Draw and Hold the Line

I stand firmly on the side of craft. I don't completely boycott all breweries when they take on other investers or sell out, but I draw the line when it comes to formerly craft breweries that sell out to companies that I see as actively trying to harm the craft industry. If a craft brewer sells to AB Inbev, they go on my "do not buy" list. I also no longer order supplies from Northern Brewer or Midwest. I won't be using Rate Beer anymore, either.

I see less harm in companies like pabst and I still drink Lagunitas because I do not see their parent companies as seeking to form monopolies in the industry in the way that AB Inbev does, although if I receive new information that leads me to believe those companies are malign, I will change my stance on those companies. And I still love and respect Guinness even if I buy a lot less of it than I used to.

 

I also am on the side of craft and see big beer, especially AB Inbev, as an organization whose interests and influence seek to undermine the craft beer community. Their hold over the distribution system is troubling enough, and their continued diversification into the supply chain and retail outlets will likely become impediments for craft brewers.

I am also concerned about big beer's influence in many state legislatures. While I've heard stories of their lobbying efforts to keep antiquated liquor laws that favor them in place, I am not aware of any reliable resources that detail those efforts. I do believe if there was more awareness of these concerted attempts to keep the market tilted in their favor, craft beer drinkers would stop thinking their actions are largely benign.

Additionally, having an ownership stake in a beer rating website is a rather blatant conflict of interest. What they will do with it - I've not a clue - but I've no doubt that the goal behind this purchase is strictly to promote their interests and not the craft beer community at large.

 

Nice post and thanks. Check out Pop the Cap initiative in North Carolina in and about 2005. There is plenty of info related to legislative action and antiquated laws being overcome. There is lots of reliable reporting from those days. North Carolina would never have become the brewing state that it now is without that grassroots victory.

 

what did ratebeer do?


edit: nevermind, wow!

 

People that have taken the "I drink what I like" or "my vote doesn't matter" stances remain myopic and selfish. Fortunately there is no easier or better time to enjoy non-big beer owned options.

Stick with non-big beer to support your local economy, local and regional craft options and also to support ability for those who may have limited access--i.e. rural America--to non ABINBEV options. These folks are frequently at the mercy of more limited distributors --often much larger ones with perhaps "other incentives."

 

I really like the idea of the resource for all ab-inbev and the like owned companies. Unfortunately things are getting bought up so fast these days it's hard to keep track.

 

All apologies to those that are passionate about this topic. But unfortunately, I buy what I like. I do care, and it's unfortunate that this happens, but I won't actively avoid buying any beer.

Beer is a business, and this happens. I will buy a Bud Light, Honker's Ale, or Heady Topper if I feel like it. Just like I'll buy Starbucks, McDonald's, and a coffee/burger at a local cafe or restaurant.

Ironically, almost all of my beer purchases are local and/or not likely to be owned by Big Beer. Finally, as the article states, there's little transparency surrounding these purchases, and who's to know what is REALLY going on in the background.

I fully support and sympathize with those who are trying their best to boycott these channels run by Big Beer. Best of luck, maybe I'll pour a Bud Light out for you (if someone else buys one for me of course ).

Cheers!

 

I saw the Friday, 6/2, announcement that RateBeer had sold a minority stake to ZX Ventures, "AB InBev tech-friendly growth division." I recommend Philip Van Munching's book, Beer Blast, to anyone who thinks this is a good thing. A second generation distributor for Heineken in the United States, he outlines the effects of corporatism on the beer industry post-Prohibition. His subtitle, The Inside Story of the Brewing Industry's Bizarre Battles for Your Money, say it all.

Although Van Munching does not focus of this point, it was by attacking rival brands distribution networks, that only three U.S. companies came to control more than 95% of the market by the mid-1980s with Anheuser-Busch owning a full half. Now they are all subsidiaries of international conglomerates. Given the destructive effects that industry consolidation has had on beer quality and variety in the U.S. throughout the latter half of the 20th century, I want to thank you for maintaining your independence and holding the line.

Respect Beer and Protect Beer.

 

There is something missing from your article. What about the people who sell to these "corporate" interests, erstwhile of the craft world? What about their part in this, do they have any responsibility?

To leave that out makes the hold the line argument rather weak if not incoherent.

There is no bright line between craft and corporate. It's all on a continuum, just as production is, i.e. scale can vary but that doesn't mean the product does. Anyone can make great beer.

It's fair ball not to want to buy from a big company or participate in a forum they have a piece of, but that's an individual choice. I'm all for disclosure, but usually things "out" after a while, you can't keep secrets for very long in the brewing and related fields.

It seems to me that for a generation and more people argued we need great beer, the big boys won't supply it, what's wrong with them, etc. Now that they are, we don't like that either or the various strategies they use to participate in the craft space?

Doesn't make sense.

 

Dutch brewing giant Heineken bought full ownership of California craft beer maker Lagunitas Brewing Co. in early May of this year. They already held fifty percent interest in the brewery. I think another great Craft Brewery has been sacrificed in the name of profit. Sad indeed!

 

It probably is time bring craft brewing status out in the open but will Beer Advocate's definition remain the same as the Brewers Association?

And Thanks Jason and Todd for taking the lead on this.

 

From the article:

From Sam Calagione's recent statement:

With people struggling with not calling Goose Island/Lagunitas/etc. craft brewers (due to people strongly associating the term with product), I figured that we'd see the rise of the term "indie brewer." To paraphrase the article: This is happening.

 

Naturally, I think discourse and dialogue are important to help bring to the surface reasons why Big Beer buys other breweries, what the effects of buyouts are, and how those effects incur more effects beyond the beer world.

The trick is to engage an audience beyond beer geeks, beer lovers, beer aficionados, etc. to those who may not be aware of such buyouts. Many people don't know AB is now AB-InBev. Heckfire, many think Fat Tire and New Belgium are different beers.

 

Honestly, I think this is a fair move.

But it also reveals again more trickiness in such labels. Are craft brewers who sell majority or entire ownership stakes to VC and private equity firms allowed to call themselves "Indie" brewers?

 

As a friend of mine used to say, "Well..., it depends..."

 

Thank you. A nice, concise and to the point why people should care about the craft brewer.

 

This list is a start:
http://wearebrewstuds.com/craft-beer-cut-off/