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?
  • tetris11@feddit.ukEnglish
    1·
    25 days ago

    Yeah, I’m quite into Lucky Saints, Erdinger Blue, Guinness Zero, and I think even Peroni have an alcohol free variety.

    • Me at 15: I hate beer, it tastes awful, I just drink it to look cool to my friends
    • Me at 25: I don’t mind beer, it’s still pretty awful, but it does help in social situations
    • Me at 35: I fricking love the taste of beer, but I do get drunk easy and don’t want this to turn into a habit.

    Alcohol free beer really nicely hits that spot where you’re sitting in the garden, incinerating something or other, and want a nice cool bitter something to chase away the evening without the risk of getting plastered.

    Wish they were cheaper. 7 quid for a 6 pack of glass bottles is a joke

  • TheAsianDonKnots@lemmy.zipEnglish
    01·
    25 days ago

    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.

    • okwithmydecay@leminal.spaceOPEnglish
      1·
      25 days ago

      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.