Beer Wars

[jkruer01]

I just watched this movie tonight. It was interesting for sure. On how Budweiser dominates the American Beer Industry and the struggles that craft/micro/regional breweries face. It opened my eyes to what is really going on in the beer industry.

For anyone that has Netflix it is available to watch instantly. If you got a few spare hours (maybe while you are brewing a batch) you should watch it.

Jeremy

 

[Haputanlas]

Gonna watch it this weekend. Thanks for letting us know that it's on Netflix. Very convenient.

 

[Airborneguy]

I watched it this morning and it made me want to grab my rifle and head down to Dogfishead to join whatever defense Sam is going to mount against that lawsuit. While I definitely respect the American Dream that originally was Budweiser, this movie shows them in the light of what they are today.

It definitely opened my eyes to the Three Tier System and the way store shelf-space is so protected and fought over.

 

[Sedge]

I don't mean to be a dick but there are a few very recent threads on this topic, which are linked to at the bottom of the page in the similar threads section.

Having said that, I enjoyed the film. It was definitely not intended for our audience though (the beer savvy).

 

[itsme6582]

I'm not sure that all the conclusions drawn from this movie are correct. I was actually very disappointed with what this movie showed. I thought it would be more eye opening but it just came across to me as a bunch of whining.

Ask yourself this, "Is Anheuser Busch (AB) really doing anything wrong?" If they are, what is it they are doing wrong?

Wouldn't you hire a lawyer if you thought someone was infringing on your rights? What if someone had a trademark on the word "the?" Then no one would be able to use "the" in the name of their product. This is one purpose of our justice system and a very good use of our government. Actually, property protection is probably the most important role of our government. This is our system. Despite all the whining about our courts, overall it really is a good system.

Is it really that big of a deal that it is hard for that poor woman to sell her beer? Business is tough. Her old boss wouldn't even support her. Maybe it would be different if the Boston Beer Company weren't public. As CEO, he does have a responsibility to his shareholders. Don't whine about that either because there is absolutely nothing stopping you from becoming one of those shareholders. All you have to do is sign up at any of the dozen or so online stock brokers and buy a share. At the current price it shouldn't cost you more than $60 to say you are an owner of Sam Adams. Do you thing Sam Calagione or Jim Koch would seem like the happiest people in the world if what they did was easy? They both had a fantasic idea, came up with a fantastic product, designed a fantastic business plan, and executed by working harder than I'm sure almost anyone on here has worked on anything.

There are hundreds of microbrews out there. She's got to compete with them too. Who's to stop one of them from making a caffeinated beer? Just because AB is doing it doesn't mean they are jerks for doing it. Isn't it conceited for her to assume they are copying her beer? Maybe they copied someone else's idea. Maybe they came up with it on their own. What if there was only one company who could sell IPA?!

The only thing I really saw that bothered me was the shelf space. At the same time, I bet the percentage of shelf space AB takes up is less than their percent of beer sales.

Again, it's supposed to be hard. If it were easy anyone could do it. How would Sam Calagione (my mancrush) stand out if anyone could do it?

I'm not saying the system is perfect. What I am saying is this is the system we have and it took a lot of hard working people to get it there. They weren't out to get anyone. They were looking out for themselves but if they went too far we have a system in place that is able to correct it. It probably won't be easy to correct it. Would you really want to live in a country where you could just change things on a whim while sitting at home on your computer? That sounds like the definition of corruption if you ask me.

I think I could write all night on this but I'm out of beer so I think I'll stop.

 

[FireNightFly]

5 Stars ... great flic +1 to anyone

 

[itsme6582]

I give it a -1 star for propaganda.

 

[rexbanner]

Wouldn't you hire a lawyer if you thought someone was infringing on your rights? What if someone had a trademark on the word "the?" Then no one would be able to use "the" in the name of their product. This is one purpose of our justice system and a very good use of our government. Actually, property protection is probably the most important role of our government. This is our system. Despite all the whining about our courts, overall it really is a good system.

I agree, but the first part of what you said made no sense. Also, there's a difference between aggressively fighting infringement and peppering someone with completely frivolous lawsuits in order to bog them down with legal fees and time wasted in court. This is clearly the latter. AB has no chance of winning that suit because its complete and utter bull****. Maybe you misunderstood the suit. AB is suing DFH because "chicory" and "punkin" (not even pumpkin") are too ambiguous and might create product confusion. Yet "natural light" is probably the most ambiguous name ever, as the doc points out.

If I were Calagione, I'd change the name and be done with it. You fight, and AB wins, even if they lose their suit. This same **** happened/is happening with Monster energy drinks and Vermonster beer.

On a different subject, AB has every right to compete with that woman. Moonshot is a terrible name and idea. Apparently she never heard of sparks, joose, and all that other kiddie **** that has had caffeine and alcohol for years. Also, newsflash: alcohol negates caffeine. If you really want to stay wired when you're drunk, cocaine or adderall is the only answer.

Also, craft beer drinkers don't care about a beer with caffeine. What did this woman learn when she was (apparently) Jim Koch's number two gal?

 

[chrispykid]

Ask yourself this, "Is Anheuser Busch (AB) really doing anything wrong?" If they are, what is it they are doing wrong?

They're lobbying aggressively to maintain the three tier system that reduces the amount of choices available to consumers at retail by crowding out competitors. They're using their clout in the market to extort retailers into preserving and expanding their ridiculous shelf space. They file frivolous lawsuits against competitors. The Dogfish example is just one of the more recent ones, back in the 80's they made Pete's change their label because it featured a dog that looked like Spuds McKenzie, this despite the fact that Pete's label had been in the market for years before Spuds had been used by AB in their marketing. Pete's could have fought but the legal fees would have bankrupted their company. The shameful truth is that our legal system favors those with deep pockets. Being in the right means absolutely nothing when you don't have the cash to press your case. Shame on us for allowing our system to become such an embarassment and shame on AB for taking advantage of it so brazenly.

The point the movie makes (despite some admitted flaws) is that the beer marke is an uneven playing field. You might not like or want to try Moonshot (and trust me neither do I - caffeinated beer is stupid gimmick), but there's no reason at all that she shouldn't be able to get her product on the shelf. The point is that there are hundreds of small breweries out there in exactly the same position that she's in - fighting tooth and nail for a few inches of space on the shelf at your local supermarket.

AB became one of the biggest breweries in the nation through some real brewing innovations (refrigerated box cars, pasteurization, etc.) but their behavior has long since become anticompetitive.

 

[jkruer01]

I'm not sure that all the conclusions drawn from this movie are correct. I was actually very disappointed with what this movie showed. I thought it would be more eye opening but it just came across to me as a bunch of whining.

I agree about the whole whining thing...I could have done without that. However, I think you missed some of the main points of the movie.

1)The lawsuit AB is filing against Dogfish. AB has no patent on "Punkin" they just want to bully them around. Dogfish has two choices fight them in court or change the name. Either way AB wins. If they change the name AB has successfully bullied them around and made them change to a less recognizable name. They have built that beer on the Punkin name. Can you imagine someone telling AB they have to change the name Budweisser because it is too generic of a name? If they fight in court, even if the court sides with Dogfish AB still wins because both sides will spend millions of dollars but that will be a drop in the hat for AB and a major major expense for Dogfish.

2)The whole three teir system is a joke. If I want to start my own brewery and sell my beer out of the back of my truck to friends and neighbors and slowly grow that way I'm not allowed to! What is more American than selling your goods directly to the public? That is how most businesses get started not by creating relationships with huge massive wholesalers. That comes later. A multi billion dollar wholesaler has no reason to invest storage and time into a startup company that may or may not even sell $100,000 their first year.

That's my two cents.

Jeremy

 

[remilard]

The movie is extremely misleading IMO*. As always, educate yourself and think for yourself. Michael Moore might have some good points but if your opinion of health care is based entirely on his movie you probably sound like a huge idiot to anyone who knows what they are talking about.

*A good example would be in leading people to believe that all non brewpub beer is distributed via the three tier system, far from the truth.

 

[mmb]

AB became one of the biggest breweries in the nation through some real brewing innovations (refrigerated box cars, pasteurization, etc.) but their behavior has long since become anticompetitive.

Read "Ambitious Brew" by Maureen Ogle. They have always been anti-competitive. They just now have the weight to make it stick.

 

[jezter6]

I give it a -1 star for propaganda.

I felt the same way.

Instead of PROMOTING what the "little guy" is doing -- it's a bunch of whining about how the big 3 are cheating.

I'd rather have seen a documentary on the innovations in craft brewing and building a quality "smaller brand" brewery like DFH/Rogue/Stone.

I would like to have seen something on the cool/strange brew styles that they are making.

What a waste of my time. I gave up about an hour in because of all the crying.

That said, most of the parts on Sam were very cool, it's just the rest that sucked.

 

[mmb]

The movie is extremely misleading IMO*. As always, educate yourself and think for yourself. Michael Moore might have some good points but if your opinion of health care is based entirely on his movie you probably sound like a huge idiot to anyone who knows what they are talking about.

*A good example would be in leading people to believe that all non brewpub beer is distributed via the three tier system, far from the truth.

No, some states allow brewers to be two parts of the three tier system as the distributors/warehouse and in other Liquor control states, like Michigan with hard liquor, the state itself is the middleman.

Even if there is an agent acting as two of the three tiers, it is still a three tier system.

 

[hal2814]

I felt the same way.

Instead of PROMOTING what the "little guy" is doing -- it's a bunch of whining about how the big 3 are cheating.

I'd rather have seen a documentary on the innovations in craft brewing and building a quality "smaller brand" brewery like DFH/Rogue/Stone.

I would like to have seen something on the cool/strange brew styles that they are making.

What a waste of my time. I gave up about an hour in because of all the crying.

That said, most of the parts on Sam were very cool, it's just the rest that sucked.

I was going to write something but this pretty much fit what I had to say. This thing was a hit piece. I just didn't enjoy it. It reminded me of The Future of Food. With that one I thought I was getting a documentary about the cool stuff farmers are doing now to make food better in the future. Instead, I got some slanted whine-fest about a particular seed supplier. The problem I have with this sort of "documentary" is that you can't trust a source that has no intention of treating the other side fairly.

 

[jezter6]

It's not a documentary. Documentaries are where all sides are represented and facts (and sometimes myths and half-truths) are presented and debated.

This was pure propaganda, which is EXACTLY what they're crying about from the big 3 and their propaganda machines.

Leaves the industry (and those that participated - luckily very few craft breweries) looking like a bunch of brats.

They also made a POOR choice of using "Moonshot" or whatever that garbage was. It was a less than stellar idea for a beer, and her crying about B^E stealing her idea and putting it to market was just lame. They are a brewery focused on ONE beer, one which has already hit the market. And a bad idea anyways. It's like they watched that Drew Carey show where they made Buzz brew and waited another 5 years to actually bring a dumb idea to market.

If anything, showing Moonshot was BAD for craft brews.

 

[rexbanner]

It's not a documentary. Documentaries are where all sides are represented and facts (and sometimes myths and half-truths) are presented and debated.

This was pure propaganda, which is EXACTLY what they're crying about from the big 3 and their propaganda machines.

Leaves the industry (and those that participated - luckily very few craft breweries) looking like a bunch of brats.

They also made a POOR choice of using "Moonshot" or whatever that garbage was. It was a less than stellar idea for a beer, and her crying about B^E stealing her idea and putting it to market was just lame. They are a brewery focused on ONE beer, one which has already hit the market. And a bad idea anyways. It's like they watched that Drew Carey show where they made Buzz brew and waited another 5 years to actually bring a dumb idea to market.

If anything, showing Moonshot was BAD for craft brews.

Can you explain how it was "pure propaganda?" That's exactly the type of stupid statement that you're criticizing this movie for.

You, along with a lot of other people, need to learn how to properly view or read sources. You're exactly the type of person who probably whined and screamed about fahrenheit 911. Documentaries are supposed to be factually accurate, yet OHMYGOD, sometimes they don't present all the facts. I can't think of a documentary I've seen in the last five years besides a nature show that wasn't trying to persuade.

When you have an agenda, you have a bias, but I really hate that term because it is used to devalue and discredit constantly. If we threw out anything that's biased, we'd throw out practically every primary source document in existence, and the profession of historian would cease to exist.

It's up to viewers to question. Another perfect illustration of this flawed approach is wikipedia. Because it's not perfect, should we throw it away? Read responsibly, goddamnit.

When you boil it down, AB is an aggressive corporation that is totally hostile to anyone who could be a potential competitor, even if that potential is pitifully low. While Beer Wars certainly was biased, there is definitely more than an element of truth to the movie.

 

[jezter6]

Can you explain how it was "pure propaganda?" That's exactly the type of stupid statement that you're criticizing this movie for.

You, along with a lot of other people, need to learn how to properly view or read sources. You're exactly the type of person who probably whined and screamed about fahrenheit 911. Documentaries are supposed to be factually accurate, yet OHMYGOD, sometimes they don't present all the facts. I can't think of a documentary I've seen in the last five years besides a nature show that wasn't trying to persuade.

When you have an agenda, you have a bias, but I really hate that term because it is used to devalue and discredit constantly. If we threw out anything that's biased, we'd throw out practically every primary source document in existence, and the profession of historian would cease to exist.

It's up to viewers to question. Another perfect illustration of this flawed approach is wikipedia. Because it's not perfect, should we throw it away? Read responsibly, goddamnit.

When you boil it down, AB is an aggressive corporation that is totally hostile to anyone who could be a potential competitor, even if that potential is pitifully low. While Beer Wars certainly was biased, there is definitely more than an element of truth to the movie.

First of all, I don't whine or scream about movies. This was a film put on by craft breweries for the SOLE PURPOSE of discrediting the big 3. They put forward very little about what the small brewer is actually doing to compete, or the positive factors involved. It was just a smear campaign.

I hate the big 3 as much as anyone, but coming off as a bunch of whiny brats isn't a good way to get the word out about small craft brewing.

 

[chrispykid]

Read "Ambitious Brew" by Maureen Ogle. They have always been anti-competitive. They just now have the weight to make it stick.

I have read it, I just didn't want to get too far off topic and bring the discusison back to brewery controlled beer gardens and taverns and the pre-prohibtion marketplace. But your point about scale is well taken.

 

[hal2814]

Can you explain how it was "pure propaganda?" That's exactly the type of stupid statement that you're criticizing this movie for.

You, along with a lot of other people, need to learn how to properly view or read sources. You're exactly the type of person who probably whined and screamed about fahrenheit 911. Documentaries are supposed to be factually accurate, yet OHMYGOD, sometimes they don't present all the facts. I can't think of a documentary I've seen in the last five years besides a nature show that wasn't trying to persuade.

When you have an agenda, you have a bias, but I really hate that term because it is used to devalue and discredit constantly. If we threw out anything that's biased, we'd throw out practically every primary source document in existence, and the profession of historian would cease to exist.

It's up to viewers to question. Another perfect illustration of this flawed approach is wikipedia. Because it's not perfect, should we throw it away? Read responsibly, goddamnit.

When you boil it down, AB is an aggressive corporation that is totally hostile to anyone who could be a potential competitor, even if that potential is pitifully low. While Beer Wars certainly was biased, there is definitely more than an element of truth to the movie.

It's ok to have an agenda. But if you want to actually convince someone of something then you need to be your own harshest critic. Until then, you are just preaching to a choir. But preaching to a choir is where documentaries make their money these days. Those things you're watching aren't trying to persuade. They're just trying to make you feel good about positions you've already taken.

 

[petep1980]

They certainly weren't shy about promoting their own agenda.

With that said I found it kind of boring.

Edit: After reading through some of the posts I did find it kind of whiny. They also seemed to discourage the idea (rightfully so, I'm sure) of anyone trying to open their own craft brewery, which kind of spits in the face of the spirit of craft breweries anyways.

 

[itsme6582]

So. Does anyone the actual reason it's difficult to sell beer? I'll give you a hint: It doesn't have anything to do with Anheuser Busch or Miller.

I'm gonna do a little research with my local grocery stores. I'd like to find out what percentage of the beer sales AB has and compare it to how much shelf space they take up.





answer: taxes

 

[itsme6582]

I agree, but the first part of what you said made no sense. Also, there's a difference between aggressively fighting infringement and peppering someone with completely frivolous lawsuits in order to bog them down with legal fees and time wasted in court.

I'm not sure how this makes no sense. Dogfish Head (DFH) has the legal right to be the one and only company to use the names Chicory Stout and Punkin' Ale. These names are property because DFH owns them. AB claimed the names are too generic and everyone (not just AB) should have the right to use those names. Lo and behold, DFH won and continues to own the property rights on those names. Just because you think it was a waste of time doesn't mean this was a frivolous lawsuit. A judge could have easily thrown the case out if this were indeed true.

I'd like to point out my "the" example again. What if someone had the rights to "the?" Wouldn't you expect someone to say, "Wait a minute, you can't be the only one to use that word."

On a side note, "The" Ohio State University sued Ohio University (another state school) over the word "the." OSU won and OU is unable to put "the" in front of their school name. That is why you hear football players emphasize "The" Ohio State University. It may have actually been the other way around. OU may have sued OSU in the same way AB sued DFH. That's really just 6 of one or half dozen of the other though.

 

[mullenite]

They're lobbying aggressively to maintain the three tier system that reduces the amount of choices available to consumers at retail by crowding out competitors. They're using their clout in the market to extort retailers into preserving and expanding their ridiculous shelf space.

I hate bumping threads like this but this is a misconception that always bothers me.

The three-tier system does NOT reduce the amount of choices available. It expands it. If a brewery is in a state that allows self-distribution of beer then that brewery can deliver beer to it's local market. If, however, that brewery wanted to expand to an area in another state, or even further in to their own state, they would need to rely on another distributor to get that beer to the retailer. See where I'm going with this?

As for using their clout in the market to "extort" retailers? Last time I checked business were around to make money. Whether we like it or not BMC products sell and make those businesses money, and they usually sell for roughly the same mark up in stores as any other product. They may offer buy downs to on-premise accounts in exchange for more tap space but that is part of the business and is completely up to the bar to accept or decline. Despite what many people believe you don't need to sell BMC to run a successful bar and there are many, many examples around to prove that.

 

[billvon]

So. Does anyone the actual reason it's difficult to sell beer? I'll give you a hint: It doesn't have anything to do with Anheuser Busch or Miller. . .answer: taxes

Well, since small brewers pay taxes via the same structure that AB-Inbev does, that may well be a reason it's harder overall - but is not a reason that small brewers are at a disadvantage.

 

[craigd]

The three-tier system does NOT reduce the amount of choices available. It expands it. If a brewery is in a state that allows self-distribution of beer then that brewery can deliver beer to it's local market. If, however, that brewery wanted to expand to an area in another state, or even further in to their own state, they would need to rely on another distributor to get that beer to the retailer. See where I'm going with this?

ALLOWING companies to use distributors in not the same as REQUIRING them to do so. Many states do not allow self-distribution (ours being one of them) so as a small brewery you can't sell to the bar next door without involving a distributor and the costs associated with that. If self-distribution was universally allowed so that it wasn't a limiting factor for the small guys then I would have less concern about it.

 

[mullenite]

ALLOWING companies to use distributors in not the same as REQUIRING them to do so. Many states do not allow self-distribution (ours being one of them) so as a small brewery you can't sell to the bar next door without involving a distributor and the costs associated with that. If self-distribution was universally allowed so that it wasn't a limiting factor for the small guys then I would have less concern about it.

Many states do allow it however, particularly states that have a brewing history.

In Florida, and several other states, it probably wouldn't be that hard to push as wineries are generally allowed to self distribute.

The idea that distributors are somehow evil and the three tier system should be abolished is what I don't agree with, and that's the general sentiment.

 

[NorCalAngler]

I haven't read through all the posts on here, but I found the documentary sloppy and full of holes. You can replace beer with almost any commercially available good and you will discover the same barriers to entry, dominant players, and struggles to get brand recognition.

The caffeinated beer was an example of a bad idea, not the big guys holding the product down. Guess what, it's not easy to start any business; Offering a great product at a reasonable price is the minimum ticket price.

The shelf space is interesting, but really it's just BMC competing with each other. BMC customers have little overlap with the craft market. Even if you drink craft brew and you need some BMC for a party you're not all of the sudden going to decide it's better to get 20 4-packs of Dogfish Head instead.

 

[jkruer01]

The idea that distributors are somehow evil and the three tier system should be abolished is what I don't agree with, and that's the general sentiment.

I don't think it said that distributors were evil or that the three tier system should be abolished. The point was that you shouldn't be required to sell through a distributor to get your beer in a liquor store.

Think about it. If I wanted to start a clothing line, it could start making clothes and sell them to my friends and family, go to trade shows and sell there, sell at a flee market, create a webpage and run ads and sell them out of my house and car, eventually start selling them to stores and then once I get large enough I can start selling them through a distributor.

Why shouldn't a brewery be able to do the same? If I wanted to start a brewery as a home based business why can't I? If I wanted to start a brewery be selling to friends and family and growing by word of mouth, why can't I? I do I have to go from nothing to playing in the big leauges immediately? It just doesn't make sense. Most businesses have always started small and growing big. Why can't the same be done with a brewery?

Most singers/bands don't go from never playing a single gig to getting a record deal but the laws require a brewery to go from never selling a single bottle of beer to getting a distribution contract signed by a wholesaler.

Just my 2 cents.

Jeremy

 

[jkruer01]

The three-tier system does NOT reduce the amount of choices available. It expands it. If a brewery is in a state that allows self-distribution of beer then that brewery can deliver beer to it's local market. If, however, that brewery wanted to expand to an area in another state, or even further in to their own state, they would need to rely on another distributor to get that beer to the retailer. See where I'm going with this?

I don't. This doesn't make any sense to me at all. I don't see what your point is or what you are trying to get at.

Jeremy