Brewers Assoc. Craft vs Crafty

[Xpertskir]

I for one don't get hung up on craft vs 'crafty'. If a brewery makes quality beer I will purchase it. If a brewery makes inferior beer, I won't purchase it. I don't care if it's made by BMC or by some dude nanobrewing down the road, I merely care that it's a tasty beverage...

This...

Equally amusing is that "craft" came into popular use because micro-brew was no longer applicable to some of the producers making non BMC beer and now apparently we need further distinctions to save us from the evils of mass produced beer owned by GASP...corporations.

 

[mytommygundont]

I wish I could subscribe to the idea that if they make good beer then I don't care who they are. However, InBev and MillerCoors etc. are waging war on "craft breweries". The movie Beer Wars highlights why these companies are buying the smaller companies and coming out with their own spinoff micros. It is not in respect for brewing but in gorilla tactics to own all of the shelf space. That outrages me and therefore I care who makes the beer.

As to the semantics behind Craft and Crafty: Who cares. Everyone makes a choice when they buy beer. My choice is to group places like Goose Island in with Shock Top and Stella. Do they make good beer? Yes. Do they make it for the passion of beer? Probably. Do I buy their product? Nope.

 

[dbsmith]

I won't shop at Wal-Mart, for example, even though I know they do have lower prices than their competition. I like to buy products that are made in America, not because they are better, but simply because it supports jobs in America.

I agree with most of your post except for this. Did you know that Wal-mart is the largest employer in the US except for the US Dept of Defense? (Sorry, )

 

[Nightshade]

I agree with most of your post except for this. Did you know that Wal-mart is the largest employer in the US except for the US Dept of Defense? (Sorry, )

Not that I disagree but.... they also have the largest number of employees pulling welfare benefits while being employed.


I know but worth noting

 

[WastedCider]

I agree with letting people know that Blue Moon and Shock Top are scams. I didn't see anyone disparaging Magic Hat in the article. Coming from the Beast Coast originally, I do remember them as a scrappy DIY startup from the People's State of Vermont. It would be a shame if they were not that anymore.

Other than that I don't think nit picking solves anything. Coming from the Punk scene I have seen the elitist attitude destroy too many wonderful things.

 

[terrapinj]

I agree with letting people know that Blue Moon and Shock Top are scams. I didn't see anyone disparaging Magic Hat in the article. Coming from the Beast Coast originally, I do remember them as a scrappy DIY startup from the People's State of Vermont. It would be a shame if they were not that anymore.

Other than that I don't think nit picking solves anything. Coming from the Punk scene I have seen the elitist attitude destroy too many wonderful things.

I think the explanation and education attempts were fine but don't think calling out certain breweries was necessary. Mendocino brewing was some of the 1st craft beer that helped show me there was plenty of good beer out there aside from BMC stuff. I had a college roommate from VT that exposed me to magic hat as well. to me these breweries were early pioneers of craft beer long before it became trendy


edit: it looks like they took down the chart that specified who they deemed craft vs crafty

 

[WastedCider]

Okay - I had to rewrite this whole post because I skipped a part in the Magic Hat Wiki page. It looks like they were bought in 2k10 by North American Breweries. FIFCO acquired North American Breweries in October of this year. Apparently Magic Hat bought Pyramid in 2008. My friend is a taster for the Pyramid brands up in Portland. I can ask her if any of this corporate juggling has affected overall beer quality. What I believe Randy Mosher refers to as the rule of beer accountants destroying beer.

Sierra Neveda is huge too. But they are a socially responsible company that uses their used water to hydrate their hop fields. They have an incredibly low footprint. I guess I just have to stick to them when I am out. InBev seems to own most of the imports I thought were on their own feet (Leffe, Franzikaner, etc). InBev is truly evil. I don't know much about FIFCO or North American Breweries. Some corporations can be responsible. Conglomerates however rarely are.

 

[dbsmith]

Sorry to question conventional 'wisdom', but how exactly is InBev evil? Because they buy up smaller companies? Because they are competitive? Because they have started noticing that people enjoy more than bud light and have begun making new beers? Please, enlighten me. Sorry, but I don't buy into the 'corporations are inherently evil' bologna.

 

[45_70sharps]

If I like a beer, why do I care about if it makes the cut for a category?

If BMC suddenly made the most amazing beer I ever tasted, I would be a little confused, but I would drink it the same as if it was made by the most micro of micro brews in one gallon batches.
Quality speaks for it's self. Placing the brewer in a category is marketing.

If your motive is to support local breweries, what's it matter who pays for the brick, mortar and advertising.

 

[WastedCider]

Well, according to Sam Calagione from Dogfishhead in the film Beer Wars, InBev is incredibly litigious by trumping up lawsuits against DFH and other micros to drain their operating expenses with legal fees. Also, I don't know if I consider plotting display space for beer stores, distributors and grocery stores as "competitive". I consider it leveraging influence to shut out smaller companies who have a negligible affect on InBevs bottom line.

But I guess it is a tomato tomahto thing. I am leery of corporate strong arm tactics. I think they are generally bad for the marketplace and stifle the economy by raising the bar of entry for new entrepreneurs. Some consider it corporate warriordom that should be championed, not shamed. I don't know which perspective is right. I just know how I react to it.

 

[dbsmith]

I agree that raising the bar of entry is definitely bad for the marketplace. Though, I feel that it is a problem rooted in government and corporations being in bed together. Public outcry has not been sufficient to force lawmakers to create enough laws and penalties to prevent this kind of behavior. It's essentially bribery, in a way. I don't consider this a problem with corporations, specifically, just human nature. I think I vaguely remember what you are referring to in the film of Beer Wars..something about the name of a pumpkin ale. Other companies do that kind of crap all of the time, with patents and such..so I wouldn't really call that 'evil'..just a bit sneaky. If InBev was seriously making erroneous lawsuits just to drain money, then I'm quite sure that DFH could make a counter-suit claim. Laws could also be put into place to prevent that kind of behavior. I wouldn't even worry about it so much now, with the explosion of craft beer. America has more breweries than ever before (after prohibition) and BMC won't have the resources to take on everyone, and little by little they will lose marketshare. I sense that this is the beginning of the end for their total marketplace dominance. Isn't it great when someone develops a better product or produces that product more efficiently to challenge the status quo?

 

[45_70sharps]

Well, according to Sam Calagione from Dogfishhead in the film Beer Wars, InBev is incredibly litigious by trumping up lawsuits against DFH and other micros to drain their operating expenses with legal fees. Also, I don't know if I consider plotting display space for beer stores, distributors and grocery stores as "competitive". I consider it leveraging influence to shut out smaller companies who have a negligible affect on InBevs bottom line.

But I guess it is a tomato tomahto thing. I am leery of corporate strong arm tactics. I think they are generally bad for the marketplace and stifle the economy by raising the bar of entry for new entrepreneurs. Some consider it corporate warriordom that should be championed, not shamed. I don't know which perspective is right. I just know how I react to it.

I can see that is a legitimate reason for wanting to steer clear of some of the biggest breweries.

The studies trying to draw the line between what is a craft beer and what isn't seems a little ridiculous though.
There are a lot more breweries than BMC on the outside with that.

If you want to know that shock top is not by any means a microbrew, it's easy enough to figure that out.
All of the beers from regional breweries that I drink say something like brewed in Portland Oregon on them.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

You know, I see that everyone thinks the BMC guys are going to eventually win in these tactics and drive craft off of store shelves by pure volume... I just don't think it's going to happen.

Look at wine. The largest volume wine producer is Gallo. And yet you can walk into any supermarket and find great wines from a wide array of small vintners with no problem. And jug'o'wine or box'o'wine carries a stigma as being a "low class" product, while nice wine is upscale.

It's a long-term, generational thing, but I firmly believe beer is headed that direction. BMC is trying to fight it, but they're losing.

 

[jheld00]

You know, I see that everyone thinks the BMC guys are going to eventually win in these tactics and drive craft off of store shelves by pure volume... I just don't think it's going to happen.

Look at wine. The largest volume wine producer is Gallo. And yet you can walk into any supermarket and find great wines from a wide array of small vintners with no problem. And jug'o'wine or box'o'wine carries a stigma as being a "low class" product, while nice wine is upscale.

It's a long-term, generational thing, but I firmly believe beer is headed that direction. BMC is trying to fight it, but they're losing.

This exactly, granted I was very young during the "wine boom" but I see many similarities to it. When I enlighten people as to how Blue Moon got started and also the fact that they don't even use Belgian yeast they are very surprised and swear off blue moon(same with shock top). I equate the commercial beer business to the auto biz, All the big companies own all the smaller companies.

 

[mooshimanx]

I don't actually care about the label of "craft beer" any more than I care about the specific sub-genre of music I'm listening to (e.g. "artcore math metal"). If the beer tastes good and is interesting I will give it a try. Buying the interesting, good tasting beers from BMC should theoreticlaly encourage them to make more of those and less Bud Lime (but probably not). In any case, so long as Bourbon County is of the same quality, I'll keep buying it.

 

[WastedCider]

I agree that raising the bar of entry is definitely bad for the marketplace. Though, I feel that it is a problem rooted in government and corporations being in bed together. Public outcry has not been sufficient to force lawmakers to create enough laws and penalties to prevent this kind of behavior. It's essentially bribery, in a way. I don't consider this a problem with corporations, specifically, just human nature. I think I vaguely remember what you are referring to in the film of Beer Wars..something about the name of a pumpkin ale. Other companies do that kind of crap all of the time, with patents and such..so I wouldn't really call that 'evil'..just a bit sneaky. If InBev was seriously making erroneous lawsuits just to drain money, then I'm quite sure that DFH could make a counter-suit claim. Laws could also be put into place to prevent that kind of behavior. I wouldn't even worry about it so much now, with the explosion of craft beer. America has more breweries than ever before (after prohibition) and BMC won't have the resources to take on everyone, and little by little they will lose marketshare. I sense that this is the beginning of the end for their total marketplace dominance. Isn't it great when someone develops a better product or produces that product more efficiently to challenge the status quo?

I prefer consumers to make these changes by voting with their dollar because I agree you can't legislate these things away. Sneaky is a better term than evil.

I don't like painting a scarlet asterisk on some breweries and not others. Educating people is good but, again, coming from the punk rock scene I know how carried away it gets when there is a purity test for every product (band, beer or otherwise). Supporting responsible companies is my rule of thumb. Sierra Nevada would probably fail this articles litmus test. But they are *incredibly* responsible as a company. So yea, it's not just how many BBL per year you're brewing.

All in all - F**k yea to voting with your dollar and supporting local, American and responsible companies.

 

[45_70sharps]

I'm actually pretty happy to see so many people that don't care about what you label the beer.
" craft beer " standards doesn't change what's inside the bottle and it should be about quality and flavor.

I really like the music comparison.
I listen to country from the sixties to modern, rock from the sixties to nineties, black Sabbath, iron maiden, Alice Cooper, seventies punk.
If I like it I listen to it. I'm like that with beer.
Now, to take that a step further, look at what needing to label music for marketing has caused.
When you listen to a format of music you like, they play stuff that is miles off the mark but categorized where they want to market it.
Country stations now play adult pop music.
They are re defining early '80's music as metal. I'm sorry but Def leopard isn't metal and bon jovi is about as metal as pat boone. They are called metal now though because they aren't pop by today's standards and they've got to have their labels so they can market them.

Don't let good beer turn into pop music so it the can be marketed!




The big difference between beer and music though .........






Ii can make good beer!

I couldn't carry a tune in a bucket though.

 

[skullface1818]

I don't think it matters in the larger picture

what matters is that they make a good product. Let goose Island be owned by the big boys, but so long as my brew is better (and if its also more available and cheaper as a result), I will be happy

 

[WastedCider]

Don't let good beer turn into pop music so it the can be marketed!




The big difference between beer and music though .........






Ii can make good beer!

I couldn't carry a tune in a bucket though.

Then my friend, you should have tried being in a punk rock band. I like to compare brewing to punk. It's all about spontaneous action resulting in something amazing (both punks and yeast cells slam dance and emit CO2 and alcohol). The music / culture thing is how Magic Hat got me in the first place. Their brewery in Vermont is like the Mad Hatters playpen. I'll stand by them to the end. In the end it seems a lot here seem to agree it's about the beer. Not the marketing and not the parent co. But, if the parent co does shady things I will opt to go with a different supplier. Unless it means going without any beer at all (hotel bars, airports, etc)!

 

[jkendal]

The last 2 paragraphs of the statement from the Brewers Association:

"The large, multinational brewers appear to be deliberately attempting to blur the lines between their crafty, craft-like beers and true craft beers from today's small and independent brewers. We call for transparency in brand ownership and for information to be clearly presented in a way that allows beer drinkers to make an informed choice about who brewed the beer they are drinking.

And for those passionate beer lovers out there, we ask that you take the time to familiarize yourself with who is brewing the beer you are drinking. Is it a product of a small and independent brewer? Or is it from a crafty large brewer, seeking to capitalize on the mounting success of small and independent craft brewers?"

My thoughts, from a consumer's perspective, are that it really shouldn't matter who makes the beer if the consumer likes it. From a business perspective, the larger breweries are losing market share and so, yeah, they're going to try to do whatever they can to get it back. They've noticed the shift and are doing what any business that is losing money would do. I try to put myself in their shoes - and have to say I'd probably do the same thing. The Craft Beer industry has had remarkable success at a time when beer sales overall have been declining - 25% growth just in the first quarter of 2012 when the industry as a whole is down 1.3% is something they should be extremely happy about. And I understand why they'd be upset that the macro-beer industry is trying everything they can think of to try to lure consumers away from that - ESPECIALLY given how stacked the playing field has been in favor of the large breweries (see the documentary 'Beer Wars' for more on that). I don't really blame them for doing what they can to protect their growth (demanding transparency in brand ownership, etc.) The way I see it, you wanted to go against the big boys and you did and you became successful - but now you're yelling 'foul' when the other team reacts. It seems business can be much the same as love and war.

The bottom line is this: In a time when beer sales as a whole are down, we are seeing more and more choices being offered to us as consumers. I see that as a good thing all the way around. The craft beer industry has forced the macro's to sit up and take notice of the American consumer's desire for more flavorful beer - if a consumer is lured in by a 'crafty' beer and likes it, s/he may be spurred on to give a real craft beer a try. So it might not be as bad as the Brewers Association sees it.....

 

[Barnesie]

The bottom line is this: In a time when beer sales as a whole are down, we are seeing more and more choices being offered to us as consumers. I see that as a good thing all the way around. The craft beer industry has forced the macro's to sit up and take notice of the American consumer's desire for more flavorful beer - if a consumer is lured in by a 'crafty' beer and likes it, s/he may be spurred on to give a real craft beer a try. So it might not be as bad as the Brewers Association sees it.....

But do you actually have access to those choices that are out there? If you're heading to a specialty store then I'd expect the answer is yes, but if you're limited to big-box and grocery outlets as some in this country are...the answer might be surprising.

There are two issues at play here, one is an obvious grab at a "craft/micro/small biz" trend which is fair play in my book. It's deceptive, but no more so then Starbucks being the parent company of Seattle's Best Coffee.

The second issue is that this brand diversification eats shelf space and does limit market access for competitors. Every additional line of product that the majors adds means a retailer and distributor will have to cut a line to make room. Couple this with the fact that in most cases these additional product lines are not optional - they're 100% required. If you want Miller, then you might be required to stock Leinenkugel. If you want Bud, you might be required to stock two lines of shocktop.

Sure microbrewing is showing some signs of success, but the growth is only eating points of percentages of the major's share, so I think you're fooling yourself if you think this isn't a deliberate technique employed to harm competitors. Once they get control of modelo, it will eventually become much worse on the shelves and at the taps. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...astes-big-beer/story?id=17966715#.UNSP6nLIeaQ

I'd challenge everyone here to a homework assignment. Go to your local grocery store, take a survey and figure out how much actual "choice" is on the shelves in the refrigerated section. You might be surprised at what you find.

I will commit to this as a personal project.

 

[GarageDweller]

in reference to the above post...my state has the most backwards beer laws ever. this is partially due to distribution practices, which we all know who owns the distribution companies. seems like a monopoly to me when one company can't even ship their product into our state because of the laws that are in place. Of course, the people want to vote to get the laws changed, but so many corporations are banking on the backwardness that its hard to even get a bill up for a vote. huge companies and politicians are one and the same. follow the $$$.....
bastards

 

[jkendal]

But do you actually have access to those choices that are out there? If you're heading to a specialty store then I'd expect the answer is yes, but if you're limited to big-box and grocery outlets as some in this country are...the answer might be surprising.

I live in the country and the answer is still yes. When I first moved I was actually surprised at the selection of micro beers. I thought there wouldn't be any. And since I moved (it's been several years now), I've noticed more and more being offered. If there's a beer they don't have I'll get it at the liquor store on my way home (I still commute). The store managers in the country actually have more say about the shelf space, too. The big chain stores are mostly in the big cities. If I ask the store manager to stock a beer, he tries to do it.

The second issue is that this brand diversification eats shelf space and does limit market access for competitors. Every additional line of product that the majors adds means a retailer and distributor will have to cut a line to make room. Couple this with the fact that in most cases these additional product lines are not optional - they're 100% required. If you want Miller, then you might be required to stock Leinenkugel. If you want Bud, you might be required to stock two lines of shocktop.

That's what I meant when I said that the playing field is stacked in favor of the larger breweries. AND YET, craft beer is experiencing REMARKABLE growth while overall sales are down. Consumers aren't fooled. They know the difference...

Sure microbrewing is showing some signs of success, but the growth is only eating points of percentages of the major's share, so I think you're fooling yourself if you think this isn't a deliberate technique employed to harm competitors.

I never said it wasn't, so don't call me a fool. In fact, I know it is (did you not read my post?) I said I didn't blame them for doing it. Put yourself in their shoes... if your business was losing money to the competition, would you not do what you could to get that market share back?? And microbrewing isn't just showing signs of success - it is experiencing REMARKABLE growth at a time when the entire industry is in decline.

Look, I think you missed my point. We, as consumers, aren't getting the short end of the stick, no matter how you look at it. We ARE being offered more choices. Almost daily. And it's not just coming from the large breweries. New micros are coming online all the time.

I know there's a bias when it comes to the larger breweries. And I understand that. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter who is making the beer if the consumer is getting what they want. Your argument that the large breweries are somehow "cheating" consumers by taking up more shelf space when micro brews are actually stealing their market share doesn't make sense. Consumers ARE seeking out mirco beers IN SPITE of the larger breweries "cheating". The fact is, they've always been cheating and craft beer is STILL winning. That isn't bad for consumers. It's forcing the larger breweries to pay more attention to us.

 

[logan3825]

I buy Miller products all the time. I would hate to waste good beer when I soak brats.

 

[Barnesie]

I never said it wasn't, so don't call me a fool. In fact, I know it is (did you not read my post?) I said I didn't blame them for doing it. Put yourself in their shoes... if your business was losing money to the competition, would you not do what you could to get that market share back?? And microbrewing isn't just showing signs of success - it is experiencing REMARKABLE growth at a time when the entire industry is in decline.

Look, I think you missed my point. We, as consumers, aren't getting the short end of the stick, no matter how you look at it. We ARE being offered more choices. Almost daily. And it's not just coming from the large breweries. New micros are coming online all the time.

I know there's a bias when it comes to the larger breweries. And I understand that. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter who is making the beer if the consumer is getting what they want. Your argument that the large breweries are somehow "cheating" consumers by taking up more shelf space when micro brews are actually stealing their market share doesn't make sense. Consumers ARE seeking out mirco beers IN SPITE of the larger breweries "cheating". The fact is, they've always been cheating and craft beer is STILL winning. That's isn't bad for consumers. It's forcing the larger breweries to pay more attention to us.

Relax have a homebrew, I didn't call you a fool and didn't mean to imply anything similar just so we're clear. I did say "you're fooling yourself" which I was directing at the thread in total and used as a figure of speech not as a statement of fact or opinion.

Depending on how you count, in my region there are approximately 16 or 17 package brewing companies. In our local grocery store, only four are available and one of them has an exclusive distribution deal with AB.

Despite a wealth of great microbrews, there are retail and tap outlets where they simply don't have access to the marketplace and that's a direct result of the actions of macros.

The craft segment is growing for sure, it's growing in capacity and it's growing in operators while having a practically insignificant impact on the major's sales figures as a percentage. Obviously a corporation cares about every dollar, but going from 91% of marketshare to 90% isn't going to send them into any kind of tailspin...and just wait to see how they're hurting once they own Corona.

The craft segment is fighting to increase share of sales one percentage point while attempting to distribute that share over thousands of new companies entering the market. WHILE the established players greatly increase their capacity...anybody heard of Asheville?

We're experiencing an increase in craft volume without a doubt, we are experiencing a huge diversity of new choices, but there is not any increase at all in the capacity of retailers and that's where the problem lies.

The macros aren't losing tap accounts. The macros are not decreasing their shelf presence, they're increasing both through brand diversification and acquisition and they're financially capable of decreasing their overall volume in favor of increasing their market presence. This is a zero-sum industry, market presence is market dominance. Every tap you take is one another brewer can't fill. Every square inch of shelf you occupy prevents another manufacturer access to the market.

That's the problem. It isn't a problem of being shady and obfuscating your products to confuse consumers, it's a problem of using dominance over distribution to restrict access to limited markets.

(despite how this may appear, I hate being long-winded)

 

[jkendal]

Relax have a homebrew, I didn't call you a fool and didn't mean to imply anything similar just so we're clear. I did say "you're fooling yourself" which I was directing at the thread in total and used as a figure of speech not as a statement of fact or opinion.

Depending on how you count, in my region there are approximately 16 or 17 package brewing companies. In our local grocery store, only four are available and one of them has an exclusive distribution deal with AB.

Despite a wealth of great microbrews, there are retail and tap outlets where they simply don't have access to the marketplace and that's a direct result of the actions of macros.

The craft segment is growing for sure, it's growing in capacity and it's growing in operators while having a practically insignificant impact on the major's sales figures as a percentage. Obviously a corporation cares about every dollar, but going from 91% of marketshare to 90% isn't going to send them into any kind of tailspin...and just wait to see how they're hurting once they own Corona.

The craft segment is fighting to increase share of sales one percentage point while attempting to distribute that share over thousands of new companies entering the market. WHILE the established players greatly increase their capacity...anybody heard of Asheville?

We're experiencing an increase in craft volume without a doubt, we are experiencing a huge diversity of new choices, but there is not any increase at all in the capacity of retailers and that's where the problem lies.

The macros aren't losing tap accounts. The macros are not decreasing their shelf presence, they're increasing both through brand diversification and acquisition and they're financially capable of decreasing their overall volume in favor of increasing their market presence. This is a zero-sum industry, market presence is market dominance. Every tap you take is one another brewer can't fill. Every square inch of shelf you occupy prevents another manufacturer access to the market.

That's the problem. It isn't a problem of being shady and obfuscating your products to confuse consumers, it's a problem of using dominance over distribution to restrict access to limited markets.

(despite how this may appear, I hate being long-winded)

Thanks for clarifying that it wasn't me you were directing that comment toward.

As far as the rest of your post, I totally agree. I'm completely aware of what's happening and I realize that it's happening everywhere. What I'm saying is that in spite of the stranglehold the macros have on the market and how beers are distributed and sold in stores, micros have made great strides. Yes, they're playing dirty (the macros). And things won't change overnight but they are changing. Think about what it was like just twenty years ago (not sure how old you are but...) you couldn't find near as many micros at the grocery stores as you can today. I see you're in Fairfax, Virginia. I'm not sure how things are there, but I'm looking at this from a nationwide perspective.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the stranglehold the macros have on the industry. They've gamed the system in their favor. I KNOW that. But I'm not angry anymore (at least not as much as I used to be) because things ARE changing - for the better - for consumers. I guess I just can't understand why everyone else is so angry - I see this statement by the Brewers Association as a bringing to light how craft beer is growing and how the macros, even though what they're doing is seen as 'crafty' and 'dirty tricks' in trying to gain back lost market share, are starting to pay attention to the wants and desires of the consumer - you and me - and anyone who might buy beer. I'm trying to show you that's a good thing. Yeah, the macros are playing dirty - but it isn't working. They're losing while micros are winning.

And if you really want to help things along, contact your state politicians and work with like minded people in your area to get the laws changed to give ALL brewers a level playing field. Like I said, it isn't going to change overnight, but it is changing for the better. That's all I've been trying to say.

 

[jkendal]

And I'm not usually long winded, either...

 

[jkendal]

There was a time when the macros ignored those of us who want more flavor in our beer simply because we didn't affect their bottom line. But now we are. And their recent actions suggest they're starting to pay attention to what we want. A lot of you don't like their tactics and I understand that. But they ARE paying attention now. This is a good thing.

And if things continue as they are, the macros will disappear in favor of more and more local and regional breweries. The effects of Prohibition will have completely gone away.

The future of beer is looking better every day.

 

[Thomas007]

The problem is not that the huge brewing conglomerates are trying to make beer with more flavor (this is a good thing), or even that they're squeezing smaller brewers off the shelves (although they may be).

The problem is that they are trying to deceive consumers into thinking that they are buying beer from independent breweries. When I first tried Blue Moon, it did not say "brewed by MillerCoors" on the label, it said "brewed by Blue Moon Brewing Co.". That's what the article is about.

 

[jkendal]

The problem is not that the huge brewing conglomerates are trying to make beer with more flavor (this is a good thing), or even that they're squeezing smaller brewers off the shelves (although they may be).

The problem is that they are trying to deceive consumers into thinking that they are buying beer from independent breweries. When I first tried Blue Moon, it did not say "brewed by MillerCoors" on the label, it said "brewed by Blue Moon Brewing Co.". That's what the article is about.

And again, I know this. They're not playing fair.

I get it.

But people ARE buying Blue Moon. I assume they keep doing this because they like it. I know several people that buy it. And they keep buying it because they like to drink it.

Again, what does it matter who is making the beer as long as the consumer is happy? I can't see why you guys are so hung up on the dirty tricks of the macros. You act like this is a crime when all that's happening is breweries are selling beer to people who happen to like the beer. People wouldn't be buying it if they didn't like it. Who cares if Miller sells a beer under a different brewery's name as long as the people buying the product are satisfied customers? Why does that bother so many of you??

I'm not saying any of this out of disrespect for any of you. We're all fellow homebrewers here. I'm just trying to understand why this is so upsetting to some of you when the fact is the craft beer industry is growing - DESPITE a decline in beer sales. I simply don't understand why some of you act like this is a bad thing.....