I have found Guinness Black Lager and I do not like it

It's A Trap

Looks like Guinness but it ain't.

When I first heard about Guinness’ new Black Lager, I took it upon myself to launch a decidedly half-assed quest to find it. This adventure mostly consisted of looking in the coolers of my go-to liquor store (they didn’t have it) then politely sitting around for 10 minutes while the cashier looked it up in their computer registry (it was on file but they didn’t carry it. Duh).

Imagine my surprise when I stumbled across it this past Thursday evening! If it wasn’t for the young women blocking my regular path to the “$13 whiskey” section I would have never found this new brew. Sticking true to my bitter writer’s persona, I decided to drink a six pack then complain about it on the internet.

Guinness Black Lager is billed as a “cold brewed [lager] with roasted barley to deliver the refreshing taste of a lager with the unique character of Guinness,” a beer brewed in an attempt to break into the burgeoning U.S. craft beer market. I am far from a beer snob and while I can BS my way through telling the difference between a pale ale and a lager, I am concerned with two things: Is this a good brew and am I going to get drunk? Spoiler alert: No and no.

The first thing one must realize before drinking Guinness Black Lager is that this is Guinness in name only. “I don’t like Guinness” is fodder for a Shit Beer Drinkers Say video, but that excuse won’t fly here. The beer’s dark color might be off-putting to those anti-Guinness heathens but the similarities between the two abruptly end there.

The beer pours a dark brown like standard issue Guinness, something that will probably chase off the aforementioned squirrelly anti-Guinnessites types. Good riddance, we don’t need them. The beer’s aroma bares a passing resemblance to some of the nuttier seasonal brews from Sam Adams. The smell of a beer has never been a big concern for me, but there is something oddly alluring here. It’s subtle but with a presence, much like a serial killer stalking his victim through a shopping mall or “Watch The Throne” coming on at a party.

At first sip, the beer is palatable enough. The roasted barley flavor is there as billed, a sweet, caramel taste with a hint of nutty chocolate (where are those squirrelly anti-Guinness-ites now?) The flavor is far from heavy and while it is noticeable, is almost immediately washed away with how damn watery the beer is. I’m as guilty as the next unemployed, beer-drinking blogger of using overly-verbose hyperbole, and I can’t even think of an apt analogy for how disappointingly bland Guinness Black Lager’s aftertaste is. It is completely non-existent. There is no aftertaste. None. Not unless you count the weird, gunky taste in my mouth that I blame on this beer and not poor dental hygiene.

To its credit, this beer could make a good “cooking” beer if it wasn’t so watery. I admittedly am not as familiar with the Transitive Property of Beer Cooking as I sometimes pretend to be, but Guinness Black Lager could make a good addition to a chocolate dessert or a pot roast.

At $8.99 for a six pack, Guinness Black Lager is painfully overpriced. At 4.5% alcohol content, it is painfully impotent. Between the rich color and the Guinness brand, this is a tease of the worst degree. If I had to guess the niche for this beer, it would be people who do not like Guinness but don’t want to come off like they don’t know anything about beer for not liking Guinness. I will probably keep a bottle of this on display in my kitchen as both a conversation piece and a warning to others.

PROS

The shades of blue approach on a typical Guinness label is quite nice.

CONS

Taste, price, alcohol content (the three things that matter in a beer)

Party like this guy

No one is this excited to drink Guinness Black Lager.

Sun-Times’ proposed paywall plan: Hey, what’s the worst that could happen?!

Prelude: I worked for the company for two years as a web editor before being laid off in October

When the Sun-Times announced their ‘metered pay plan’  Tuesday afternoon, I had about the same reaction as everyone else: WTF?

First the quick ‘n dirty facts. Visitors will be able to read 20 free articles a month before they hit the paywall (affectionately stolen borrowed from the New York Times paywall model). Beyond that, digital subscriptions will cost $1.99 a month for those who already subscribe to the print edition and $6.99 a month for digital-only customers.

Note the language here; customers, not readers. Sun-Times’ choice of phrasing, not mine.

This is a risky, but (probably) calculated move following other newspapers that found mixed success.

Just this morning, the Minnesota Star Tribune revealed some numbers about their paywall that was launched this past fall. While the numbers were undoubtably crunched a dozen times over for the best possible spin, it shows that the paywall is (probably) not a complete failure. As described by Poynter:

The Star Tribune tells David Brauer how its paywall is doing a month after launch. Ad revenue will suffer from lower traffic, which is down 10 to 15 percent, depending on the metric. But the newspaper has 5,900 new digital subscribers, 1,150 of whom are now getting the Sunday newspaper, too. And more people are paying a bit extra to bundle digital access with their print subscriptions. “So in four weeks, the Strib has potentially reaped about $800,000 in new digital circulation revenue,” Brauer writes.

Of course, there is the New York Times’ implementation last March. The big daddy, the grand poobah of newspaper paywalls. It revealed itself to be relatively easy to bypass for those ‘in the know’ about technology. How’s that working for them? They now boast 324,000 digital subscribers.  Obviously there is a hefty gap in both quantity and quality between the NYT and the Sun-Times.

There are reasons to think the Sun-Times’ paywall might succeed (which I define as not being a horrible failure) but there are just as many to assume the worst. There has been a steady decline in reporters and copyeditors for years, supplanted by AP copy. It’s become an assumed inevitability that online readership drops off after a paywall and along with it, ad revenue. It’s a very careful line to walk, the difference between ad revenue lost and digital subscribers gained.

The Sun-Times has given itself a clear target to reach. Probably not a smart move, all things considered.

He [Company chairman Jeremy Halbreich] also said other metro papers that have tried metered systems have seen temporary declines in their web traffic, but that activity generally picks up after about three months.

I guess we’ll have to check back in three months and see where they are at.

There are plenty of people who will bite their thumb at the paywall. “The Sun-Times? I would NEVER pay for that rag!” You probably weren’t already, and this move isn’t really targeting you. Like the NYT model, the 20 free articles gives plenty of leeway for the occasional visitor. I visit the Sun-Times every day as a part of my regulars ‘news outlet tour’ but I’m not sure I click 20 articles a month. And of course, therein lies the problem.

Chicago is a big market. Between the Chicago Tribune, WGN, Huffington Post Chicago, Chicago Reader, the Redeye, the Chicago News Cooperative, Chicago Public Media and the flock of broadcast news sites, we aren’t exactly short on news sources.

It’s too early in the process to say if this will work, fail, or fall into the nebulous ambiguity that has plagued the Sun-Times for years. The notions of paywalls are still young enough that no one can say for sure how it will pan out.

Maybe they’ll see good-to-great successes and start to actually grow. Or maybe

No matter what happens, it should be an interesting ride.

Afterthought: Then again, there is a healthy portion of openly racist, blatant hateful angry people who troll the Sun-Times comments sections who will (if their ideology is as strong as their vitriol) no doubt gladly stop accepting handouts from the Sun-Times. Maybe that was the marketing plan behind all this? That or boobs.

By the way, I’m looking for work. Investigate my LinkedIn profile or find me on Twitter.

Someday, Google TV’s honeycomb update will come out.

Then I will finally be able to write my review. As it stands now, it isn’t worth buying (even for $90) unless you are an early-adopter or a Google fanboy, both of which I am.