"Does American craft brewing have a quality problem?"

“Would you agree that better-informed consumers are more often "right" than less-informed ones?”

All customers are “right”. Poorly educated customers are “right”. Highly educated customers are “right”.

In the old saying of “the customer is always right” there is absolutely no adjective before the word of “customer”.

The purpose of business in a free market economy is to serve the need/wants of the customers.

Jeff, in his above post stated: “Diacetyl does not belong in a Helles Lager, it just doesn't, and someone has the right to think such a beer is the greatest beer on earth... but they're wrong.”

The above may not be the best example since I have absolutely no idea how many beer customers desire diacetyl to be in a beer such as a Helles Lager, but if beer customers want diacetyl in a beer such as a Helles Lager they are “right’; the customer is always right. Period.

Cheers!

 

They aren't mutually exclusive. If Erway's customers want La Cumbre Light, and they want it to taste like creamed corn and cardboard, he's free to serve that while also being free to explain that it's a bad beer.

If a customer orders a DIPA and pushes it back at the bartender enraged that something is "wrong with it" because it's bitter and DIPA is supposed to taste like chocolate, the customer is wrong. 'The Customer is Always Right' mandate advises the bartender to say "I'm sorry about that sir, let me get you something else," but the customer is still objectively wrong.

 

“If Erway's customers want La Cumbre Light, and they want it to taste like creamed corn and cardboard, he's free to serve that while also being free to explain that it's a bad beer.” That is an academic statement since Jeff would never produce this sort of beer.

“If a customer orders a DIPA and pushes it back at the bartender enraged that something is "wrong with it" because it's bitter and DIPA is supposed to taste like chocolate, the customer is wrong.” A better analogy is for a beer customer to purchase a 6-pack of a DIPA at a beer store, take it home and drink one and return the remaining 5 beers to the beer store asking for his money back. In this particular instance that customer may ‘blame’ the brewery for making a bitter beer and refuse to ever buy beer from brewery A ever again since they make beer he doesn’t like. This may be considered to be unfair on the customer’s part but the reality is that customer is still right. The customer is always right.

Look, a business can take the approach that customers are “wrong” but without customers, businesses cannot stay in business. It really is as simple as that,

Cheers!

 

After all these years and our many disagreements, I think I finally understand the central belief that informs your positions.

 

You're welcome. As always your posts are well constructed and unbiased, thank you for explaining yourself. I didn't know that about Jack's homebrew, cheers to him for brewing this beer.

To get back on topic, because I don't think I actually ever answered the original question. Do I think there's a drop in quality? Not particularly, I can't say I'm having multiple pints of TERRIBLE beer. But this snippet from BobConner's post above accurately captures my feelings......specifically the last sentence.

"We need to consider what we are considering quality. Is it a matter of quality in the sense that good ingredients are being used...proper rules for safety and cleanliness are being adhered to? Or are we just saying that we are finding more and more beer out there that isnt to our liking?"

 

Jack,

Even though some modern sources regard it as correct, I believe that "irregardless" is not actually a word. Enough idiots have adopted it that it seems some publishers have thrown up their hands and decided to accept it. Over time, the definition of things can drift and change: that's just what happens. However, there is never a time when one person's decision that their definition is correct changes the rest of the world, just like there is no way that one expert's insistence that the old definition still stands can resist the momentum of everyone else.

That's why I absolutely reject your relativism that more or less states, "Everyone is right; no one is wrong." Until there is widespread adoption of changes in the definition of correct beer, a beer with technical flaws will always be wrong, regardless of how much it sells.

Saying a brewery's only purpose is to sell beer ignores many non-economic factors, many of which are the very foundation of this site, and espousing that view kind of makes me wonder why you're even here. "The purpose of business in a free market economy is to serve the need/wants of the customers," may be an accurate statement in some senses, in some universe somewhere, but it in no way encompasses the motivations of many small businesses making beer in the US today. Without stating his motivations for him, I would argue that there are brewers for whom the purpose of their business is to pay their living expenses while employing them in a manner which they deem worthwhile and ethical. You'll notice that "the customer" does not enter into that equation in the least.

 

That's why I absolutely reject your relativism that more or less states, "Everyone is right; no one is wrong." Feel free to reject whatever you want. That doesn’t change the statement of: the customer is always right.

“ …a beer with technical flaws will always be wrong…” While I take no exception to that sentence fragment as it exists, that doesn’t change the statement: the customer is always right.

“Saying a brewery's only purpose is to sell beer ignores many non-economic factors, many of which are the very foundation of this site, and espousing that view kind of makes me wonder why you're even here.” I have been very clear in my numerous posts that I personally think that a beer that has technical flaws if a non-quality beer to me. I am a Beer Advocate and I actively participate on beer discussions because I am personally an advocate for beers such as those produced by Stone, Sierra Nevada, Firestone Walker, etc. What you need to realize is that BAs such as myself are a very small fraction of what constitutes craft beer customers. In absolutely no way do I think my personal palate and preferences are the proper arbiters for craft beer customers. Only the larger craft beer customer community can do that.

"The purpose of business in a free market economy is to serve the need/wants of the customers," may be an accurate statement in some senses, in some universe somewhere,…” That universe happens to be the craft beer business universe. The BA represents the craft beer businesses.

“I would argue that there are brewers for whom the purpose of their business is to pay their living expenses while employing them in a manner which they deem worthwhile and ethical. You'll notice that "the customer" does not enter into that equation in the least.” But the customer does indeed enter into that equation. Unless beer customers purchase beer from breweries there is no way that those breweries can pay wages to their employees and stay in business.

The way that a free market economy works is that businesses serve the wants/needs of customers. In this way businesses make money and with that money in hand pay wages to their employees. That is just the way it is.

Cheers!

 

That's a fine dissertation about motivation and social conscience, but if "the customer" does not enter into that equation then it will be a very short lived business. There would be no way to cover living expenses or employ anybody in any manner.

I agree that making money by any means isn't and shouldn't be the only motivate to open a brewery, but unless you create a steady revenue stream, the rest is irrelevant. I also believe that striving for high quality is the best way to build your business. OTOH if a startup brewery somehow managed to brew and sell large amounts of weird beers like Chocolate Doughnut Stout or Corned beef and DMS Pale Ale then the purists would claim it damages the industry, but economists would call it a success. Whichever you believe is more correct defines your position in this discussion.

 

So @rundownhouse and @JackHorzempa

Let me propose that there is a middle ground here that you both are leaving out of consideration.

One of you says what many have said, which is effectively, "The customer is always right." The other says something which many others have said, which is effectively, "The customer often does not know or understand what is good beer."

If we accept that you are both right at the same time, where does that leave us?

Frankly, it seems to me that it leaves us with the notion that the role of the provider of goods and services which someone else is paying for should be willing and able to work with the customers to help them develop an understanding of what is thought to be good and why. Rather than simply produce what the customer thinks they want the provider should be guiding the customer, who at the end of the day does pay the bills, to a fuller appreciation of quality and what is possible.

 

I agree with this. But when a large number of producers/providers are just as ignorant as the consumers about what is thought to be good and why, the industry at large might just have a problem. Especially in an industry that purports to distinguish itself from the rest of the market on the basis of its "craftsmanship."

 

Indeed and then it becomes the responsibility of the knowledable producers to actively develop a plan for education of that minority (whether small or large) and to continue their work with customers/consumers until that minority of producers who are uneducable goes out of business, as they inevitably well.

 

When I started drinking beer, Elevated IPA would have not sold as the customers would have said it was undrinkable. Sometimes the customers have to change to accept better products, sometimes the product has to change to accept the demands from the customer.

 

“Frankly, it seems to me that it leaves us with the notion that the role of the provider of goods and services which someone else is paying for should be willing and able to work with the customers to help them develop an understanding of what is thought to be good and why. Rather than simply produce what the customer thinks they want the provider should be guiding the customer, who at the end of the day does pay the bills, to a fuller appreciation of quality and what is possible.”

Tom, please permit me to state for the umpteenth time: I, personally, me, myself and I, really prefer that breweries produce beer without technical flaws. Why this fact is getting by everybody is extremely irritating and frustrating to me. I, personally, think it would be ‘better’ for craft breweries to produce beers with zero technical flaws. Whew, now that is out of the way …

“ …it seems to me that it leaves us with the notion that the role of the provider of goods and services which someone else is paying for should be willing and able to work with the customers to help them develop an understanding of what is thought to be good and why.” I, personally, have zero exception to that concept. If the BA (Paul), brewers Mitch Steele and Jeff Erway (and others) want to ‘educate’ customers I personally have no issue with that.

But, let’s get back to what started this thread. As I understand the article/blog and posts by Mitch Steele and Jeff Erway, the message of poor beer quality was directed at the ‘new’ offending craft breweries and not at the customer base. How does ‘educating’ the ‘new’ craft breweries achieve an education of the beer customers?

Now, permit me to get back to the precepts of a free market economy. The concept of the free market economy is that customers ‘educate’ business to what their needs/wants are. There has been nothing in anything that Paul Gatza, Mitch Steele or Jeff Erway had stated/posted which gives me any appreciation that they have any desire to be ‘educated’ by the craft beer customers. I would argue that if the craft beer businesses have no desire to listen to the craft beer customers and go so far as call their customers “wrong” is not a healthy business relationship. It could be argued that the ‘new’ offending craft breweries are being more responsive to the craft beer drinkers than folks like Paul Gatza, Mitch Steele, and Jeff Erway.

Tom, let me ask you a question, When Mitch Steele makes a statement like: “When I first started brewing in the 1980s, we had one beer that was particularly prone to diacetyl. As a brewer, I hated when that happened, but the people that came into our pub loved it.” Within the context of free market economics, what do you think of that statement?

Cheers!

 

Maybe this is where we're talking past each other as I see this entire discussion as "academic," though I'm not sure what other kind of discussion it could be.

Exactly as I said earlier, these need not be exclusive. If your customers want a bad beer, there is nothing wrong with selling it. There is equally nothing wrong with explaining why it's bad. Mitch did both.

The free market is great for business, but it's not the arbiter of what is objectively true. See [insert news outlet you hate here] for an example of a successful business that doesn't let reality get in the way of their product.

On reflection, I think maybe the sticking point is your concern that Mitch and Jeff want to deprive [mediocre brewery]'s customers of their mediocre beer? That if MB cleans up its act, and removes the oxidation and diacetyl from their beers, the customers that loved oxidation and diacetyl will unfairly lose their favorite beers?

 

I think these three posts synthesize the correct answer to the problem this thread meandered around to pose, let's call it the "Horzempa Digression." (with all due respect to this amazing and respected poster)

I'm still pissed at Gatza for singling out the new guys when more bad beer, as well as lame and uninspired beer, is brewed by older and larger brewers, though, by sheer volume. (not the two gentlemen who have been so giving with their time on this thread, I hasten to add)

Why not say, "We have an industry wide issue, and here are 3 resources were gonna spend some of everybody's dues money on, to help all of us fix." (this was prompted by drtth's reference to "responsibility", a word one should always consider when identifying and bitching about a perceived problem)

 

1) Feel free to state this as often as you like, but since I neither said nor implied that you believed anything different, I'll simply nod my head in agreement and move on to your other points.

2) Good as that is part what I was proposing.

3) It does so indirectly in that some of those who produce flawed beer, once educated as both producers and as consumer educators, will become customer/consumer educators themselves. While some people treat knowledge as a precious jewel to be carefully hoarded, there are large numbers of people in this world who come to realize that you gain more knowledge by freely giving away the knowledge you already have to others. Also, consider that upon a time we had in the US a collection of institutions called "Teacher's Colleges." Despite what you may or may not think of modern education, they were historically quite successful in their mission of educating other educators.

4) No, I'll not move to engage this one specifically as you pose it because there are some fundamental problems with the notion of a "free market economy" as you describe it. First, your focus is only on the rights of the customer, with only partial attention to the responsibilities of the producer. Furthermore you do this without also addressing the responsibilities of the customer/consumer and the rights of the producer/seller. Finally you leave out of your thinking one of the critical defining features of such an economy--the *TOTAL absence* of government regulations, policies, and interventions.

Thus you base your remarks on a hypothetical which ignores importand things. For example, you totally leave out of your thinking the fact that alcohol production, sales, and consumption are not carried on in a free market. Living in PA you as much as anyone should be aware of lots of the ways in which there is government intervention in the alcohol market at several leves ranging from the Federal level all the way down to the Township level. Indeed, there has never been a free market economy in the US since one of the first acts of the US Congress was to pass tariff laws protecting certain producer/sellers within the US. As for your final question, that is already addressed indirectly in the final paragraph of my post which was the first one you quoted. But your final question can not be specifically addressed as you pose it since there is no such thing as a "free market economy" when it comes to alcohol. At the end of the day the notion of "free market economy" is a fiction created by economists to help them think about economic forces and conditions and their effect, but it doesn't exist in reality.

Enjoy your day.

 

“At the end of the day the notion of "free market economy" is a fiction created by economists to help them think about economic forces and conditions and their effect, but it doesn't exist in reality.”

I respectfully disagree with that statement. We most definitely have a customer driven economy. The fact there are government regulations in place (just like there are regulations for the milk industry, etc.) does not change that situation.

Tom, I sincerely hope that you have a good day today!

 

I call foul, but I really like the linear thinking, almost reminiscent of level 1 computer science.

Do I run a business and is my opinion therefore in part shaped by that position? Sure. Was I a craft beer drinker long before that? Yep.

I think at the end of the day, we should all want people getting into this industry to be those who are trained/educated in their field and that are truly passionate about great craft beer.

If your argument is that you'd like something different, or that we shouldn't work towards that and for that... Ok.

For a long time, nearly 10 years, I was on RB solely. Don't know why, just found that sight before I found this one and had already rated a lot before I found this one. Plus, Joe's a really nice guy. One thing I like above all else that the Alstroms have done is the naming and direction of this site. And I identify with it. "Beer advocate". Sure it sounds catchy... But I think that's what Paul and Mitch really are showing in their statements. I am guessing Jason and Todd didn't name it "bad beer advocate" for a reason, but I could be wrong. "Good beer advocate" sounds a little hokey.

You can advocate for consumers rights. That's a good thing. I'll advocate for good beer. I like good beer.

 

“I think at the end of the day, we should all want people getting into this industry to be those who are trained/educated in their field and that are truly passionate about great craft beer.” I do not disagree at all with that statement. It would most certainly be ideal if all of the people who were producing craft beer were properly trained/educated in brewing beer properly.

“If your argument is that you'd like something different, or that we shouldn't work towards that and for that...” To the best of my knowledge I have never specifically stated that. For my own personal jealous reasons I would greatly prefer that all craft breweries (old and new) produce beers with no brewing flaws. I personally do not enjoy drinking beer that has technical flaws.

“One thing I like above all else that the Alstroms have done is the naming and direction of this site. And I identify with it. "Beer advocate".” I also applaud Todd & Jason (and the other folks of the BeerAdvocate team). I am personally a BIG fan of properly crafted beer such as those being produced at Stone, Sierra Nevada, Firestone Walker, Victory, Troegs and others (and I am confident that La Cumbre beer is crafted beer of high quality as well).

“You can advocate for consumers rights. That's a good thing. I'll advocate for good beer. I like good beer.” As a long term member of BeerAdvocate I am also a BIG fan of ‘good’ beer and I share my views about ‘good’ craft beer frequently.

Jeff, the genesis of this thread was a discussion of Paul Gatza’s remark at the CBC. As the thread ‘evolved’ we luckily had participation from other craft beer industry folks like yourself and Mitch Steele. It is always worthwhile to hear from experienced folks from the craft beer industry. So, this particular thread very much had the context of craft beer industry and beer business practices. Given this overall context of beer business aspects, it would be incomplete if the topic of “What do beer customers want?” was not also addressed.

Your mention of “You can advocate for consumers rights” is somewhat poignant since as a long term BeerAdvocate my personal preferences are more aligned to those of the approximately 400,000 BA members. The broader craft beer customer community numbers tens of millions. I am really not the ideal person to represent those millions of people, the vast majority of which have absolutely zero idea of what constitutes a beer flaw and in all probability have little to no interest in learning those details. I personally have no data here but I would be willing to bet that 90-something percent of craft beer drinkers (maybe numbering around 40-something million people) have a principle preference of one thing: I just want a craft beer that I like.

I just went to the Brewers Association website I noted:

“Purpose

To promote and protect American craft brewers, their beers and the community of brewing enthusiasts.”

I am assuming the terminology of “brewing enthusiasts” equate to beer customers.

Given the above information I would suggest that the Brewers Association (and it greater than 2000 members) has the ‘charter’ to be an advocate of beer customer rights.

It could very well be that somebody(s) at the Brewers Association is indeed beer customer focused and is genuinely listening to what the beer customers are saying. I personally have not really seen that type of advocacy in anything that has been mentioned by Paul Gatza, Mitch Steele or you.

Perhaps that is the ‘answer’ (it seems that a number of folks are looking for answers in this thread), maybe what needs to be emphasized at the Brewers Association is advocacy for the beer customers? Perhaps one good way to start is an education of the Brewers Association to its members that calling beer customers “wrong” is not good business practice?

Cheers!

 

Cot dam.... succinctly put Todd. This needs to be echoed far and wide. If this essential issue is not addressed with brutal honesty, transparency and a true willingness to change (i.e. $$$$$ to improve QC conditions) within the community of craft brewers; this "craft bubble" may in fact happen sooner than we think.