"Does American craft brewing have a quality problem?"

Steele and Gatza are definitely implying that, but that's the difference between anecdotal evidence and data. Anecdotal evidence is misleading, often by intention. The notion that 70-80% of new breweries have quality control issues because one guy with obvious bias sampled 10 beers at one event is just foolish. The idea that ten breweries which were not chosen at random is representative of anything but the choser's preference is also silly. His basis for choosing was "breweries he hadn't tried". Who is to say that there weren't also 100 great new breweries there, but he had already tried their beers? One would have to assume, given no other data, that a man who brews beer for a living has tried quite a few of the new breweries out there, and the ones he has tried are probably the ones that get the most hype, so they presumably are the better ones.

 

Who is claiming this? I interpreted it as a single (but particularly telling) example that would seem to confirm what he (and much of the "craft" industry insiders as a whole) have been seeing for years: an increase in the number of new "craft" brewers with quality problems.

 

this is an issue that the market will take care of. if you make a bad product you won't last. there are plenty of brewers doing it right. with how much competition there is these days, the industry should be glad that a few knuckle heads are out there. I can definitely think of a couple of breweries that are the ones he was talking about. I'm sure in a few years I won't see them on the shelves. the same thing happens in any industry that experiences massive growth.

 

Shouldn't the Brewers Association do everything in its power to support the industry in light of these increasing threats?

 

Your interpretation that it is telling is flawed, for all the reasons I mentioned. It is an anecdote, and anecdotes don't confirm anything. He didn't even say what the "quality" problems he detected were. All that means to me is he didn't care for them. Everyone saying something doesn't make it true. Industry insiders have bias and the only way to remove bias is with data. Are there proportionally more quality control problems, or just more breweries with the same percentage of quality problems. I know there are plenty of crappy breweries out there, but there always have been. they seem to go out of business fairly regularly too, so I don't see what the problem is.

to answer your question, "who is claiming this?" - you are

"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."

The numbers they arrived at were 70-80%.

 

Abstracting from those numbers doesnt imply 1:1 equivalency.

 

of course the brewers association should support the brewers in the association. increasing threats I don't understand. telling the world that most of the new guys make crap doesn't really seem like supporting the industry to me. all of my favorite breweries are fairly new, so it's sort of tough to swallow the notion that quality is going downhill in the craft industry

 

tell me what you meant by abstracting from those numbers, because to be it means a rough equivalency. I think to the entire world of english speakers it means a rough equivalency.

 

They abstract from those numbers to infer a general, overall increase in the number of "craft" breweries with quality problems.

 

People who reason like you is why politicians can convince the entire country to vote against their self interests. If you think you can "abstract" from an anecdote to evidence, I've got a bridge to sell you

 

I once bought spoiled milk by accident. From that I "abstracted" that all milk at all stores is spoiled.

 

Apparently the president and many, many of the members of the BA have determined that the situation is currently bad enough that "supporting" new brewers now includes telling them that they either need to considerably step up their game themselves -- or hire someone who knows how to do it for them -- lest they risk "f***[ing] it up." Perhaps it is not this advice that is the real problem, but the new brewers' (and the innumerable fanboys', homers', and bloggers') unwillingness to heed it.

 

This is a problem. Perhaps not "heeding" it, but "hearing" it. It's tough to take criticism and we tend to ignore it, become defensive, or continue what we do out of spite. T'would be more difficult to hear it if it's about an effort into which we put our life's saving. Still, hearing, understanding and learning from criticism is hugely important...just have to be willing to be kicked in the 'nads a couple times .

 

1) 10 beers is an extremely small sample size. Extrapolating results from this across the market is incredibly disingenuous.
2) Established business (Stone) thinks that new entries to the market have quality control issues? I am shocked.

Are there some new breweries that have rushed product out before all their issues have been worked out, and the beer is sub-par? Of course. Is it an epidemic? No. If 70-80% of new craft brewers had these problems, their products wouldn't enter the market. There's no way the funding would be there for that many new brewers to get their products to consumers if the problems were that widespread. Take a step back, consider the source and consider whether the info passes the smell test.

 

Except that almost all of the brewers in the U.S. don't have 35 years of experience under their belts.

 

There are many "professionals" who couldn't tell a flawed beer if it hit their mouth, much less consumers. This isn't a case of black-and-white, "This product sucks, this product doesn't." As such, there will be plenty of shitty breweries that will stay in business selling shitty beer.

But they are! Tons of breweries are opening with people in charge that have never worked in the industry. A concrete example: in the past couple years, multiple breweries opened in Nashville. Only one of those breweries was making decent beer from the start. The ones that used homebrewers took at least a year to make a consistent product... if they've even gotten there. And, to go back to my first point, I had a pint from one of the newer Nashville breweries that was so fundamentally flawed I didn't drink it, which is rare for me. I don't know if the people in charge didn't know how off it was, or if they couldn't afford to dump the batch, but it should never have made it to market. And the fact that I'm questioning if the brewer could even recognize the basic flaw speaks loads about the people making and selling beer today.

 

Just a note, I wrote my post before reading the article, in which Steele says, "please, for God’s sake, hire someone who knows what they’re doing," and the author writes, "this latest wave is different. Many new breweries are being founded by homebrewers with no previous professional brewing background," and John Harris is paraphrased with, "many homebrewers who have little to go on but the rave reviews of friends just open their doors."

 

jesskidden,

I'm confused how you could say, "with well over 2,000 breweries, the brewers should not be learning on the job," and then say, "there are now 2000+ breweries in which to learn the trade." That's OTJ training!

EDIT: I think I see what you were saying. The problem is that so many of those 2000+ breweries you mention don't have experienced brewers to teach new brewers the ropes. It would be as much of an exaggeration to say that there might as well only be Anchor Brewing, New Albion, And SN to OTJ train new brewers as it is to imply that all those new breweries are capable of doing the same.