"Craft Brews" vs BMC... Who is better?

[casualbrewer]

The more I brew and the more I taste "craft efforts" the more I appreciate how hard it must be to create a BMC even though it is "flavorless" p!zzwater as some on here call it. This has had me thinking that a BMC style beer is probably greatly harder to perfect than anything we make. It seems much harder to "craft" a light lager however much it is criticized. I find myself trying to create a light lager for one of my taps and I just cant replicate the "cheap beer" bought in the store for a quaffable session drink that I can have more than a few of. My other beers such as my Belgian wit, octoberfest, and chocolate milk stout all come out perceivably good in comparison which I believe is due to all the different ingredients covering up off flavors. So who is better at crafting beer? Seems all craft beer makers are producing beers with a lot of different things going on while BMC is producing light beers from a very simple ingredient list with zero variations. So is BMC great at producing simple (bad) beer while the craft market/home brewers are great at producing average beer with more extensive ingredients? How many people on here can truly produce a light lager within style that can replicate the consistency of BMC?

I am not promoting BMC beers or bashing anyone's craft efforts but merely just pondering how hard it must be to produce beer at that level consistently. Flame away

 

[QuadConPana]

You're probably right.

Here's an analogy. These are crap compared to homemade cookies. But, they are the result of expensive research in military laboratories. They were originally created for MRE's.

There is probably a lot of science involved in making a consistent product out of crappy ingredients and doing it on such a gargantuan scale.

 

[Billy-Klubb]

facepalms are sooo last week.

 

[casualbrewer]

You're probably right.

Here's an analogy. These are crap compared to homemade cookies. But, they are the result of expensive research in military laboratories. They were originally created for MRE's.

There is probably a lot of science involved in making a consistent product out of crappy ingredients and doing it on such a gargantuan scale.

Kind of similar but not really. Was really wondering why all the hate for BMC. Even if you don't like it you can appreciate how hard it must be to make beer that light because I dang sure can't yet. I know this is a can of worms but oh well... I guess I am just starting to respect the macros more after making my own beer. Lot harder to make beer like that than something that has a ton of ingredients that cover up the little mistakes.

 

[hunter_le five]

This subject is the horse that's been beaten to death, and then resurrected, then beaten to death again, then beaten posthumously, etcetera ad nauseam. We'll never have a consensus.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

Kind of similar but not really. Was really wondering why all the hate for BMC. Even if you don't like it you can appreciate how hard it must be to make beer that light because I dang sure can't yet. I know this is a can of worms but oh well... I guess I am just starting to respect the macros more after making my own beer. Lot harder to make beer like that than something that has a ton of ingredients that cover up the little mistakes.

It's not hard to make a light AAL

That being said, it doesn't make sense to make it at home. Part of the draw to homebrew is the cost. You can make something that costs 40 bucks a case and get about 2 cases of yield for under 40 bucks in a similar style. There's no real gain to making an AAL. If you want something crushable you can make blondes, kolschs, sours etc. Carton Brewing makes 2 fantastically crushable beers in Boat Beer and Monkey Chase the Weasel.

 

[Bosh]

Just because something's hard to make doesn't mean it's better. It's really hard to make something that tastes and looks just like Wonderbread at home but that doesn't mean you should ask bakers to make some for you.

And I think the difficulty has to be a bit over-rated, just look at how people wrack their brains and argue back and forth about techniques to get massive and persistent hop flavor and aroma. That's not easy, nor is it easy to get a couple different strong flavors to balance. Sure you don't have much margin for error when you're trying to remove all flavors as much as possible but the process is pretty straight-forward and well-understood.

If I want to make, say, a Zebra IPA (black hoppy witbier) I have to put a lot of thought into making those flavors not clash and go together well so there's a lot of thinking about how to put the recipe together that I wouldn't have to do for a light American lager.

 

[Calichusetts]

Lagers just need strict controls and experience in what works and what doesn't. Something Budweiser is very good at. When it comes to consistently producing the same beer with little taste but no apparent defects, this helps:

 

[unionrdr]

I'm still trying to get my Hopped & Confused hygrid lagers to taste the way lagers did decades ago now. Not an easy thing to do.

 

[Cheesy_Goodness]

It seems to me that most craft beer drinkers just don't like the taste of BMC. That's all well and good, but the "hate" is directed more toward their marketing than the actual product.

"Beechwood Aged" "Triple Hopped" "Cold Brewed" (which doesn't really make much sense to begin with) are terms that, while true, give the consumer an over hyped idea of what actually goes into the making of BMC. "This Miller is triple hopped. I've not heard of anyone else adding hops three times, so that must mean they're doing something different than everyone else. This must be a great example of a hoppy beer!" That kind of thing really gets to me because I've had family tell me that BM's Centennial Blonde recipe is way too bitter (I've not tried to give them any IPAs). BMC seems to be relying more on marketing than the quality of the actual product.

I get it, it's marketing, and they're in the business of making money. But at the same time, that kind of misinformation makes it harder for beer geeks to share what beer can actually be. Beer doesn't have to be a transparent, watery tasting carbonated beverage with a slight bitterness that you down after mowing the lawn. A lifelong BMC drinker might look at a cloudy hefeweizen and decide that it won't taste good, because beer shouldn't be cloudy, or beer served above 35F is probably going to suck because it isn't ice cold.

At least that's been my experience...

 

[QuadConPana]

Was really wondering why all the hate for BMC.

I can't speak for others here, but my problem is that those companies use their size to unfair advantage. Miller/Coors, for example threatened The Discovery Channel and its parent company with removal of their advertising dollars if they didn't cancel Sam Calagione's show Brewmasters. AB/InBev has a history of bullying their distributors into limiting craft offerings. Also, they have a history of stockpiling patents that they have no interest in using so that they can prevent innovations that would benefit craft brewers.

So, while I might buy my KBS this Black Friday, that will be one of the few times I give them my money.

 

[Grannyknot]

If I woke up every morning and knitted the same pair of socks all day long, I would be the greatest knitter of that pair of socks the world had ever seen. I would also be so bored with my life I'd be on suicide watch.

 

[max384]

It's not hard to make a light AAL

That being said, it doesn't make sense to make it at home. Part of the draw to homebrew is the cost. You can make something that costs 40 bucks a case and get about 2 cases of yield for under 40 bucks in a similar style. There's no real gain to making an AAL. If you want something crushable you can make blondes, kolschs, sours etc. Carton Brewing makes 2 fantastically crushable beers in Boat Beer and Monkey Chase the Weasel.

I completely disagree. Just because you can't save much money making a particular beer at home doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to do so. I brew my own beer because I love doing it, nobody else will fill my corny kegs with their beer, the beer I make is delicious, and I take pride in crafting my own beers.

I guess I'm fortunate that I don't need to brew my own solely because of financial constraints. In fact, I don't think I'll ever break even on beer costs vs equipment costs, since I'm always upgrading.

This being said, I can still brew a BMC clone for less than I can buy it for. With such a low grain and hop bill, I'm confused as to why you can't either.

 

[drainbamage]

Of course BMC is better. It's brewed the hard way, just like the commercials said!

 

[kombat]

I can't speak for others here, but my problem is that those companies use their size to unfair advantage. Miller/Coors, for example threatened The Discovery Channel and its parent company with removal of their advertising dollars if they didn't cancel Sam Calagione's show Brewmasters.

What's wrong with that? Why would Ford advertise on Speed network if the network produced a series that extolled the superior quality, performance, and workmanship of Chrysler cars?

I don't see that as "bullying" or "unfair." That's simply good business. Focus your advertising dollars where they'll have the most impact, not on a network that does feature series on your competition.

That said, I wish Discovery had said, "That's fine, but the show is getting high ratings so we're going to keep making it anyway."

 

[Homercidal]

I tried a to make a nice, light lager, like some BMC beers USED to make. I failed.

I assumed it was because it's terribly challenging and virtually impossible.

Then I tasted some lagers made by one of the members here. A variety of them, in fact. And they were wonderful!

So now I'm back in the hunt to be able to do this myself. Not just for the taste, nor just to say I can. Some of both. I'll be kicking it back in when winter hits and I don't have to tie up my fermentation chamber lagering. I realized that they probably just require a bit more attention to detail than I was giving them. And since they use less ingredients, the right recipe and hitting numbers is even more important than I'm used to.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I can't speak for others here, but my problem is that those companies use their size to unfair advantage. Miller/Coors, for example threatened The Discovery Channel and its parent company with removal of their advertising dollars if they didn't cancel Sam Calagione's show Brewmasters. AB/InBev has a history of bullying their distributors into limiting craft offerings. Also, they have a history of stockpiling patents that they have no interest in using so that they can prevent innovations that would benefit craft brewers.

So, while I might buy my KBS this Black Friday, that will be one of the few times I give them my money.

So, basically, you are saying that you don't like AB/Inbev because they operate a business? They are doing what ANY business with a significant share of the market would do regardless if the product is beer, clothes, cars, pharma, etc...

 

[ifnotuthenwho]

So, basically, you are saying that you don't like AB/Inbev because they operate a business? They are doing what ANY business with a significant share of the market would do regardless if the product is beer, clothes, cars, pharma, etc...

You are correct. They are operating a business and can make any decisions they want regarding how they market within the bounds of the law. That's their right. But QuadConPana, or anyone else, has the right to decide they don't like how they do business and choose not to purchase their products. That's what a free society is all about.

 

[kombat]

You are correct. They are operating a business and can make any decisions they want regarding how they market within the bounds of the law. That's their right. But QuadConPana, or anyone else, has the right to decide they don't like how they do business and choose not to purchase their products. That's what a free society is all about.

And we have the right to point out when those decisions are misguided, ill-informed, or hypocritical.

 

[Shooter]

Hmm, I'm all for capitalism, but there certainly is a line that shouldn't be crossed. I'm not saying that it was crossed in the above example, but everyone has a tendency to just throw out, "Hey, they're just doing what any business would do." I think the payola scandal of the past sort of demonstrated that, even in a capitalist system, there is an "improper" way to conduct yourself.

 

[bob1852]

I can't speak for others here, but my problem is that those companies use their size to unfair advantage. Miller/Coors, for example threatened The Discovery Channel and its parent company with removal of their advertising dollars if they didn't cancel Sam Calagione's show Brewmasters. AB/InBev has a history of bullying their distributors into limiting craft offerings.

As far I was able to research when those allegations came out, it was just a crappy third party rumor...

 

[Shooter]

As far I was able to research when those allegations came out, it was just a crappy third party rumor...

That sounds about right. When I read that I was surprised that I had never heard anything about it.

 

[ifnotuthenwho]

And we have the right to point out when those decisions are misguided, ill-informed, or hypocritical.

You certainly do have that right. And it may be ill-informed. But if the original premise is true and not just a rumor, i.e. that they demanded a show that he happened to like be cancelled, it certainly is not misguided or hypocritical to dislike the company and not buy their products.

 

[UndeadFred]

There is so much to the whole story it's not even funny.

Originally, North American barley was total crap. So it made sense to brew with maize and rice, and use the low quality 6-row for the amylase enzyme. But there was also the whole case that the most alcoholic time in US history was around the Civil War and the whole prohibition thing that came from that also pushed lower ABV's and more water like beers. It was the pre-prohibition "compromise" to supposedly prevent prohibition. And when it was repealed by law low ABV beers were required for a LONG time.

And, prohibition created that mafiaesqe distribution oligopoly that we all know and love. Which created the marketing that thinks it is a great idea to insult your customers. (The government who created it does it all the time..)

Technically, the "American Style Lager" that resulted from this is made with the cheapest ingredients possible now (to overcome the huge taxes and overhead that the system puts along the line) from the original necessity of using those ingredients and methods in the first place.

To make beer from that crap.. you need a lot of work. But when it's all automated that translates into a "lot of starting capital" now. So great.. brewed the hard way by a computer..

I'd say the big boys are as evil as everyone stated. But blame the GOP for pushing Prohibition and FDR for creating a legal highly profitable for state and federal government organized crime oligopoly when it was repealed. The whole story of American (and now world) Macrobrew comes into play when you look at it from the historical perspective.

The rise of craft beer in America is literally really an individualist freedom movement and this is why a lot of us support it.

Well, that and the beer is good.. until I drank good European beer I didn't even like beer.. and now the American craft beers in many cases are even better.

Fred

 

[bob1852]

That sounds about right. When I read that I was surprised that I had never heard anything about it.

Anthony Bourdain (who has ties to the same production team as the Brew Masters show) was the one who started the rumor.

Discovery's official statement was that the show wasn't renewed (which is different than being cancelled) because of poor viewership.

Bourdain was able to generate some anti-BMC coverage (which is also positive coverage for him and his brand).



Here's my question - MillerCoors was advertising during that show's run. Why the hell would they threaten to stop advertising unless Discovery cancelled the show?!?! That doesn't make any sense.

 

[kombat]

But if the original premise is true and not just a rumor, i.e. that they demanded a show that he happened to like be cancelled, it certainly is not misguided or hypocritical to dislike the company and not buy their products.

Yes it is, in my opinion. It evinces a naivete regarding how commerce, and specifically marketing, work in a capitalist economy. It's not unethical, or bullying - it's merely rational actions by self-interested parties. It's just business.

They can't "demand" that Discovery do anything. All they can do is say, "if you continue to promote our competitors, we'll take our advertising dollars elsewhere. Ball's in your court."

What's wrong with that?

 

[bob1852]

All they can do is say, "if you continue to promote our competitors, we'll take our advertising dollars elsewhere. Ball's in your court."

Which, of course, would be extremely ironic given they were advertising their products during that show...

 

[coolharry]

Yes it is, in my opinion. It evinces a naivete regarding how commerce, and specifically marketing, work in a capitalist economy. It's not unethical, or bullying - it's merely rational actions by self-interested parties. It's just business.

They can't "demand" that Discovery do anything. All they can do is say, "if you continue to promote our competitors, we'll take our advertising dollars elsewhere. Ball's in your court."

What's wrong with that?

They're a multi billion dollar company that spend more advertising their beer than making it. They have muscle and they know it. Your really think they're going to play nice and not go for the jugular right away?

 

[bob1852]

Your really think they're going to play nice and not go for the jugular right away?

So, why did one season of the show air?

Do you really think Miller Coors advertised for the whole season and then told Discovery: "cancel this show or we're not going to advertise on this show anymore."

 

[kombat]

Which, of course, would be extremely ironic given they were advertising their products during that show...

Huh? What do you mean? Discovery was running AB-Inbev ads during "Brewmasters?" Or are you implying AB-Inbev owns Dogfish Head? If you mean the former, then perhaps they'd already made their advertising agreement for that season, and were negotiating the terms for the next season (i.e., renew the show and we won't be renewing our advertising contract).

I'm obtuse today, explain it to me like I'm an idiot.

 

[kombat]

They're a multi billion dollar company that spend more advertising their beer than making it. They have muscle and they know it. Your really think they're going to play nice and not go for the jugular right away?

They don't own the Discovery channel. What "muscle" could they possibly flex besides pulling their advertising dollars (which is the same power EVERY advertiser on any network has)?

 

[bob1852]

Huh? What do you mean? Discovery was running AB-Inbev ads during "Brewmasters?" Or are you implying AB-Inbev owns Dogfish Head? If you mean the former, then perhaps they'd already made their advertising agreement for that season, and were negotiating the terms for the next season (i.e., renew the show and we won't be renewing our advertising contract).

I'm obtuse today, explain it to me like I'm an idiot.

MillerCoors was running Blue Moon ads during the Brew Masters show.

For your latter statement, that comes down to Discovery making a business decision -- if it actually happened that way. Discovery would have to weigh the revenue generation from Miller Coors vs. the revenue generation from Brew Masters (which wasn't being watching by many people anyway).

That's a business decision by Discovery. Hardly MillerCoors getting Brew Masters cancelled.....(again, if it even happened that way)

 

[kombat]

So, why did one season of the show air?

Do you really think Miller Coors advertised for the whole season and then told Discovery: "cancel this show or we're not going to advertise on this show anymore."

I don't pretend to know how these things work, but it doesn't seem that implausible to me that advertising contracts are written for particular terms (i.e., a year, a scheduling season, whatever) and are not often revisited mid-term. It may have been more hassle than it was worth to rock the boat in the middle of the run of a show that only had 6 episodes anyway, but when it came time to renew, I can believe it was mentioned at the negotiating table.

 

[ifnotuthenwho]

Yes it is, in my opinion. It evinces a naivete regarding how commerce, and specifically marketing, work in a capitalist economy. It's not unethical, or bullying - it's merely rational actions by self-interested parties. It's just business.

They can't "demand" that Discovery do anything. All they can do is say, "if you continue to promote our competitors, we'll take our advertising dollars elsewhere. Ball's in your court."

What's wrong with that?

I'm as conservative and capitalistic as they come, and I agree that they have every right to decide how to spend their advertising dollars. And if they use threat of removing those dollars to get something they want, they are within their right.

But you seem to be missing my point. Freedom of choice is not freedom from the consequences of that choice. If a company does something that an individual does not like, that individual has every right to not buy their product. That is not naiveté, hypocritical, or misguided.

What if the AB-InBev was spending all their dollars with lobbyist to get the law changed that allows home brewing. Would you continue to buy their product to increase their revenues so they can spend more money to change the legislation to stop you from home brewing? That would be the epitome of naiveté.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I'm as conservative and capitalistic as they come, and I agree that they have every right to decide how to spend their advertising dollars. And if they use threat of removing those dollars to get something they want, they are within their right.

But you seem to be missing my point. Freedom of choice is not freedom from the consequences of that choice. If a company does something that an individual does not like, that individual has every right to not buy their product. That is not naiveté, hypocritical, or misguided.

Naivete is not placing the blame where the blame is due.

Hypocritical is shaming AB/Inbev for business strategy while NOT shaming Discovery for being too weak to say no.

Misguided is thinking AB/Inbev gives two fvcks about homebrew.

 

[cilestiok]

Why would Discovery cancel any show based on lost advertising? That concept seems rather naive. Advertising slots are generally issued at a generic $/min rate based on the viewership of the timeslot (high ratings: high cost per minute). If big beer wanted to walk away, why would discovery care? McDonald's or Home Depot or whoever would just fill that slot for the same amount of money.

 

[bob1852]

If a company does something that an individual does not like, that individual has every right to not buy their product. That is not naiveté, hypocritical, or misguided.

What if the company actually didn't do it, though?

Wouldn't that be misguided to not buy their products over false, misleading information?

Again, Bourdain (who started the rumor with a tweet) has ties to the production company who made Beer Masters.

Beer Masters not getting renewed affects Bourdain's $$$. Maybe the real villain in this case is Bourdain...

 

[wobrien]

I, for one, will no longer be buying beer brewed by bourdain!

 

[kombat]

But you seem to be missing my point. Freedom of choice is not freedom from the consequences of that choice. If a company does something that an individual does not like, that individual has every right to not buy their product. That is not naiveté, hypocritical, or misguided.

You're not getting it.

I'm saying you're naïve and hypocritical for being mad about it.

Why on earth would you expect them to continue to pour millions of dollars in advertising dollars into a network that is actively promoting their competition? What rational company would do that? What rational person would EXPECT them to do that?

What if the AB-InBev was spending all their dollars with lobbyist to get the law changed that allows home brewing. Would you continue to buy their product

If I liked their product, yes, I would continue buying it. I don't care what a company does, as long as it's legal. That's not how I make my purchasing decisions. My thought process is simple:

• Do I like this product/Does it work as advertised?
• Is there an equally effective alternative that is cheaper?

That's it. What charities they give to or how their CEO feels about gay marriage doesn't factor into it one whit. I'm ruthlessly pragmatic that way. I care about how it affects me, personally. And maybe my family. End of story.

 

[ifnotuthenwho]

You're not getting it.

I'm saying you're naïve and hypocritical for being mad about it.

Why on earth would you expect them to continue to pour millions of dollars in advertising dollars into a network that is actively promoting their competition? What rational company would do that? What rational person would EXPECT them to do that?



If I liked their product, yes, I would continue buying it. I don't care what a company does, as long as it's legal. That's not how I make my purchasing decisions. My thought process is simple:

• Do I like this product/Does it work as advertised?
• Is there an equally effective alternative that is cheaper?

That's it. What charities they give to or how their CEO feels about gay marriage doesn't factor into it one whit. I'm ruthlessly pragmatic that way. I care about how it affects me, personally. And maybe my family. End of story.

Wow. I'm done with you after this last comment. Feel free to have the last word after this.

You say "I care about how it affects me personally." That is what I'm saying. The original poster was affected by a show he liked being cancelled. He believes this is because advertising dollars were pulled by a big brewer. This may not be true, but for the sake of argument, let say it is. He is well within his rights to stop buying their product. He is well within his rights to stop buying their product for whatever reason he chooses. Why is this so hard for you to understand.