"Craft or crafty? Consumers deserve to know the truth"

Sam - What's the solution to the access to market issues? Is it really the big brewing companies, or is it the 3 tier distribution setup? Would you rather see restrictions/requirements on labelling for the big brewers, or would changes to the distribution setup? Or is this about getting consumers to care more about where their products come from?

 

The other side of this argument (which I suspect ABI or SABM would use) is that big brewing companies benefit the consumer by reducing the price of beer through more efficient use of labor and through more efficient distribution.

We focus a lot of taste, selection, etc as consumer benefits, but a lot of consumer likely would prefer less brands but lower prices.

 

The market share of craft breweries will remain small as long as 4 packs of beer cost $10, and a 22oz bomber of BA Stout costs $25. The market share for breweries who produce 36 packs for $15 will remain as is.

imho!

 

And this is where breweries like Sierra Nevada will have to fight the good fight for us. The gap between a six pack of macro and six pack of something like SNPA needs to shrink even more.

 

I was surprised to see August Schell listed as a primarily adjunct brewer in the BA report, since they seem focused on German styles in large degree. Maybe its their ownership of the Grain Belt brand?

 

But the "argument" as stated by otisdriftwood was simply one of "jobs", not a broader one of economics, efficiency and pricing at the consumer level BUT, even if we expand it to that, the macro side still falls short, job-wise, when other factors are equal. (DFH 90 Minute Ale, after all, is not really competing head-to-head with Keystone Light).

Take two craft/craft-ish beers that are sold at the same price segment (since that's what the thread's topic is- macro-sized breweries' faux "crafty" brands), one from a "macro", one from a small brewer.

Blue Moon - $6.99 sixpack - from MillerCoors Trenton, OH* - 560 employees brewing 10 million bbl/yr​

1 job for every 18,000 bbl.​

​

Saranac - $6.99 sixpack - from F. X. Matt - 125 employees brewing 196,000 bbl/yr (and maybe a like amount of contract brewing, so we'll even double that to 400k)​

1 job for every 3,200 bbl.​

* M-C facility closest geographically to Matt.​

 

**simultaneous smashing of glass as advocates drop their BCBS nationwide**

 

Of course people want lower prices and a lot of people wouldn't mind less brands, but part of what we are paying for is the craft of the product. It's sort of like buying an original painting versus a reproduction, though the analogy is admittedly not perfect. We go to beer festivals and breweries and actually meet the people that produce the product we are consuming. Much of what we are buying is the story, the culture, and the craft behind the product. Once the product is mass-produced (a very subjective term, more so than I think people here generally think), this is lost.

 

I'll keep buying GI as long as it stays as good as it is today.

 

I think Falls City would give it a good run.

 

Who cares who owns a brewery? If a beer is good, then its worth drinking. If its not good, then its not worth drinking.

If a big brewery buys a beer like beck's and makes it worse, then it then becomes not worth drinking.

 

Nah, way behind. Bought by Heileman in the '70's IIRC, then spun-off with/to Evansville, and then to --- Pittsburgh (I guess- do they still brew it at Latrobe)? And it's debatable whether the latter two owners would even be considered "macro" these days.

But, yeah, with Heileman buying Pabst, keeping Lone Star and Weinhard, then Stroh buying Heileman and then Stroh selling out a few years later to mostly Pabst but some to Miller, there are a bunch of brands that bounced around the Big Brewers Pin Ball Machine there in the '80's and 90's. Still few, if any, were able to maintain the fiction of being a "local beer from a local brewery" better than Henry Weinhard.

Hey, and what happened to Drummond Bros., anyway!?

 

Yes want to add on that this number is fairly typical from the data Ive seen. For craft brewers, about 3/4ths of an employee per bbl.

 

Hanzo and evilc both said great things.

That being said, I do find it slimey, the unethical business practices of these guys with their lack of transparency. Consumers in any industry have a right to know where the product is being made, and by whom. Nevermind the argument about whats craft and whats not (however the article does a good job finally breaking that term down), people are being lied to. Now with regard to the argument about whats craft and whats not, its hilarious that this Graham character said what he said..again lending to the unethical practices, this time its pretending to be something youre not, in order to increase sales and to attract a growing market.

/ethical business rant...

 

Honestly the more I read these kind of articles the less I care. I mean if a huge company can make great tasting beer I will drink it. If a tiny local company makes crap beer, I won't buy it just because it is a small local business.

 

I believe there was one more step between Evansville and Pittsburgh, but I would have to look it up.

And while its no longer "macro", its owned in Louisville again, although being contract brewed (in La Crosse, IIRC).

 

i dont think the article is disputing that...

 

Found the in between and can answer your last question, somewhat.

Falls City bought by Heileman, was brewed in Evansville and Newport, KY (former Weidemann Brewery). After Heileman announced closing of Evansville brewery, it and the Falls City name was bought out by Evansville Brewing Company.

To answer the other question, they also brewed a Drummond Bros Light. Evansville won a gold at the GABF in 1993 with Drummond Bros.

They closed in late 90s and that is when Pittsburgh Brewing bought them.

And the local owner bought the name off of Pittsburgh when they were crashing and burning.

So only 4 macro owners, Falls City, Heileman, Evansville and Pittsburgh. Although 3 other macro brewers brewed Billy Beer under a license from Falls City, so that would take it up to 7.

 

Yeah, I think I may be thinking more of Sterling's post-Heileman geneology... all them mid-West Heileman 'local-ish' brands kinda blended together in my memory, since I never lived in an area where many of them were distributed.

Altho' I was shocked recently when a friend sent me some photos he took in 1985 at the farm I lived on in the Finger Lakes, NY and there was JessKidden, sitting on the old Willys Jeep with Bob*, drinking a bottle of Sterling (!). I think I would have sworn "No", and been able to pass a lie detector test, if I'd been asked if I ever drank a Sterling Beer.

* And it still drives me crazy I can't figure out what Bob is drinking!​

Yeah, I remember it being on my list of "Revived brands" - didn't the new owner just go with the name and logo and not attempt to do an "authentic" recipe from "the past" (be it 1900 or 1967).

 

Maybe not, but it seems make a point that the public needs to be made aware of who is producing what, when my response is who cares. If Kona or Goose island can make beer that tastes good, does it matter who owns the company? Would having the owner of the brewery on the bottle make it taste different?

Personally I think this is the best possible outcome, small brewers making good beer forcing larger brewers into making good beer. This is exactly how business and competition should work. Plus I would rather have the big guys spending their money trying to make good beer rather than spending it on ad campaigns, or stupid gimmicks (cold certified cans) or giving away free crap in a case of beer.