Big breweries using small names to conceal themselves?

o4_srt said:

Not available for kindle download :-(

Side note: no arguments were made (by me anyway) against the product of bmc. My gripe is in their business proceedings.

I'm perfectly aware that American light lager is the result of mass marketing, the result of trying to find the beer that was the most appealing to the most people, occurring mostly after prohibition (according to the history channel).

Click to expand...

I'd send you my copy if you promised to send it back; but it would be cheaper for both of us for you to just buy it or get it at the library (if they even have those anymore? )

joetothemo said:

Library "hold request" submitted. Thanks for the rec.

Click to expand...

Thank Revvy - he's the one who recommeded it to me...

Revvy said:

No it wasn't, that's the historical innacuracy that Ogle's book disproved. If you can't find the book listen to the podcasts I linked and read what I wrote.....It was a product of the 1860's, and was created as an alternative to heavy beers which orignally provided much needed diatary calories. But as America became prosperous and meat was consumed with every meal americans desired a lighter drink, so the brewers had to come up with something or die. This was compounded by the use of american 6-row barley which made of heavier hazy beers, that warranted the more expensive use of adjucnts such as rice and corn, to make it less hazy and heavy....That style of beer was around for 60 years before prohibition even happened.

Click to expand...

Yes, you had a bunch of European immigrants used to drinking thick, dark, heavy beers for caloric intake......fast forward to prosperous America, and they didn't need beer anymore - but golly, they wanted it!!!

I also love the chapter about how using rice/corn as an adjunct actually made the beer cost back then. That's another one of those myths that the anit-BMC crowd uses - "they use rice/corn to make their product cheaper!" That ain't true...

o4_srt said:

Interesting, makes sense. Lots of well known historical references say otherwise.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they were wrong, and Maureen came along and cleared it up. She even was on one of the recent Discovery channel docs as she facebooked "rolling her eyes alot and saying they were full of crap."

She talks about those "well known historical references" or the common wisdom we all believed, in the first 30 seconds of the first interview on basic brewing.

Historical references, like any other kind of researched information, are only as accurate as the most recent research shows. Lots of medical textbooks back in the day advocated leaching....that doesn't mean that medical science today has progressed some...why wouldn't historical research be any different?

Come on now Revv, next thing you'll tell me is that Ben Franklin didn't say you know what.

AZ_IPA said:

I also love the chapter about how using rice/corn as an adjunct actually made the beer cost back then. That's another one of those myths that the anit-BMC crowd uses - "they use rice/corn to make their product cheaper!" That ain't true...

Click to expand...

My favorites are all the other myths she disproved as well...

In recent years, beer drinkers have worn t-shirts decorated with a quote attributed to Ben Franklin: "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Just one problem: Franklin didn't say that. It's a mangled version of another Franklin quote about the pleasures of wine. In a 1779 letter, he wrote that the rain that fell on vineyards and transformed vines into grapes for wine provided "a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy."

Click to expand...

And the one about Pabst Blue Ribbon


Here's the version in the PBR marketing stuff...

The famous "Blue Ribbon" label did not get started until 1882. Prior to 1882, Phillip Best Brewing Company had received awards for their beer. In 1876, Pabst won both the highest awards for bottled beer and a gold medal. In 1878 at a Paris World’s Fair, Pabst again won more medals.

In 1882, bottling became significantly important to the brewing business. When bottles were first used, these were generally plain and were not appealing to the public. Pabst decided to add pieces of blue ribbons tied around the necks of Best "Select" beer bottles. It didn’t take long before the public continued to ask for "The beer with the blue ribbon." By 1892, this special packaging idea became so popular that the company was purchasing 300,000 yards of silk ribbons, which workers tied by hand around each bottle. In 1895, words "Blue Ribbon" were eventually added to the label of Select Beer, and in January 1898, the Blue Ribbon label was first used.

Click to expand...

But, To the contrary, there is evidence to suggest that no such award was given, as contemporaneous accounts indicate that many vendors were frustrated by the Paris World fair's refusal to award such prizes.

One account says that the only prizes awarded by the executive committee were bronze medals in recognition of "some independent and essential excellence in the article displayed," rather "than merely to indicate the relative merits of competing exhibits.

The whole dirty tale is in chapter 3 of Maureen Ogle's fantastic and eye openning history of American Brewing, Ambitious Brew - The Story of American Beer by Maureen Ogle

From Ambitious Brew:
Myth: Pabst Blue Ribbon beer was named “America’s Best” at the 1893 Columbian World Exposition in Chicago, a fact still commemorated on the Pabst label.

Reality: Frederick Pabst pronounced himself winner of the Exposition’s grand prize, but there was no grand prize to win. The judges of the brewing exhibits were forbidden from awarding ranked prizes for first, second, and third place. Everyone exhibitor left the Exposition with the same bronze commemorative medallion, regardless of the quality of his beer.

Click to expand...

Sorry to break anyone's hearts, especially about the Franklin Quote.

"beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy" o4_srt


There, now everyone can use their favorite beer quote, and cite me instead because I (unlike Franklin) actually said it.

Revvy,

A friend of mine just stopped working for a major distributor in Detroit. His experience in playing a daily operational role would contradict your theory of that BMC aren't evil. And while "evil" may truly be the wrong word (because at its heart, it really is protecting one's business interests), BMC is manipulative, controlling, and exclusionary.

The timeliness in delivery from MC and the speed with which you receive new or short-lived promotional products is directly related to how much of non-MC you handle. If, as a distributor, you start shipping too much non-MC, brewery shipments begin to become "lost" or delayed. Requirements of displays to take up "x" percentage of usable space dictate whether you have access to promotional material. BONUS payoffs for dropping other beer lines from your distributorship.

These are all designed to kill competition. And not just hold it off, but rather to put small breweries out of business. From MC, the placement of ads in the media are truly not aimed at the other big boy. They are designed to create so much noise that nobody without billion-dollar pockets can get into the market.

I'm not crying that big breweries do this. I'm not looking at this through naive eyes, either. What BMC does, borders on racketeering. They create as many barriers to entry into a market as possible and make it impossible for a distributor who has come to rely on that product to stay in business unless they play exclusively by their rules. What's worse is they donate millions to Washington to cover the clearly antitrust laws they break. Again, I don't "blame" them. In their shoes I would do no different.

But to sit back and say "they have earned the right to skirt the legal system and continue to shut down a truly competitive environment because your grandparents had crappy taste in beer" is, to me, a far more naive stance to take.

The fact that craft brew does continue to gain minuscule market share despite these monopolistic moves is a testament to how crappy the product really is and how the same type of taste revolution that clearly started BMC, looks to be brewing.

Their whole business model doesn't revolve around competition. It revolves around using size, deep pockets, and manipulation of the three tier system to make it near impossible for upstarts to get in the game. In Colorado, where the three-tier system isn't so strict, Coors (this is old and may no longer be true as it was pre-MC merger) has less of a market share than the average in the rest of the country. The difference isn't huge, but it's very present. That should illustrate that given a less manipulative distribution system, more "other brands" can get recognized, appreciated, and supported. Even when playing to a "hometown" crowd you might expect to side with the "state beer."

It's not their size or their product: it's their blatant disregard for ethical conduct and their flaunting of "friends in high places" which keeps their less-than legal practices shiny clean. OK, it's a little their product.

You made some great points, many with which I agree and many from which I have learned. I have enjoyed this thread so far and I welcome what are sure to be counter-jabs!

*****EDIT******

None of this is to say this type of behavior is unique to AHB or MC. I totally understand many large corporations play similar strategies. But nowhere is it more noticeable or more blatant than when you have government protections from true market forces (ie, the 3 tier system).

I predict that this thread is about to get much less enlightening as postings become increasingly polarized.

If a big brewery is a big brewery, more power to them. As for Bud flexing too much power through advertising, all breweries want to advertise. It all depends on the funding. Hell, the "Brew Master" show was one big commercial for Dogheadfish.

I do pride myself in drinking the smaller production craft brews, and enjoying obscure beers. However, I also have no beef with people dringing Coors, Bud, etc. as long as they like it. Just not my thing. Folks who feel the need to speak out against these beers though do tend to bug me, as it get elitist.

This is why we are home brewers; we know what we like, we appreciate beer, and we want to be able to hone it into our own tastes where perhaps big production and craft brews (which can be big production as well) don't quite make it.

Why read any books? I think I'm just going to start reading through everything Revvy's written. Although, it'd probably be less time consuming to read every book on beer every written.

Seriously, I think I've learned more in this thread about beer history than I have in most of my personal beer history. I need to get to reading!

P.S. PBR is my go-to beer for excessive consumption sessions.

Tall_Yotie said:

If a big brewery is a big brewery, more power to them. As for Bud flexing too much power through advertising, all breweries want to advertise. It all depends on the funding. Hell, the "Brew Master" show was one big commercial for Dogheadfish.

I do pride myself in drinking the smaller production craft brews, and enjoying obscure beers. However, I also have no beef with people dringing Coors, Bud, etc. as long as they like it. Just not my thing. Folks who feel the need to speak out against these beers though do tend to bug me, as it get elitist.

This is why we are home brewers; we know what we like, we appreciate beer, and we want to be able to hone it into our own tastes where perhaps big production and craft brews (which can be big production as well) don't quite make it.

Click to expand...

The problem isn't the advertising, all companies do that. It's their business practices that many have a problem with.

As stated before, this is apparent in almost every industry, but that doesn't mean it's ok. The world of business is cutthroat indeed. Only the strong survive. In some instances, it's better to fly under the radar than to make a splash.

Even their beer, while less than desirable to my palate, is at least drinkable. I'd take a bmc over a heine any day of the week.


Sorry for bugging you

I have zero problem with the fact that AB is a big company, or the fact that they advertise, or the fact that they own smaller brands and don't fess up to it on the label, or the fact that they make products that I don't like much (most of them, at least). I'm sure many people like their products, and it isn't up to me to tell them what they can and can't have. If AB spends $50 million on advertising, the "little guys" are already $50 million up on AB. And "Beer Wars" whining about this annoyed me to no end.

I was also annoyed about Beer Wars whining about that gimmicky "B^E" product which they put out to "spite" that gimmicky "Moonshot" product. I didn't really understand why someone making beer with caffeine in it precludes anyone else from making beer with caffeine in it.

My problem with AB stems from its manipulation of the wholesalers. If the government (the real villains here) make a law saying that all beer has to go through a wholesaler before it can go on product shelves, it isn't heartening to learn that said wholesaler is in the pocket of one of your competitors. Remove the regulatory-captured wholesalers from the picture and allow and suddenly there isn't a lot to hate about BMC.

One of my local breweries, Two Brothers, had to create their own distribution company so that they could get their products out there. They received way too much resistance from the BMC distributors and they had had enough.

For Revvy:

Gets the best at about 1:30

fifelee said:

For Revvy:

Gets the best at about 1:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DH4lNpniE

Click to expand...

That was great! I was worried he was going into cardiac arrest for a minute there...

This discussion can be said about anything and is more of a debate about capitalism.

For all those who have watched Beer Wars and posted on this thread because you seem informed (trust me that is me included) watch Food Inc. Its instant que on netflix as well, and has similar arguments but its about food.


I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but I feel it needs mentioning. Its not just the corporations who are trying to run microbreweries out of business by making new beers. I'm sure the Boston Brewing company or whatever its called (SA) wants to be the only craft brewed beer. Same with DFH, it would work better for them if they were the only IPA on the shelves.

Wakadaka said:

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but I feel it needs mentioning. Its not just the corporations who are trying to run microbreweries out of business by making new beers. I'm sure the Boston Brewing company or whatever its called (SA) wants to be the only craft brewed beer. Same with DFH, it would work better for them if they were the only IPA on the shelves.

Click to expand...

I see the point you are trying to make here, but there are numerous collaborative efforts out there in the craft brew industry. I think there will always be some degree of this camaraderie as craft brewers, as a whole, are fighting for their chunk of the ~95% market share that currently belongs to BMC. Craft brewers probably know that the consumers they are marketing to (us) prefer variety and aren't necessarily loyal to one type, or one brand of beer.

I think the craft brewer backstabbing will begin when craft beer has a much higher portion of the market. Now we have people who are in it for the art who are trying to make a buck. When will it be much more competitive? 15%? 25%? Maybe...

fifelee said:

For Revvy:

Gets the best at about 1:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DH4lNpniE

Click to expand...

WOW, great speech!!!!

I choose to drink locally brewed beers, because I can, because it supports brewers in my community, because it supports the beer culture I benefit from, because it's fresh and doesn't have to be shipped, and because they make great beers. Cheers!

Revvy, all I have to say is.... your awesomeness knows no bounds. I thought you were the cool cat here before. Now, I want to buy you a beer, but what the hell do you get a homebrewer?

I'd love to hear you talk about politics, monopolies, and energy policy. You probably have you head screwed on straighter than most.

Yeah, saw another "craft" beer I didn't recognize a while ago, looked at the fine print on the six-pack, and, sure enough, said "Michelob." Like many people, I'm willing to try something new, no matter who brews it, but I've gotten tired of that, for several reasons, when it comes to the "bigs." 1) the beer is invariably drinkable, but what I would call craft beer "lite," and 2) I think the bigs are using this as a shotgun approach to try to saturate the distribution channels and counteract the inelastic demand (look it up) in the market they face. So- I won't buy that stuff any more. Too many genuine good craft beers out there.

You will know if you buy a "craft" type beer made by BMC, it's terrible.. If you get on the beerwars website it tells you all the beer that BMC makes but not the names they use to cover up some beer

rico567 said:

Yeah, saw another "craft" beer I didn't recognize a while ago, looked at the fine print on the six-pack, and, sure enough, said "Michelob." Like many people, I'm willing to try something new, no matter who brews it, but I've gotten tired of that, for several reasons, when it comes to the "bigs." 1) the beer is invariably drinkable, but what I would call craft beer "lite," and 2) I think the bigs are using this as a shotgun approach to try to saturate the distribution channels and counteract the inelastic demand (look it up) in the market they face. So- I won't buy that stuff any more. Too many genuine good craft beers out there.

Click to expand...

FWIW - I think Michelob makes a couple of pretty decent "microbrews".

I don't buy the BMC beers mostly because I think they suck. I also don't care for the racketeering methods they use to exclude the smaller breweries form having a little shelf space. It's gotten better in the past few years, but only due to massive demand from the new craft beer drinkers.

At Meijers I can get a fair selection of "local" craft beer, but at Wal-mart next door, it's ALL BMC beer. They don't care to stock anything that isn't made by one of the BMC companies. Their loss.

But even though I choose not to support the ultralarge beer companies, I will buy Blue Moon because I like it (At least until Oberon is out!), but if Celis White would be available instead, I'd choose that.

The simple fact is that the beer companies entice the distributors and store owners into stocking their products over the smaller guys. It's all done off the books, so they don't get in trouble, even though everyone knows they are buying shelf space.

If they want to spend millions on trying to make young men think that drinking Miller Lite will get them laid, then I don't care. But using illegal methods to literally push craft beer out of the stores, and taking our choices away from us (it was not until a few years ago that I'd seen a craft beer in, or near, our small town), then I got a problem with it.

But just because craft beer is available doesn't mean it will be bought. Last year there was several 6-packs of Hopslam sitting on the shelf at the party store in town, months after it had disappeared from the rest of the country. nobody here is crazy enough to spend $20 on a 6-pack of beer that can make a rednecks face pucker.

I mean, I was talking with a lady the other day and she described Heineken as a "Dark Beer". I'm not kidding. Some people will just not buy anything that is even a little different from what they grew up with.

rico567 said:

inelastic demand (look it up)

Click to expand...

Lol, did someone just take first year microeconomics?

Have you seen how much Anheuser-Busch spends lobbying congress each year? Much of which is spent trying to keep distribution laws from changing in favor of smaller brewers.

Pilgarlic said:

Well, Rev, I suppose that's true, if all one cares about is the beer. But the huge breweries have been able to sustain the three-tier distribution system that effectively controls small and craft brewers' access to markets, through political and economic influence. That, to me, is reprehensible, whether I can stomach their beers or not, and I won't support them.

Click to expand...

Rediculousness.

If this is your stance don't drink any coca-cola or Pepsi products. Same mindset, different product line. Deep pockets mean preferred product placement and increased media presence for just about anything we buy.

this comment is kinda towards revvy and those that are more inline with his thinking about this subject. why is beer wars and the other stuff people get their ideas about the "evil corporations" wrong, but what you read in your book right?

i realize that sounds argumentative, its not meant to. i'm actually pretty neutral on this subject.

i like to drink "real" craft beers if i can help it, because it makes me feel like i'm helping small businesses or whatever. i do also drink the BMC's if i'm drinking alot, or if its hot outside and there's one in the fridge (PBR is my fav). i'm by no means a purist, and am open minded.

i find the information your providing interesting, and am not arguing. i would like to know the real truth behind all of it, but thats not likely to ever happen. not that its a secret, but there are different perspectives (two people could tell the same "true" story, and they be different) and none of us were alive in the 1800.

so to my original question, its not to say that your wrong, but how do you know its right? (hope i didn't sound like a dick)

GilaMinumBeer said:

Rediculousness.

Click to expand...

Do I understand you to believe, then, that monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior, supported by regulation, is equitable, efficient or merely tolerable because "that's the way the world is"? I'd guess it's the latter.

remilard said:

Lol, did someone just take first year microeconomics?

Click to expand...

You mean me? Yep, in 1966.

AZ_IPA said:

I also love the chapter about how using rice/corn as an adjunct actually made the beer cost back then. That's another one of those myths that the anit-BMC crowd uses - "they use rice/corn to make their product cheaper!" That ain't true...

Click to expand...

The history of this is actually quite fascinating and I WILL be picking up ambitious brew (thanks Revvy). All that being said, we're not brewing beer 100 years ago. AB, MC, DFH.... They all change and tweak recipes over time based on current products. Corn my have been more expensive THEN, but now, it is absolutely cheaper than malt today. Check out Autin Homebrew.

And the Budweiser that was first produced so expensively back in the day, is not the world's best selling beer. Bud Light is, and it wasn't first produced until 1982 and THAT uses even more adjuncts than Budweiser. You can't tell me that in part at least, wasn't cost related (in addition to the "diet" craze in the eighties)

I'm not one to buy into the Beerwars hype. To be honest, I was a bit disappointed it wasn't firmer in facts. BUT frankly, I'm kinda surprised that based on one book (even one that is viewed as the authority de jour) many people have so quickly changed their tune on BMC. Especially when there are multiple sources that still claim otherwise. Not saying it's not true, but from a group that yells to the hills to use multiple sources for all brewing facts, it's weird to rally around a single source like this.

If you think you live by sticking it to the big corporations, you will have to stop buying almost everything. The same battles over cutting out the competition and warring over display space is stores happens in almost every product out there. Food, computers, tools, etc. it happens everywhere. Large food companies, for example, produce organic options to compete in health food stores and they also produce a lot of the "store brands" on the shelves.

I'm not saying it's bad to want to support competition or local businesses, but you aren't going to topple the entire economic system by not buying Leffe or Blue Moon.