Even in an industry built on creativity and passion, product portfolios ultimately live or die by economics. The tension between what sells, what defines the brand, and what actually makes money has become a sharp edge as ingredient costs, packaging, and consumer spending patterns shift. The result is a more disciplined approach to evaluating SKUs for your cidery and it goes beyond simple margin calculations. It forces owners and managers to clarify what each product is really doing for the business.
Bob Manley, co-founder of Hermit Woods, said reducing decisions to spreadsheet math alone can be a mistake. Some products serve a strategic purpose that isn’t immediately visible in profitability reports.
“We don’t judge SKUs on margin alone,” Manley said. “Some products are flagships or loyalty drivers that define who we are and bring people back, even if they’re not the highest-margin items.”
That perspective reflects a broader shift among cideries toward portfolio thinking rather than product-by-product optimization. A low-margin flagship might function as a gateway to higher-margin offerings, drive tasting room traffic, or reinforce brand identity in ways that are difficult to quantify but essential for long-term stability.
“The goal isn’t to cut favorites it’s to understand each product’s role in the portfolio and balance profitability with brand identity,” Manley said, adding that the relatively small size of their cider program allows more flexibility than larger, production-focused operations might have.
Others approach the question with simpler tools but similar conclusions. Richard Yi, Cidermaker at Brooklyn Cider House, said sophisticated analytics aren’t always necessary to reveal what matters most.
“We keep things fairly simple and use QuickBooks to track sales,” Yi said. “At the end of the day, sales data tells you what your customers are most interested in supporting.”
That demand, however, must be interpreted carefully. High sales volume does not always equal high profitability, and profitability itself can fluctuate as equipment or production methods change.
“If certain ciders are especially profitable, you can focus on growing that segment of the market,” Yi said. “Profitability can also change depending on suppliers, equipment, and production methods. While profitability is important, it’s equally important to understand which products drive the bulk of your sales.”
Yi added that poor performers present clearer decisions.
“If a cider isn’t selling and isn’t profitable, it may be time to redesign it or go back to the drawing board,” he said. That redesign mindset has become increasingly important as some try to avoid alienating loyal customers. Rather than abruptly discontinuing products, many now test ideas in controlled environments before committing to large-scale production.
Yi said Brooklyn Cider House uses a small-batch program sold primarily through its club and tasting room to evaluate new concepts and gather real-world feedback.
“That allows us to test new products and gather feedback before scaling them up,” he said.
Even when a product struggles financially, the answer is not always elimination. Sometimes the issue lies in sourcing, packaging, or positioning rather than consumer interest.
“If you do need to retire a cider, it’s worth looking closely at why it isn’t sustainable,” Yi said. “If the apples are too expensive, you might be able to source similar varieties at a lower cost. If packaging is the issue, a different supplier might help.”
In some cases, scaling down production rather than discontinuing entirely preserves both customer goodwill and creative freedom.
“If the problem is low sales, you might still consider making it on a smaller scale rather than eliminating it completely,” Yi said. “We produce several ciders simply because we love making them. They aren’t for everyone, but some customers really appreciate them. Sometimes the solution isn’t ending a product but rebranding it or scaling it down.”
Yet there are situations where costs overwhelm even strong demand. Jeremy Hall, co-founder of Blossom Barn Cidery, described a product caught in precisely that dilemma.
He shared that a product that they find difficult to make again financially is Passion Perry, Hall said Despite being the cidery’s most popular Perry in cans and kegs throughout 2024 and into 2025, a single ingredient undermined its viability.
“Made with just 3% passionfruit juice and 97% pears, this was our most popular Perry,” he said. “But the cost for the passionfruit juice, even though it is only 3% of the ferment, is more than 50% of the cost of the finished cider.”
Packaging and sales channels compound the challenge. Blossom Barn relies heavily on direct-to-consumer sales at farmers markets, events, and its tasting room, where impulse purchases dominate.
“The most popular item is a mixed four-pack of 16-ounce cans,” Hall said. “It’s a really easy sale to someone who has just tasted multiple Perries of ours for the first time.”
Raising the price of one component within that bundle risks disrupting the simplicity that makes the package successful in the first place.
“If we charged more for the passion Perry, it would make it a little more challenging for a quick decision for a new buyer,” Hall said. “We would have to sell it at a premium, and we are still debating whether it would be worth it to make.”
Taken together, these experiences point to a common reality: the decision to keep, modify, or retire a product rarely hinges on a single metric. Successful operators evaluate financial performance, brand impact, customer expectations, operational complexity, and sales context simultaneously.
