Big breweries using small names to conceal themselves?

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.
While everyone is arguing the finer points of their views in this matter the fact remains, in the State of Florida the three tier distribution system up until about 10 or so years ago was manipulated and controlled by the BMC lobbyists to the point that we couldn't buy beer here in containers other than 12, 16, or 32 ounce sizes unless it was kegged. This was pushed for by the BMC lobby way back when and they successfully kept it that way through lobbying and $$ until the turn of the century. This effectively limited the consumer choices by making it illegal to sell imports or craft beers that were not packaged that way. I get that they're all in it to make money and maybe I'm a bit naive as to the predatory nature of business, but I will go out of my way not to spend my money to support these practices and those who perpetuate them.
 
This is an amazing thread. Really good discussion going on here. Pilgarlic I like your argument about the big guys just acting "rationally" and I also like Revvy's points too. I drink the beer that I want to drink at the moment. I don't think too deeply about it. If BMC are taking advantage of the system its only because the system is set up in a way that they can do so. If Sierra Nevada or Stone had the ability to do the things that BMC does, they probably would. This has been brought up before but it all comes down to making money, thats the point of opening a business.
 
Gila, if a company has grown "fairly and squarely", and out competed everyone else by driving down costs and smart marketing, with such great success that it comes to a position that it wields market power, does that call for government intervention?

If scrutinized and proven to have been done "fairly and squarely", no. Said company has "fairly and squarely" earned it's market share. If the market power that results from having such a large share is wielded equally fairly and squarely then that company has also earned the right to that power.

To elaborate,

Say Sierra Nevada is due for contract renewal with Barley Farm X and BMC flexes it's market power and proposes a legitimate offer to BFX so sweet that BMC secures the entire crop thus resulting in a legal non-renewal for SN. Then so be it. They have earned that power.

However, if it is proven that BMC used that power solely to eliminate SN's supplly resource and is in fact found guilty of "dumping" the crop (say into the feed market) because they actually have no need for it, well then THAT abuse of power should be regulated. And if it isn't, then the agency responsible for the regulation should be scrutinized and held accountable for non-enforcement.

Let's not confuse the issue with corruption (which certainly exists in the beer markets). Does market power in and of itself call for regulation in your opinion?

Not when it is built upon and maintained solely by consumer selection under the watchful eye of a truely unbiased regulatory system.
 
....but I will go out of my way not to spend my money to support these practices and those who perpetuate them.

As you should! By demanding that elected officials and regulatory entities be held accountable for failure to perform their duties. Achieve this, and reform is ensured.
 
OK,

Admittedly, my first few posts came from a personal place. Let's take a market/consumer view.

The status quo breeds complacency. In a market that allows free flowing competition, better ideas/products come about. If you rely on what has been, you typically get pushed aside in favor of innovation. If a company who has reached the pinnacle of success (through previous innovation) sits back and doesn't react, natural market forces will make you pay the price. .

The Big 3 car companies are a perfect example. They were the best. They made what they wanted to maximize profit and justified it by saying "this is what American buyers want." Honda and Toyota were the little guys, but slowly made progress by building reliable, affordable vehicles.

Even when large consumers switched from the B3 and the vehicles were getting rave reviews, Detroit said "we know what consumers really want because that's what they've always wanted" and continued to make profit maximizing cars that were falling out of favor. In the end, that attitude nearly killed the domestic car market.

Had the B3 successfully lobbied for and obtained competition limiting regulations that successfully blocked the Japanese from competing here in the states, we'd all be driving significantly lower-quality vehicles today. The B3 never would have changed because they didn't need to. In that case, the public loses. But because of Toyota and Honda's quality (and the market-share ass whooping they inflicted), the Ford's and Chevy's produced today are far better than those from 20 years ago.

That's where I fall. I want the public to win. I want the market to work itself out - not be dictated to. When that happens we all lose, even if we swear we are happy with low mpg, bland styling.

Gila - I fully understand that the government's failure to enforce laws and close loopholes is a big piece of this problem. They wear blame. But the entire reason the loopholes and looking the other way exists, is at the request and constant bribery from big beer. That's not ethical. That's not legal. But worse than that, that's an attempt to screw the public out of a better environment.

As a member of the public, that angers me. It surprises me to think that anybody would be OK with the concept that any company would attempt to not kill competition, but rather innovation in an industry.

I fault nobody for pursuing profits. But that particular type of profit-seeking behavior has been proven over and over to be bad for the consumer. THAT is why I won't support big beer. Not because it's bad for Rogue, Bell's, or Stone, but because it's bad for the public. It may be government's bad for allowing it. It may be bad for big beer to think nothing of dancing with the legalities of what they do to the market. When the public is complicit by supporting either behavior, they add to the problem.
 
While everyone is arguing the finer points of their views in this matter the fact remains, in the State of Florida the three tier distribution system up until about 10 or so years ago was manipulated and controlled by the BMC lobbyists to the point that we couldn't buy beer here in containers other than 12, 16, or 32 ounce sizes unless it was kegged. This was pushed for by the BMC lobby way back when and they successfully kept it that way through lobbying and $$ until the turn of the century. This effectively limited the consumer choices by making it illegal to sell imports or craft beers that were not packaged that way. I get that they're all in it to make money and maybe I'm a bit naive as to the predatory nature of business, but I will go out of my way not to spend my money to support these practices and those who perpetuate them.

I still don't think we can buy anything between 32oz and 128oz here. This was all before my time but I've heard the guys at the brewstore call Florida a beer desert because we couldn't get any beers sold in the 11.2oz bottles (330ml) euro bottles.
 
Had the B3 successfully lobbied for and obtained competition limiting regulations that successfully blocked the Japanese from competing here in the states, we'd all be driving significantly lower-quality vehicles today. The B3 never would have changed because they didn't need to. In that case, the public loses.

That actually did happen. Go back a couple decades, foreign car companies had to pay an insane amount of taxes on their imports, making their cars about 20% more expensive.

They wised up and now toyotas are built right here in the South.

But the demise of the BMC has already started, even with the current channels of distributions, which actually separate the seller from the producer allowing microbrews to enter the market place. Take away the 3 tier system, and watch BMC liquor stores and BMC owned bars pop up all over the country, crushing the microbrew industry.
 
SwampassJ said:
I still don't think we can buy anything between 32oz and 128oz here. This was all before my time but I've heard the guys at the brewstore call Florida a beer desert because we couldn't get any beers sold in the 11.2oz bottles (330ml) euro bottles.

Odd small sizes are OK in FL now. But, you're right: we still can't purchase 40 oz of luvin'.
 
Gila, interesting actual case on point. I'm going from memory (Freshman year, 1975), but the facts of the case as I recall them were: RealLemon reconstituted lemon juice was found to have "cornered" the market on reconstituted lemon juice by virtue of consumer's strict identification of the name RealLemon with lemon juice. There were effectively NO competitors in the market place, and none could gain a foothold, because they didn't have that name. In a monopoly, the maximizing behavior of the monopoly supplier will result in higher prices (no evil here, just maximizing revenue, just rational behavior). The antitrust division of the Dept of Justice acted, because the market power existed. No abuse, per se, by RealLemon, just the fact of monopoly power that it had, apparently, "earned" fair and square. In looking at remedies, courts determined that the only effective remedy was for RealLemon to license the RealLemon name to competitors. That is, if consumers would ONLY buy RealLemon, then in order to foster competition, competitors would be allowed to sell "RealLemon" (there's little if any qualitative difference in reconstituted lemon juices, apparently). And so it was done. As I recall, there was a similar case concerning Arm and Hammer Baking Soda. The point here is that the goal of antitrust is to maintain and preserve competitiveness in the marketplace. Rational actors holding monopoly power will result in inefficient, inequitable outcomes. No abuse of power, no evil, just rational actors whose acts, unfortunately, skew markets because of their sheer size. That's how markets work, that's how the regulatory laws are written, and that's how they should be enforced. Do I expect InBev to be broken up, ans At&T was years ago? I don't think so. But, if the laws were being applied as intended, and as, in fact, they were applied from the 30's until the 70's, they would be.
 
doctorRobert said:
That actually did happen. Go back a couple decades, foreign car companies had to pay an insane amount of taxes on their imports, making their cars about 20% more expensive.

They wised up and now toyotas are built right here in the South.

But the demise of the BMC has already started, even with the current channels of distributions, which actually separate the seller from the producer allowing microbrews to enter the market place. Take away the 3 tier system, and watch BMC liquor stores and BMC owned bars pop up all over the country, crushing the microbrew industry.

I work for Toyota. The reason camry (and others) production switched to the US had more to do with production quotas and shipping delays. The taxes you speak of are no different than any other import tax. The big 3 lobbied for but were unsuccessful in their bid to force additional taxes on imported vehicles to match the "us auto tax" protection forced on US cars entering Japan. The threat of such a tax, however also played a role in Toyota's move to produce here. But many of the Camry's sold new in the US are still built in Japan.
 
Odd small sizes are OK in FL now. But, you're right: we still can't purchase 40 oz of luvin'.

But we're the state of the gallon growlers! (since anything between 1 qt and 1 gallon is illegal).
 
I'm just thankful I live in a place where 30 packs of bud lite cans and $9 singles of World Wide Stout can co-exist on the same aisle at total wine. They both fill the unique needs of the consumer who buys them.

I generally always like to try new things, but if I'm tailgating a baseball game on a Sunday afternoon in July, a BMC tall boy or 8 is just what he doctor ordered.
 
BrewDocND said:
I'm just thankful I live in a place where 30 packs of bud lite cans and $9 singles of World Wide Stout can co-exist on the same aisle at total wine. They both fill the unique needs of the consumer who buys them.

I generally always like to try new things, but if I'm tailgating a baseball game on a Sunday afternoon in July, a BMC tall boy or 8 is just what he doctor ordered.

Total Wine rules! Although after reading your post, I'm sad my TW charges $15 for a WWS single. :-(
 
krazydave said:
While I agree that I drink what I like, I'm in the mindset that I'd rather support a smaller non public-owned brewery than a huge one. It's not about charity, it's about supporting the fact that there are better products out there that can't even get their product on the shelves without being pushed out by the big bullies.

I'm with you on this. The way I look at it is that the big boys had their chance to make great beers and they chose not to...until they saw they were getting their arses kicked (albeit in very small market share amounts) by craft brewing. Now they do shady stuff like launching fake brands. Uncool.

But the wonderful thing is that we ALL have the choice to drink whatever we want for whatever our reasons. BMC still get some of my money due to their semi-monopoly in distribution channels.

But they ain't getting any of my coin for the beers they make/have bought (including red hook) when I have the option to avoid.

It's the principle of it. That's not snobbery.
 
I have read Ambitious Brew and I have seen Beer Wars so I'll chime in here. I say drink whatever you like no matter who makes it. The idea that craft beer is always better is insanity. I have had more crappy craft beer with obvious flaws than I have macro's with obvious flaws. Spend your money on good breweries, large or small, so that the crappy brewers can go find a real job and get their inferior products off the shelf. And if Bud Light was so bad (disclaimer: I do not drink Bud Light) it wouldn't be the most popular beer in the country (second in the world). There's more to it than marketing ploys. All the Bud Light drinkers aren't brainwashed and weak willed, they actually enjoy it. Different people have different tastes.

Now I do agree that the distribution system in this country needs a serious overhaul but I doubt we would notice a big difference on the store shelves. What sells the most will still get the most space and the most prominent space.
 
Gila, interesting actual case on point. I'm going from memory (Freshman year, 1975), but the facts of the case as I recall them were: RealLemon reconstituted lemon juice was found to have "cornered" the market on reconstituted lemon juice by virtue of consumer's strict identification of the name RealLemon with lemon juice. There were effectively NO competitors in the market place, and none could gain a foothold, because they didn't have that name. In a monopoly, the maximizing behavior of the monopoly supplier will result in higher prices (no evil here, just maximizing revenue, just rational behavior). The antitrust division of the Dept of Justice acted, because the market power existed. No abuse, per se, by RealLemon, just the fact of monopoly power that it had, apparently, "earned" fair and square. In looking at remedies, courts determined that the only effective remedy was for RealLemon to license the RealLemon name to competitors. That is, if consumers would ONLY buy RealLemon, then in order to foster competition, competitors would be allowed to sell "RealLemon" (there's little if any qualitative difference in reconstituted lemon juices, apparently). And so it was done. As I recall, there was a similar case concerning Arm and Hammer Baking Soda. The point here is that the goal of antitrust is to maintain and preserve competitiveness in the marketplace. Rational actors holding monopoly power will result in inefficient, inequitable outcomes. No abuse of power, no evil, just rational actors whose acts, unfortunately, skew markets because of their sheer size. That's how markets work, that's how the regulatory laws are written, and that's how they should be enforced. Do I expect InBev to be broken up, ans At&T was years ago? I don't think so. But, if the laws were being applied as intended, and as, in fact, they were applied from the 30's until the 70's, they would be.

Yeah. I hear ya', and I understand the "need". But the courts action on the RealLemon brand is, well, more of an outrage than is Coors practice of "Craft Brand Marketing". While I do understand the impact on market having a monopoly and the benifits of controlling the creation of them, I really see the actions in the case of RealLemon as more an act of regulating the consumer in a "too dumb to know any better" method.
 
:drunk:so are we for, or against the big brewereries using the small names? cuz i'm drunk now, and i'm ready to fight you guys either way.
 
if you feed someone **** for 50 years and tell them it smells like roses they will eventually think roses smell like ****. I'm not swallowing the BS that some of you are throwing around. Yeah, at the time people were driving the market for lighter beer. I'm sorry, but in today's big business world the tail wags the dog. Ditto for the media. Regardless of what beer you like, one cannot possibly believe that BMC is not in near total control of the market. As far as people's taste driving the market.....look at the rapid expansion of BMC acquiring small breweries/brands/names and keeping their images/names because people have started changing their tastes. They aren't doing this to provide people options. It's a business, not a charity!! BMC views small brewers as a threat to their market share. So they acquire these stepping stone beers and take steps to inhibit their popularity and growth. Kinda reminds me of what the US Govt. did to the native cultures here. Genocide. Beerocide. Yeah, I suppose you can exist, but you're gonna have to be placed here.....in the corner. Here's some alcohol. It tastes like roses.
 
so big companies using small names =bad? just wanna be on the same page as everybody when we run threw the streets naked and burn this motther ****er down! ok. i'm drunk, im gonna go to bed. but first i'm gonna read more posts and possible drunk respond a lil.
 
Meh, I drink local because local breweries make so much good beer that our hipsters have to resort to fizzy yellow water if they want to rebel against the system. I don't have to worry about what the rest of you drink.
 
Here in CA were in the same boat... We have (just to name a few)

Jergensen`s Brewery, Bonnema Brewery, Old River Brew Co, Devil`s Canyon, Bison Brewing Co, Pyramid Alehouse Brewery at Berkeley, Trumer Brauerei, Mad River Brewing Co, Anderson Valley Brewing Co, Nocturnal Brewing Co, Butte Creek Brewing Co, Sierra Nevada Brewing Co, Black Diamond Brewing Co, E.J. Phair Brewing Co, Sudwerk Privatbrauerei Hubsch, Stone Brewing Co, Etna Brewing Co Inc, Lost Coast Brewery and Café, North Coast Brewing Co Inc., Bootlegger’s Brewery, Moonlight Brewing Co, Farmhouse Brewing Co, Bear Republic Brewing Co, Indian Wells Brewing Co, Bayhawk Ales Inc., Bonaventure Brewing Co, Mammoth Brewing, Kelley Bros. Brewing Co, English Ales Brewery, Red Rock Winery and Brewery, St Stans Brewery Pub and Restaurant, El Toro Brewing Co, El Dorado Brewing Co, Santa Maria Brewing Co, Oceanside Ale Works, Craftsman Brewing Co, Firestone Walker Brewing Co, Lagunitas Brewing Co, Gold Hill Brewery, HopTown Brewing Co, Lightning Brewery, Saddleback Brewery Inc, Tuscan Brewing Co, Beermanns Beerwerks, Mount Tallac Brewing Co, Left Coast Brewing & Oggis Pizza, AleSmith Brewing Company, Ballast Point Brewing Co, Ballast Point Brewing Co - Scripps Ranch, Firehouse Brewing Co, Karl Strauss Breweries, Anchor Brewing Co, Speakeasy Ales and Lagers, Gordon Biersch Brewing Co, Drakes Brewing Co, Coast Brewing Co, Port Brewing Co ,Telegraph Brewing Co ,Happy Valley Brewing ,Angel City / Southern California Brewing Co ,Mendocino Brewing Co ,Dale Bros Brewery ,Valley Brewing Co.,Green Flash Brewing Co ,Pyramid Alehouse, Brewery & Restaurant,Mount Shasta Brewing Co ,



Not to mention - Budweiser and Miller are both in CA.




So basically, We here in CA we have options. Its our choice of what beer we like. Just because BMC has huge adds and tons of money doesn't mean we have to drink there stuff. But some people like it :cross:, We as homebrewers should take that as an opportunity to spread the knowledge and taste of good beer to friends and family. It will catch on. I know since i started brewing i have converted about 10-15 people to the craft scene. If they dont like it fine, let them drink BMC, its there prerogative. Remember Rome did not get built in a day...
 
Who cares who owns what...All that matters is if you like the beer or not. This whole beer snob thing is ridiculous....Heck read some folks opinions of some of the beers made by some craft breweries...Some folks think Dogfish head sucks...All that really matters is if you like the beer or not.....

On one hand I agree, good beer is good beer. However, if these guys are trying to go for the localism aspect and avoid supporting the big breweries because of what big businesses do to the market, then I completely understand.
 
Dogfish Head knows people either like it or they don't. I like a couple of theirs, not favorites, but I do love how they go about their brewing. Imagination and ingenuity!

As for "beer snobbery" where the big boys are concerned. It's less about being a "snob" and more about supporting the smaller brewers that really care about the craft, that need supporters. Not some big corporation sneaking about because the little guys are gaining momentum, despite the fact they have plenty of "cracker water" drinking philistines to keep them going for ages without worry.

Beer snobbery would be more pretentious and arbitrarily passing judgments, and splitting heirs, about technique and style when it challenges the conventions you believe beer should adhere to. Comparing apples to oranges and such rather than appreciating beer for beer and simply having those you prefer and those you don't.

But yeah, if you like a beer so what. Just moderate your intake from the big boys or drink 'em when you don't have much of a choice.
 
You know, I haven't really seen the big guys make any serious attempts at the craft market anyhow. There's all this talk of them "gobbling up small brewers" or making their own crappy craft beer....but where? Where's the AB IPA under some other label? There's stuff like Blue Moon and the random Pale Ales and crap they try to throw out under the Michelob label, but honestly I haven't seen any major efforts or any "surprising" labels. It would be interesting to see what happened if AB or MillerCoors really tried to throw their weight behind making a proper craft beer, but then they probably realize that they're fighting an uphill battle with our market segment.
 
In the UK, big brewers own most of the pubs. They employ tenants or managers. Tenants are forced to buy all repeat all supplies from the brewery who have already put a mark up on the supplies to make a profit for themselves. Result - tenants cannot make a decent wage and the quality of the pub falls, and so customer numbers fall. Over here 35 pubs a week close for ever - and this has been happening for many years. The big brewers think this is the way to run a business....
 
if you feed someone **** for 50 years and tell them it smells like roses they will eventually think roses smell like ****. I'm not swallowing the BS that some of you are throwing around. Yeah, at the time people were driving the market for lighter beer. I'm sorry, but in today's big business world the tail wags the dog. Ditto for the media. Regardless of what beer you like, one cannot possibly believe that BMC is not in near total control of the market. As far as people's taste driving the market.....look at the rapid expansion of BMC acquiring small breweries/brands/names and keeping their images/names because people have started changing their tastes. They aren't doing this to provide people options. It's a business, not a charity!! BMC views small brewers as a threat to their market share. So they acquire these stepping stone beers and take steps to inhibit their popularity and growth. Kinda reminds me of what the US Govt. did to the native cultures here. Genocide. Beerocide. Yeah, I suppose you can exist, but you're gonna have to be placed here.....in the corner. Here's some alcohol. It tastes like roses.

You can tell me **** smells like roses all you want but it's never going to smell like roses. That argument has never made any sense to me. Is it just that we are all smart enough not to fall for their marketing but the rest of the world is just too dumb to resist it. I doubt it. As far as them buying up the small breweries to push them out. They don't do that, they buy them up to make more money by selling their beer.
 
rjwhite41 said:
You can tell me **** smells like roses all you want but it's never going to smell like roses. That argument has never made any sense to me. Is it just that we are all smart enough not to fall for their marketing but the rest of the world is just too dumb to resist it. I doubt it. As far as them buying up the small breweries to push them out. They don't do that, they buy them up to make more money by selling their beer.

Advertising and marketing, girls in bikinis, and a constant stream of "this is the real taste of beer" messaging will absolutely influence your thoughts. The whole business of advertising operates solely by telling people what they like.

Absolut vodka is truly awful. It comes in near the bottom on every national blind taste test it appears in. Yet, it is one of the top selling vodkas in the US and people swear by it when they know it's Absolut. Why? Because their marketing rules. They owned the back cover of every SI, Playboy, Maxim, and Men's Health for over a decade. The artwork was cool, and it created a mystique that no vodka could touch.

Yes, people ARE generally sheep. Yes, they do buy what advertisers tell them to. Not everybody, of course. But way more than is necessary to make advertising a multi-billion dollar business in this country.

In fact, advertising works better today than it did 30 years ago. The methods have changed. But we as humans have so much more on our plates, so much more stimulus (300 cable channels, PC Internet, smart phone Internet, texting, tweeting, facebook, siriusxm, traditional radio, newspapers, spam...) and much less time spent at home, that if you happen to break through the clutter as an advertiser, customers want to give up making yet another decision. It's very hard to break through, but with the deep pockets of big beer, big pharm, or others, you CAN literally make people's minds up for them. It's the psychology of today's big advertising.

It's not brainwashing. Of course if you truly care about something, you obviously make your own choices. But for most things, Americans truly don't care. They'd rather be told. One less thing to roll around the decision tree.
 
Back
Top