Beer Wars

[NorCalAngler]

Yeah, pretty sure people just make up what they think it means to suit their own opinions. I looked it up...

Documentary:
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Ok soooooo... 1 does not apply here, but 2? Check. No fictional matter there at all, unless expressly stated. So I am pretty sure we can all agree this was a documentary?

You only commented on "fictional matter" to support your claim this is a documentary. I called it a documentary in my previous post, but according to this definition I would have to rename it as a propaganda piece against BMC and the three tier distribution system. This is far from objective and there is plenty of editorializing.

 

[jjones17]

You only commented on "fictional matter" to support your claim this is a documentary. I called it a documentary in my previous post, but according to this definition I would have to rename it as a propaganda piece against BMC and the three tier distribution system. This is far from objective and there is plenty of editorializing.

I knew someone would take the bait on my lack of analysis on the 'OBJECTIVELY' part of the definition, but I was just too lazy to bother. So, since you prodded me:

Objective:
1.undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"

I would say the the movie contained observable phenomena, which was in no way 'distorted'. The fact that they simply showed DFH's perspective on the lawsuit is open to emotional interrepretation, but is not distorting the facts. If someone were moved by the 'emotional account of the so-called victims', in such a way their opinion is swayed and they are blinded by the facts, that would be the viewers emotional weakness (my opinion), not a distorition of the facts. They could have done a documentary from AB's perspective, and opinions would still form for, and against, AB's decision to sue DFH.
Anyway, my point was about if this movie was/was not a documentary, and based on the dictionary it does appear to be one. Plenty of facts, has come emotional content but it did not have a lack of factual content either. Meh.

 

[NYCHomebrewer]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a three tier system. If it works well, then it can expand distribution and provide more beer choices to customers. In order for the system to work, if the three tier system is mandated by law, the three tiers have to be truly independent. When they aren't anticompetitive practices occur and you and I, the end users, end up with fewer choices.

Craft brewers like Sam Caligione aren't afraid of competition, in fact, they welcome it. The problem arises when huge companies wielding awsome amounts of power and money abuse the system, and I think Beer Wars provided many good examples of exactly that happening.

I respect property law and a legal system that protects intellectual property rights is hugely important; but the legal system can also be abused. Look at the patent trolls, the RIAA etc.

I thought Beer Wars showed pretty clearly a lot of the anticompetitive activities of the BMC. From frivolous lawsuits over the words "punkin" or "monster", in which the BMC win even when they lose simply by causing small microbreweries to have to expend huge amounts in legal fees just to defend themselves, to providing free kegs of beer to restaurants provided the restaurant doesn't stock "that other caffeine beer."

That is not competition. That is pure sleaze. And it happens all the time. The antitrust laws are in place specifically to prevent this kind of activity.

Do you think it should be legal for Miller to go around to all the bars stocking your favorite microbrew and provide them free kegs of beer until your microbrewery is driven out of business? They have the kind of money that they could and probably would do it if they could get away with it.

The three tier system is the same way. If the BMC didn't see themselves getting an advantage out of it, they wouldn't support it. They don't care about you or I getting a good selection of beer. If they had their way, we would only have the choice between Bud and Bud. They support the three tier system because, in general, the distributors are beholden to them and make sure their products get sold first and in the best slots.

So long as breweries are required by law to sell through a distributor, BMC is going to dominate the markets - and its not because they sell a superior product.

 

[NorCalAngler]

I knew someone would take the bait on my lack of analysis on the 'OBJECTIVELY' part of the definition, but I was just too lazy to bother.

I never saw it coming... you are a master baiter.

 

[billvon]

So long as breweries are required by law to sell through a distributor, BMC is going to dominate the markets - and its not because they sell a superior product.

Many people here don't like BMC, but the reason they sell so much beer is that a lot of other people do like them. To a lot of people Bud et al really are superior - and yes, that's even when they try beers we consider better. Fortunately there's room for all tastes.

 

[NYCHomebrewer]

I'm not leveling a judgment on the quality of BMC's beer. I have been known to hoist a few in the summer out on the water. My point is that the quality doesn't matter.

Yes, part of their dominance of the market stems from the fact that they make a product that appeals to a broad variety of people. But part of their continued dominance arises because of their (1) subversion of the three tier system, (2) unfair trade practices, (3) lawsuits that result in their winning even if they lose, and (4) money and power.

The three tier system would be fair if it were a level playing field, but in reality it is corrupt and slanted heavily in BMC's favor. Lets face it, if you are a distributor and Budweiser tells you that if you don't stop promoting Dogfish Head they are going to pull their products and all their related products and go exclusively with another distributor, you are going to cancel Dogfish Head's account or go out of business.

 

[1972Buick455]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a three tier system. If it works well, then it can expand distribution and provide more beer choices to customers. In order for the system to work, if the three tier system is mandated by law, the three tiers have to be truly independent. When they aren't anticompetitive practices occur and you and I, the end users, end up with fewer choices.

Craft brewers like Sam Caligione aren't afraid of competition, in fact, they welcome it. The problem arises when huge companies wielding awsome amounts of power and money abuse the system, and I think Beer Wars provided many good examples of exactly that happening.

I respect property law and a legal system that protects intellectual property rights is hugely important; but the legal system can also be abused. Look at the patent trolls, the RIAA etc.

I thought Beer Wars showed pretty clearly a lot of the anticompetitive activities of the BMC. From frivolous lawsuits over the words "punkin" or "monster", in which the BMC win even when they lose simply by causing small microbreweries to have to expend huge amounts in legal fees just to defend themselves, to providing free kegs of beer to restaurants provided the restaurant doesn't stock "that other caffeine beer."

That is not competition. That is pure sleaze. And it happens all the time. The antitrust laws are in place specifically to prevent this kind of activity.

Do you think it should be legal for Miller to go around to all the bars stocking your favorite microbrew and provide them free kegs of beer until your microbrewery is driven out of business? They have the kind of money that they could and probably would do it if they could get away with it.

The three tier system is the same way. If the BMC didn't see themselves getting an advantage out of it, they wouldn't support it. They don't care about you or I getting a good selection of beer. If they had their way, we would only have the choice between Bud and Bud. They support the three tier system because, in general, the distributors are beholden to them and make sure their products get sold first and in the best slots.

So long as breweries are required by law to sell through a distributor, BMC is going to dominate the markets - and its not because they sell a superior product.

Well said my friend and probably better than I could have. I like the conclusion, yep far from "superior".

Here's a thought, some of the members on this forum seem to be AB or big beer employees the way they rush to defend what I think is at best an unfair system, and portrayed fairly accurately by the film. Is that accurate, are you naysayers just supporting your companies misaligned perspective?? Don't think we will get feed back on that...

Also, I didn't think there was a ton of whining or complaining, just talk about a broken system. BTW I shop at Wal-mart and I do drink cheap beer once in a while, I'm not a hippie in Boulder CO and I am a 22 year service member. That having been said I don't like what the big beer companies are doing. Its not fair and does not support FREEDOM. That's what this country stands for and this system is not supporting free trade.