Do buyouts really impact the beer?

BCBS seems to still be going strong. Half the posts in the "What are you drinking now" thread are BCBS or its variants. The bottle I had was great as always.

I haven't noticed a change, though most of the breweries AB-InBev have bought out I didn't really drink to begin with.

 

It's not whether they change the recipes, or interfere with the daily operation of the brewery. Some of us just prefer not to support large corporations, where it's reasonably feasible to do so. Why should I continue to go to Elysian Fields before a Mariners game, when that money is just going to Brazil? I can go to Collins Pub a few minutes away, and support local/regional companies that have a more direct impact on the area I live. If you want to buy your Nikes and Goose Island at Wal-Mart, that's your choice. It's mine not to support what I consider to be bad citizens.

There's an old homily: If you lie down with dogs, you're going to wake up with fleas. Elysian, Goose Island, et al, have made their choice where they're going to sleep.

 

It's not about bad beer it's about bad business practices and people are concerned in-Bev will eventually own enough craft breweries that they can impact the small breweries in a negative way.

 

There's two sides to it, ethics and quality. Mainly, people are just worried that profit becomes the #1 motive after a takeover, which can definitely hurt the quality of the beer itself or the brewery's creative freedom. I think it also really depends on the brewery and the specific situation though.

Of course, some people believe in trying their best to support local business that has more of a positive impact on their communities.

 

I tend to agree with you. I live in Wisconsin where we have a couple cool kids with Karben 4, new glarus, funk factory, central waters. In my heart of hearts I want all of their beer for my home state and then be able to share it with people because I am proud of where I live. But on the other side of that if a big corporation came in and decided to buy one of my favorite breweries can I really be mad at them for getting to achieve the american Dream of retiring early. If I owned a brewery that was offered one billion dollars I would sell it in a heartbeat then go start another brewery that I get to do what I want and not worry about paying bills or quotas that I would have to hit. New glarus has achieved this on their own basically where now dan Carey gets to do what he wants with the r and d beers from new glarus. They can't make the brewery that much money at only $10 per bottle and ranging from 2000-4000 bottles of production. But he has spotted cow which has paid for several expansions and now gets to do what he loves to do. Also, having an-InBev buy goose island... In my opinion bourbon county is the best bb stout on the market. Others get very close but bourbon county always has something that puts itself on a pedestal. Is it really a bad thing if ab-InBev puts so much money into the program that bourbon county is year round? I get the rarity makes it taste better and all that bs. Also the rumor of ab-InBev buying cigar city a little while back. Is it really a bad thing to have huna on every shelf in America? Does it make it less of a beer because it is easy to get now? Recipes don't change. Quality doesn't change. If it does it's probably for the better because an-InBev can afford to buy a 3 million dollar lab for every brewery they buy to make sure every ounce isn't infected. In the end do I hope my "local" breweries stay local yes. But if they don't things don't change. It's just really good beer for more people to enjoy.

 

I'm sure a lot of the changes made at each brewery is relatively secretive/not all that noticeable (before problems arise). For example, with a couple of the Bourbon County varietal infections this year, a good question to ponder is whether or not AB cut costs in the Quality Assurance area?

Besides that, however, I don't see the point in AB or any other macro beer corporations changing recipes. The whole purpose of them buying out these micro breweries is for the recipes and to get our (craft beer lovers) money! If you alienate the people who love the beer, then you basically lost the whole purpose of your investment!

For me personally, I agree a lot with what @beertunes has to say. I also think that eventually the effects of these massive buy-outs will result in negative outcomes. It's just a matter of time.

 

I am curious, thou have not seen a brewery close from the buy out like the Bush brothers (was it them or another of the old biggies that bought out their competition and closed them down ???) did years ago.
I think some of our local historians here could give some insight on the subject.

 

I am not aware of any but I don't believe in-Bev plans to buyout breweries to close them but they want to control the market. With enough clout they "could" influence distributors, retailers, bars, hop farms, maltsters etc to make terms, price, availability etc in their favor and less for the competition.

I am not saying they are doing this, planning on doing this but that is the concern and I believe it's a valid concern, wether right or wrong.

 

Thats funny, because the biggest thing in beer right now is how this years Bourbon County line up is dealing with horrible infection. Of course ppl are buying the beers (because it is the most hyped stupid release there is). But there is no denying there are problems.

 

That's the first I've heard about it.

 

I think Frank Zappa captured the difference in Camarillo Brillo: "I mean Is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?" The Mexican poncho has a handcrafted, quirky, funky aspect to it that gets lost when Sears gets its hands on it. The same with beer - it may still be a good beer but there is something going on between the beans that the bean counters can not count that gets lost and makes a difference. How many brew masters at ABInBev can you find blasting metal off the walls till the empties rattle while standing on top of a pallet of beer playing air guitar?

 

The irony of this post is glorious.

 

While I agree with the the possibility, it is without saying that the big guys have lost market share to the smaller craft brewers. This is just their way of getting in on the action that is all things micro.

Cheers

 

When 3 Sticks ran AB you did not have subsidiaries selling infected beer. You may not have liked his beer but every product was exactly the same as the one produced the day before in every brewery he ran. AB InBev is a different animal. The Busches had a mania for quality. AB InBev has a mania for beans.

 

There's good brewers who are bad at business. Inbev is like warren buffet. If your product is making $$ they want in and have the means to increase profit without changing quality.

 

They very much already do.

 

I can't disagree with you ... but I wonder if, in the sales paperwork, the former owners are signing and agreeing to non-compete clauses, in which they can't start another brewery for X amount of time. And this is not counting the ones where the ownership stays in place as the big boss of that brewery, as VP in the AB-InBev chain of command.

 

So, I was at an event the other night at a bar that was upscale but not beer focused, so there were only four choices on tap. GI IPA, Miller Lite, Blue Moon, and a local, DC Brau's The Public. It is fine that some people don't care about ownership, but I want to at least have the choice to not drink "big" beer. I went with DC Brau.

 

Given the choice to buy a local and small business owned beer and one brewed by a multi million dollar mega business -- of course I'm gonna choose small/local/artisanal. I live about 15 miles from a Redhook brewery and wouldn't be caught dead drinking a Longhammer (wow is that beer mediocre) when I can be sipping a FPPA or a Haze or even a BoomSauce (ok -- maybe not the BoomSauce).