-The Craft Beer Blacklist-

Most of the breweries on the list were making shitty beer long before their acquisiition by Inbev or MillerCoors. Even most of Goose Island's standard fare is pretty lame by our standards. So nothing has really changed. They still continue to brew the same crap, just in much larger quantities.

 

I am not boycotting anyone (unless I hear abound union busting or similar). I WILL however prioritize. All other things being equal, or close to equal, I will take the beer made in my town (or one mile away across the Arlington line) first, beer made elsewhere in greater DC next, beer made anywhere in Va, Md, or Delaware next, beer made anywhere in the US next (with preference for the rust belt) . And beer made by the largest global firms last. Though none of that stopped me from getting Sam Smith as part of learning about brown ales, and I may well try Goose Island BCBS someday. I just like having a society that is not quite so dominated by global corporations, and appreciate that beer is one area where smaller businesses are competitive and buying local is a good option.

 

I believe you mean you *couldn't* care less.

Do you not care that AB-Inbev has spent millions of dollars trying to prevent craft breweries from filling growlers in multiple states?

Do you not like growler fills? Or you just prefer the blissful ignorance of being a blind consumer?

 

so much visceral and hate.

I imagine you hate the federal government for the three tier system and Utah for still supporting their 3.2% beer laws....

 

No hate here at all. I don't hate the government, Utah, InBev, or you. Just asking questions that you can't seem to answer.

 

Not being offended by Inbev trying to fight the competition that has been taking their draft lines, shelf space, and priority within the distributor means I'm a blind consumer?

At the end of the day I trust in the fact consumer demand will eventually prevail. I think craft's three and five year CAGRs have proved that point...

 

Buying off politicians and having laws changed in their favor isn't winning by virtue of consumer demand.

They aren't "fighting the competition" they are changing the rules.

Think.

 

Think?

Based on the current laws, growler fills are illegal and against the three tier system. InBev trying to stop the loophole isn't changing the rules, the rules were never there. These craft brewers benefited from not playing by the same rules as the big guys before them. YES, I love growler fills and would prefer the laws changed but I don't hate on businesses trying to do what's in their best interest as well as their investors.

I don't drink BMC because it's not for my liking. I don't fault them, DFH, Lagunitas and the new lot of breweries suing to protect their business.

 

Trademark lawsuits are very different than buying off politicians and having laws changes. I am not against protecting a trademark. I am against using lobbyists to change create an uneven playing field. You've made a false equivalence. AB and DFH are not doing the same thing. Don't use fallacious arguments, please.

Despite what you think, growler fills are not illegal most states; that's why AB had to try to make them illegal. They weren't closing a loophole, they were trying to change the rules. Luckly, they failed in this case, but was won in others. Read up on it.

Think more.

 

Russian River won't fill growlers that don't bear their logo. Many breweries aren't in favor of retail establishments being able to sell growlers. InBev is against growler fills. Inbev targeting the craft brewers directly vs. the retailers and the consumers makes them very very bad.

 

This is not relevant to any of my points.

Agreed.

 

Yes... it is. All scenarios are trying to gain a competitive advantage and taking away choices from consumers.

 

Smh. Who cares as long as the beer is good?? Honestly I am tired of hearing how "the man" is bringing down the quality of some acquired breweries and how people won't buy a specific brand any longer because of being purchased.

 

Not all competitive advantages are created equal. As I have already explained. Please, no more fallacies.

Not filling another breweries' growler is not the same as lobbying governments to changes laws. Not even close. Seriously....

 

If you applied this philosophy to every one of your consumer spending decisions, you would have very limited choices. And a lot more money in (that foreign owned) bank.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

I know you're not asking me, but I'm answering anyways.

Personally, I have no problem with any company that does everything in their power to push the passing of a bill such as this that would give them any sort of competitive advantage. Money is always moving, and none of it is guaranteed to come your way, so I understand why a company (and anyone that does business with them) would want a bill like this passed in their favor. I do have a problem with policy makers that would see a bill like this as something worthy of being passed, and I have a problem with the people that voted for those people to hold the offices that they hold.

 

What would union involvement do to the craft brewery industry? Say the passed a law that ALL employees had to be Teamsters. In a couple years you'd see some breweries going belly up to say the least.

 

In the case of Coors it was a large industrial brewery, following a similar business model to AB and Miller, except that the latter had union representation (I do not think it was Teamsters back then, but I do not recall) and as was posted above, the controversy was not even that Coors was not unionized, but that management launched a controversial campaign to get the unions out. That was a time when some people drank Bud or Miller to make a progressive statement - how times have changed. Personally I think in the craft beer space there are ways to look for progressive approaches to labor relations that are less focused on the collective bargaining issue.

And no one would ever pass a law in the USA requiring all workers to be have union representation - in about half the states you can't mandate payment of union dues even in a firm where the majority of workers have voted for union representation - let alone requiring a particular union. That is simply not something that has been on the table in the last century of debates about US labor law.

 

But the point is that unlike something like electronics or cars, beer is one of the consumer spending decisions that you CAN make the choice how to spend your money.