) most of their
experiments with other styles haven't been all that successful. In large
part, this results from their own efforts at establishing and maintaining a
widespread preference for a certain style. Anything that departs very far
from what their customer base expects will not only leave them cold, but
also make them nervous about the future. Anything that doesn't won't
attract anyone who doesn't care for their flagship brews.

Miller experimented rather heavily with a number of "micros" back about ten
years ago. Some of them actually made it to the marketplace, where they
promptly failed. Their customer base wasn't interested because they were
too different, others weren't interested because they weren't different
enough. Both camps were highly suspicious. They also tried some things
that never made it to market. I got to try some of them by way of a friend
who was in management at Miller. Some of each group were actually pretty
decent. Miller dropped all of them because it was deemed that they just
weren't worth the trouble. They preferred to continue to go after market
share by tried and true methods.....marketing, price cutting, buying up the
competition, advertising, etc. rather than extending the product line.

In part I think the success of horse **** is that it IS widely available,
any bar, any store, any place that sells beer (U.S.) WILL have horse ****
you can count on it and don't have to think about it. It is also cheaper
than most "good" beers. As far as taste at an early age... at the ripe old
age of 15 my favorite beer was Little Kings. Why? It was easy to steal.
Simple as that. Favorite beer now...Guinness. I don't see at all how
Little
Kings trained me to like Guinness. Or wait maybe I do. I get it... one
tastes like **** one tastes goooooood.

Personally, I think Guinness is grossly overrated......but, to each his own.


But really how many of us drink now what we did then? Be it stolen or
snuck
out of dad's fridge, or friend's dad's fridge.

"This ain't your fathers beer"
Natural Lite {:-? Yuck!

What makes the whole thing even more interesting is the impossibility of
determining for certain that ANY of them is your father's beer. Aside from
deliberate changes in formulas (or recipes, if you prefer), something we
know happened a lot throughout the history of brewing in America, there is
also undetectable incremental change in basic ingredients. Even today it is
expensive and extremely difficult to ensure that the barley going into one
batch is identical to what went into the last.....the fact that a brewer has
identified certain parameters does not, can not, guarantee that others, as
yet unidentified, won't make a difference over time.

Then too, individual perceptions change over time. I don't know whether any
of the beers I drank when I was in my teens are the same products (in any
meaningful sense) today as they were in the 60s, but they sure taste
different to me.

Wolfgang

But really how many of us drink now what we did then? Be it stolen or
snuck
out of dad's fridge, or friend's dad's fridge.

"This ain't your fathers beer"
Natural Lite {:-? Yuck!

Yes, very true. If we all drank what our parents drank, I would still be
drinking PBR. Ewwwhuuhhu!

--
Frank Reid
Euthenize to respond

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:39:51 GMT, "Goat" wrote:

(snipped)

Agree. But a major change in taste WILL result in a loss of sales =$
I point to "New Coke" as an example.

Yes, but the whole New Coke, Old Coke, back to, supposedly the
original Coke was, when seen in total, a very good way to change the
taste of the supposed original Coke by substituting cheaper corn syrup
for sugar. If they'd gone straight to it, they'd have lost more than
they did with the fool around marketing that seemed to be so
unsuccessful. One step back, two forward for the eventual bottom
line. And I've a hunch the bottom line was in the eyes of the very
top bosses the whole time. Very clever.

I no longer drink Coke. Not because of that, but because of the
change in taste. The only cola I can stand any more, unless it's ice
cold (and then they all seem to taste alike) is Dr Pepper, which also
has corn syrup, but I can deal with it. Some day someone's going to
market something a couple of cents a can more expensive than the
present colas and make it with real sugar and have a word of mouth hit
on their hands.

Most of my friends seem to think that Diet Pepsi is an adequate
beverage. Gah. The rest seem to like Mountain Dew. I take my own Dr
Pepper to gatherings. Well, and a small bottle of Jack Daniels.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

Daniel-San wrote:
In my continuing efforts to teach myself how to catch fish with some
semblance of regularity, a few questions have arisen. Any help that the
denizens of ROFF could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Please don't laugh -- well, OK, laugh, but laugh with me, not at me.
Remember, I'm a self-taught semi-newb backpacker. And, just for fun, they're
in completely random order.

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

Nip it off and use a nail knot, needle knot, Eagle Claw connector
thingy, or Zap-a-Gap connection to attatch your leader to your line.


2) Stream ettiquette -- I was working a pool this morning, and a guy just
waded right the hell thru it. I didn't say anything, but wanted to drown the
sumbitch. Am I wrong?

When this happens to me, I usually ask the offending party if I am
invisible. In reality, the damage done depends on where you are
fishing. If it is for wild trout in a small stream, it's a disaster, if
you're on a crowded stream fishing for stockies, wait a few minutes,
and they'll normally resume feeding. In any case, don't let it spoil
your day....you'll meet assholes everywhere, not just on a trout
stream.


3) Should the fly land first, or should the line? Why? I've caught fish when
either has happened, but that's just an idiot's luck, I'm sure. I can
usually make either happen, but I have no idea which I should be trying for.

The line and leader should lay down gently, followed by the fly.


4) Tossing a nymph -- I try to toss it well beyond the fish/area I'm
targeting (with varying degrees of success), but doesn't that "plop" spook
the fish?

Probably not, but try to get the fly well upstream of your target fish
so it has time to sink.



5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

Perfectly normal reaction. Once again, don't let it spoil your day.

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

No reason not to use it. I prefer a blood knot, but it's simply a
matter of preference.

More questions will certainly come as I realize just how stupid I am.

Awaiting the berating,

It will come....eventually. Here's a hint - ask lots of questions about
nymphs and strike indicators, and occasionally refer to Budwieser as
"horse****". {;-)


Thanks...
Dan

"Daniel-San"

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

I use a nail know with a perfection loop, about 6 inches long with a
diameter of 60 percent of my fly line to allow me a quick change of leaders
(when necessary - by tying on a fresh piece of tippet a leader can last a
very long time) The leader should attache to the llop to loop connection
with a perfect clove knot.

2) Stream ettiquette -- I was working a pool this morning, and a guy just
waded right the hell thru it. I didn't say anything, but wanted to drown
the
sumbitch. Am I wrong?

No. but beausdad and I were coming up a stream, fishing to the next pool
(typical mountain stream wading) and we plowed into a pool that a gent was
working from the bank. He was invisible, well hidden. He immediately got
huffy and left before we could gather our wits to apologize. typically in
theose mountain streams you are fishing the next pool up , not the one you
are wading in.

3) Should the fly land first, or should the line? Why? I've caught fish
when
either has happened, but that's just an idiot's luck, I'm sure. I can
usually make either happen, but I have no idea which I should be trying
for.

I prefer the fly landing first, many times the fly gets busted as soon as it
hits the water and not after the line has collapsed.

4) Tossing a nymph -- I try to toss it well beyond the fish/area I'm
targeting (with varying degrees of success), but doesn't that "plop" spook
the fish?

spook/attract, nymph needs time to sink - go figure....

5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

Yes, it is a real ****er . . . I usually try to say hello before the other
gent disrupts my fishing...and should I be the gent, well I didn't see you,
allow me time to apologize...

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good
to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice
is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

I prefer a nail knot with a loop to loop connection

More questions will certainly come as I realize just how stupid I am.


"A man who knows he knows, knows nothing. A man who knows he knows nothing
really knows, " Mott the Hopple......but I think he was paraphrasing
Socrates....'I' dont' know.

Awaiting the berating,

Careful, it gets to be a habit and you will spend the rest of your life
delving into the useless knowledge at the bottom of a bottle...

Thanks...
Dan

.....I'll drink to that.....

john

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Daniel-San wrote:

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

Some people find it convenient to have a short piece of mono that is
nail-knotted to the fly line on one end and has a loop on the other. Use
of loop-to-loop then allows easy change of leaders. Unless I know that I
will frequently change leaders I prefer the seamlessness of directly tying
the leader butt to my fly line via nail knot. I carry a nail knot tool
with me on most of my trips.

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

I think the albright works better with disimilar materials or greatly
different line diameter.

Learn the surgeon's knot.

Mu