NY Times: "Monopolizing Beer"

I'm not worried. And yes, I derive some sadistic pleasure in seeing adjunct lager drinkers pay even more for their swill.

 

While I know it ultimately makes little impact, I try to limit the amount of money I give to huge multi-national corporations. I believe dollars spent in local economies often stay in local economies as opposed to getting put in some bank or stagnant investment and collecting dust. This is my personal choice and right as a consumer. As such, I've been living ABinbev and SABmiller free for years now. I don't regret it for a moment.

 

But everyone will still buy Bourbon County, right?

 

Nearly everyone. Some cherry-picking locavores won't though, even though they contradict their values with many, many of their other purchases in life. Critique the beer in hand but not the logo on the shirt worn every day, you know. Keep it local, man, except when not. Feels good... pat yourself on the back.

 

Whenever possible. I don't care who owns it as long as it tastes like it does.

 

Ba-zing. I tried it once, liked it, and won't try for it again. There's so much out there.

 

Someone call the DoJ.

If you think 30% is high, you should look at other industries.

 

Nope.

 

Arn't these companies big enough? At what point is it enough money and control? It's quite sickining actually.

 

While I do agree with you, who decides what is "big enough"

 

Only if they brew about 100 x's more of it.

 

30% would be the global market share of a combined ABInBev-SABMiller. In the US, it would be closing in on 2/3 of the US beer market - AbInbev's current claimed market share of 47.6% + 58% of the 27% market share of the MillerCoors joint venture that SABMiller owns.

If the DoJ had allowed the ABInBev purchase of Grupo Modelo to go unchallenged in the US and the earlier AB-InBev-DoJ merger agreement did not spin off the Labatt brand in the US, ABInBev's US market share would have been closer to 53-55% today.

 

They could keep the same pricing if they went to 10 oz. cans and bottles. I bought a pack of M&M Peanuts the other day that seemed to be a short-fill. Tons of consumer products package size has shrunk.

 

Scary. In the end, though, does it really make much of a difference for the fine beer lover? Seems like so far they only have been able to "slow us down" to over 10% annual growth rate.

 

Catch 22.

 

That's right, because if you can't do something 100 percent then you shouldn't even try and are a hypocrite for doing so. This way, only consumers that have no values are really true to themselves.

 

I don't want to find out. I'd rather have the big guys battling each other than turning 100% of their attention toward craft.

 

In a declining market consolidation is always the rule. If you cannot grow the market you grow the share. Macro lagers is definitely a declining market. This leaves consumers less choice and usually higher prices. The beer industry is a fascinating scenario with the big boys losing and the small craft breweries growing. This will be an interesting scenario to watch. I am surprised the big boys aren't using more of their cash horde to go after the next level. That would be the big regional guys.

 

Anyone else anxious about a company that big lobbying the monsterous federal government to impose greater regulations on smaller or start up breweries?

I'm hearing a lot of buzz about this kind of evil currently underway in communications and internet.