Brewers Association Updates Craft Brewer Definition

I've generally read threads like these with interest for new ideas, although I have come to know the participants and their general ideas on the subject of the BA. I have even chimed in other threads.

On this site, one of the main thing the BA decides is the definition described in the OP. It's what makes headlines - well... to us beer enthusiasts.

But what might be finally getting through my skull is that there's a lot of "non-sexy" activities the Brewer's Association is doing for all brewers - like breaking down antiquated laws and proposing new laws as well as (potentially) setting professional standards and exchanging knowledge that benefits the industry as a whole, despite the size of the member.

As to the big brewers who join despite the flash of the association classifying their members, I am guessing they likely enjoy a benefit on some of the "behind the scenes" or "non-flashy" efforts that all brewers in the BA are fighting for. Maybe they take some lumps on the "craft brewing" definition, but they also advertise that [some of their brands] are different in a positive way (better). So maybe they get the benefit of the collective with their dues, and net near neutral on the "craft beer" definition.

Eh... I still fall on the side that an organization sets its ideals, and the membership affects its influence as it can towards those ideal, and if the organization no longer works for a member or matches their ideals, they can easily leave - in this case, be they "craft" or not.

 

One minor thing I'd add. There are both permanent employess of the BA (e.g., Bart Watson) and a governing board elected by the membership. Policy decisions are made by those elected board members and implemented by the permanent employees. (So consitent with your comments, it's a form of representative government of the association.)

 

There are real companies paying real money to be members of the Brewers Association. So, either all these members are foolish, or they are seeing benefit for their money.

 

Oh, I get it. I once dealt with a great number of brewers, and their take was a real mix of support and ambivalence.

 

Quick question. How do we tell the difference between the hackneyed version endlessly justifying and the version that is being forward looking and/or responsive to a dynamic and changing landscape?

 

“How do we tell the difference between the hackneyed version endlessly justifying and the version that is being forward looking and/or responsive to a dynamic and changing landscape?”

To paraphrase an SNL skit of the George W. Bush vs. Al Gore debate: Tom, I will respond to that question like it was directed to me.

The difference can be discerned on what efforts the organization prioritizes. Case in point: the whole Independent Seal initiative = hackneyed version of a bureaucratic entity endlessly justifying the need for its existence.

Non-Cheers to hackneyed versions of a bureaucratic entity!

@rgordon

 

I was speaking of a bureaucratic tendency of some organizations to continually justify their mission. With the wild nature of modern beer, any related organization would always be playing catch-up on events and players. Perhaps hackneyed was a bit too negative a word relative to the nature of their mission and the realities in the market.

 

I set my watch to see how long it would take you.

I thought you wanted to not engage in this discussion.

 

Understood and the word is fine. But given those realities you mention and the fact we are all outside the organization looking at the surface... Coping with the future and a changing world can look a lot like other things....

 

The discussion that I think is "hackneyed" is whether the BA should be professional, responsive and courteous to all of their membership including AB, Miller-Coors, etc.

You are of the mind that it is OK for the BA to treat AB, Miller-Coors, etc. differently than their other members. I am of the mind that BA should be professional, responsive and courteous to paying members like AB, Miller-Coors, etc.

Cheers!

 

Nope, that word is fine.

Cheers!

 

How do you know they aren't?

Clearly, they oppose many of the practices of the macro brewers, and also clearly their policies and initiatives are directed at improving "craft brewers" and growing their market.

If macro brewers want to join such an organization, they should not expect to completely change the mission of that organization.

If ExxonMobile joined Greenpeace, would you expect Greenpeace to suddenly embrace fossil fuels? (Not a great analogy, I know, since one is an advocacy organization and the other is a trade association.)

 

I would expect that Greenpeace would not accept their money.

Cheers!

 

It's always odd to me how hard it is for you to accept this situation. the BA has an objective, advancing the interests of smaller brewers through advocacy, research, collaboration, etc.., the big brewers choose to pay membership dues, presumably because they gain some benefit likely from the in house research etc..
I don't understand at all what your issue is? I can join the BA, a teatotaler can join the BA, anyone can join the BA if they want access to their in house data. That doesn't mean the BA has to start acknowledging and advocating for every members specific desires

 

Did you pay 'big bucks' to be a member of BA?

If you did pay 'big bucks' to join a trade organization, how would you personally like to be treated by that organization?

Cheers!

 

That's the thing, it's not about how AB-InBev or MillerCoors would like to be treated, the BA has a very clearly delineated mission and, in some respects, it is antagonistic to the mega breweries interests. If the big boys are getting duped that's on them but it's not the job of the BA to change their mission because some members might not agree with all of it. The BA researches and lobbies for small breweries, obviously some of this work benefits the big boys and they appear to conclude that the gain is greater than the cost. I still don't see what the issue is

 

And I suspect you never will.

 

well you could try to do a better job of explaining your reasoning
https://www.brewersassociation.org/brewers-association/purpose/
this is the job of the BA, they are a self organized trade organization so their self decided purpose is their sole purpose. No where in there does it say anything about being nice to or defending non-craft breweries. This doesn't change just because some of these non-craft breweries decide to become members (presumably to reap some benefit the association provides and possibly to attempt to change the purpose above).
I'll continue to look for some convincing evidence that they owe anything to AB-InCoors-MillerBev-SanMiguel but I just don't see it. agree to disagree I suppose. I certainly appreciate your contributions to the site so I guess I can forgive you one erroneous opinion

 

I have posted numerous times in this thread:

“I find it insincere of the BA to accept money from breweries like AB, MillerCoors, etc. (i.e., membership money) and not properly represent their interests as members of this trade organization.”

And:

I am of the opinion that a trade organization should properly represent the interests of all of their due paying members. Since AB and MillerCoors have multiple breweries they are paying membership dues multiple times. The Brewers Association should be respectful of that in my opinion.

I sincerely doubt I can explain things differently such that you can obtain a ‘better’ understanding here.

 

This the erroneous opinion that I don't understand, the trade organizations job isn't to represent all members, it's job is to advance the collective interest of the 'trade' (in this case 'craft' brewing). It advances that interest to take money from whoever will willingly offer it. They are not beholden to the desires of each member, instead the members choose to join after deciding they agree with the purpose (linked above)