A message from Sam (Dogfish Head) on current RateBeer changes

Perhaps Mr. Calagione could have not puffed up his boycott with pretentious reasoning. His boycott is righteous, no issue with that, but the puffed up justification of "journalistic integrity" is nearly laughable.

 

Yes, that was of course the key point of interest here on the main beer site in competition with RateBeer, whose definition of journalism is correct.

 

The argument about "journalistic integrity" might seem like a bit of a conflation, but I do believe that offering critical opinions on things is a form of journalism, or at least Journalism-lite. Also the idea of a brewery owning a stake in a website or publication that reviews beer is "icky," and calls the integrity of said site or publication into question, aside from the issue of whether or not what they do should be rightly called "journalism." I respect Sam as a brewer, and as an advocate for all things craft, and his cause is righteous. Bravo Sam! I hope more brewers will follow suit, and from Todd's post I see that some are.

As far as Rate Beer goes, I have never really been a big fan of that site. I have used it a handful of times but BA has always been my go-to sight for beer info, discussions and reviews, for years, even though I only recently signed up to be an active user. As long as BA is still independent it will continue to be my go to site. I will not even use RB causally now.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Sam’s request to be removed from RateBeer and fully support any craft brewer which follows suit.

However, I feel the primary reason should be based on how AB Inbev regards the craft beer scene collectively, rather than based on an interpretation of Journalism’s conflict of interest ethics. (Although Post #21 demostrates how RateBeer can be argued to be a form of journalism).

It’s well known and documented AB Inveb actively stifles competition by limiting distribution (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-abinbev-doj-antitrust-exclusive-idUSKCN0S623R20151012), directly funding politicians whom advance obviously biased legislation (http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2017/...r-proposes-limits-nevadas-brew-pubs/99713586/) and preventing any and all access to sought after brewing ingredients (https://beerandbrewing.com/killing-...sale-of-south-african-hops-to-american-craft/). I doubt craft beer has seen the limits on how far the monsters that are AB or SAB will go to further squeeze small brewers out, and therefore would be my basis for asking RateBeer to leave me out.

On a different note, I don’t think the purpose of the investment is to gain favorable treatment for AB Inbev brands. I feel AB Inbev's action here is a way to gain access to massive amounts of meta-data to decide where resources should be allocated to expand their ‘portfolio’ via acquisitions, and expose the most profitable current beer trends. To think otherwise, in my option, is naïve – data is everything today.

 

I will add to that my own feeling that it is part of ABI's desire to be the main American Craft Beer exporter in the world. RateBeer has far more European/foreign beer afficionados than does BA. I see it as them greasing their own wheels for that endeavor.

 

I agree with Sam. Ratebeer and other similar websites do have "journalists" and do post articles about beer, so he does have a point, even though most people use these sites to view beer ratings provided by its users. However, there's also an independence concern on the user ratings as well, since ratebeer has the ability to manipulate algorithms that show overall beer ratings and other issues. The opportunity for fraud is there because of the independence issue, and Sam's message should be taken seriously.

 

I certainly at least would like to read their reactions. Sixpoint is well represented and respected by most on BA, so their opinion would be appreciated as well. Personally, I feel RB is no match for BA, and I visit them only now and then. But, still, I feel like my mistress just dumped me for some rich guy.

 

I feel like this is extremely short-sighted, and the cynic in me thinks it's just a matter of Sam Calagione and DFH knowing who butters their bread. Craft beer fans eat this kind of grandstanding up--just look at the multiple "yeah, need to go buy some DFH!!!" posts on this forum.

Here's the thing: the idea that ABI is buying a user-review site so that they can somehow "cook the books" to make the beers they own rate more favorably is conspiracy theory nonsense. The level of effort that it would take to accomplish and the risk they would run if it were to ever be discovered is enormous. Especially compared to the expected benefit. Actual, regular old marketing, advertising, shelf space, and pricing drives purchase behavior FAR more than the scores on RB and BA. I seriously doubt that a company like ABI is thinking that way--that they can increase sales by tweaking RB scores in their favor.

More likely is the idea that they want access to the vast troves of data that RB has--deeper access than can be obtained by just looking at the site. Is that a sinister or amoral motive? I don't know, but I have a hard time thinking it is, because as someone who has deep experience with marketing, I understand that part of marketing is about finding out what customers want and doing your best to make that. It's not always about push-selling. Wanting to stay on top of trends and consumer interests seems like normal business to me. Maybe it's not as much of the grassroots, kumbaya, "beer is a labor of love and I produce what I love to share with others" that is a definite part of craft beer, but craft beer is not monolithic, either. Serious and successful business owners (like Mr. Calagione himself) are interested in making what people want to drink. It's not all just a brewer and his test rig doing whatever strikes his fancy. I suppose there is a debate to be had on whether or not this kind of data mining is "too far" for figuring out what drinkers want to drink, but I personally don't think so.

But I'm getting off course. The one thing I really want to emphasize here is that sites like RB and BA are precious resources to the craft beer community. It's sites like these that have allowed craft beer to flourish and grow--as a way to capture new fans, to grow the passion of existing fans, and to generally expand the reach of interest in craft beer, enabling it's boom over the last few decades. What RB brings to craft beer as an ambassador of the movement is far, far, FAR greater than what it loses by having a small investment from the likes of ABI. Boycotting the site, or demanding that references to your beer be removed from the site hurts the craft beer movement FAR more than it hurts ABI and their minority stake. As I said on a FB group I'm a member of, this entire bit of grandstanding has a "cut off your nose to spite your face" sort of feel to it. And it's beside the point, but what right does DFH have to the user-created content on RB or BA? That content is owned by the site, by permission of the user which was granted when they created the content on the site owner's platform. Everyone's worried about the problem of ABI having ownership stake in RB, but no one is concerned about the precedent of a brewer demanding to have his/her beers removed entirely from a user-generated ratings site?

At any rate, this is where the lack of nuance that I have lamented in other threads dealing with ABI's role in craft beer comes back to bite us. It's practically Pavlovian in the reaction--

1. Craft beer [thing] exists
2. ABI becomes involved with [thing] in some way.
3. Craft beer fans react swiftly and vehemently against [thing] and ABI by proxy.
4. Everyone feels satisfied about having pushed back against the Beer Devil.

Rinse and repeat.

To be clear: I am not shilling for ABI. They are an enormous corporation with immense resources and the kind of emotional detachment from decision making that comes with such a big company that CAN be problematic when it comes to making choices that have real human impact. But things like this deserve more consideration than just "ABI BAD THIS IS GOOD!"

RB and AB are important to craft beer. Too important to throw one of them away because a brewer we don't like has some money invested in them.

 

Who is hosting the content in this case, RateBeer or Dogfish Head? You have your analogy backwards, it would be more akin to North Carolina asking the NCAA not to hold any games in that state.

Sure. But they can't stop others from talking about them. Or do you think any brewery (or any entity for that matter) who demands that 3rd parties not discuss them and present factual evidence about them on publicly-accessible platforms should have those wishes granted? Should Wikipedia remove all information about DFH, if DFH asks them to?

 

To be fair, I respect your point. I am self-aware enough to realize that my response to AB Inbev "buying in" to any brewery or other beer-related operation is pretty Pavlovian and predictable. But that is just how I feel about AB Inbev, and its not likely to change. Anytime they do something like this, there will be BA's who boycott and there will be ones who do not care about it too much one way or the other. If someone does not care and still wants to continue buying beer from Wicked Weed or using Rate Beer, that is certainly their prerogative and I won't judge them for it. But I will continue to be driven in my choices and abstentions by these trends. I do think its important that these buy outs are noted and that the information is out there so that consumers can make an informed choice about whether to buy a product or use a service that may be owned by a company they do not wish to support.

And I do have some nuance to my actions when it comes to the breweries I intentionally avoid. I still drink Lagunitas, for example. For me its not so much the "selling out" part that gets my dander up, as it is selling to a company that I believe is hostile to the craft industry, as I certainly believe AB Inbev is.

 

Is Ratebeer a part of the Society of Professional Journalists? It seems like a group which has a set of members (hence the "Society") part and if they are a member then it would make sense to refer to their code of ethics regardless of how you personally want to define Journalism.

 

Yes, the real issue is not disclosing the purchase/sale and potential conflict of interest for 9 months. And even then only because some other web site did some investigative work and found out some critical information.

 

Many good points made. I guess my question instigated by your overall point is exactly what detriments to the beer community are caused by Sam and others choosing not to have their beers portrayed on RB.

I do see these sites as important, but not in the general and undefined way you seem to do. RB and BA are advertising arms of the industry, and our discussions, ratings, and reviews are all part of it. In any other context a company choosing a moral stand to cease placing advertising with an outlet wouldn't be seen as anything but a business move..

 

One of the most important steps in becoming a dictator is controlling the media and spinning "the truth" to meet your agenda.

If the media refuses to follow your ideas you need to discredit them, or just take them out of the equation.

If that media is user generated then so be it.

 

I find it laughable that Sam thinks ratebeer will remove Dogfish reviews from their site. These are user driven reviews, not ratebeer opinions. It would be different if this were BA where the bros offer an opinion but ratebeer doesn't.

 

Punch the keys!

 

Me thinks Sam just got a 40% increase on Inbev's buyout offer for DFH...well played.

I'm done with Rate Beer. If Inbev wants to pay me for my data in BCBS, I'll reconsider.

 

But this wouldn't need to be done through ownership. RB and BA could already be selling that information to breweries, advertisers, trade groups, etc.

Which from a user perspective is the "cost" of using the site for "free", similar to ads. Servers don't pay for themselves.

 

You left out number 5:

Mean while the "Beer Devil" is able to continue with its real plan and goals while those who would protest, etc. are distracted and ignoring the real threat.

BTW, I recommend you look at the Web Site of the organization that purchased the minority share in RB--ZK Ventures. This is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABI that was deliberately created by ABI to focus on finding or creating disruptive technology that could be used to enable/force ABI to pay more attention to adapting more nimbly to the emerging trends driving by many flavorful beer drinker's lust for something new. Nimble is not one of the strengths of large companies unless they deliberately force it upon themselves.

 

Normally, a company placing advertising in an outlet would be paying for it, so that comparison doesn't really work (outside of a brewery choosing not to advertise on RateBeer or BA or whatever, which is a totally different story). This is basically "we don't like you, don't talk about us". Not much different than if say, Koch Industries told CNN "stop running stories about us and putting information about our corporation on your website".