Fosters Gold: Your New Trusty Wingman

Unfortunately for me, my overactive curiosity didn't allow me to walk past a new beer in my local Sainsbury's this weekend, which resulted in me buying a six pack of Fosters Gold. I knew it was going to be shit, there was no other way it could possibly turn out but I just couldn't stop myself. I paid £5 for six bottle in a sleekly designed and branded little carry pack, which the American market heavily favour but we, in my opinion, don't use enough over here.

The most exciting thing is clearly going to be the multi-squillion pound marketing campaign that the European distributors Heineken are poised to ram down our necks over the next few months, which will feature none other than ex-neighbours pop flop Holly Valance who has rumoured to have been signed up for a series of ads also featuring Brad and Dan, from the recent "good call" Fosters ads that have been in some cases quite funny.

My favourite of all the quotes I found about Gold so far is "It's a pulling partner. It's saying, 'I'm not cheap, and I'm not a lager lout'.", from Richard Buchanan of branding agency The Clearing. So, basically Fosters Gold has been released to make lads look classy and help them pull at BBQ's. Awesome!

Anyway, most importantly, what about the beer itself? Well it's 4.8%, so it's stronger than your regular Fosters, which is 4%. Does this extra kick of alcohol help it taste a bit more like beer than its predecessor? Does it bollocks. The beer is your typical watery fizzy lager, with literally no aroma at all, and a slightly sweet syrupy taste, followed by a weak attempt at bitterness towards the end. All in all there isn't much to it apart from the cool carry case and the fact that it will guarantee you hot action with some classy ladies.

Then I figured to fully appreciate the beer I should taste it alongside regular fosters, so I nipped back to the shop and got myself a lovely four-pack of regular Fosters. First thing I noticed is that the Gold is a little lighter than the original in colour, and the head is lighter too. The aroma from the original fosters is actually stronger than the new Gold, with a noticeable malty presence that you don't get in its "classy" sibling, which is relatively mute when it comes to the smell. The taste in the original is very similar to the gold but just cranked up a notch, leaving me to conclude that Fosters Gold is more watery in the taste than normal Fosters lager, even with the extra alcohol content. Carbonation seems slightly finer in the Gold and head retention is slightly better but I'm not entirely sure whether this is down to the beer or the whole bottle vs can debate. So, I'd probably rate it below the original, and cheaper Fosters. Crikey! (sorry).

The reason behind the release of this beer is apparently to help make good impressions at social occasions, where cans of fosters would be seen as a bit loutish. This is all well and good, and they may have spent millions on creating a "classy" brand, with a slick clear embossed bottle, but ultimately Fosters have still urinated into these elegant bottles and you will have to drink it when you get to your mates BBQ. So, you will basically be paying to see Brad and Dan perving over Holly Valance in what will clearly be a grossly over exposed advert (albeit, probably quite funny), and possibly some witty billboards following the same lines created by some overpaid marketing bellend. What you are definitely not paying for is a better beer.

Probably the most painful thing about this whole Gold crap, is the fact that it will likely end up selling really well and people will drink it in their masses. Marketing is the devil!