Battle between big beer and craft beer escalates

Been saying that for a long time now!

 

The line gets increasingly blurred.

 

Especially when you're all the way in the back.

 

I've been pointing out for nearly as long as I've been participating here that the macro-owned "crafty" brands have been growing much faster than craft overall, but the prevailing view of many still seems to be that this is a "failed strategy" by the macro brewers. Clearly, it is not.

 

Me buying BCBS made me happy too.

 

Until recently, didn't Blue Moon brand alone sell more than the total of craft beer combined?

 

I don't remember the exact numbers now, but it was something like that, IIRC. They were at least far and away the largest "craft" brand.

 

I see complaints about A-B acting in a way that replicates what craft breweries do, and I wonder why it's so offensive? Craft has sprung up and flourished in large part because the big brewers left vacuums in the beer world - namely, beers that taste good, are varied in style, and carry love and creativity. If the big brewers are trying to do that now, don't we as consumers benefit?

I mean, the people who hate on A-B for making nothing but watery macro lagers are the same people who hate on A-B for trying to make something else and get in on the craft beer phenomenon.

 

That's missing the point.

People hate on the big boys because they have the money, muscle, and lack of morals that made the previous situation happen in the first place.

These companies still engage in anti-competitive behaviors that are appalling.

Sure, some craft companies have tried to do the same thing. They usually don't last too long. The big boys really don't have to worry about retribution from a community like that, because that's not who makes them their money, yet, at least.

 

That, though, is where my confusion lies. I read this article, and the "battle" between craft and macro seems to be in craft breweries purchasing (and growing) craft breweries and opening craft-beer-like establishments in highly craft-friendly cities. The anti-competitive behaviors are certainly appalling, but that seems to get less play - at least in this article - than the bigguns trying to be more crafty and buy more craft breweries.

(On a side note... that has to be the most instances of the word 'craft' in a paragraph in history)

 

They're upset because this is exactly what these same companies did after prohibition. I don't think it can have the same results again, however.

If you're upset, just don't buy their beer. Not much else you can do.

 

I think something Greg from Stone said sums this up perfectly:

"Big Beer is able to capitalize on the purchased brand’s reputation, while many consumers are too distracted to pay attention or care."

He hit it on the head, as is evidenced by the mad rush to gobble up all of the BCBS available.

 

Nope. Blue Moon today sells in the range of 2 million barrels a year - "craft" beer topped that figure back in 1989.

Niether Anheuser-Busch or the two brewers that make up MillerCoors did much buying of competitors. AB bought the American Brewing Co. of Miami in the late 1950s, but the Fed made them sell both the brand (Regal) and the brewery. After that, they went on a tear building brand-new, efficient breweries. They picked up Schlitz's most modern brewery in NY state in the late 1970s right before they sold out to Stroh.

Coors bought no one - until they ran out of capacity and bought an excess brewery, also built by Schlitz, in Memphis when Stroh started on it's long road to collapse.

Miller picked up Meister Brau and Gettleman brands (does anyone think those brands helped them rise to #2?) and bought the Ft. Worth and now-closed Azuza breweries (from Carling and Lucky Lager) but it was Philip Morris' purchase of Miller that is the primary reason for that company's success.

The brewers which tried to compete by buying dying brands and obsolete breweries all disappeared - Stroh, Heileman, Falstaff, Carling-National, International, Associated... and Pabst's survives only because they contract-brew at the efficient but excess capacity MC breweries.

 

Weird, wonder why I heard that a few years back. Thanks for the info.

 

True, but that's not sustainable unless they keep the purchased brand's quality. The infected (or not?) BCBCS and Barleywine could portend something with GI in the future, and if A-B doesn't get that stuff under control, the appeal of the purchased brand will be gone.

 

Well its kind of like the idea that Bock beer is what you get in the spring when the tanks are cleaned. :-)

Something a lot of folks repeat as if they knew what they were talking about, but without checking on the facts.

 

Exactly. It takes a pretty stupid person (or a big tax loophole) to buy something that is making a profit and then deliberately lower its quality to the point that it starts losing money for the new owner. Somehow I don't see Brito as being stupid or ABInBev needing a tax write off. (Especially given the resources they've put into upgrading GI brewing capacity.)

 

True, but Brewers pushing the envelope are going to run into issues on occasion. Goose Island had some bad Matilda five years ago when John Hall was still the owner.

Heck, even The Bruery and Fantome have had occasional issues over the years.

When wild yeast enters the equation, all bets are off.

 

If it tastes good I drink it.....