Silver Eagle Boycott

1) Help me understand how you jumped to the logical conclusion that it is only the wholesalers misplacing the kegs. Wholesalers lose some kegs. They are then out their deposit (and then some more money on top of that). Retailers lose some kegs. They are then out their deposit. Nowhere Did I say that bars aren't losing kegs... just that there were no accusations. There is no need for accusations when a delivery guy and a bar manager can stand next to each other and count the number of kegs right in front of them. Maybe I've giving humanity too much credit, but I'm having a hard time imagining a delivery guy and a bar manager standing in front of 10 kegs and the delivery guy arguing there is 9 while the bar manager argues there are 10.

2) Even if all the kegs WERE being lost at the wholesale level, a change in the price of a deposit to a retailer would have no impact on that. The deposit could be $5 or $50, if the retailer doesn't lose any, they aren't out their deposit. If the wholesaler loses them, they lose their deposit (and then some, as previously explained).

Each account is held responsible. Only the accounts who lose/destroy kegs lose their deposit.

A bar does know exactly how many kegs they have from each distributor... that doesn't mean that some don't go missing. Thieves don't leave receipts. Keeping impeccable inventory records doesn't stop theft/loss, it only alerts a business to it so they can take preventative measures to stop it.

Are you accusing wholesalers of deliberately misrepresenting how many kegs are picked up and not issuing a credit back to accounts? Those would be pretty serious charges, and haven't seen anyone make them.

 

Because this is a situation in which the tiers of beer distribution are at odds with one another and somebody is going to look villainous when certain bars don't carry certain breweries, especially when they are local brands. The bars, who have a legitimate interest in not laying out more cash in deposits, are trying to win a PR campaign to gain their customers' understand and support, possibly convince those same customers to lean on the distributor and involved breweries to do something and possibly convince other craft bars to follow suit.

 

I think those bars miscalculated the public's feelings on this.

 

I'm not sure the voices in this thread represent the public or not, but certainly some interesting and well thought perspectives here. I am momentarily siding with the bars until convinced otherwise. Here's my thoughts, some of which could be wrong because I'm not working from complete information:

1. If the distributor legally has to charge the same for every keg deposit, then I blame the combination of ABI and the distributor for allowing ABI to dictate a higher price. It makes sense for bars that sell little to no ABI beers to want to fight higher keg deposits on the beers they do buy, when those keg deposits would otherwise have been cheaper. This seems to be something that should be worked out between ABI and SE (SE should have refused to pay the higher keg deposits themselves--unless they legally could not in which case that's still on them for entering into such a bad contract), and not something the bars should have to pay for.

2. If the distributor can legally charge different deposits for kegs depending on the brewer, then I blame the distributor for being lazy (or "efficient") and charging the same amount for craft kegs, where the craft brewers were not charging that same amount. Again that's unfair to craft-centric bars and I can see why they would protest that.

3. I see these keg deposits as interest free loans to the distributor, which has a real cost to the bar owners. If you put that money into keg deposits, you can't put that money into raises, price cuts, improvements to your bar, etc. Rather than MAKE more money with that cash, now it's a sunk cost. And that money also has to come from somewhere. Either the bar owner has have to give him or herself a personal pay cut every time the distributor raises the keg deposit costs or otherwise come up with that money from some other means, like increasing prices or cutting salaries/hours of employees.

4. I don't think the bar owners ever get these deposits back unless they stop selling beer from that distributor as they are constantly cycling new kegs in and out. It seems to me that with this "boycott", that is effectively what these bars are doing--getting their high dollar deposits back.

5. The only real way for the craft-centric bars to protest and force a change is not to sell SE beers by keg. And they needed to be public about that so people would hopefully understand why they are doing this.

Cheers!

 

What about the costs for the distributor as well? It costs a lot of money and time to start differentiating the kegs, as well as opening up a lot of room for error. Why do you feel a $1k cost to a bar is more important than a couple thousand in costs to a distributor?

I am still failing to see why people are ignoring the fact that (as already stated by a brewery owner and bar owner) that a distributor should put up even more risk by having lower deposit costs. It has already been discussed that breweries and distributors usually split the costs on the lost kegs. That is a lot of risk on the distributor because a bar owner does not want a higher deposit.

Negotiating contracts? Breweries set their deposits. I am still confused why deposits are not just the cost of the keg. It still seem that bars get the best end of this deal where they are only responsible for the deposit while they have no other risks. At this point, it seems that breweries should just charge the full cost of the deposit, make the distributor do the same, and then people can really stop complaining about the current structure. There is a lot of lost money on the brewers /distributors end because those deposits are not that high. And yet, I should feel bad for a bar because they have a likely less than 1k expense?

 

I'm also failing to see why this is such an issue for the bars. If the cost go up it's a one time expense for the up charge. They don't keep paying the deposit if they return the kegs, they're used towards credit for the next keg. Or they get their deposit back for a keg and use it towards the next keg, again that would be a one time up charge and the next time the deposit would be the same. It's not costing a bar thousands of extra dollars a month, unless they don't return kegs, in which case they shouldn't get their deposit back anyway. In that situation the bar losses money because they lost the keg, but the brewery also lousy money for something they had nothing to do with.

As far as boycotting a distributer goes, it really doesn't hurt ABI or any of the big breweries. It hurts all of the smaller accounts that the craft bar "supports."

 

I find myself rarely backing anything ABI or a "Bud house" distributor does, but this one I can completely understand.

 

This thread is starting to remind me of another one in which two bodybuilders argued how many days were in a week.
I'm not sure how much beer all those bars boycotting SE will be losing, but if they keep up all this "hating on the man" bullshit, they'll probably lose quite a bit of coin. Frankly this seems like another hate ABI for no reason temper tantrum and it's getting really old. It makes me want to drink more of their beer. I believe it's a disturbing trend in this country to hate on those who are successful.

 

Hating on ABI has nothing to do with them being successful. I think you know that just as well as I do.

 

Well said.

 

Well said. I'm tired of people looking for any reason to prove their disdain for ABI. There are plenty of valid reasons if that's your prerogative, so there's no need to turn every situation into another ABI "attack on craft". It's even worse when people want to defend something so bad they just blindly accept what they're told (i.e. Hay Merchant said it's true, so I should be outraged too).

 

Had my second BB #10 in as many days at FS. Thanks for not boycotting their bottles or was it trying to rid your place of SE inventory? Either way made my day. I'll continue to drink SA, Karbach, Firestone Walker and Freetail wherever I can find it as I appreciate their brews. If some pubs quit carrying those brewery's brews I'll get them somewhere else. I'll drink what I feel like drinking and frequent those who provide what I'm looking for. I have enjoyed many, many brews at FS and some at Hay Merchant, but I won't quit drinking brews I like because of some quarrel between retailers and wholesalers. Those establishments expecting me to side with them on their beefs with suppliers better think more seriously on whether they are in it to meet the needs of their customers or their own egos.

 

Still don't understand how you can lose a keg.

 

Stolen for scrap metal money from behind bars, if left unsecured. Home brewers converting them after buying keg beer from a retailer. Distributors picking up the wrong kegs. Not tracking & charging for keg hulls properly, in all three tiers and to consumer. Bar shuts down and kegs end up not being returned or disappear. Not necessarily lost, but how long are some kegs sitting behind some shed or collecting dust in a garage waiting until the next 4th of July party? (And how many of those are BMC keg shells, who undoubtedly report the highest cooperage loss)

Edit: I've even seen people relocate from other states to Texas and bring their keg shell from their former local craft brewer wondering if it's possible for them to exchange it here. You think they'll do the right thing and ship it back to the brewer?

 

Damaged kegs too

 

I don't think there is much left to say here. But if you are wondering how keg loss happens...

https://houston.craigslist.org/bfs/5052445173.html

 

Why does there have to be a "bad guy" in everything? I don't necessarily believe there is in this case. Here's what I mean:

- Some (including the bars) think AB is the bad guy. I agree with those of you that say there is nothing wrong with AB trying to reduce the amount of stolen/lost/damaged (SLD...LSD could be misunderstood ) kegs by increasing the keg deposit they charge SE.

- Some (including the bars as well) think SE is the bad guy. Although they could've handled it better on the communication front (which is a legitimate argument that the retailers have), they were pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place. It would be a bad business decision for them to assume the risk of charging a lower deposit than AB charges them. If a retailer has a keg SLD, then SE is already out $10 in addition to the remaining cost of purchasing a new keg which they possibly have committed to sharing with the brewer (as in Scott's example). In addition, (although it would get a big "HELL YEAH!" from the craft beer community) it would be a bad business decision to say "No" to AB's deposit increase when AB probably makes them A LOT of $$$. So, if you were SE, would you refuse to raise you keg deposits $10 and hack off your big money maker or raise it and hack off a handful of craft beer bars? I thought so...

- Some seem to think that the beer bars such as Hay Merchant, Flying Saucer and Petrol Station are the bad guys, because they're hurting the craft breweries they are supposed to be supporting. It is true that this may be hurting the craft brewers that use SE to distribute, but it isn't their fault that the breweries use SE. The bars are still supporting craft breweries, just not the same ones as before; that is, unless they either left the empty taps vacant or filled them with macro brew (each of which I HIGHLY doubt). The bars, also, are making a business decision: If you have the option to fill a tap from SE and pay a $60 deposit or fill it with craft beer from another distributor with a $40 deposit without affecting the variety of beer in your bar, which would you choose? With the number of Texas and national craft breweries growing so rapidly, it is definitely possible to stop buying beer from a distributor and still carry a full taplist with a wide assortment of great craft beers. And, oh...by the way, I now have 10 taps that used to have $60 each tied up in keg deposits, but now have only $40 each tied up in deposits, that's $200 freed up to spend on replacing those glasses of mine that someone "misplaced"!

As you can see, it is quite possible that NO ONE is the "bad guy" here and NO ONE needs to be publicly humiliated. It's just a series of business decisions that have been made. Unfortunately, it isn't good news for a handful of craft breweries who chose SE as a distributor. I don't mean to sound harsh, but there are always risks when you sign any contract. Something tells me that Scott and the other breweries affected understand this.

 

The bars are not bad because the boycott hurts craft breweries. Buy beer from any brewery you choose. No brewery has a right to be sold at a bar. Whatever.

The beer bars are "bad" for dishonestly framing this as a "big evil ABI/SE" thing when ABI and SE aren't in the wrong (in this situation). They are "bad" because they are dishonestly framing this as a way to help craft breweries. (Either the bar owners are actually stupid enough to not realize that the small breweries benefit from a reduction in keg loss due to higher keg deposits, or they're feeding the "craft beer aficionado" anti-macro rage as a way to drum up business. No way any bar actually thinks the boycott will benefit a single small brewery.) They are "bad" because, frankly, bars are part of the lost and stolen keg problem, and pretending like they aren't is bunk. Straight up, there are bars selling kegs to homebrewers for $75-$80 a pop, paying the $50 deposit, and managers pocket the $25. I personally know people who have bought kegs this way, and I personally know people who have sold kegs this way.

And of course by "bad" I mean, "part of the problem the boycott is trying to solve".

 

Does anyone remember the alcohol tax hike of 2014? You know, that little sales tax added on to your receipt?

Here is a little article about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least one or two of the bars in this thread increased their drink prices to "adjust" to the new taxes, when actually they just passed the cost down to the consumer, and pocketed the difference. I am a regular at many of these bars, and I don't recall a warning, or even a straight forward explanation for the new tax.

Isn't this the same "bad" business practice that the bars a protesting against while participating in the same practice?

Someone please enlighten me if I am incorrect.

 

You forgot to list kegs being stolen for use as musical instruments. Slipknot has been stealing kegs since 1999