Summit Brewing and Wholesale Relationship

Discussion in 'Great Lakes' started by Bravak, May 2, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bravak

    Bravak Zealot (587) Sep 9, 2014 Minnesota

    JMN44 likes this.
  2. MNAle

    MNAle Initiate (0) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    Does anyone have a link to the video he references in the letter?
     
  3. joh02034

    joh02034 Initiate (0) Jan 5, 2013 New York

    It’s really nothing more than self preservation. The death of local microbreweries will be better for them.
     
  4. Bond111

    Bond111 Zealot (708) Feb 14, 2011 Minnesota
    Trader

    Need a little more context to what is going on?
     
  5. Lorddevn

    Lorddevn Initiate (0) Mar 10, 2019 Wisconsin
    Trader

    http://tcbmag.com/news/articles/2020/april/a-storm-is-brewing-for-minnesota-s-craft-breweries

    Can’t find a video but seems she’s pushing for breweries to have the ability to sell 12oz/16oz cans out of the brewery and to give the breweries more options to try to keep them afloat. She also talked about how distributors are taking less beer due to so many restaurants and bars not selling as much, which again impacts the breweries as they aren’t moving or selling product. Also appears 49% of Minnesota breweries will close if this goes on even a few more moths without the ability to find other ways to sell
     
  6. MNAle

    MNAle Initiate (0) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    A temporary change to the law to allow breweries to sell 12-16 oz containers "to go" does not benefit the small microbreweries that are not already distributing in those package sizes.

    Of help to them is other parts of the Brewers Guild proposal regarding fees and taxes and the like.

    For our part, we can help them by shifting our buying to take-out growlers/crowlers/750ml bottles.

    There is a large middle ground of brewers who could, in theory, benefit from the 12/16 oz container change, including Summit, Surly, Lift Bridge, Badger Hill, Fair State, Utepils, et al., especially with food trucks now being permitted. "In theory" because people would still have to change THEIR habits and go to the breweries for the take-out that they can already now get at their local liquor store. Whether this is much of a net benefit to the brewery is questionable. Likely it would be a benefit to a brewery/restaurant, like Surly, but not likely as much of a benefit to a smaller operation like Badger Hill.

    I think Summit was merely trying to reassure their distributors that they do not intend to change their marketing and distribution model.
     
    #6 MNAle, May 3, 2020
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  7. MNBeer1017

    MNBeer1017 Initiate (0) Mar 27, 2013 Minnesota

    You can go to a grocery store with 50-70 other people but a brewery can’t open up and have 50% capacity to start with? Let adults make adult decisions on what they want to do with their lives.
     
  8. MNAle

    MNAle Initiate (0) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    !00%! Agree completely!
     
  9. joh02034

    joh02034 Initiate (0) Jan 5, 2013 New York

    Temporary will eventually become permanent once people in the state realize how stupid and antiquated the law is. 49 other states allow it. Distribution and liquor stores still exist there. It’s not Armageddon to allow breweries to sell 4 packs to go. Summit could’ve kept their mouth shut. What benefit was there in speaking out against a policy change that may help smaller breweries? It certainly helps me make my decision to not buy their beer anymore until they support progressive changes in the liquor laws.
     
    Bond111 and shadetree67 like this.
  10. MNAle

    MNAle Initiate (0) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    You overestimate the Minnesota legislature! :slight_frown:

    I don't pretend to know what is going on behind the scenes, but I do note that this was a letter from the brewer to the distributor, and Summit did not make it public; the distributor association did, so Summit was not the one "speaking out."
     
    JMN44 and Lorddevn like this.
  11. joh02034

    joh02034 Initiate (0) Jan 5, 2013 New York

    The letter seems to carry the tone of undermining the movement for expanded off sale for breweries, since they don’t see any potential gain in the change. If the law is changed, Summit can still operate status quo. It’s not mutually exclusive. There is obviously value in distribution and liquor stores. There is also value in buying 4 packs to go directly from the source. If their intention wasn’t for this to make it public and only to reassure their business partners, a simple phone call likely would’ve been adequate and would’ve avoided bad PR in the craft beer community.
     
    DNW620 likes this.
  12. MNAle

    MNAle Initiate (0) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    Well, I don't read it like that. It carries the tone, to me, of trying to reassure their distributor of the stability of their partnership in uncertain times.

    And, I'll say again, they didn't make it public.

    These days it seems de rigueur to put everyone in either the friend or enemy camp, with no middle ground, so ...
     
    DCP426 and JMN44 like this.
  13. BeerDrinkinGuy

    BeerDrinkinGuy Devotee (339) Nov 2, 2018 Minnesota

    Seems odd that the distributor put out this letter for all to see. Shouldn't this have been some kind of inner business communication?
    But I will add I'm not surprised Summit wont shed any tears if smaller breweries going under.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.