Supporting the "enemy"...I broke down

Apropos to the original post, AB has zero interest in harming the craft beer industry. I realize a lot of people don't believe this, and I didn't believe it before I worked for them, but from the top down the feeling is "a rising tide lifts all ships." They view craft beer as something that is reinvigorating beer in our society and bringing it back to dinner tables and weddings instead of wine or spirits. Of course they want to compete and be successful, but by selling beer people like, not assassinating other brewers.

AB isn't just Budweiser. If people's tastes change, then AB will (hopefully) brew something they like instead. The goal isn't to use legislation to force everyone to drink Budweiser. There's a place for everyone, the big breweries and the little breweries. I'm not trying to sound like a cheerleader, I'm just trying to say thinking of AB as "the enemy" is pretty misguided.

 

I haven't been in a Walmart in probably a decade, as where I live there are probably 2-3 other companies similar stores I'd have to pass to just get to one. Plus they also have no beer.

There is one now ~ 10 miles near me, but I'd have to drive into Washington DC so that would take 30 minutes to do. And I'd still pass at least 2 Targets on the way. All with no beer.

 

To say they have zero interest in harming the craft beer industry goes directly against the evidence I saw first hand regarding the legislation in Florida. They had a large interest in harming craft beer here, and they were happy to supply information on amendments that was harmful to the industry they are in direct competition with.

I agree thinking of them as the enemy is misguided, but to say they have zero interest in harming the industry is more than misguided, it's completely false.

Holding back their direct competition is very much in their interest. And to say there is room for both goes against the numbers we see come out year after year of craft beer sales rising, and inBev sales falling.

 

OK, then! I have no insider knowledge of the brewing, distribution, or beer retailing (whether at bars, taprooms, liquor stores, etc.), so this is just me trying to connect the dots.

@Peter_Wolfe would seem to correct that in terms of direct product sales, the issue of growler sales is irrelevant to AB. This is because (as he said) the customer for growlers is not their customer anyway, and if they can't buy growlers, they will buy their craft beer from the liquor store. They won't buy Bud Light instead.

OTOH, @KidIcarus1945 would seem to be correct if you consider the long term. Approving 64 oz growlers will likely increase sales at tap rooms, which will help the revenue stream of the smaller brewers. The sell more, and more of what they sell bypasses both the distributors and the retailers, so they keep more of the money.

I really have no idea how that calculus would motivate AB's lobbying efforts, but it does have a direct impact on the distributor's immediate bottom line as well as on the bottle shop's immediate bottom line. It would seem to be common sense that they would be more active in their lobbying.

Of course, this free analysis on my part is worth every penny!

 

No BCBS for you? I don't care who brews my favorite beers, as long they are tasty and priced fairly, I purchase.

 

I don't know if interest in harming the industry is correct. They clearly have an interest in controlling the industry, but it seems to me the harmful part is more of a consequence than the intent. Probably splitting hairs though.

 

Oh, then I totally agree. CostCo is jam-packed almost every time I go (so I don't go nearly as much as I'd like). Mine sells lots and lots of beer and liquor though (including Bourbon County, apparently?), so they can stay on my good list.

 

Gotta love Maryland!

 

The growler bill debates last year had nothing to do with the growler law. It was the tacked on amendments that was the issue, the fact that they would limit craft breweries ability to sell directly to customers for off premise consumption was the issue.

It would have hurt craft beer greatly, and inBev would have been 100% unaffected, except that their direct competition would have been severely limited in their growth.

We are getting 64oz growlers (if it passes the house) this year without the added BS. Well, without really harmful BS, but there is BS that has a high enough number of vendor licenses that it likely won't matter. So yeah, InBev doesn't care about 64oz growlers that much, it's the direct sales from breweries they were trying to limit last year that they care about since it would harm their competition but not them.

Basically it went like this:
"Hey we want 64oz growlers"
"Looks good"
"Wait, Don Gaetz wants us to tack on these amendments, breweries shouldn't be allowed to sell directly to customers for off premise consumption"
"Won't that directly harm the growth of craft beer?"
"Sure, hold on...alright I called InBev and they said if you are brewing X or less barrels per year you are small enough to be exempt"
"That number is bullshit, craft breweries won't grow"
"Senate passes the Bill"
"House rejects the bill"

Of course that's a huge summary of it all, and I might not be understanding it as well as a lawyer, but when the craft brewers came out and called bullshit on a number supplied by InBev, I'm going to believe them when they say it will harm their industry.

It all started with this bill:
http://komlossylaw.com/bigbeerbill/

And continued with all the drama we saw:
http://komlossylaw.com/beersenate/
http://komlossylaw.com/senateupdate/
http://komlossylaw.com/supportcraft/
http://komlossylaw.com/senateamendments/
http://komlossylaw.com/cometorest/
http://komlossylaw.com/1714update/
http://komlossylaw.com/senateupdate-2/

 

This topic always brings out extremism, but there's nothing inherently wrong with extremism.

I frequent this site because I have an interest in beer... in it's entire scope. I'm not sure how anyone can be interested in beer and not be interested in something like Bud Light, but to each their own.

When a small brewery is purchased by a big company, and the owners of that small brewery are happy to cash in on their hard work... then I am happy for them. I also respect the idea of not buying beer from a big company. Comments that regard AALs as swill are disgraceful and narrow-minded. At the same time, not caring who makes the beer you drink is also a bit of an extreme position. I wonder if this position is largely from drinkers who have come of age in an era with plenty of choices of beer on the shelf.

How an employer treats their employees is largely a smokescreen here (same thing with the comments on Apple and Toyota). Perhaps the local brewery you are so fond of is surviving because of unpaid labor. There's little doubt that the big companies would be happy with less competition. The same thing goes for a small artisanal operation. The difference is that the big companies actually have some power to do this. People wonder why AB doesn't try to make "craft" beer. Why would they when it's much more advantageous to purchase a company that does? The one weapon the little guys have is the ability to create an artisanal niche product. AB-InBev purchases are neutralizing that weapon. If someone thinks that buying beer from a big company does not negatively impact consumer choice, then they are deluding themselves. Eroding consumer choice for beer is bad for beer fans.

I currently have a Goose Island beer in the fridge. It might seem like there are many contradictions in my post, but to me there aren't. I don't view the beer landscape as "us vs them." I'm not an extremist, but it's fine if you are.

 

312 and the core products have been brewed by AB since 2011. 312 tastes just as good as always.

 

I buy beer I like.

 

It actually passed today, if I understand correctly. Regarding the rest of it, well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Cheers anyways!

 

It's the preferred American English spelling of the word humour or humor. It's derived from Greek humoral medicine which taught that a balance of fluids or humours flowed through the body and controlled human health and emotion.

 

They (distributors) still get their cut of the keg, unless it's direct from a brewery/brewpub. Maybe the margins are smaller on kegs?

 

Nice!
And it's fine to disagree, I appreciate your insight as an employee and enjoyed the discussion. Cheers dude!

 

I tried 312 Urban Pale Ale awhile ago. It was really bad. And, I don't mean it was not a good pale ale. I mean it was not a good beverage. Just disagreeable.

 

hmm Could it be that you just dont like the beer? I personally think it is tasty for the price. It is certinaly not a mind blowing beer by any means but it is drinkable and good. You not liking it has nothing to do with any change in brewing as the beer is only about a year old.

 

The growler sales will be direct, for the most part (although you're right - some pubs would probably also offer a growler service in which case the distro still gets a cut). Incidentally, margins on kegs are waaaay better. The bottle/can and carrier adds an enormous overhead.

 

Speak for yourself! I came in one day with the outside door ajar. As i rushed downstairs, i could smell a strong familiar aroma. Arriving to the room, it confirmed my suspicions; Molson and Labatt had smashed my cellar to pieces and taken away everything that wasn't smashed . BASTARDS!!

Seriously, we're passionate about beer but it's true, they didn't do anything personally to us.