Proposal for aluminium cans

Abstract: Aluminium cans are looked at as a technological packaging opportunity

for Wigram to pursue. A look at environmental green initiative trends, an econom
ic downturn, novelty and usage benefits of aluminium cans shows the advent of su
ch a packaging adoption could be a successful way for Wigram to position its Spr
uce Beer into a niche and underdeveloped market.
Can craft beer taste good in a can? One recent article notes that Richard
Emerson, of Emerson's brewery - a direct competitor to Wigram, tried a few beers
from Maui that proved to taste exceptional. A surprising twist, that the beers
were packaged in cans, provides an opportunity for expansion into other industri
es. For example, in the aviation industry's service line, airline "policy is tha
t (in order to minimise weight) beers must be in cans." An opportunity to tap in
to this market comes to a stumble however when one considers that the majority,
if not all, of New Zealand's quality beers are only available in bottles. This e
licits a pursuit for brewers to produce fine craft beers in cans with success (f
ollowing the Maui beers' quality as a precedent of good tasting beer in a can).
The opening hurdle to following this technological trend is overcoming the perce
ption that "canned beer isn't 'premium' enough for the best beers" (Griggs, 2010
). On the possibility of Air New Zealand offering "a good quality pale ale from
a New Zealand craft brewer and either a brown ale, stout or porter" on the fligh
ts it is found that because of the beer in a can only rule, the beer selection i
s restricted to Lion and DB, with "one exception [being] the Leigh Sawmill brewe
ry near Warkworth which had bought a canning machine from Canada, but their prod
uction was too small to supply Air New Zealand" (The Marlborough Express, 2010).
At a first glance, this article seems unworthy of attention: 'craft beer in
a can?', 'You've got to be joking!', and many other doubtful retorts are what Da
le Katechis, owner of Oskar Blues, a craft brewer in the United States, thought
when he first heard of the idea; (Cortissoz, 2006) and so did I, until I saw a c
onnection to the wine industry. Think about it, the wine industry moved through
the hurdle of selling the concept that wine can be good in a box, so why can't c
raft breweries move through the hurdle that beer can be good in a can (as long a
s it's good beer)? Screw caps have replaced the cork on top of wine bottles as w
ell, with the majority of New Zealand wine producers using screw caps, which man
y laggard connoisseurs of wine from the past would likely turn their nose up aga
inst; but it seems environmental and economic trends have changed the wine packa
ging plight (Wolniakowski, 2006). From personal perceptions I see the wine indus
try as a more picky demographic with its classy roots and ample amount of wine t
asting events rooted in its culture. So how did such an industry overcome the pe
rception that wine should come in the traditional bottle of "late-18th century t
echnology" with a cork, and diversify its packaging perception by pushing alumin
ium bottles, wine in a box, wine in a can, screw caps, and other wacky sounding
ideas with success? First off, it's important to diagnose the cause of wine in a
box's negative perceptions. It seems they stemmed from the fact that most wine
that was offered in a box was of awful quality to begin with, regardless of the
packaging. The same reason beer in a can got such a bad rep - that mass producer
s were chugging out cheap crappy beer in aluminium cans, because they were the o
nly ones who could afford the expensive canning machines. Overtime, people start
ed to associate wine in a box to the cheap wine that was available, and beer in
a can to the mass-produced clear liquid that was being given to them. It soon be
came understood that beer in a can meant 'cheap and nasty' and wine in a box was
'stale and inadequate.' Attitudes have started to change though, with the adven
t of brave beer producers like Oskar Blues who started putting their premium cra
ft beer in cans, and people started to notice, after one of their beers (package
d in a can) won a top choice award in a tasting of American Pale Ales. It's been
a slow process, but attitudes have been changing as consumers become exposed to
better quality products being poured out of the what used to be thought as tack
y and inferior packaged cans and boxes, so it must be true that the "the quality
 of [a] product can trump perceptions about [its] packaging" (Asimov, 2010).
It turns out that box wine is actually better for the environment "[reducing
] carbon dioxide emissions by half per 750 milliliters of wine (a normal bottle
size)", and can have major benefits for consumers "[remaining] fresh for a few w
eeks thanks to the collapsing bag that keeps the wine tightly sealed from oxygen
" (Colman, 2009). So why shouldn't consumers realise these benefits and make the
switch? It turns out that consumers sometimes don't follow their beliefs if the
y have a deep-rooted loyalty to original 'classic' products. For instance, consi
der the infamous coca-cola product launch failure from '85: even though market t
ests found consumers preferred the sweeter tasting new formula in blind taste te
sts, sales fell dramatically when Coke put the new and improved Coke out on the
shelves and the public demanded the old coke back (Marshall et al., 2010, p. 291
). Wine distributors are taking the plunge however, with wines that have been so
ld in boxes as far back as 2004, "going 'premium': [bearing] a vintage year and
[being] made by producers associated with reputable, moderately priced bottle wi
ne" (Consumer Reports, 2004). Box wine is still making its way through the marke
t six years later - exceeding far above expectations in some circles, as it is n
ow being sold at a restaurant by a "chef who once gained headlines for selling a
$100 truffle-encrusted hamburger," and some say "if box wine is something you'r
e not ready to have your guests swallow, take a cue from DBGB Kitchen and Bar, a
nd how it serves box wine to the more skeptical patrons: Decant the wine before
you bring it to the table" (Colman, 2009). A good observation and parallel to be
er: it's not like you are going to drink wine from directly from the 'goon' or b
ottle, just as any good beer worth drinking won't be sipped straight from the bo
ttle or can - quality beverages should be poured into their appropriate glass an
d enjoyed from there. So if cans can provide the same great taste as bottles, wh
y should it matter how the beer is packaged for aesthetic reasons if it's going
to be poured out in a glass anyway? These questions raise a good opportunity for
Wigram and fill their jug of beer to the brim with reasons why they should put
their brew in a can. This parallel of 'wine in a box' and 'craft beer in a can'
blinking heavily in my brain, I decided to get some sources to back my idea up,
and it turns out that I'm not the only one to catch on to this packaging revolut
ion:
Seeking an analysis of some external environmental factors that might affect the
business of selling craft beer in a can, I started with legal possibilities. On
e article I found cheers the success of an Alaskan craft brewer in Anchorage, Bu
rket, who followed Oskar Blue's canning strategies. Unfortunately, they "didn't
have many converts in Anchorage until [2009], when the city stopped recycling gl
ass" (Fiedt, 2009). If glass recycling stopped, surely the demand for aluminium
cans should rise. Although a 'green' country like New Zealand does not have any
plans to stop recycling glass in its political forecast, this story brings up a
good point. If this were to happen to New Zealand, Wigram would be ahead of the
game with its brew already available and established on shelves in a can. But wh
y did Anchorage stop recycling its glass? According to Anchorage Daily News, the
problem stemmed from a simple disruption in supply and demand - the supply of g
lass exceeded the demand for recycled glass. Shipping costs proved too much to s
hip it out of state where the demand was higher, and government intervention cou
ldn't counteract the extra costs (O'Malley, 2008). Could this happen to New Zeal
and, I wonder?
A look at the Zero Waste's website shows that there is a glass recycling cri
sis brewing after all, although surely not as threatening as the situation in An
chorage. New Zealand's glass crisis in a nutshell: Recyclers are running out of
space to store collected glass and are thus experiencing a financial deficit. Th
is is because New Zealand does not have enough glass furnaces in place to recycl
e the glass, and although a third glass smelter is due to be introduced in Penro
se, statistics show there will still be a surplus. Industries that buy recycled
glass are not ample enough to compensate for the increase in glass consumption.
Everyone involved in the chain of glass usage operate "as a separate market, [ch
oosing] the cheapest option for their stage" so that "environmental costs are no
t taken into account, [and] market forces have not, and will not prevail here" (
Zero Waste, 2010). Surplus glass can be exported to Australia, but as New Zealan
d is relatively isolated (similar to Anchorage), shipping costs might outweigh t
he benefits perceived by other market players. If industries don't come around w
ith demand for recycled glass and plants keep piling up with glass, the issue ma
y become more serious and glass consumption a green 'taboo.' For now, the matter
is temporarily stabilised, with the addition of another glass smelter that incr
eased production capacity at 60% in 2006, yet even with this increase full capac
ity hasn’t been met and a government levy solution to the glass crisis remains on
Zero Waste s agenda. According to a more recent publication, "progress has been
made in reducing old stockpiles of glass" with the creation of new markets for g
lass (both export and domestic) in "construction, roading, agricultural mulch an
d filtration" (Packaging Council of New Zealand, 2008), so it seems that outside
market efforts have been proven successful to the issue (for now).
Moving along with recycling trends, it turns out that the aluminium can is s
uperior to glass from an environmental perspective. A number of organisations an
d articles back this up with facts and figures: It is said to be "the only packa
ging solution that is 100 percent recyclable [and] has the highest recycling rat
e for any beverage container" (Can Manufacturers Institute, 2006). Beer bottles
account for 59% of glass packaging consumption (more than 10 times that of wine)
and this is despite the fact that beer already uses a lot of packaging alternat
ives - i.e. kegs, cans, plastic bottles (Glass Packaging Institute, 2006). With
the glass recycling crisis brewing, this fact surely makes one want to point out
the solution: stop putting all that beer in glass bottles and the surplus will
decrease! A study on the environmental effects of beer packaging done by food te
chnology shows that aluminium trumps glass across the board with the green house
effect, acidification, energy consumption, water consumption and final waste co
ncerns. On the green house effect, glass was a clear loser because of its "prima
ry packaging raw materials and production, secondary packaging (because of the g
reater amount of protection required to distribute glass bottles); and distribut
ion (ditto - weight of glass bottles)" and the same reasons prevailed for the ef
fect on acidification (Brody, 2009). From an energy consumption perspective, the
study reported that even "if glass bottles were 100% recycled, glass would stil
l be worse than all the other packaging systems" (Brody, 2009) as glass consumes
more Mj/100L (energy) than aluminium and 527L more water than aluminium does in
its packaging production. Also, due to its large mass, glass is the worst when
it comes to final waste, accounting for the highest weight in landfills and recy
cling plants (Brody, 2009). The packaging council of New Zealand also finds cans
to be environmentally more superior, saying that "aluminium can be recycled ind
efinitely because reprocessing does not damage its structure [and] is also the m
ost cost-effective packaging material to recycle." A finishing statistic, that 8
8% of aluminium consumed is collected for recycling and only 62% of glass consum
ed is collected for recycling (Packaging Council of New Zealand, 2008), shows th
e bottom line: that beer in a can is more environmentally friendly than beer in
a glass bottle. As New Zealand is a world leader of recycling and prides itself
on its green image, it is indubitably thought that this packaging revolution sho
uld become more than just an idea if presented to the public from an environment
al standpoint.
The environment is not the only reason Wigram should look into joining the craf
t canning trend. There are also benefits relating to usability. Since aluminium
is lighter than glass, cans can be taken by beer drinkers on outdoor trips with
a great weight off their backs. Cans are easier to handle - breakages won t resu
lt in a heap of jagged glass to clean up, and cans take up less space in the fri
dge. Aluminium chills five times faster than glass, reducing waiting time and en
ergy needed to get a cold beer. As already mentioned, cans are shatterproof and
more durable, making it ideal for the beach, poolside bars, sporting events, con
certs, airplanes, trains, boats, golf courses, and rowdy clubs - all of which fa
ll into the potential category of venues that prohibit glass bottles (Jaell, 200
9). It turns out that packaging beer in a can is good for the beer too, by offer
ing complete protection of light and oxygen. Glass allows light to get in, which
 is not good for the beer (consider the fact that Wigram and other craft beers p
ut their product in dark glass bottles to minimise light exposure). Cans also "h
old extremely low amounts of dissolved oxygen [so that] beer stays especially fr
esh for longer" (Drunken Tailgate, 2009).
That s all fine and dandy saving the environment, going camping or boating,
saving space in the fridge and all, but the fact remains that a lot of people st
ill think beer doesn t taste good in a can. The stigma caused by those mass prod
ucers of generic beer in the past can be broken by changing consumer perceptions
with a bit of work, but only if beer in a can actually matches up to its promis
e of quality. One big concern from drinking out of a can is the expected tinny
taste. This is just a rumour however, as aluminium cans actually have a water-b
ased polymer lining which prevents metallic contamination that would cause any i
ssues with the taste (John, 2010). According to many beer enthusiasts blogs, th
is lining technology isn t even new, having been around since as long ago as 193
3 (Cortissoz, 2006). Assumed perception is obviously the culprit to this rumour,
for an inspection of a number of beer tastings online shows that once the beer
has been poured out into the glass, there is no significant perceived difference
between those out of a bottle to those in a can. Pouring the beer into a glass
is how craft beer should be drank anyways; Dale Katechis, founder of Oskar Blues
notes the observation that "people see [a] can and think they need to drink rig
ht from it [but] you d never drink a full-flavoured beer from a bottle" (Katechi
s, 2003). The connection between a keg and a can is made by many beer writers as
well, and Katechis says "it s draft beer in a mini-keg, and you don t drink dra
ft beer right from a full-size keg" (Katechis, 2003).
With this ample magnitude of reasons swirling in my mind on why Wigram shoul
d try to can their beer, I tried selling the idea to friends and family. They to
o were originally impressed and sold to the idea, but shortly thereafter they sh
ut down my enthusiasms, with the rebuttal that aluminium is said to be bad for y
our health; one saying that customers at Pottery Barn had been approaching her,
an associate, about whether or not it was safe to drink out of the aluminium wat
er bottles being sold. It seemed I d hit a roadblock and needed to do some more
research. The fear of aluminium comes from a well-publicised theory on Alzheimer
s disease. Research found traces of aluminium in the brains of patients with Al
zheimer s and this correlation was soon assumed to be causal. Anyone who has tak
en statistics knows that you shouldn t take a correlation to mean that two thing
s related to each other cause the other. For instance, if there was a positive c
orrelation between rain and the price of stock, it would be poor judgment and ha
sty to say that if it rains the price of stock will go up! Even so, making the a
ssumption that aluminium is the cause to Alzheimer s is somewhat biased, as it c
ould also be hypothesised that Alzheimer s causes aluminium levels to go up in t
he brain! No causal relationship has been proven between aluminium and Alzheimer
s and consequently "many studies since then have either not been able to confir
m this finding or have had questionable results" (Cleveland Clinic, 2008). Altho
ugh a correlation still remains in some autopsy results, "various studies have f
ound that groups of people exposed to high levels of aluminium do not have an in
creased risk [and] on the whole, scientists can say only that it seems unlikely
that exposure to aluminium plays a role in Alzheimer s disease" (Cleveland Clini
c, 2008). The thin plastic lining in aluminium cans also plays a role to deviate
concerned drinkers from worrying because this lining "prevents the leeching of
aluminium into the liquid it contains" (Cleveland Clinic, 2008). Further researc
h on the subject then brought up concerns on the plastic lining in aluminium can
s. Some advocates of the packaging have shied away for fear of "bisphenol A, a c
hemical found in nearly all beverage can linings that, in animal studies, has be
en associated with health problems such as obesity, cancer and neural damage" (K
itsock, 2009). This is disputed as well by a large range of sources; one saying
that “an average adult would have to ingest more than 500 pounds of canned food an
d beverages everyday for an entire lifetime to exceed the safe level of BPA set
by EPA” (American Chemistry Council et al, 2010). Some studies revealed that heati
ng the plastic to boiling point causes BPA to be released 55 times greater than
normal, but as “small breweries rarely pasteurize,” this concern is again dropped be
cause beers is highly unlikely to approach boiling point (North American Metal P
ackaging Alliance, 2010).
With health threats out of the way, the idea of putting Wigram’s brew into a can i
s finalised with one last benefit: niche marketing. Although not available by cr
aftcans.com, there is one such type of packaging that could put Wigram in a nich
e quadrant of demand: aluminium bottles. The style “shows a way to overcome the sl
oppy look of the aluminium can” allowing more surface area to work with on labelli
ng, and provides the possibility for unique blends of aesthetics with metallic c
olours presented overtop the classic ‘bottle shape’ (Best in Packaging, 2009). Alumi
nium bottles can exceed glass packaging in aesthetics by offering “the ability to
carry high impact graphics not possible on glass, […] re-sealable closure systems,
[…] new curves and contours [and] advanced inline printing systems” (The Drinks Rep
ort, 2009).
Finally, a look at major trends confirms that aluminium packaging innovations sh
ould be considered for adoption by Wigram. According to Euromonitor Internationa
l, the economic downturn plays a major role for the trend to move to larger size
s and economy formats (i.e. metal beverage cans). The issue of glass’ heavy weight
goes against the trend to reduce transportation costs and follow a green initia
tive. Growth in aluminium packaging is projected to be slow in the short term be
cause of “consumer hesitancy to purchase radically innovative products in economic
ally challenging times,” however, concerns over the environment, cost, convenience
and novelties “are driving packaging innovation, hence bringing PET, aluminium an
d mini-keg formats under the spotlight” (Malandrakis, 2009). The final decision fo
r Wigram is to consider adoption for aluminium packaging for its Spruce Beer – a p
roduct already applicable to novelty ratings, being one of the only beers to fol
low Captain Cook’s recipe. Tourists, curious beer connoisseurs, and active craft b
eer drinkers will all likely be proponents of such a distinctive product and tri
al will be more likely if perceptions are pushed beyond the limits of this propo
sal.