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

Well many other things are conjecture. But I think we can also include in your list that ABI had some specific goals in mind when they created Zx Ventures (If you are Carlos Brito and his ABI management team you don't put up the kind of money it takes to have a disruptive unit without some good reason). So it doesn't require very much conjecture to take the publically stated goals for Zx Ventures as accurately stating all or at least part of the ABI motivation in creating such a unit.

BTW, for some folks rationalization means finding reasons to justify something regardless of whether or not those reasons are appropriate. So instead of thinking of it as all rationalization I'd characterize at least some some of the arguments/discussion/conjectures as being rational and derived from those facts as well as a other known things regardless of whether or not they appear on your short list. For example I know of other businesses and government agencies who have deliberately created units intended for just such purposes as are stated by Zx Ventures as having motivated the funding of their unit.

For further information on the disruptive innovation thinking there is a reasonably well done write up on Wikipedia, with examples of when it has happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation#Practical_example_of_disruption

However, one fundamental thing many folks overlook is that you can't command disruptive innovation to happen. But that doesn't prevent us from fostering conditions under which it can happen (and removing the strictures under which it is not likely to happen).

 

If you still feel the need to use Rate Beer, just start every review you leave with #ABInbevisthedevilandRateBeerisnolongerunbiased

Hasn't Yelp been busted for accepting payments from companies to remove bad reviews?

Hasn't Angie's List accepted money to push people up into preferred vendor status in the ratings?

 

This is why I only use BA........

 

So now the question is how much traffic will relocate from Ratebeer to BA, curious if we will see a lot of people joining BA?

 

Brewbeast joined today. Former RateBeer user?

 

I've already written plenty of words on this issue for you to be capable of discerning the answer to your question.

I encourage you to read through the comment history on this thread, mysterious new user who joined the site today and has his/her profile page hidden to other users.

 

I don't share the same hatred for AB that others do. I happen to like a lot of their beers and have to tip my hat to their success over the last 100 years.

But, as Sam said, no brewery should have any stake in ratebeer or any other beer rating platforms. It is a conflict of interest, and although I think they are treated unfairly on beer rating websites, it will be very wrong if they start manipulating ratings in their favor.

Who knows what their intentions are though. Maybe they saw a good investment with opportunity to buy it and sell it off for a profit. But they ethically have absolutely no business operating that site for any reason.

 

As to manipulating the numbers or data, I'll state quickly (unlike in the other thread) that I disagree with people that think the difficulty and/or cost of manipulating the numbers is high. The benefit gained (like increased sales) versus the cost (like loss of a valuable data stream as people stop trusting/using the site) I cannot speak to. At least initially, I actually doubt it's worth it. But do I believe that there is no way the new partners would do this analysis? No. Do I believe if they determined it would net them enough money, they would do it? Yes.

Given those opinions, I can now make my own choices as to how to use (or not use) the site. As can all, regardless of whether you share my opinions, now that we know.

----

I hesitate to bring up the journalism point again, but I doubt I'll be the last. Feel free to skip to the next post.

I do think the concept is a stretch, but it did get me thinking about how any site as this is or isn't. I was able to come up with this, for pondering:

In a way, could a parallel be made that every user's review, which is visible by everyone else through the website, be a parallel to an eyewitness story? The site does "consider multiple sources" when determining an average rating. Forums are "opinion pieces."

If a company simply recorded your review and only allowed you to see it, then it would definitely not be journalism per this assessment. So is the decision to publicly disseminate the data make it journalism (with thousands of unpaid free-lance reporters)??

Anyhow, just a thought, though as I typed it "journalism" seems the wrong word. But media seems to fit. Reporting?

 

Since we're all doing a fair amount of speculation here I have some hypotheticals to consider.

1) How would you feel if instead selling a piece of ownership Rate Beer simply sold data directly to ZX Ventures. What if they sold their data to other brewers craft or not?

2) How would you feel if someone other than ABI bought a stake in Rate Beer? Like.... Dogfish Head? ....Stone? ...Sierra Nevada? ....Boston Beer Company/Sam Adams? ...Duvel-Moortgat? ....a private equity fund? ....Heineken? ...Constellation? ....Molson?

No answer is wrong... it's more for contemplation than anything else.

 

Very well said by DFH!

 

1) I'd have no issue with that. I'd have more of an issue if I found out anyone paid to alter the data, though.

2) I, personally, would have the same reaction: it isn't the ideal situation. I'd have the same questions about the intent of that brewery. One thing that might make a little difference is if I had examples of said buyer manipulating things improperly in the past.

 

I know, when I see this list I bristle at the idea of these sites being called "journalism", even though the American Press Institute page I quoted earlier suggests as much. I'm with you - it doesn't feel right, any more than me calling myself a firefighter when a snuff the campfire out.

That said, the use of the term "journalism" in Sam's piece is a semantic issue. The spirit of his post is that sites purporting to share unadulterated impressions of beers made by individuals just like me shouldn't be owned by a corp. who can shape the message in a way that benefits them. It might be the same if Tripadvisor was bought by a hotel chain or Yelp was bought out by a commercial landlord who owns stripmalls.

 

I think there's an "unless" here that could also apply - unless this information is clearly noted by said corporation.

 

Absolutely. Disclosure is important

 

Craig, even if the ownership structure was fully disclosed, this aspect would not be an issue to you?

Cheers!

 

To my thought, if the ownership is disclosed, I can make my own decision on how to use/trust the site. To that end, so can the whole public. I don't find the ownership inherently bad on its own, especially since there are other options out there for me (let's continue the presumption all properly disclose their ownership and there is no [potential for] conflict).

Hard to answer the question, since I don't use RateBeer for anything. I would likely at least look at other options to see if I might feel more comfortable on another site. If I had a bunch of data in RB, I might continue to rate beers there. All other uses would depend on how likely I feel the information I receive from them is skewed. I'm not sure I'd notice anything, as I doubt they'd do anything too obvious if they did anything at all - but I might use BA or Untappd as alternate/additional sources for some things.

 

If Sam's position seems weak to you, how would you feel about General Motors buying a controlling interest in Consumer Reports?

 

This just in! Dogfish Head's next beer release: "Straw Man Farmhouse Ale."

 

This, to me, is really the key point. To relate this to a different arena, scientific studies that are funded by companies/governments/institutes that might present a conflict of interest are often published in peer reviewed journals and taken seriously by the scientific community. But that's only true when the potential conflicts of interest are explicitly disclosed, which is a requirement of pretty much all legitimate academic publications.

The Mars corporation could honestly, and without any meddling, fund a well designed and executed study that shows sugar consumption isn't related to diabetes. But it would (hopefully) be self evident that it's important to know ahead of time that the sponsors were not disinterested parties.

 

Thumbs up Sam.