Do you drink beer from macro-owned craft breweries?

So many good beers I just say no to macro brew. That being said if I'm a guest and they offer me such a beer, I won't be rude and refuse it.
Hadn't heard about Ballast Point, that's a shame. Another one to cross off the list. I was enjoying their Victory at Sea, and Pineapple Sculpin recently.

 

add Rarely to the poll. I'll drink most beer if it's free

 

I don't really care who owns a brewery.

 

I do still buy Bourbon County, but that's it. I'm not into supporting companies whose goal is to limit our choices and decide for us what we can have to drink.

 

Good beer is good beer. Has this not been discussed enough. I'm not gonna boycott a good brewery just because they sell or take on partners. Have you ever considered they need the cash? not so much for greed but simply to get their beer into more peoples hands? Spread the love!

 

some of the time because I won't turn down a friend's offer of a BP, GI, etc, if they are hosting a get together. Also, I don't really stay informed up to the minute on who has been bought by whom, so sometimes I'm a few weeks behind on not drinking certain breweries. But generally I avoid them because I don't like their parent companies.

 

I'll drink it if it's free...but I certainly don't buy it. Against my better judgement I did buy some BCBCS and BCBW this year, just to see how they were holding up now that it has been a few years since the acquisition. That'll teach me, lol.

 

If you're worried about who needs cash, those who got purchased by a multinational corporate juggernaut aren't the ones you should be worried about. Cash is generally the reason they agreed to be bought out and now they have plenty.

Good beer is good beer. If you are going to care who owns it or not, that's a personal choice. I don't fault anyone who doesn't, but I do care. That being said, with a few exceptions, most of the craft brands that have been bought out (or at least partially owned) by the big boys are decent but not great.

The craft beer alliance brands (Kona, Redhook, Widmer Bros.), Blue Point, Breckenridge, Elysian, etc. are all pretty middle of the road. And the parent companies aren't going to improve the quality of their brews - they're just going to distribute them widely and advertise the hell out of them because that's what they know how to do. I don't think that's really good for craft beer or beer in general.

 

Sometimes. I stopped drinking Breckenridge though. That sell out was a bit too personal for me to accept.

 

Why wouldn't I? If it tastes good I drink it. Also, I LOVE all the "no, except for BCBS" comments. Make up your minds!

 

Quite often I will find myself in a place where Goose Island or Bluepoint is the only "craft" option. In those cases I do drink it. Not technically macro but I do drink Yeungling also.

 

I drink macro owned if the beer is a specialty (e.g. BCBS) or if I am particularly fond of it (e.g. Sculpin).

Where I refrain is when the macro-owned product is good but basic, like GI IPA. Considering that beer, there are dozens of easily obtainable genuinely craft IPAs that are just as good if not better.

 

If I'm buying a mass produced craft beer it's Sam Adams. I love their stuff. I also buy Labatt, Molson, and Busch products all the time.

 

I nearly did a spit-take with my Bourbon County reading some of these comments!

 

My thoughts are that this has become a larger concern as Craft Beer has evolved from a small segment of the market to a larger one. I'd even say it has become a problem (insert obvious "First World Problems", remark, here) for many.

Today's Locavores have taken the ball that the organic generation had vigilantly kept and run with it, to the point that Craft Beer has merged (in larger markets) and/or is merging with the consumer and political / ecological worldview which has been pioneered for about the last fifty years.

As such, I see the emergence of a consumer marketplace which is increasingly challenging for some folks to navigate.

For instance, some of us straddle many different boundaries, interests, ideologies, and social scenes, and we want to be seen drinking the right brand in the right setting. Does that sound odd? It shouldn't: Conspicuous consumption has been a part of American culture for a long time, and even when it comes to folks exercising their right to indulge in the luxury of their own choosing, they still want to fit in with the crowd, more or less.

This is why -for instance- you see a smattering of older Gen X and Baby Boom in the Craft Beer scene (festivals, Taprooms, Beer Bars, Beer Trading), but far more younger Xrs and Millennials. To the latter Craft Beer is very of-the-moment, while to the former it is still reasonably new. Heck, I'm not quite 50 and can remember drinking Samuel Adams in high school and thinking: "BUT What will happen if my High Life-guzzlin' buddies see me drinking it? -- OH NOESSS~!"

But seriously, folks: Craft Beer as an emerging market force (rather than a mere trend) is recent, so its affect on the overall consumer market is of recent vintage, too. And likewise, for many of us who drink Macro Swill, the struggle to fit in is real.

I am definitely a "switch-hitter" (a term made famous here by @yemenmocha) and I have wondered (when sporting a snapback "Trucker" hat, and enjoying a silo of "Heileman" or "Hamm's") whether I stand out like a sore thumb while all around me, the young and the beautiful sip on Surly and New Belgium attired in the finest of couture. So, do I stand out like a sore thumb or worse -- look like a total hipster or a poser (I'm neither, I'm totally OG, yo)?

So would it be easier to drink only local True Micro and Craft beer in order to fit in? I'm old and grey and not in a metal Todd Haug sorta way, and I don't have that rockstar's good looks, either, so NO. I can't hide amongst the young and beautiful whilst I'm out on the town (which is often). Ultimately, I walk the line between all possible beer worlds.

But here's another thing along the lines of conspicuous consumption: It doesn't help that few Craft or True Micro brewers make the sort of beer I prefer (light, crisp pale lagers and pilsners) for most of my drinking -- at least not for under $12/six-pack. Full Sale's Session lager does the trick, as does Pilsner Urquell on occasion. But . . .

Back to the OP's question about breweries owned by multinational consortiums? That ship clearly sailed for me, long ago.
I drink Hamm's and Miller High Life more often than I drink Leinenkugel's, but all are owned My SABMiller.

On the other hand, I drink a shit-ton (as all the whippersnappers like to say) of August Schell and Summit -- local/regional Minnesota brewers which brew beer styles that I like and which I can often fit into my sex-in-a-Volkswagon tight budget.

For me it's 65% local/regional/"Craft", 25% Macro/MacroSwill, and 10% specialty/import.
And remember: "Small" Craft Brewers these days are between 15k and 200,000 Bbl/year.

 

Uncle Charlie and his B.A. sez:

So, what's that - around 200,000 Bbl/fortnight

 

I reckon that's 'bout right. Brewers Association and its numbers have always puzzled me.

But I figure anyone who watched their local (Summit) "Micro" grow from under ten to upwards of 200,000 without being distributed coast-to-coast is still looking at half a million kegs and wondering how that's "small".

 

I'll always pick the independently owned brewery over the macro owned brewery, but if macro owned is all there is, I won't turn my nose at it.

 

This thread again...
I will buy marco owned if the quality of beers didn't drop.