Nice article on how AB InBev is trying to destroy good beer for higher profits

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
aubiecat said:
Although I don't drink Anheuser-Busch products I think its sad that an American company can be gobbled by a foreign company. Laws should be more strict to prevent that from happening.

So you think American companies shouldn't be free to sell themselves to a foreign company?
 
One thing, though, is that Sierra Nevada is a manufacturing company and Cargill is (primarily) a trading company. That enormous revenue figure can be misleading because a lot of it is made up of commodities they might not ever even touch (back to back). And often times they are selling commodities before they've even bought the goods themselves so while they're borrowing huge amounts from the banks, they're interest rates are very low and held very short term (probably rarely more than a few months). And take Wal-Mart; they frequently sell goods to their customers before they've even paid for it themselves (nice long credit terms).

A lot of the debt Sierra Nevada takes on would probably be for buildings and machinery and would be much longer term and higher risk. So it's more expensive and they're much more vulnerable to market conditions and could have much more trouble getting it.

As long as the market is competitive, I guess I don't care about AB InBev's style, though it is pretty sad.

Oh sure. My point wasn't to say they're in similar endeavors, more to point out that there's nothing about being big that means you are forced to go public. At least I'm not aware of any such law on the books yet. :D
 
Leffe used to be a pretty decent ale. Now it's not as dry and much sweeter. Less alcohol too. I think it's great InBev does what it does.

They will continue to make big profits but small and profitable breweries will still be able to operate around the country. One shining example of this would be Russian River Brewing Company of Santa Rosa CA.

Russian River self distributes and manages to make money.

I drank a 30 year old bottle of BUdweiser that had been sitting in my grandmothers refrigerator. It was a bit oxidized but there was a noticeable character of hallertauer hops that you don't find today.

The future of craft beer is small and profitable. Hair of the Dog Brewing is another good example of large scale brewing but not too large.

Hopefully the brewing industry will continue to grow and self distribute...Good beers today are getting harder and harder to find. Sure it's easy to find so called craft beers in abundance...but remarkably complex beers are few far and between.
 
It's so strange and lamely ironic that they own Budvar Czechvar and Budweiser. I bought and sampled Budvar Czechvar not too long ago after reading a history of the original Budweiser. But I was disappointed by it. It didn't reflect the book's meaning. InBev is like a force that is destroying beer culture and history and replacing tradition with cheap. I'm sad I will never get to taste some of these iconic, historical beers before inBev makes them more profitable.
 
InBev is like a force that is destroying beer culture and history and replacing tradition with cheap. I'm sad I will never get to taste some of these iconic, historical beers before inBev makes them more profitable.

No, InBev is delivering what consumers value. That's how capitalism works. Don't like what companies are doing? Don't complain to the companies, complain to the consumers who value a cheap, "bland" product and not iconic history.

Thankfully, consumers are changing (i.e., craft), and thus, so is the industry.
 
No, InBev is delivering what consumers value. That's how capitalism works. Don't like what companies are doing? Don't complain to the companies, complain to the consumers who value a cheap, "bland" product and not iconic history.

Thankfully, consumers are changing (i.e., craft), and thus, so is the industry.

I don't agree, sir. I don't think anyone is to blame for this. There's money to be made and it is at the expense of destroying something too few value. The sad thing isn't that most people do not care, or that greed exists, but that these beers that have a cultural place in history are exiting for ever.
 
Forgive me that I don't get all teary-eyed and nostalgic. Companies. They play a game. They make money, it gets moved around. But at the end of the day, it's the consumer deciding who makes the money, because it starts out as their money. Before InBev turns a profit, some guy, in some bar, is ordering a beer that either is theirs, or isn't.

Once they completely screw up the old brands, there will be ample space for new craft beers that respect traditions. Want to put my 4 week old Hefeweizen up against a Hoegaarden? Be my guest. Yes, they are screwing up classic brands, but it's not the brands we should respect. It's the taste. They are actually opening the market for craft beer every time they take away a local or regional brewery or cheapen a product. In fact, the bigger they get, the more space there is to be found around them.

Do I miss some of the brands I once liked? Certainly! But are they going to keep selling the less tasty Becks/Hoegaarden/Stella/Goose Island for ever-increasing prices? Certainly not. What they are actually doing is speeding up the creation of a "wine culture" around beer where experts can suss out the hallmarks of lessened quality, where the local beer can beat the InBev monster just as small wineries beat the biggest producers.

InBev's strategy is a mess when it comes to long term profitability. Acknowledge it, move on, brew better beer. People will figure it out. In fact, they are already starting to.

Some people lamented earlier how long it took craft beer to reach 5% market share, but remember, this is exponential growth. It takes MUCH longer to reach 5% than it will to reach 10%. I predict craft beer will hit 30% within most of our's lifetime. A fresh local beer will always taste better than something shipped across the country, or filtered and loaded with cheaper hops. Word will get around. As InBev milks these classic brands for all they're worth, they also seal their own coffin. As the drops in sales prove, this is already happening.

Think about Lamborghini. Sold over and over again. The brand lives, gets beat down, reinvented, and the cycle continues. Triumph motorcycles too. Indian. Bugatti. The brand is iconic, it will always be around. More importantly, innovative people will find the pieces that matter and reassemble them in ways that a company like InBev will never fathom. Let them fail at their money-grubbing scheme. Laugh at them. And be one of the first to raise a pint of BETTER beer at their expense.
 
gizmodog51 said:
here's a list of imported beers that are AB-inbev owned or
Importation and distribution for these international beers in the U.S.:
• Harbin Lager
• Tiger Beer
• Kirin
• Bass Ale
• Boddingtons
• Beck's
• Hoegaarden
• Leffe
• Stella Artois
• Löwenbräu
• Tennent's Ale
• Budvar Czechvar

this thread has hurt me cause hoegaarden & leffe were two of my favorite standby's purchased in-between kegs.....:( will now have to purchase Unibroue trois pistoles and/or la fin dumone.. most every style i have tried from unibroue has been good!

"InBev, the largest beer company in the industry, has over 250 beer brands produced and sold throughout the world. This list does not include the beers acquired from Anheuser-Busch during the great de-iconizing of 2008."

here's the link to the list: it's too huge to paste here & it blew my mind how big corporate gobbles up companies....:(

http://www.drinkamerican.us/faq/31-general/54-inbev-brands-to-boycott.html

First, Unibroue is Canadian (not sure if that matters to you). Second, I believe it was bought by Saporro.
 
I'm kind of in agreement with Sir H. I'm not sad that Bud is not as good as it was. People will stop buying it when it doesn't taste good to them. Brands will disappear if needed, and smaller craft beer companies will fill the gap with the beer people prefer. Or the macro brewers will fill the gap with a more expensive, more flavorful beer. Whatever the consumer will want to buy.

There is no beer shortage. There is an ever-increasing selection and availability. I'm looking at the bright side here. Nobody is forcing people to buy a beer that tastes worse. That is still a personal choice.
 
I don't agree, sir. I don't think anyone is to blame for this. There's money to be made and it is at the expense of destroying something too few value. The sad thing isn't that most people do not care, or that greed exists, but that these beers that have a cultural place in history are exiting for ever.

That was my point. Not enough consumers value it, thus it disappears. That's how capitalism works, for better or worse.
 
Yes it is capitalism. No it doesn't mean we should not HATE.......the EFF out of Inbev. Where's my pitchfork?
 
Yeah, I guess my point is that InBev is not some evil, greedy corporation. A corporation is just a legal entity. The employees are just hardworking folks like us trying to make a living. They get paid more if they sell more beer, so they try to sell more beer. Is that greed or simply aligned incentives?

As more consumers value quality beer, local, fresh ingredients, supporting local farmers, knowing their brewer, etc, so the industry will change.
 
Yeah, I guess my point is that InBev is not some evil, greedy corporation. A corporation is just a legal entity. The employees are just hardworking folks like us trying to make a living. They get paid more if they sell more beer, so they try to sell more beer. Is that greed or simply aligned incentives?

As more consumers value quality beer, local, fresh ingredients, supporting local farmers, knowing their brewer, etc, so the industry will change.

Where it gets EVIL, is the fact that they aren't trying to sell more beer.

They are fine with selling a little less if it is made with cheaper ingredients and yield more profits.

It is akin to Whirlpool changing all of the parts inside their washer to the cheapest possible, regardless of quality, and selling it for the same price OR MORE without a word to consumers.
 
I'm not defending them. But people are obviously still buying their beer and are largely oblivious to any changes. So if they can do more with less, great...more efficient resource allocation. I won't go in to deception, etc...I'm with you, that has no business anywhere.

But as mentioned, customers are growing wise to this and demanding higher quality. That's how an efficient market should function. As much as I love craft beer, it's not the most economically efficient way of producing beer (high fixed, low variable should mean consolidation & few firms). But people value it enough to outweigh the inefficiencies. It's really an interesting case study in economics. Too bad they're all private so I can't analyze the data, haha.
 
It will reach a point where the market will correct itself.

If I just wanted cheap and predictable I would eat oatmeal every meal.

I can't believe so many people accept the BMC "oatmeal".

Zombies.
 
But you must take into consideration another fact. Population growth.
The US population in July*1870 : 38.56 million
The US population in July 1920 : 106.46 million
The US population in July 2012 : 313.85 million


Breweries development in the period:
125_post_thumb.jpg


So the population has almost multiplied by TEN , and breweries JUST managed to come to a figure slightly above the figure of 1887.
Logically, there should be ten times as many breweries today, no?


Yeah there are the same number as in 1887, but look at the trend, a long slow decline that reached rock bottom in the early 80s, followed by explosive, non linear growth (excepting when the economy ended in 08 ish.) Somebody mentioned expecting to see 30% craft market share within our lifetimes. If the attitudes and business practices of abinbev et al. Continue, and the shift towards local/organic/craft everything continues, I think 30% could be conservative. But then again, I think I'm towards the young end of hbt's demographic.
 
The only thing that's constant in this world is change.

It's sad when groundbreaking products, like the original Czech Budweiser, are lost. But it's not only capitalism that does this. Chances are that it has changed over the years just because crops change, hops change, brewery personnel change, etc. It's inevitable that great beers will eventually stop production. It's sad, but they'll be replaced by new great beers. Someday, someone will mourn the passing of some of the products defining new styles that are coming out right now. It's the Circle of Beer.

(cue Elton John music and an orangutan holding up a bottle of beer as if it were a lion cub)
 
well, nothing too shocking there. I guess my biggest disgust is with the consumer. I think the average drinker of an AB product is not able to tell the difference in quality and then there is the cost savings in packaging. My theory is if they were buying flavored water before, they will buy it now, although if the price goes up too much I suppose they will switch to a different brand.
 
So you think American companies shouldn't be free to sell themselves to a foreign company?

Where, exactly, did I say "American companies shouldn't feel free to sell themselves to a foreign company"?
If you read the article you should be able to understand what I meant.
 
well, nothing too shocking there. I guess my biggest disgust is with the consumer. I think the average drinker of an AB product is not able to tell the difference in quality and then there is the cost savings in packaging. My theory is if they were buying flavored water before, they will buy it now, although if the price goes up too much I suppose they will switch to a different brand.

Well, it's what they like and it's in their prices range. Sad to think so many are missing out on the many wonderful flavors and textures in the rest of the beer spectrum. Unlike 20-30 years ago, most people have the opportunity to try other beers and most (yet) don't.

If you really stop and think about it, what is going wrong with the macrobeer industry is Craft beer. This situation probably happened because some people started spending money on craft beer. Thus, macrobeer sales declined. Thus macrobeer companies shareholders demanded more money, thus they get bought out and the management replaced with people who will make the shareholders money again.

If it weren't for craft beer, macrobeer would still be trying to sell more beer the old fashioned, way - With funny TV commercials and gimmicks.
 
First, Unibroue is Canadian (not sure if that matters to you). Second, I believe it was bought by Saporro.

copied from unibroue web page under topic, history:

2006
Another chapter in the story of the little Chambly-based brewery was written in October 2006 when Japan’s oldest commercial brewer, Sapporo International, purchased Sleeman Unibroue. With their profound respect for art, tradition, and culture, the Japanese recognized Unibroue as a Canadian treasure to be cherished and shared with the entire world.

this is still one one of my favorite belgian brewed ales even if brewed by canadians...HEY?
if the nipponese follow their own belief system with regard to business they will honor unibroue as a unique ale and leave it the Hell alone.:D


GD51:mug:
 
Yeah it sucks that maybe Beck's isn't as good...and I'm no fool...I'm sure they've cost engineered it some and that it is NOT exactly the same product...it's like saying that Ryan Homes builds the same product as the local mom&pop builder. but still, I'm having a hard time caring. I can go to my local beer store and choose from any of dozens of non InBev companies and any of a hundred+ brands...
 
I love commercial craft brew as much as y'all do. But being retired means making some concessions. I buy craft beer when I'm financially ahead of the game. Whern I'm not,ice beer & cheap vodka are the rule of the day. It ain't good,it ain'5t bad...it just is. Now that I have better burners for the electric stove,pm is going to rule once I get a pipeline going...:ban::mug:
 
aubiecat said:
Where, exactly, did I say "American companies shouldn't feel free to sell themselves to a foreign company"?
If you read the article you should be able to understand what I meant.

You said laws should be more strict to prevent American companies from being gobbled up by foreign companies. How can that happen without also preventing companies from selling themselves to who they choose?

The only way companies get "gobbled up" is by their owners (be those majority, or a number of minority owners) selling their share of the company.
 
You said laws should be more strict to prevent American companies from being gobbled up by foreign companies. How can that happen without also preventing companies from selling themselves to who they choose?

You are technically correct, he was saying "This aint Fair!"

I agree with both of you.
 
But how is it not fair? how do you define fair such that "owners selling their company for a mutually agreed upon price" is not fair?

It isn't fair the same way that it isn't fair if a business owner fires all of his long time employees and hires kids at lower wages.

Is it technically legal????YES

Should business owners be able to make business decisions????????YES

Does it still SUCK????YES

It is Ok to say that things should be different without citing specific laws or even thinking it through that far.

Take it easy!
 
cheezydemon3 said:
It isn't fair the same way that it isn't fair if a business owner fires all of his long time employees and hires kids at lower wages.

Is it technically legal????YES

Should business owners be able to make business decisions????????YES

Does it still SUCK????YES

It is Ok to say that things should be different without citing specific laws or even thinking it through that far.

Take it easy!

Ah, but saying something sucks is way different from saying something isn't fair. If it isn't fair to fire or lay off someone after 20 years, is it fair for that employee to leave for a different job?
 
Ah, but saying something sucks is way different from saying something isn't fair. If it isn't fair to fire or lay off someone after 20 years, is it fair for that employee to leave for a different job?

An employee leaving a company doesn't cripple the company, losing a job can be..............




;)

I think you and I are probably on the same page, and I like a good discussion, but I think we are jacking an already good thread!:mug:

Where are my torches?
 
cheezydemon3 said:
An employee leaving a company doesn't cripple the company, losing a job can be..............

;)

I think you and I are probably on the same page, and I like a good discussion, but I think we are jacking an already good thread!:mug:

Where are my torches?

Agreed, but how does that affect the fairness argument? If someone does something other than what is agreed, or promised, or even implied, then sure, that could be unfair. Not seeing how any if this falls into that category.
 
You said laws should be more strict to prevent American companies from being gobbled up by foreign companies. How can that happen without also preventing companies from selling themselves to who they choose?

The only way companies get "gobbled up" is by their owners (be those majority, or a number of minority owners) selling their share of the company.

I guess hostile takeovers are a great way to conduct business.
 
aubiecat said:
I guess hostile takeovers are a great way to conduct business.

Right, cuz that's exactly what I said. :p

Hostile takeovers are still nothing more than people selling their shares in a business, and there's no way to prevent them without legislating who people can sell their shares to, which you say you're not in favor of. So what sort of legislation did you have in mind?
 
Back
Top