"Does American craft brewing have a quality problem?"

I've done many "Beer Fests" over the last few years and honestly he is right! Ten years ago I would never pour out a sample do to taste but just a few weeks ago at a state beer festival I ended pouring out at least half? Sure my palate has matured and yes there are styles I'm not particularly fond of but will try in the hopes of being opened minded and enlightened. However I know the difference between "bad" and "I don't like"...you would hope that at a festival you wouldn't be getting that much variance but rather top shelf?

I agree!

 

Hey Mitch. Have you tried any of your saisons before? Prime example right there, kid.

 

I hadn't noticed this....

 

Some do some don't.

What would be surprising with all the new breweries starting up in the last few years is if you couldn't find at least 10 out of around 2000 that have quality control problems.

Even established brewers with good reputations can sometimes have a bit of a problem dialing in their beers when they are working with an entirely new brewing system. Its not unusual from what I've seen for a brewery that moves to an entirely new set up to have to take a year or two to get their flagships back up to standard.

 

So you say 10 of 2000 (or ca. 1 of 200) and Steele and Gatza say 8 of 10? How do you explain the (huge) discrepancy, and what are your qualifications (compared to theirs) on which you base your position?

 

This couldn't be more true. I live in swfl and we've had 3 breweries open up in the last couple years. Of the three not one of them make a beer that is above average. I guess it's ok if your shooting for average, I just won't support it. I'd rather drink my homebrew and Ccb.

 

Re the first part of your question, its called "selection bias." We have an un-named beer festival, with an unknown number of breweries, with "7 or 8 of the breweries" he'd never tried before being below his standard for quality (which is also unknown by the way). We know nothing about how many 2 year or less breweries were at the festival. We know nothing about how many 2 year or less breweries chose not to go to the festival. Hence their numbers are biased in multiple ways.

Re the second part of your question I will simply say that part of how I make my living is through doing data analysis, both qualitative and quantitative, and part of that is looking at alternative explanations for reported results. Ruling out such alternatives can be essential in drawing conclusions that are supported by the data in hand.

Finally if you don't like the 10 of 2000, I'm perfectly happy to revise my comment given some objective data. You come up with a better number, show us your data, and we can talk more.

 

These are their numbers, not mine. Do you infer from Steele and Gatza's comments that the 10 samples they tasted at this particular (unnamed) beer festival -- of which they declared 7-8 as needing improvement -- are not representative of beer festivals (and new brewers) in general?

 

Yes, they should be considered unrepresentative. Until there is some basis for knowing otherwise.

Not all beer festivals are created equal. Not all breweries choose to participate. The festivals are inherently going to provide a biased sample and therefore such numbers need to be tested out using other sources of data. As you have pointed out before Portland and SE PA are not representative samples of the US beer scene.

(Edit: And neither Portland nor SE PA reprsent what you find there in your area of SC. )

(Edti2: Furthermore their conclusion that the brewers themselves didn't realize the beer needed improvement is quite consistent with the fact they were there at all. Who else is going to spend the money and time to go to a festival but someone who thinks they are doing pretty well.)

 

So, based on your background in statistical analysis, what are the chances that they would get a number like 8 of 10 when (in your estimation) the "real" number lies at around 1 of 200? Based on your numbers, there would have had to have been at least 14,000 samples there for them to to get ALL of the bad ones in their first 10 tries. Pretty astounding, right?

EDIT to your Edit2: So Steele and Gatza are "wrong" and the new brewers are right?

 

In all seriousness. I think a lot of this was talk for the sake of it. Stone certainly makes some stinkers. As do a lot of other "established" breweries.

Peruvian Morning infected 3 years in a row?
Gratitude flat two years in a row?
Deschutes bad batch of The Abyss.
The Bruery and infections.
Lost Abbey Angel's Share?? Anyone remember that?? Hello??
These are all the beer disasters I can recall, besides the only one brewery I have ever discovered that was truly making bad beer.

It's easy for all these industry leaders to step out and talk down to the little guys who haven't had the time to establish themselves. Some people could call it bullying. But to say that 80% of the breweries out there aren't doing things right, when a lot of people seem to be pleased with how things are going seems silly to me. Bottom line is that it's an issue that everyone needs to be focused on. Not just the people who are "beneath" all the cool kids.

 

You really think so? I tend to think that most people don't want to speak the "truth" (“The truth is, they’re not [awesome/good] – and we need to improve it,” Gatza said) about these places for fear of hurting the type of camaraderie the "craft" movement was built on.

EDIT: I agree that Stone, etc. make some bad beers and have QC issues. I hope that they, too, believe that they "need to improve" if they are to be fully sustainable in the long term.

 

Every new small brewery is, by definition, a startup business. The brewers and owners are entrepreneurs. They turn out a product that they believe is worthy of sale. In fact I imagine some are pretty passionate about their product. Some might say they believe their beer is awesome. After all, if it's not, why try selling it? My point is if these brewers didn't absolutely believe in their beer, they have already have failed. Sure, they should listen to criticism and feedback, but it's essential they believe in their product. Maybe their beer is not very good, but the market will eventually 'weed out' those that can't adapt and improve.

 

1) No, I didn't say the number was only 10, I said it wouldn't be a surprise if one wasn't able to find at least 10 out of 2000. That makes no claim about the actual size of the subset, the real number could easily be more than 10 but my statement leaves how many more unstated/unspecified. Consequently your question about actual probabilities, while answerable, is not relevant to what I actually said.

2) No, I didn't say the new brewers are right, I said it isn't surprising that those brewers Gatza talked to would not realize their beers were not up to someone else's standard. (BTW, did he identify himself to the brewers whose beer he sampled who seemed unaware of their falling short of his expectations? I missed it if he did or did not.)

 

To a certain degree, yes. What about all of the poor beers that Stone puts out? Anyone talking about that? They are industry leaders and are misleading consumers on a regular basis with poor quality beers that are nowhere near style parameters. It just seems like a lot of talking down to. "You. You guys are the problem. You need to get your act together. But we. We've got it all dialed in. We're the kings...and the cool kids."

I think I'd rather see presented solutions instead of just a lecture about how 80% of the brewers out there aren't that good. I mean, duh, all businesses need to stride to improve and be better. It's like saying you need to remember to tie your shoes.

Word.

 

he is just saying the 10 new breweries that were sampled can not be considered representative of the 2000 new breweries out there. the 10 breweries that Steele had never tried is definitely introducing a bias. he isn't saying anyone is wrong or right about anything but interpreting numbers

 

I understand that. But I think Steele's and Gatza's implication is that you can abstract from the numbers they arrived at at this particular festival to the greater festival (and professional "craft" brewing) landscape as a whole. Otherwise why make the statement? Why not criticize that particular festival instead of the individual beers and the industry direction?

 

The real problem here is that their unrefined palates thought it was ok to not make hop bombs smh disgusting

 

Ongoing list of beers with QC issues, compiled by BA'ers. Lots of big names on there:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub...SVVIZ0hkUDUxQVE&single=true&gid=0&output=html