Forget Craft. Let's Try Transparency

I can't give credit for things I don't know about. Sorry if I offended.

 

No offense. Just thought you'd like to know that others beyond New Belgium are demonstrating a commitment to the community, the environment and their customers.

 

It just plays more to the point of independent breweries contributing to their communities. I used New Belgium as an example from my experience with them. I don't see Coors doing the same things. A few years back Coors was fined by the town of Golden for contaminating Clear Creek.

 

Well sometimes it's necessary to look in the right place since lots of such efforts do not get widely publicized. In the last few years AB got lots of attention for donating canned water to help with disaster relief or the situation in Flint, MI.

As for Coors, take a look here about some of what Coors is doing.

https://www.millercoors.com/sustainability/people-and-communities/community-investment

Similar information about some of AB's involvement can be found here:

http://www.anheuser-busch.com/betterworld.html

I guess the point is if we start off assuming it isn't done, we won't find it to evaluate.

 

not all of them. do you? and wouldn't you want to? its a general statement as to how the big 3 operate with their distribution network and pushing out the small brewers for shelf and tap space. generally, small brewers and I have personally talked to quite a few in my state, are working for their own pockets and for the beer consumer to offer them a product that they will buy. just my $.02.

 

I wouldn't need to do that because I don't drink anything from the big 3 nor from the breweries that they have purchased. I know where my beer is brewed and by who, so no need for me to become a beer connoisseur.

 

I do not.

Then again, I'm not making beer purchases based on ownership, so I don't need to.

I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think that was his point. His point was that if you're going just by taste, there are beers that are produced by breweries that are owned by The High End that are just as good as beers produced by independent craft brewers.

 

See the problem with your claim that the big kids operate their distributon network is that it just doesn't fly very well. First of all most all the distributors are independently owned and a good number of them find it quite profitable to have a portfolio that includes several independent brewers as well as those of any big kid they have a contract with. For example, look through the portfolio of offerings of one of the largest beer distributors in the Philadelphia area. They are not busily pushing out anybody and in many cases it's easier for me to find beers from the independent brewers than those from of one of the big kids. Nor are the independent distributors that handle only independent brewers of flavorful beers are not pushing anybody out in favor of one of the big kids. The brewers and their beers are competing on a level playing field. People like their beers they buy them. People don't like their beers the don't buy them.

http://www.origlio.com/beers/portfolio

 

This is a really weird article. It appears to be designed specifically to tell you Big Beer™ is bad while simultaneously spreading the propaganda that Big Beer™ is great! I think the marketing team deserves a raise.

Here's how it reads to me:

Forget Craft. Let’s Try Transparency. If the beer’s good, then you don't need to worry about Big Beer™?

No one knows what authenticity is, so it's not important. Let's be proud that we've sold out to Big Beer™.

Big Beer™ is great for craft brewers, everything is easier for them. There are no more worries once you've been bought by Big Beer™. Big Beer™ will crush your competitors.

Don’t hide it. We should all post Big Beer™ logos all over our websites to show how happy we are that Big Beer™ has taken an interest in us and is making our lives easier.

I'll drink what tastes good to me, Big Beer™! And you should too because they're honest about wanting to fuck you over™.

 

So . . . you read it as more of a "Why you should sell out to Big Beer™" than "Why you should avoid Big Beer™"?

That's an interesting perspective. Just re-read the article with that in mind, and you do have a point.

 

You should fact check - website provides view to their interests globally, history of ownership and acquisitions, mission statement and more...that's just the landing page. They, Molson Coors and others are proud of what they accomplish, what they give back to support local and global communities.

 

So then since MillerCoors contract grows and malts there own barley to make Coors Banquet while almost every craft, independent or whatever the fuck they're called this week uses bagged malt that comes from big conglomerate malt producers anywhere in the world where barley is grown or pours extract our of a 12 gallon plastic barrel...how do we reconcile that?

 

I read it as both at the same time, which is why it's such a weird article, and by the end I was thoroughly confused on trying to figure out what the author was trying to say. Ultimately, I felt I had to respond more to "Why you should sell out to Big Beer™" undertones.

There's so many things going on here. I mean, it also reads as advice to brewing companies: Consumers have a right to know who owns you.

For context though, I keep coming back to the title: "Forget Craft. Let's Try Transparency". The author is arguing for transparency from Big Beer™ affiliated breweries. Here are how I read the arguments:

"When an independent brewery sells out to a larger brewery, an obvious playbook follows. Press releases note how nothing will change, including the beer. Everything is going to be the same, they coach. That’s an inviting, embracing fiction. With a sale, especially to a multi-national conglomerate, something substantial changes."

Paraphrasing...Something substantial changes, with a negative context, when selling out.

I'm going to paraphrase the next two paragraphs...
- Selling out to Big Beer™ makes life easy
- Staying craft makes life hard.

Moving on...
"And consumers have a right to know about this. If you’re a Big Beer-affiliated brewery, own that. Don’t hide it."

I don't know about you, but if I were a Big Beer-affiliated brewery, I wouldn't change where I put my affiliation after reading that argument.

So, I just couldn't comment on that.

But, the "Why you should sell out to Big Beer™" undertones caught my eye. Going back to our two paraphrased paragraphs:
- Selling out to Big Beer™ makes life easy because we're so Big.
- Staying craft makes life hard because we're fighting Big Beer™.

The paragraph for positives listed for selling out is 118 words. The paragraph for negatives listed for staying craft is 26 words. The positives listed is the largest paragraph in the whole article. Did the author really need to say how great Big Beer™ was to make his argument for transparency?

Keeping in mind the current events of the ownership of this website, I couldn't help but responded more to the "Why you should sell out to Big Beer™" undertones,

I don't know though. I could be completely wrong. The article is weird to me. The argument is terrible. The article is all over the place. All the Big Beer™ positive statements just didn't make sense contextually.

 

Just saw my first large Wicked Weed ABI truck this afternoon. Everyone in the store let out a little sigh as it drove by

 

I'm totally with you man and have pretty much the same reasoning as you when I choose what beer I drink. ABI, Miller, Coors, etc. haven't and aren't buying out smaller, successful, breweries because they care about the quality of the beer craft breweries make that us craft beer aficionados on places like Beer Advocate take so seriously and enjoy so much. They just want the slice of the overall beer market pie back that they've been losing more and more of year after year for the past 15 years or so now to the craft beer industry. 10 years ago or so until pretty recently they mocked and made fun of the craft beer movement. Now they are only interested because they know it is a profitable and self sustaining market. They had NOTHING to do with craft beer becoming as successful as it has. Quite the opposite in fact I'm sure in most respects. Its absolutely in their interest to see successful breweries like Stone, Bell's, Sierra Nevada, The Boston Beer Co., etc. that aren't going to sell themselves out to the big 3, etc., fail. I have no interest or reason to give my money to any company/brewery who's owners think in this manner.

Eric

 

Article is a good one. Just like every other product, it would be nice if you could know exactly who owns it, what it's made of, where it comes from etc. Too much bologna in this world of buy and sell, and unfortunately it's the same with bier.

 

AB Inbev is the Walmart of the beer industry. They won't stop until they've annihilated all competition.

 

When it comes down to it, BMC only cares about dollars. That's why I will not support any BMC owned brewery, regardless of how much I enjoy their beer.

 

The difference between A/B InBev and a PE or VC is huge. Not many PEs or VCs have the clout A/B does. (Reference malt/hops predation that A/B practices). Yeah they can give an independent brewer more capital, which helps for sure in the market place but they can't help quash the completion the same way A/B can. So it's not the same at all.

As for the term "craft". I've always held that the term should be based on size of brewery and Boston Brewing's continual lobbying to raise the barrels in the definition hasn't helped. But to say someone like Goose Island or Elysian are craft any longer when their beer is being made at mega-breweries is silly.

As far as an independent brewer (full disclosure: I am building a brewery) being transparent, what do we have to hide. We have investors, so what almost every brewery does. It is expensive even on a small scale. If you want good local, independent craft beer then you as a consumer should care about that. In fact, according to Neilson, you do as "independent" is the most positive of all brewery descriptors.

 

It depends upon one's motivation for having said transparency. VERY seldom do people call for transparency for transparency's sake. IMO, ownership matters ONLY if you are drawing an ethical line in the sand. Drawing that line, however, is a Pandora's Box, because then you have to look into all the business practices of each and every company that invests in craft beer. IF people think that ABI is overtly evil, they should take the time to check on the status of the other investments that their investors are making. It's only fair, wouldn't you say?

So . . . what would be your upper bbl per year limit to still be considered craft?

Business practices are business practices, no matter your size. There are large businesses that are ethical, just as there are small ones that are not.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, unless you are an investor or an owner of a craft brewery, it shouldn't matter to you what ABI's practices are. Since you are building a brewery, you might have a dog in this race. However, if the brewery that you're building is a small, local brewery (read: not a regional or national level brewery), you aren't in the same race that ABI's The High End is. You're just not in the same league, so why should you care? Their business practices will have very little, if any, effect on your brewery.