A message from Sam (Dogfish Head) on current RateBeer changes

You are deflecting.

It WAS Calagione's main justification / base of pontification, and hence, a valid discussion point here.

 

Well actually only the superficial aspects that the site chooses to sell would be available. There is an addition level of access enabled by minority ownership that can incrase the value of the information far beyond what is likely to be filtered, knowingly or unknowingly, by the site owners.

 

Well, if you don't mind distracting attention from the critical issues than saying that someone who has editorial experience with a journalistic output is not qualified to make a judgement call and is actually engaged in self puffery.

 

I don't mind that at all! Experience does not always mean good judgment. It also does not prevent exaggeration.

Although, I would point out it was DFH's PR piece that actually did the distracting, IMO.

 

DFH can probably get their logo removed from the DFH page on RB. As info, it's easy to rate a beer without seeing it's logo.

I can't believe that RB will prevent users from rating otherwise qualifying beers. IANAL but I think DFH has no further legal recourse - hard to see how they could have one consistent with the first amendment. All they habe is moral suasion, and when you call someone unethical you pretty much lose that.

BTW I have not seen the RB forums so active in a long time, nor so much discussion of RB elsewhere.

 

Maybe, as that seems to be what AB was looking for based on this quote:

But the bottom line is we really don't know the details the minority ownership agreement, so it's speculation.

 

Yes it is absolutely speculation, but if you visit the ZK website and treat what they say there as being an honest description of their explicit purpose and goals, why the organization was formed in the first place it, the types of people they are seeking to hire, etc., it becomes a bit easier to narrow down the alternatives open to speculation.

 

Agreed. You and others said as much needed to be said about what is and isn't journalism pretty much with your first one or two sentences, in my opinion.

 

I agree. If people don't want to do those things, that is their prerogative. However, in my mind there is a difference between not buying a brewers products and refusing to participate in a community that helps drive the popularity of craft beer at large. But again, people are free to conduct themselves in a manner that they see fit.

DFH pulling out of RB isn't, in and of itself, a major blow to the craft beer community. I suppose I'm taking their action to what seems to be its intended conclusion--to cripple RB because now it is part of the evil empire, with ABI having an investment stake in it.

General, yes. Undefined, no. Sites like this, with the treasure trove of information about, not just the actual beer, but all the bits of culture associated with drinking beer, are essential to generating passion about the industry. Sites like this are what create beer evangelicals--or dare I say "advocates"--who go out in the world and tell others about what they love about craft beer and why. Sites like this generate curiosity with people who aren't "in the know" and foster enthusiasm to go deeper down the beer rabbit hole. Sites like this change apathy into curiosity. Curiosity into affection. Affection into passion. Sites like this help convert casual consumers into loyal consumers.

While I concede that a few brewers demanding (likely futilely) to have their beers removed from the site won't destroy RB, the entire idea behind boycotting is to harm the organization being boycotted. My point is that harm to RB is unavoidably harm to the craft beer industry--more than any harm that might befall ABI by way of the boycott.

I guess I disagree about categorizing RB and BA as "advertising". Typically, advertising is a paid-for asset, and it is something that allows the owner of the product being advertised to have control over the message--heck, that's why they pay for it, so that they can focus on the positives and benefits of their product, rather than whatever user WalezBroLyfe69 wants to sound off about.

Our contributions to this site and RB certainly share some of the same functions as advertising, in that it's a public message about a product (or in this case, an industry) that contributes to the promotion of that industry. But the fact that the message is not controlled by the owners of the product is a critical distinction, in my mind.

Dogfish Head isn't refusing to place advertising. But they are trying to wrest control of the message away from the users who generated it. And I agree it's a business move--in fact, that is part of my original post, that I think this is more about business for Mr. Calagione than it is about some kind of moral standard he's trying to uphold.

 

You're certainly analytically minded, but this is clearly a big stretch. I'm not suggesting that big stretches can't sometimes succeed though. The idea that RateBeer engages in journalistic activities beyond consumer reviews is also just a case of people looking for an angle to justify the approach. @shelby415 is probably unintentionally cherrypicking a quote from the American Press Institute, because if one goes to their site to look at their full approach to journalism, it really doesn't fit consumer reviews on a beer website at all. The Society of Professional Journalists represents professional journalists... and their Code of Ethics are designed so that professional journalists adhere to certain standards. Questioning Sam's logic is completely appropriate in this thread (not that you are suggesting otherwise), even if the stretch ends up working.

For the record, I respect Sam Calagione a lot. I briefly worked with him once and he conveys authenticity through and through. Regarding the RateBeer minority sale, time might tell if it was actually a good or bad thing for the beer consumer. It's not hard to imagine the possibilities either way. Personally, I'd rather not be in a position to find out if it's a good thing or a bad thing for the consumer. Playing it safe is much more appealing to me, so in my mind, this already isn't a good thing, but...

I find all of the applause from posts here to be a little crazy. Sam's comment is just noise. Noise isn't necessarily a bad thing though, but one should recognize it for what it is. I question if RateBeer was going to ever disclose this information to their user base. That's a scary thought. It's not a coincidence that it was quiet for such a long time and then a statement was issued only after a journalist () wrote a story. Noise is good too. It can have impact even though that might be its only raison d'être (). The idea that a brewer would ask to have their beers removed from a consumer generated database is ridiculous in practice. It's simply the act of asking that accomplishes what the author desires. Is there a conflict of interest in the RateBeer sale? Absolutely. Anybody can make that conclusion without outside help.

How many people patting Sam on the back are also posting about Dogfish Head in the "Early Craft Beer That Now Ain't So Great" thread... or are patting Lagunitas on the back for their beer on many shelves... or are claiming that the only thing that matters is if the beer is good... or are claiming that they don't pay attention to ratings? @herrburgess had the best comment here. These sites have always been biased against AB-InBev. If a brewer thought that the owners of this site exhibited questionable ethics and asked to have their beers removed; how would the users of this site react? People here are far more quick to boycott things that they wouldn't be buying anyway. Genuine sacrifice is a rare thing (Example post: "I don't buy AB-InBev anything except for Bourbon County once a year."). It's way too easy for us to applaud a post on BeerAdvocate that relates to dropping out of RateBeer. How many would be applauding if Sam posted here and encouraged BeerAdvocate users to stop using this site? It's possible to be troubled by the situation at RateBeer and feel that there's too much sanctimoniousness here as well. We're all in this together.

 

Well, I think smart business people can make/use advertising without paying for it, and what more genius idea than websites that give recommendations for the beers they make, and they don't have to pay a cent for the exposure? I won't even bring up the TOS on these sites as equivalent to the releases signed by people who give advertising opinions/endorsements for other things on other media.

It's all marketing in my mind, all a matter of continuing the narrative that sells the beer. This whole thing is no different than pulling ads from Bill O'Reilly IMO. No companies were trying to sink Fox with the moves, just wanted not to have their names associated with ideas they felt harmed their brands' images.

 

And this has been an issue for all special-interest or hobby magazines since way back in the dark ages of print magazines and newsstands!

I can recall similar editorial stands being taken by that late photography magazine, Modern Photography.

It is also a stand taken by more modern media outlets between ownership and editorial. Here in the Twin Cities, for example, the Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper was recently (year or two ago, perhaps) purchased by a local businessman. The newspaper's editorial stance is decidedly different from the supposed politics of their new owner, but they went to great pains to reassure their readers of their continued independence.

We really have no idea whether such is also the case at RB.

 

Amen!

Lot's of postulating on this thread (including me). Nobody posting on BA really/completely understands what ABI motives are here.

I have one additional motive in this post: Tom (@drtth) please list it as ZX vs. ZK in your future posts. I believe in journalistic integrity!

Cheers!

 

I don't suppose you'll share the specifics. Just curious.

 

Yes, that error is a bit misleading since there are both a Zx ventures and a ZK ventures.

But then I'm not a journalist so there's no violation of journalistic integrity involved, just sloppy typing/editing (or whatever). But that is not a new characteristic of some of my posts.

 

But now that ABI has partial ownership there is a conflict of interest situation here. RateBeer can not claim to be a fair/objective/impartial party (e.g., ambassador) anymore. The fact that they kept this ownership aspect a secret for so long (9 months) and only now release this information (since another website 'discovered' it) only re-enforces that RateBeer is no longer a trusted source of information.

Cheers!

 

Notice that you are assuming was, in the past, a trusted source.

 

Well, not for nothing, if it evolves into a long fight that could be the best advertising DFH could possibly get with this community of Big Beer haters. Genius move no matter how you look at this.

 

Whether you think Sam and DFH are grandstanding or working an angle here is irrelevant. Ultimately they're bringing attention to it, and that's what matters. What does BUD hope to gain from its involvement with RateBeer? Probably the same thing it's gaining from its acquisition of Northern Brewer and Midwest, and that does not bode well for the likes of us. RateBeer is dead to me now.