Brewers Association Updates Craft Brewer Definition

what is it that you don't understand about the BAs obligations? The big boys have their Brewers' Institute and the BA formed to support and promote small american brewers. There is obviously data being gathered and shared with members that is valuable to ab-inbev, millercoors, etc. and that is why they pay the dues. Do you think that the BA should stop trying to counter the advantages legally conferred to bigger breweries and thus fail the bulk of their members just to be another advocate for big breweries?

and a merry christmas to you

 

Yes, Greenpeace does not accept money from ExxonMobile. Their stated purpose is specifically set up to oppose/exclude the uses of some sources of energy production while promoting acceptance/ use of others. To accept ExxonMobile money would be contrary to their stated purposes, etc. (Not disrespectful of EM, but a violation of Greenpeace’s own integrity/reason for existence.)

Where the analogy does not fit, is that BA is not set up to oppose/exclude/kill off some sources of beer production. It is set up to promote/facilitate beer production by certain specific sources. For example, the “Independent” seal is a low cost method by the BA for helping members who are eligible and choose (at the cost to the member of label redesign) to offer a large number of their customers information those customers want to know in making informed purchasing decisions.

In other words Greenpeace exists to oppose and eventually kill off EM as it presently does business. The BA exists to promote the production of beer and the welfare/interests of their stated primary target membership, Independent brewers, who do not have a large corporate structure to back them up.

There is a difference which makes a difference.

Enjoy your Holiday season!

@MNAle

 

@drtth, @JackHorzempa, yeah, sorry. I started the Greenpeace / ExxonMobile thing. It was not a good analogy.

I quickly scanned the BA By-Laws. It appears they do not allow "large" brewers to become voting members, so these large brewers are joining knowing they will not have voting rights.

 

Not to worry, the nature of analogies is that they are all imperfect/incomplete in some way (otherwise they wouldn't be analogies ). They can be, and often are quite useful, so long as we focus on communicating successfully. It was in fact your analogy that triggered some new understanding for me.

 

Everyone here can gain by looking at it from the other's POV. Sure - if the BA is willing to accept "big beer" membership... and everyone is happy with this because everyone gets what they want out of the deal, then this is fine. AB-InBev doesn't need me to stick up for them... I'm sure they're OK.

BUT, @JackHorzempa does have a point as well.

Here is the BA's stated purpose: "To promote and protect American craft brewers, their beers and the community of brewing enthusiasts," and one of their core values: "Promoting unity among craft brewers and recognizing that we are stronger together."

They can create their definition of a "craft brewer" but they apparently do not want to limit their membership to their own definition. Brewer's dues are determined by their output. They are therefore getting a decent dollar amount from the big brewers and are probably not interesting in turning that off. People here are stating that big brewers are getting access to BA data and are therefore gaining from their inclusion. Is this not at odds with the mission statement of the BA then?

How many trade organizations are spending money on campaigns that are designed to reduce the business of one of their members?

So, if the argument that the inclusion of AB-InBev in the BA is a mutually beneficial relationship because AB-InBev is gaining info and the BA is gaining funds... and the goal of the BA is to promote and protect "craft," then don't you think that there's a bit of hypocrisy or a conflict of interest? Eh, the whole thing just stinks, but what else is new?

 

Your make some good points, and they (the BA) clearly do not restrict membership categories to their defintion of a craft brewer, consider this,

Their current membership Categories include:
Brwery membership
Allied Trade
Distributor Memberships
Craft Beer Retailer Memberships
Brewery in Planning Memberships
Individual Memberships
Educational Institution

If they are to include small independent breweries only and exclude corporate owned breweries, should they not also exclude:
Allied Trade
Distributor Memberships
Craft Beer Retailer Memberships
Brewery in Planning Memberships
Individual Memberships
Educational Institution

So to turn things around, why for example should the Educational Institutions be excluded? Why should individuals be excluded? Why should Brewery in Planning Memberships be excluded?

Pehaps what you are thinking of as a definition of membership is actually a narrower statement of organizational goals....

 

I'm aware that they include all such companies, individuals, and whatnot. I don't see how this makes them immune to the criticisms however. Their membership roster is not totally aligned with their raison d'etre. Whether or not this should matter to someone or something is up to that individual or company.

 

FWIW, that is where I am on this whole issue.

Cheers!

 

Exactly.

 

If I remember correctly, I think the BA reached out to it's members regarding the subject of this thread, and essentially looked for feedback from their members if they would be opposed to a change in the craft definition and therefore keeping BBC within that definition. I believe there was some opposition. Let's pretend that AB-InBev wasn't a BA member because of a hypothetical rule that prevented them from doing so. Let's say that the BA was considering changing this rule and once again reached out to their members for feedback. "Would you be opposed to the Brewers Association allowing AB-InBev to become a dues paying member and have access to the resources that we provide to 'craft' brewers?" I would imagine that there'd be some opposition to that too... justified or not. I think there's room for multiple POVs here.

 

Agreed.

BTW, re the "difference that makes a difference" post was intended as a comment on the failure and/or inappropriateness of an analogy, nothing more nothing less.

 

As organizations grow bigger and sometimes more powerful, administrative costs rise, and communication seems to often suffer because of factional concerns. This is the nature of politics. I know an independent brewery when I walk into one.

 

So is this whole revision due in large part to BBC's constant lobbying and complaining from the pulpit of Koch? He's infamously ALWAYS trying to include his company into all things considered independent, craft, one of the little guys, etc, crying about how he was here first and should be grandfathered in no matter what.

 

Behind the scenes - probably some of that goes on (as noted above, Koch is on the B.A. board). But in public, the Brewers Association has also stated that they also don't want to lose BBC's ~2 million barrels of "craft beer" for their annual press release about the growth of the segment, as noted in the BREWBOUND article:

Back in 2011 (when the limit went from 2M to 6M bbl), the Brewers Association's Press Release Brewers Association Announces Revised Craft Brewer Definition even noted:

 

Right which is altering an entire definition for ALL, JUST to make sure BBC is included.

 

And also to allow 100 or so other smaller operations that do some combination of brewing, cider making and or winemaking to join now if the wish to do so.

 

As auspicious as it is suspicious

 

You forgot about the Walters'! One of whom got to Colorado and brewed into the 1970s!

James Page Brwg. [MN] released a beer brewed with wild rice.
But the major blowout here was when the BA managed to exclude August Schell from its definition of a
“craft brewer” because its top-selling brew had a corn adjunct, just like it had been brewed back in 1918.
The BA got seriously dumped on for that slip-up.

The BA still needs a little assistance from the big guys.
For the Great American Beer Festival, breweries outside a day's driving distance from Denver, CO. need to ship in their beers they seek to serve. The metropolitan Denver area has a number of beer distributors, but not all of them distribute only craft beer. Some of the kegs will be temporarily stored in a cold room at a distributor which handles the megabreweries. Now - this is speculation on my part - but what if the BA's continuing contorting to define who is and is not a craft brewer causes those megabrew distributors deciding to no longer provide even a temporary storage location for the out-of-area craft breweries? Could the other Denver craft beer distributors devote enough space to handle those beers? I would state "no". Will that mean those breweries' beers will not be offered at GABF? Is GABF sufficiently big enough it could withstand the loss of those brews and still sell out all its sessions? I would state "yes", but perhaps only for that year. {"What happened to brewery <fill in blanks>?" "It could not find a local warehouse to ship its beers."}
Distributorships are still consolidating. Can {oops} a craft-beer-only distributorship take hold and be able to step into the breach?

You have to go back to the early 1990s. Back then, smaller megabrewers like Stroh and Pabst paid in to join the Association of Brewers {nee the BA}. To be honest, they were actually brewing some intriguing beers for the time. But they obviously did not sell enough, and years later after their breweries were closed or sold, wound up entering into agreements with the megabrewers. When they themselves were assimilated into the BA, their membership status came along. They were still a member of the BA. I perceive the BA does not want to kick them out, but, going back to GABF, have a codicil that the breweries which do not conform to its definition of a Craft Beer Brewer can no longer pay for a preferred location on the floor at GABF [i.e.: an aisle endpoint].
All in all, it is an interesting time to be a beer enthusiast. I will not proselytize on this post, but I know what I am doing. If you meet me, yes, you can inquire about it.

 

I suspect that, if needed, the BA could afford to rent some space in a cold-storage facility for a month. While undoubtedly an appreciated gesture by those distributors, I can't see simple logistics and handling to have much sway in the overall decision-making process.

 

Well, yeah, I "forgot" them ---- and a few thousand others , but the Walter family was pretty prolific - operating not just the Pueblo CO brewery, but also these Wisconsin breweries into the post-Repeal era:
Walter Brewing Co. - Eau Clair
George Walter Brewing Co. - Appleton
Walter Bros. Brewing Co. - Menasha
West Bend Lithia - West Bend.

Of course, the Pueblo brewery was one of dozens of breweries closed by Paul Kalmonvitz/S&P Corp. - including the many breweries of Pabst, Pearl, Falstaff (inc. Narragansett) and General.

According to the Inst. for Brewing Studies' Brewers Resource Directory for 1996-97 of the then-Big Six - Miller* (#2), Coors (#3) and Stroh (#4) were Assoc. of Brewers members, while AB (#1), Heileman (#5) and Pabst (#6) were not in 1995 (nor were the other million barrel US brewers, Genesee and Latrobe - a sub. of Labatt).

*Miller's then-subsidiary, Celis, was even counted as one of the "Top Fifty Craft-Brewing Companies". As late as 2001, Miller-owned Leinenkugel was being counted in IBS's "Top 50 Domestic Specialty Brewing Companies" (defined as "all malt or wheat beer" being in the majority of their sales).