In this new series, our money and consumer editor considers the often perplexing reasons items cost what they do. As a new report suggests booze-free booze can cost 25% more than the alcoholic equivalent, what could possibly explain this?
Because it costs producers money to create an alternate sku that very few people buy. I never understood NA beer/wine/champaign. I drink to get buzzed, not because I like the taste. If it didn’t have alcohol, I sure as fuck wouldn’t be drinking yeast water.
With that said, NA cocktails are pretty great. Shirley temples, phony Negronis, all the virgin daiquiris. The more tiny umbrellas the better.
For some people, myself included, drinking is about the ritual and the social aspect, rather than necessarily getting drunk. When I go to a pub, I want to have a beer, but I don’t always want to deal with a hangover the next day, particularly during the working week.
In some ways it’s not that different from people who have decaffeinated coffee. It’s not any cheaper, but you still get to enjoy the experience of drinking coffee.
Because it costs producers money to create an alternate sku that very few people buy. I never understood NA beer/wine/champaign. I drink to get buzzed, not because I like the taste. If it didn’t have alcohol, I sure as fuck wouldn’t be drinking yeast water.
With that said, NA cocktails are pretty great. Shirley temples, phony Negronis, all the virgin daiquiris. The more tiny umbrellas the better.
For some people, myself included, drinking is about the ritual and the social aspect, rather than necessarily getting drunk. When I go to a pub, I want to have a beer, but I don’t always want to deal with a hangover the next day, particularly during the working week.
In some ways it’s not that different from people who have decaffeinated coffee. It’s not any cheaper, but you still get to enjoy the experience of drinking coffee.