Maine Beer Company (Black Barn Program)

Everything is signaling.

 

Maybe not limited to the zero action crowd. But I think it’s associated with the little to no action crowd, where there’s only a minor cost (if any) to the person/organization (however that’s defined/gauged - which I’ll admit can be hard to pin down).

In MBC’s case I think they fall on the right side of there being a real cost to them. Are there additional benefits in advertising this? Yes of course. Virtue signaling? Not in my opinion. And I know you weren’t claiming they were necessarily either, but just stating my person opinion on them and VS™️ing in general

 

No, it is about telling everyone the all good things you do. Used to be called "billboarding" back in the day. Why do they tell us the good things they do? Because that is their business plan. If you look at money spent on social causes, employee benefits, taxes paid- Anheuser Busch has them beat.

 

I find it surprising that AB 'has them beat' on those areas. And it got me thinking why/how that could be...and then I remembered AB is one of if not the biggest brewery in the world and they are being compared to MBC. So good work there.
I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with MBC touting their ambitions to succeed in the brewing industry while holding true to their beliefs of sustainability, ethics and a consistent moral compass. If their willingness to point out the good things they are doing bothers you, you can always look the other way.

 

Virtue signaling implies that you are only doing a good dead or expressing an emotion in order to gain favor. There is a difference between billboarding and virtue signaling. Virtue signaling is more akin to humble bragging. Your main motivation for the action is to get something in return.

You claim that "bragging about doing good deals" is their business plan. "Do what's right" is certainly their brand and they do market the good things that they do. Is it their business plan? I don't think so. Why? Let's break it down. The 1% thing, maybe. Its not really that much. Now if we get into how they compensate their employees I think that clearly paints a different picture. Minimum of $18 hour, ok probably more than most breweries but nothing crazy. MBC pays 5% of the employees earnings into a retirement fund whether or not the employee contributes. Hmm, kind of interesting as even large companies known for treating their employees well don't generally do this. The last straw? They pay 100% of the employees insurance premiums. How many companies can you name that do that? Seriously, no one does that. That isn't part of a business plan. You do not compensate your employees that well just to brag about it. You do it because you believe in it. If they were only virtue signaling they wouldn't go above and beyond what most people would consider good compensation.

Certainly Anheuser Busch has them beat on the net the amount, they are also over 3600 times bigger than MBC. So not really sure what you are saying here. Do you think AbInBev pays their employees on average as much as MBC on like for like roles? Do you think they pay 5% towards their employees retirement? Do you think they pay 100% of their employees health insurance? I highly doubt it. In all honesty AbInBev probably treats their employees better on average than many breweries but I doubt they are close to treating their employees as well as MBC is.

 

So how about that Black Barn program though? I’ve had a couple pretty decent beers from it, but actually, I’m a bigger fan of their new Wolfe’s Neck IPA.

 

it is just another form of marketing. Buy our beer because we care more. Also does anyone follow up and see that they do what they claim to do? Any brewery employees out there work for a place that does things, but doesn't billboard it?

 

Pretty sure no one is disputing that it's marketing. And nothing about their ethos of "Do What's Right" screams "We care more".
I have never followed up to see if they are holding true but, I get the feeling you are a bit skeptical so maybe you could look into it and report back?

 

fair enough. I am suspicious of most of this type of thing. A restaurant in Vermont brags they pay their employees a "living wage" by adding 6% to all bills (sounds like a bad tip to me).
POPOLO’S LIVING WAGE ADJUSTMENT

in the summer of 2016 we embraced a new goal: to guarantee that all our employees earn enough to live. we’re doing this by adding a charge to each customer’s bill in the amount of 6% of their purchases. we call this charge the “living wage adjustment.”

we’ve done the math and this is what it will take to make sure everyone gets a living wage. though we may not be the first to do this, it’s still a novel concept to change the structure of billing. you can learn more about this strategy in the restaurant, where materials are available and also read our press release

 

It's not too hard to see how this could work, a quick Google gave a rough estimate as overhead + food taking up 70% of the typical restaurant cost with labor making up 30%.

If that 6% adjustment truly goes entirely to the employees, then that represents a 20% increase in the employees' total pay.

Edit: That said, it is a nice deed and good of the restaurant, but there must be other restaurants out there that just increase prices to pay the employees better and don't feel the need to tout a "cost of living" increase.

 

servers do plenty good on their own, if they are half decent and in a restaurant worth being open. The need no meddling, nor do they want meddling.

 

What exactly is the point of this whole argument? That companies should do good things but keep quiet about them? Good deeds only exist if they are done with no benefit? If I donate money to a cause and then write it off on my taxes does that negate the good done by the donation?

The 6% thing is a bit weird to me. Allagash pays their servers at the tap room a living wage but explicitly says that tips will not go to employees. They are donated each month to a chosen cause (the tips that is ). There's a good reason for Allagash to mention this because the customer should know that tips don't go to employees. That makes more sense than a random percentage added to the bill. You either pay the servers a living wage and there is no tip or you leave things as they are and you continue with tips. Are you supposed to still tip the server 15-20%? Or do you only tip 9-14%? I don't see a problem with a restaurant changing the format but it should be you either pay the price on the menu with no tip and the employees are paid appropriately or you pay a tip based on your choice. To do something in between doesn't really make sense to me and just adds confusion to the customer.

 

they won't tell you, but I will. A good server in a good place can walk out with $500 on a busy night (where they work their butts off). I think they would prefer that to any fixed "living wage" a place will tell everyone about who goes there. There are many examples of who do wonderful things and don't use that to sell more products. I won't even get into Ben and Jerrys (who told everyone that they would not make more $ as owners than the lowest employee and then sold the brand to multi-national Unilever for $320,000,000.

 

We are all well aware of what a server can make in tips on a busy night. There isn't anyone who needs to tell us that. I'm not advocating for switching to a fully wage based pay vs tip based. The only thing I am saying is that if an establishment chooses to move away from tip based pay there is a good reason to state why they are telling customers not to tip. There are also some establishments where a fully wage based pay rate might make sense and be beneficial.

Ben & Jerry were planning on taking the company private until Unilever came in with an offer. Since they were a public company they were under certain obligations to sell to the best offer, not just what they personally wanted. There were many stipulations in the purchase that maintained the values they built their company on. Now arguments can be made that Ben & Jerry's corporation have strayed from the original values they had as well as stating that they probably could have won the fight to take the company private rather than sell to Unilever. They also walked away with a lot of money. So let's say that the sale was "selling out". Did they do good for the 20 years prior? Was it a socially responsible company up until that point? Does selling out after 20 years negate everything they did? Perhaps at least they are hypocrites? If we can point to things that they did that potentially hurt their sales because they felt it was the right thing to do; would that make a difference? Is it only when people do things that help their business that its not ok? Just trying to understand where to point my moral compass.