Beer wars: Yuengling fights massive merger of Budweiser and Miller Lite brewers

[finsel]

Agree with the above. Maybe it'll force lawmakers to reinvent the 3-tier system of distribution. Brewers need a way to get their beer out there but there shouldn't be so many restrictions on how they do it.

Makes me remember this text:

"...Pilsner Urquell's brewery began as a collective facility operated by several of Plzen's independent brewers..."

https://www.morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/library/backissues/issue5.3/urquell.html

:beard:

 

[Honeybuzz]

I agree that the distributorship model needs to be repealed. But given the thousands of small breweries that have spring up in recent years, and their millions of customers, there's no reason we can't do that.

As to the original subject of this thread, as a beer drinker the Inbev/Miller merger affects me not one bit. A monopoly is defined by its ability to crowd out competition and control the market. But I have never seen so much choice as we have today in the beer market. The big guys keep merging because their one-size-fits-all model is failing as they lose market share to brewpubs in every town across this country.

 

[Diver]

I've been to the brewery in PA a few times. Being the oldest brewery in America, they deserve our appreciation and concern that they could be taken over. There is history and Americana in this brewery like Fenway Park or Wrigley Field.

You can take the tour and then have samples in the visitor room and walk through the beer museum which has bottles of their beer dating way back in their history. For any beer lover, it is worth the trip to visit as it just feels like real brewing tradition at the place. I agree about the Black and Tan. In the days of IPAs and I am a hophead, this beer still holds its own as a decent American beer.

 

[WaltStarr]

I've been to the brewery in PA a few times. Being the oldest brewery in America, they deserve our appreciation and concern that they could be taken over.

A note, D. G. Yuengling & Son is a privately held company and thus is not subject to a hostile takeover like a publicly traded company, so the only way "they could be taken over" is if the Yeungling family WANTS to be taken over.

 

[vtwindsurfer]

Back in 2012, I worked for a company that was involved in beverage distribution. At that time, AB InBev controlled about 50% of the market in the U.S., Miller-Coors accounted for about 37% and the remaining 13% was composed of the many micro-brews across the country. AB InBev was notorious for either buying small and innovative micro-brews or leveraging their purchasing and distribution power to either force them to sell, go out of business, our ensure that sales were so small that the micro-brewery would stay micro and wouldn't be able to compete. If you go to your local market, a vast majority of the stuff you see on the shelves (including the smaller labels) are all or partly owned by either AB InBev or Miller-Coors. It's really sad if you think about it.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Why does everyone always criticize the producer for the fact that the distributor is the slinky scumbag allowing a level of market control that is contrary to what the 3 tier system was designed / intended to prevent?

 

[dallasdb]

^^^ Most people don't know/understand the distribution system.

Watch this



Apparently the lobby for the 3 tier system is good. I can't even find the video I saw years back showing the negative side of the 3 tier system.

Here are some "Pro" 3 tier system videos that explain how it works.



Apparently the 3 tier system is "beneficial" to craft brewers... SMH

AB/Inbev found the loophole to somehow be a manufacturer and a distributor even though the 3 tier system is supposed to prevent this. The manufacturing side may be a separate entity from the distribution side but they clearly act in concert.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/bye-bye-bells/Content?oid=923858

Here is a long article on the topic and the challenges faced by brands such as Bells, and Goose Island. And provides some insight as to why I do not fault AbInbev so much as the bad guy. Sure, they have the capital to create the bribes, erm, incentives. But it really is the distributor who is on the take and responsible for choking out the little guys. Fact of the matter is both producer and distributor only care about the profits, but it is the distributor who determines where those profits are coming from and are the actual guilty parties of operating illegally.

 

[Heresolong]

It's not the product, it's the principle man! It can't be a good thing for one company to have all of the power in the marketplace.

I also don't like most of those products...

I tend to think that the principle is flawed. What difference does it make to the guys in town making beer for local distribution if Budweiser and Miller are being made by one company? The concept that monopolies are bad was created by the competitors of Standard Oil who wanted to get in on the oil business without doing the work that the folks at Standard Oil had done. The reality is that if Bud and Miller are one company and making crap beer, someone else will start making and selling good beer. Nothing B&M can do about it except make better beer. Win, win. The explosion of "good beer" in recent years is a perfect example of the lack of power of the big companies to stop it. We have eight or nine small breweries just in our one county of 350,000 people, all of which seem to be doing just fine, in spite of the fact that there are only three companies making most of the cheap beer available. So what it if becomes "only two".

One more argument that monopolies aren't as bad as the government would have you believe? How many choices do you have for garbage pickup, cable TV, electricity, and water in your town? Government run monopolies. Apparently it is OK if the government does it but not if the free market does it. But we are supposed to believe that if the folks at Bud and Miller can make more money by merging this is death to the American beer market. I don't buy it.

 

[WaltStarr]

I tend to think that the principle is flawed. What difference does it make to the guys in town making beer for local distribution if Budweiser and Miller are being made by one company? The concept that monopolies are bad was created by the competitors of Standard Oil who wanted to get in on the oil business without doing the work that the folks at Standard Oil had done. The reality is that if Bud and Miller are one company and making crap beer, someone else will start making and selling good beer. Nothing B&M can do about it except make better beer. Win, win. The explosion of "good beer" in recent years is a perfect example of the lack of power of the big companies to stop it. We have eight or nine small breweries just in our one county of 350,000 people, all of which seem to be doing just fine, in spite of the fact that there are only three companies making most of the cheap beer available. So what it if becomes "only two".

One more argument that monopolies aren't as bad as the government would have you believe? How many choices do you have for garbage pickup, cable TV, electricity, and water in your town? Government run monopolies. Apparently it is OK if the government does it but not if the free market does it. But we are supposed to believe that if the folks at Bud and Miller can make more money by merging this is death to the American beer market. I don't buy it.

The absurdity in this argument is so massive, I simply do not know where to begin...

 

[Magnus314]

The explosion of "good beer" in recent years is a perfect example of the lack of power of the big companies to stop it. We have eight or nine small breweries just in our one county of 350,000 people, all of which seem to be doing just fine, in spite of the fact that there are only three companies making most of the cheap beer available.

And how many of them can distribute their beer in all 50 states?

That's the problem.