The Plot to Destroy America's Beer

I had read this today at the gym and meant to post a link. I'm glad someone is more on the ball than I am.
I thought it was a good read and a good insight into how they are growing their bottom line.
I rarely drink a Becks, but one of my locals had is on special and I had a few, I thought the taste had changed (for the worst), but thought that it was due to my changing tastes not the beers. Now I'm not so sure.

 

Of the 600 or so US brewing companies that re-opened after Repeal, the two now-combined companies that make up the other half of the US Big Two, MillerCoors, were relatively small and didn't even come close to the half million barrel mark which would have put them close to the Top Ten US brewers. Miller had climbed to #18 by 1940 (and were only at #4 in Milwaukee alone).

25 years after Repeal in '58, Miller was #11 and Coors had risen to #18 and the so-called "BMC" brewing companies had 12½% of the US market. The so-called "BMC" Big 3 dominance of the US brewing industry wouldn't come about until 1990.

After Repeal, 15-20% of US beer production was ale - so, 3 to 4 times larger than today's "craft beer" percentage of the market (and that's not counting dark lagers and seasonal bocks that many lager brewers still routinely offered).

In 1934, based on total industry usage, the average barrel of beer contained 13.8 pounds of adjuncts (corn, sugar/syrup and rice) compared to 38 pounds of barley malt. That was actually a higher barley malt ratio than before WWI's grain rationing and Prohibition, when the industry average was 35.8 lbs/bbl. barley malt vs. 17.1 lbs of corn/sugar-syrup/rice/"other grains".

All-malt beers, though they did exist, were relatively rare in the 20th century US brewing industry in the years before and after Prohibition.

Point is, the history of beer in the US in the 20th century is not so simple.

 

Kind of a bleak picture being painted.

 

True that. It's amusing to see how many people will speak out against BMC here, but when Goose Island comes up it's all, "If it tastes good, who cares who makes it?"

 

If a delicious beer is available at a great price I am ready to buy it. For me, not buying BMC has almost nothing to do with their ruthless pursuit of shelfspace dominance, but the taste of what they sell.

 

Many years ago (pre-1985 or so) it was pretty good. The quality of the German Beck's was in a long decline before the St. Louis knockoff was dreamed of. Spaten too. Twenty years ago, it was one of my 3 favorite brands, and the Oktoberfest was great as recently as 1999. Now it's bland, stale garbage. There are bean counters in Germany too.

 

I thought this article was interesting also (from 2006):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114601602889736048.html?mod=hps_us_pageone

After Making Beer Ever Lighter, Anheuser Faces a New Palate Seeking Mass Appeal, Brewer For Years Cut Bitterness; Now Drinkers Want MoreDrinkability vs. Fat Squirrels

Nothing that surprises, but it's always interesting to get a sense of how the big breweries operate behind the scenes (or behind all of the marketing), especially when it comes to the actual beer they produce. It may be bland tasting (though I wouldn't say bad tasting since I enjoy most lagers), but it's hardly a product of happenstance.

 

In defense of "bean counters", how do you think SN delivers at such a good price point? Good "bean counters" is a major part of the answer.

 

I won't buy GI anymore now that they are owned by Inbev. <shrug>

 

I urge all to follow in your most admirable footsteps, especially regarding BCBS Coffee

 

You can have my share.

 

Did they think the Becks drinkers would not notice a change in taste, or do they just not care.

 

Funny...when every I hear anyone talk bad about GI they get blasted on this site. I will never purchase a GI product on principle.

 

I already took it.

 

This is exactly how I feel. FWIW, I stick up for Redhook as much as I do Goose Island -- let alone Spaten.

 

Very good point about SN. They continue to get better as they get bigger. Bean counting is obviously necessary, but it should be balanced by other considerations. I think SN asks, "How can we keep costs reasonable without sacrificing quality"? while Inbev just asks, "How can we cut costs"? Very short sighted, IMO. My hope is that someday SN will be big enough to buy Inbev (though Inbev's behavior is a big shot in the arm to craft beer, and probably wine too, as their quality continues to decline).

 

Dan and Deb will want to retire eventually. Given that they could probably sell today for $50+ million (the new facility alone is worth $20+ million), there probably aren't to many individuals who have that kind of spare cash and the desire to own a brewery, which means that it would most likely be a private investment firm that buys them. Once an investment firm has a hold of them, all it takes is for AB or MillerCoors to come along and offer them the right amount and the investment firm will sell.

It's not something we as beer geeks want to think about, but the "first generation" craft beer owners like the Careys and the Grossmans are going to have to sell eventually, and the price tags will be higher than anyone below "the 1%" can afford.

 

Grossman is trying to groom his kids to take over, Brian is going to be leading the NC brewery. I kinda doubt they'll provide quite the same vision or work-ethic as Ken though, so we'll see what happens.

 

I am curious if that is the actual reason, or if it is just AB-Inbev deciding to not promote Beck's as much compared to more profitable brands. I mean if they are promoting Beck's less, doing less advertising and getting it into fewer bars and stores of course sales are going to be down. I read a book awhile back about Canadian beer, and how when Interbrew (no AB-InBev) bought Labatt, sales of Labatt Blue started to decline, mostly because the parent company decided to dial back on the marketing of Blue and instead spend more money marketing Stella Artrois which was a more profitable brand.