Top Menu

11 Responses to Shark. Jumped. GQ does beer. EOM

  1. olllllo October 1, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    Should we expect a Cosmo rebuttal.

    Top 10 ways to Fuggle your relationship and drive your man into the Cirtrosphere.

    15 Smoking looks that pair with Rauchbier.

    Give your bottles the waxing they deserve and say goodbye to your Brazilian salon.

  2. Larry October 1, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    I thought it was pretty slick. Don’t you agree that coverage like this is good for craft beer?

  3. Jon Abernathy October 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

    I don’t know, I thought it held together pretty well until the end. I can’t really find any fault with the first 45 or so picks. 🙂

  4. Olllllo October 2, 2012 at 12:18 am #

    What about the 1000 clicks to read a few pages of content?

  5. Skubic October 2, 2012 at 1:32 am #

    More like nuked the fridge. No mention of San Diego except for three beers in the 50 beers to try section. WAH?

  6. Stan Hieronymus October 2, 2012 at 4:28 am #

    I may have to track down the print copy (dang, wouldn’t you know it, I let my subscription lapse).

    As Rob pointed out, the online version does seem built to generate clicks, and it will be interesting to see – typical for such slick magazines – just how hard it is to find the content I am interested in (because sometimes you can’t even find the table of contents).

    What I read was perfectly well done, but I can’t help but think of “the curse of Time magazine.”

  7. Jeff Alworth October 2, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    Aside from layout issues, I had exactly the opposite reaction. This is well-done, and the information is accurate and good. Craft beer has a 5% market penetration, and this is aimed squarely at those interested in finding a way in–without condescending to them. They do a great job with glassware and mention Italian beer, lambics, and haute cuisine–all great. Who cares which cities they cite, or which beers? The idea that Cleveland is a great beer city and there are substances known as Berliner Weisse and Dortmunder lager can only help spread knowledge and interest about beers beyond the can.

  8. Bill October 2, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    I’m pretty sure it isn’t the first time GQ has done this with beer. Why is this “jump the shark”? Do Esquire’s annual lists remain on the positive side of the ramp for you?

    Never figured you for a “that band’s no good anymore — they’re too popular” kind of fan!

  9. Stan Hieronymus October 2, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    So I went with the Javier Bardem cover. Apparently you can choose between Bardem, Chris Paul and Denzel Washington, but I didn’t see any Washington covers left. Anyway, the cover makes sure you understand from the outset that GC is about style.

    A few observations from seeing it in print:

    – Indeed, it took me several minutes to locate the ToC, so no easier than online.

    – Online has bonus content. Only 3 beer cities in print and the top 50 list is web only. Bill, since I don’t have anything new about lists I’ve quit saying (writing) anything.

    – Jump the shark was a bad analogy on my part. It implies something beer, or brewers did, as opposed to the outside force (GQ).

    – Bill, bad analogy on your part. I like the band.

    – I do admit to a certain amount of anti-QC-ishness. For instance, pimping 65 dollar growler from Portland Growler Company rather than mentioning most pubs sell perfectly good growlers (often a choice between utilitarian and fancy, but the fancy isn’t $65).

    – I guess you could argue that the beer coverage occurs in the “thinking part” of the magazine, although only 9 pages after the “Fall style playbook weekend” wraps up. It is preceded by a couple of pages on the presidential debate and “The XVIII Worst Decisions in Sports History.”

    – Bottom line. I give them credit for taking this seriously and talking to Nicole Ermy (among other good choices). But it still feels like its part of the “Fall Style Playbook.” I guess I’m not a very stylish guy.

  10. Bill October 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

    Stan, my question wasn’t about lists — it was me wondering why this particular thing set you off whereas similar things in similar magazines haven’t.

    I guess I’m with Jeff Alworth on this one — I don’t see how this is negative, and he argued things well. Why would it matter if this feels like it’s part of the “Fall Style Playbook”?

    There’s a lot of stuff on the beer forums recently about (basically) how difficult it has become to get certain beers when they’re released, or to get tickets to events, or to trade for beers. And the factor that seems to be overlooked is, that’s a sign of success. If the audience for craft beer keeps growing so steadily, things that were once relatively easy for those in the know to obtain/attend are going to keep becoming more difficult to obtain/attend. And these sites that rank brews and events and talk about the good stuff are going to inform new fans… and also inform reporters and editors, who will bring said stuff to wider audiences. Those who wanted to promote craft beer have succeeded… and one of the prices of success is increased difficulty in access to certain things. It’s paradoxically a good thing. A bummer from a selfish perspective… but better from a “good beer will grow and thrive” perspective.

    So, a multi-section piece in GQ… isn’t it a sign that “good beer” is winning the battle?

  11. Stan Hieronymus October 2, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

    Bill – I think my total comment was “Shark. Jumped. GQ does beer. EOM” which I almost merely tweeted rather than posting – except I was interested in the comments that might follow.

    And the first two provided a ying and yang.

    I should probably pass on pundentry, stick to reporting facts and let the readers interpret if I disagree or agree with their views.

Powered by WordPress