-The Craft Beer Blacklist-

my god

 

Cigar City has resisted buyout, specifically from AB, on multiple occasions and has said they have no plans to sell. Hair of the Dog has specifically said they have no plans to expand their operation, at all, despite the incredible demand for their product. Russian River is expanding, albeit significantly slower than their demand would allow.

I know the latter two of those aren't related to acquisition, but they support the "passion over profit" mentality that I'm referring to. There are tons of others.

 

Well we at least agree on this.

 

you named one incident that was related, brought up two unrelated situations and claim there are "tons of others" related. Would not stand up in a court of law, you may be right, but I think not. If Budweiser, et al, want to run around playing Whack A Mole with craft beers, that's their business. Not the end of the world, other breweries will pop up (some hoping they get brought out).

 

labels such as craft, micro, macro, nano etc. serve no real purpose other than to potentially, and most likely, misinform.
just drink beer that you think tastes good and forget about the other bs.

 

Lagunitas

 

Yup. Doesn't mean people have to support them if they don't like that.

 

Splitting hairs at this point, but , RR's new setup is the same capacity as its older setup. They just want to make better beer.

 

My two cents:

There is nothing inherently wrong with a large company buying or owning a small brewery. Large corporations are not bad, per se. It does, however, matter which company we are talking about.

Sapporo owns Unibroue. Does Sapporo actively lobby governments around the world in order to make it harder for small breweries and other distributors to compete? Not that I know of.

However, A-B does. A-B is a very different animal than Sapporo or even SAB.

You can say it doesn't matter who owns a brewery as long as the beer is good... But it does matter. It matters because some large corporations (not all) are using their resources to change the laws that all breweries have to abide by. It absolutely matters. Politicians can be bought: and A-B is buying them. Sapporo isn't. Huge difference.

Most consumers are too ignorant and lazy to do the research required: Who owns the brewery you are buying? What does that company do with their money? Do they have lobbyists? What are those lobbyists doing? How are their actions affecting other breweries? Yeah, it matters, you just don't know it. But if you are lazy and want to stay ignorant, then by all means, just pretend it doesn't matter as long as the beer is good. That's exactly why A-B is buying up good craft breweries. When their lobbying efforts fail in an area, they buy breweries in that area. It is no secret.

 

I know that you weren't addressing me specifically, but I would like to clarify that I don't care about the label (macro, micro, etc.). That's irrelevant to me. I care about business practices. I'm just as likely to boycott a small business as I am a large business. The taste of the product is not the only thing that matters for many on this website, as this thread has highlighted.

 

You avoided the argument I was making. I was merely pointing out that someone's 'foreign market' is another person's 'local market.' While the production of the IPhone is not local to you, it certainly is to someone else, especially the local businesses within the recent vicinity of the iPhone manufacturing plant.

 

you are correct. i was just expressing my own opinion. many choose to exert energy on who they support with their $ in terms of behind the scenes stuff as mentioned above. whatever gets you through the night. advocacy takes many forms. in terms of being an advocate for a quality product, i think I'm one of the biggest. ill let other people worry about the politics and such.

if vinny at russian river starts ****** baby seals and killing kittens, ill still walk past the protesters and go to the brewpub for pliny.

 

I wasn't avoiding it, I just didnt' understand what you meant by "different local interests".

In the case of breweries, I would rather the profit go to local brewery owners that will in theory benefit my own local area, rather than overseas shareholders of some global corporation.

 

If you really mean this, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Your moral compass may be askew.

 

hyperbole.

 

Politics will influence you whether your worry about them or not.

 

That story seemed a bit sketchy. Lagunitas owner put out a couple of tweets that he might have had a hamburger (wasn't sure) with a guy from InBev who never even asked about buying Lagunitas.

 

So your local area as opposed to someone else's local area. Got it.

I'm sure the people (brewers, manufacturers, etc.) working for Budweiser feel differently, however, along with the small businesses to which those people contribute

 

Name a "fly by night brewery". There are fly by night BRANDS. And its that simple to me. I drink whatever I want regardless of who makes it. Sure I can appreciate the local guy. If been upfront and see how hard he works to design labels, brew beer, market etc. To me the blacklist doesn't mean don't drink it. I just think trying to fool the uneducated consumer into thinking its craft is only done by the big corporations. And the reason they can do it is they have the money to pay consultants to advise them and come up with marketing plans. I'm not against contract brewing. It puts money in some of the smaller breweries hands. Sip o Sunshine being brewed by two roads etc. Its the Preprohibition Lagers of the world that irks me. Putting an inferior product in a package that will demand more money. Most of the small guys can't afford or want their product to stand on there own.

 

This was kinda fun, but I'm not turning my back on Goose Island...