When is "big" Too Big?

Why should we be against success? There are many breweries who are content staying small, why should we have an issue with those whose goal is to grow and expand? I say good for them. I would prefer to see the craft segment grow rather than become stagnant. Once breweries stop growing that is when we know that we are in trouble.

 

Stillwater in Baltimore is a gypsy brewer. It sounds as if you're discussing SweetWater's press release.

The US industry definition (via the craft brewers organization, the Brewers Association) of "craft brewer" puts the limit at 6 million barrels. Not everyone agrees, and people are free to create their own definition - but it does make discussions difficult.

 

thank you for clarifying. my mind was blown for a second thinking that stillwater was producing that much.

 

As long as their end product to the consumer remains unchanged (getting no worse), I say grow as big as you can.

 

To answer the question in the subject line: When quality is affected.

 

I despise the fact that some people hate when a small brewery starts to expand and get bigger, more successful and more popular(well known). Like Dogfish Head or Stone. Where some people hate on them now because they are "main stream" and you can no longer be the pretentious dick saying that "oh ya I only drink Dogfish Head, I know you havent heard of them before but just know that im better then you and way cooler for knowing about them and you dont". Its not the "cool" thing to like them because my grandpa has had a 60 minute. Its the same thing that happens when your local band is playing killer music and rocking the house, then they get noticed and start making money and getting popular and you all of a sudden hate them because they are sell outs and no longer cool. I think its a joke that some people refuse to like anything thats popular just becasue it popular. That is not a valid reason. The only valid reason to start to dislike a brewery once they have expanded is if the beer suffers in quality or they start to neuter the taste to try to be more main stream. Then I say we burn them to the ground.

I know not all people are this way, Im not even saying the OP is, but a good number of people on this site are.

 

I'm completely with Supes, and it seems most others in the thread, on this; expansion is fine so long as quality is maintained and nothing gets watered down for teh masses so to speak.

 

/thread

 

When making kick ass beer becomes second to making as much money as possible.

 

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive though? A brewery should want to make awesome beer, but it is also a business that needs to make money to survive. Awesome beer should help drive profits, not have an adverse effect on them.

In other words, making the best beer should result in maximizing profit, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

If the quality of the beer stays the same, who cares. Oh damn, there is just way too much good beer floating around.

 

I do not think anyone is saying there is anything wrong with making money but when that becomes your primary objective you begin to have problems. I am fairly certain that anyone who got into this industry to get rich has found themselves rather disappointed. The focus should always be on the quality of the product first. If you make a quality product the money should follow.

 

I'll answer your question with another question: if miller made the *best* sours in the world, and utilized it's economies of scale to deliver them at about $4 a bottle, would you buy them?

 

I'll answer your question which was an answer to a question with another question. AB-Inbev is now "in control" of arguably the best barrel aged stouts available. Has that stopped anyone from buying them?

Sidenote: I realize this is a hypothetical question but I do not even thing with mass production that a $4 bottle of the worlds best sours is realistic.

 

This.

To hate on a brewery for getting big is ridiculous. Not to crush the romanticized view of craft brewers, but these people are in a business. They are making a living from their product. Most of these brewers took a big risk by getting into brewing, and probably didn't make any money for several years. Why should we stop liking them when they grow, because they aren't "cool" anymore?

 

I did not know that Founders makes more money then miller.

I guess quality ingredients and doing smaller batches doesn't effect cost as much as i thought.

 

To each their own. If Brewery A wants to stay small, good for them. If Brewery B wants to grow and capitalize on new and expanding markets and they can sustain supply and still create a great product good for them. It's the owners/brewers choice of how to distribute and market their beer. Our job, Drink it!!

Cheers!

 

Big is too big when CBS is made with this:

 

It's not necessarily about absolutes in terms of profitability. Miller generates more sales but that doesn't mean they are more "profitable." I can't really speak for what those companies actually make, but Founders seems to be doing pretty well. Demand is way higher than supply on most of their products. Massachusetts, for example, has a bottle per store limit on a beer that is sold in 4 packs (KBS)

Also, I don't really think that Miller and Founders can be put in the same "industry." Craft beer seems to function on a different plane than BMC. I know they both produce beer but the products are definitely geared toward different people and I think the growth in craft vs. the decline BMC sales this past year illustrates that. My point being comparing Founders and Miller doesn't seem completely fair.