"Does American craft brewing have a quality problem?"

Agree 100%.

U.S. "craft" brewing as a whole needs to address QC much more intensely for the self-same reasons Gatza mentions when he says: "If a beer drinker has a bad experience, they are just going to go back to companies they know and trust.” This could equally apply to someone drinking a new local's brews as to someone drinking Stone, The Bruery, or Lost Abbey, etc.

If "craft" consumption is to keep pace with the number of new breweries, those new drinkers have to come from somewhere other than the current ranks. If those people know they are going to get what they pay for every time by going with BMC (and at a much lower price), then "craft" loses them as repeat customers and the places with QC problems begin to be weeded out -- very quickly.

 

Craft beer is not all puppies and rainbows?
Brewers sell subpar beer because it would be a loss they can't absorb to dump it.
Read Ken Grossman's book, he worried about the poor quality of new breweries reflecting on craft beer as a whole. He also talks about his own start up phase, and dumping the first 10-12 batches of SNPA because it was not right

As for established breweries and new bigger systems, RR, Bells and SN have all stated what they do to match flavor in the beers, batches are often dumped until it is dialed in. SN has covered the matching process on their blog about the Asheville brewery.

 

You understand it? I think you had @jefalcone and I both fooled.

Yes Gratza intends to generalize and strike a nerve while doing so.

Why make the statement?

Possibility 1: He understands beer, is sincerely concerned, but doesn't understand sampling bias and ignored looking for data that didn't fit what he believed at the time he needed to prepare his remarks.
Possibility 2: He needed something to talk about and that is what he thought of.
Possibility 3: He's a politician establishing some basis for future reelection.
Possibility 4: The blogger needed something to write about and did a superficial report that would attract readers or satisfy the biases of his readership but misrepresents what actually got said.

Etc.

 

So Gratza -- who is president of the National Brewers Association and represents their interests -- Steele, and (as hopfenunmaltz points out above) Grossman are all likely ignoring data/exaggerating/spouting off/feeding a blogger's need for attention and do not feel that a large number of new brewers are producing beer of low(er) quality and reflecting poorly on the movement as a whole?

Or did I misunderstand that, too? To (again) quote the article:

"Gatza was taking cues from established brewers – BA members who have become increasingly vocal with concerns that some new start-up brewers lacking experience are creating inferior product and not investing sufficient resources into the testing and troubleshooting necessary to keep beer good and drinkers happy."

 

The first wave in the 80's saw many fail due to quality issues and finances.

The late 90s saw failures , same reasons.

In some ways this is a warning from the seasoned veterans to the youngsters, so they make better beer and do not fail.

 

Yes, you seem to have misunderstood again. You asked why. I gave a list of possibilities WITHOUT making any statement or claim as to which is correct or even most likely. As Sherlock Holmes is often portrayed as saying its a cardinal sin to theorize in advance of having all the data. I also find it quite interesting that you would introduce a new possible interpretation and/or elaboration of a possibility which is so uncharitable to Gratza and others.

 

I did not posit that you believe those things, rather I asked a(nother) question as to whether you actually believe any of the possibilities you proposed.

 

No you didn't just ask a question, You deliberately distorted and/or conflated and then ended with a question mark to see if I would take bait.

Whether I believe any of the possibilities is irrelevant.

 

You, not I, put the "bait" out there by formulating these possibilities. And you are correct that your -- and my -- beliefs are irrelevant here. I'm sticking to what the article (and other sources being referenced) says: namely that clearly Gatza, Grossman, Steele, and (from what I read on Hill Farmstead's twitter feed last night) Shaun Hill -- as well as many, many others -- share the fear that the quality (or lack thereof) of many of the newer "craft" breweries might be a drag on the movement and drive away new consumers.

 

One cause of the problem is that sometimes brewers are not the only owners. Non-brewer owners (i.e. investors) want to see ROI and right toot-sweet quick. Pressure builds between quality and sales, and between money and beer. If BeerA sells quite a bit more than BeerB, and it's unexpected, then the investor wants to brew that beer more, and quicker...don't wanna wait 3 weeks (and for damn sure, doesn't wanna dump it). A rushed beer hits the tap, and it sucks.

Education needs to be ramped up. For investors, they need to (better) understand the brewing process and the bad stuff that can happen. For brewers, they need some business management education. And both need to communicate better .

 

Perhaps I can condense drtth's statements "Umm...not enough info to draw a meaningful conclusion...but it would be surprising if at least 10 out of 2000 had QC issues (and my apologies to you drtth if I have misunderstood you).

Either way, I am going to start drinking now to see if I can come up with some more relevant data. I suggest the same for all.

 

Correct. But is there enough data (not just in the 8 of 10 examples mentioned, but also in the other established brewers' statements being referenced, Gatza's clear extensive experience with dozens if not hundreds of similar festivals as president of the BA, and similar statements from highly respected people like Grossman, Steele, and Hill) to justify a realistic fear?

 

Also I must add drtth comments are cogent, compelling, unbiased, well stated...in short spot on...

 

Yes indeed. There are a great many amber ales, golden ales, and a host of darker varieties that just sit around and get old. Some of the offerings get so repetitive that consumers get confused. Damn, Smuttynose Robust Porter often just sits around and in my opinion is an excellent beer. Marketing skills are required to make your product stand out- assuming that it's a really quality product to begin with. A good brewery marketing person and a good wholesaler need to work in tandem to make the public aware of their quality brews. Good marketing can sell mediocre brew and poor marketing can doom excellent brew.

 

Joe, amen to that brother!

Cheers!

 

I won't speak for drtth because I sincerely feel he is smarter than I am...

I can say what I took from his now infamous "10 of 2000" post...and note that it is very possible that I am wrong...but here is my take...
The statements made by the beer luminati are believable and not surprising. I took from his statements no attempt to discredit the statement only the data input on which those statements were made. His statements are objective to me and not intended to insight. As he stated he is a data analyst...this is his job... to help people understand information on a non-emotive level. IMHO...The world of information, much like the entire beer industry is filled with more crap than quality.

Now...for God's sake...let me get on with my research...I have more beers to test for QC issues...

 

People will speak their opinion believing it to be true (why else would they hold such opinion?). Truth is something different .

 

"People will speak their opinion believing it to be true..." I know people like that!

Cheers to you sir!

 

Thanks, I like they way you've stated this, but I do doubt your feeling about smart is accurate. I suspect that were I put in the position of doing your job I'd have things royally screwed up within less than a day.