Michael Kiser of Good Beer Hunting

[goodbeerhunting]

All of the industry relevant potential trends of that story would be just as viable the following day though no? TalkBeer is your no ******** open space to just let it all out man. It's cool to say ego trumped common sense on the timing. If it's truly about the bigger picture/story, can we expect a follow up story in 2017 in regards to both parties? That would seemingly be even more newsworthy.

I do appreciate your honest response on the twitter spat though. I'm not trying to be holier than thou or pretend like any one of us doesn't get carried away on some form of social media. But honestly, if random nonsense gets you that riled up next time, just set the phone down and know its time to spend QT with the family. It's not worth sending angry tweets out for all to see about a dude/shop that you've at least had some relationship with in the past. Especially not on a holiday afternoon. Folks see that stuff. Remember, everybody poops.

2016 was a watershed moment in evaluating the role of Twitter in my daily life, that's for sure. And it turns out that if you don't see it, you don't feel compelled to react to it. Go figure. http://www.cbc.ca/comedy/obama-unle...he-god-damn-president-and-adult-man-1.3919780

The Penrose story — I have nothing that needs defending here. We absolutely wanted to be the ones who broke that in terms of its local relevance. So we made some calls, got the facts straight, and found out they were finishing their final-decision meeting with their distribution partners that afternoon. We waited until we got a follow-up call that the meeting was over, and then we published. At that point, the only people who didn't know were some bars and bottle shops that they told the next day. I know this is true, because Penrose sales reps confirmed it for me. In that scenario, do you find anything other than professional courtesy?

 

[goodbeerhunting]

If there was no Goose Island, would GBH exist? Would GBH's haters?

It might exist, but it'd be super Rare.

 

[NAD1983]

But seriously goodbeerhunting I'm going to ask the question that's on everyone's mind:
Pliny or Heady?

 

[goodbeerhunting]

can we expect a follow up story in 2017 in regards to both parties?

My understanding of NDAs in a partnership breakup says "unlikely." But man, it'd be fascinating to look back at it all with them in hindsight. The only part of all that I don't like is that just a few weeks prior they both sat in my studio on the podcast and with straight faces acted like Penrose was chummier than ever. I could sense a weird tension in the room, but at the time I thought it was because they were nervous to talk about their recalls. I had no idea that a partner split was so close to happening then.

 

[tikk]

Can you weigh in on the craft beer beer bubble, bubble thread
https://www.talkbeer.com/community/...ft-beer-bubble-here-thread-bubble-here.36837/

 

[tosh1]

just INRAT

But placeholder so I can sit back and read this nonesence tomorrow

 

[cneville1]

That piece was about the ongoing conversation in BBA beers. It started on Twitter and got gnarly so I tried to formulate my thoughts into a longer piece where I could get some room. It certainly relies on my knowledge of Goose and some of the Rare process. For me, that's a good thing. I'd rather be speaking with first-hand knowledge than conjecture. And I think that's what our audience appreciates.

My work with Goose certainly makes me more familiar with them. And that makes me want to see a more informed discussion take place when I see it. But I feel that way about any brewery I get to know, wether it was through work or purely personal experience. In the end, I champion a fair perspective based in fact.

As for my opinion of Rare, that article actually sums it up pretty well in this paragraph.

"I sampled one of the Rare barrels about a year in and the vinous character was strong—prevalent to the point of concern. But after the blending of all the 35-year-old barrels, that single-barrel experience mellowed out quite a bit and rounded off into something quite interesting and unique. I like it. And I’ve bought a couple bottle since then to share with family and friends—not as an example of the pinnacle of BBA stouts, but as something singular."

so just to condense this into an answer: you talk about goose because you know goose, and you know goose because goose pays you.

 

[Saugusbrewer]

Do you intentionally use too many words to answer simple questions hoping people will just stop reading?













It's working.

 

[PHBoiler]

My understanding of NDAs in a partnership breakup says "unlikely." But man, it'd be fascinating to look back at it all with them in hindsight. The only part of all that I don't like is that just a few weeks prior they both sat in my studio on the podcast and with straight faces acted like Penrose was chummier than ever. I could sense a weird tension in the room, but at the time I thought it was because they were nervous to talk about their recalls. I had no idea that a partner split was so close to happening then.

I was thinking more of a where are they now follow up rather than a what happened then story. What changes did Penrose make after the split? What sort of vision does Hobbs have moving forward? If neither is interested then so be it. Just figured if the news was deemed important by GBH to the industry then a one year retro might be equally important.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

so just to condense this into an answer: you talk about goose because you know goose, and you know goose because goose pays you.

That checks out, yes. I also talk about, say, Hill Farm because I know Hill Farm. And I know Hill Fram because, I endeavor to know Hill Farm. And that's true of countless breweries. It was also true about Goose long before they ever asked me to work with them (which is not a constant thing, by the way, it's barely periodic). My self-initiated interest in, and knowledge of, Goose made it possible to work for them effectively.

I'm not missing your point. I understand. But I think it's overly simplistic and the catalyst is missing in your equation.

 

[stxSS07]

Do you intentionally use too many words to answer simple questions hoping people will just stop reading?













It's working.

 

[Saugusbrewer]

That checks out, yes. I also talk about, say, Hill Farm because I know Hill Farm. And I know Hill Fram because, I endeavor to know Hill Farm. And that's true of countless breweries. It was also true about Goose long before they ever asked me to work with them (which is not a constant thing, by the way, it's barely periodic). My self-initiated interest in, and knowledge of, Goose made it possible to work for them effectively.

I'm not missing your point. I understand. But I think it's overly simplistic and the catalyst is missing in your equation.

So you put on the integrity suit when it fits?

 

[goodbeerhunting]

I was thinking more of a where are they now follow up rather than a what happened then story. What changes did Penrose make after the split? What sort of vision does Hobbs have moving forward? If neither is interested then so be it. Just figured if the news was deemed important by GBH to the industry then a one year retro might be equally important.

Oh, I thought you meant a follow-up to the split. That's the part that's unlikely. Hobbs went on to Solemn Oath to be VP of sales, which we reported in an immediate follow-up. Penrose — nothing's happened yet that would demand a follow-up. But I'd love to see them on the shelf again for sure. Focused on the wood program for now, last time I talked to Korder.

 

[cneville1]

That checks out, yes. I also talk about, say, Hill Farm because I know Hill Farm. And I know Hill Fram because, I endeavor to know Hill Farm. And that's true of countless breweries. It was also true about Goose long before they ever asked me to work with them (which is not a constant thing, by the way, it's barely periodic). My self-initiated interest in, and knowledge of, Goose made it possible to work for them effectively.

I'm not missing your point. I understand. But I think it's overly simplistic and the catalyst is missing in your equation.

but isn't the point that now that you're making over $70K from brewery clients, the catalyst is different than it was when you were a pubescent wordpress blog? goose is clearly a huge client, yet you write on the editorial side of your enterprise about them without any disclaimer. you can't be both a friend of goose and employee [edit: contractor, whatever, idgaf] of ab inbev while expecting that old relationships (with companies that literally don't exist) place your editorializations and commentary on a level that we shouldn't scrutinize.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

You've got 4 chances to get to "off". Godspeed.

 

[stxSS07]

You've got 4 chances to get to "off". Godspeed.

5 actually...I didn't paint the whole picture.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

but isn't the point that now that you're making over $70K from brewery clients, the catalyst is different than it was when you were a pubescent wordpress blog? goose is clearly a huge client, yet you write on the editorial side of your enterprise about them without any disclaimer. you can't be both a friend of goose and employee [edit: contractor, whatever, idgaf] of ab inbev while expecting that old relationships (with companies that literally don't exist) place your editorializations and commentary on a level that we shouldn't scrutinize.

Goose is absolutely not a huge client. We haven't worked with them since that podcast. And even then they were a small percentage. The vast majority of our clients are start-ups and young breweries.

And the catalyst has always been to tell compelling stories about beer. While my personal experiences have become much more industry-focused and my place i the industry changes my access and knowledge, my team is made up of a diverse group of people each with their own perspectives. It'd be a mistake to treat me and GBH as one entity. The days of me being the lone voice, or even the most common voice, are long gone.

Having clients in beer is absolutely an influence on me as a writer. I come to know and understand those companies in different ways than I know other companies. And the scrutiny is perfectly welcome. I think that's what we're doing right now.

I guess that's the difference between skepticism and cynicism for me. I'm have a healthy skepticism of everything I read. That's just part of being an active reader. In the end, I'd hope that people would find more value in debating the actual content of what I write than why they think I wrote it. I don't see any value in trying to disqualify someone when their argument or opinion is based in real knowledge.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

5 actually...I didn't paint the whole picture.

You had one job.

 

[cneville1]

Goose is absolutely not a huge client. We haven't worked with them since that podcast. And even then they were a small percentage. The vast majority of our clients are start-ups and young breweries.

And the catalyst has always been to tell compelling stories about beer. While my personal experiences have become much more industry-focused and my place i the industry changes my access and knowledge, my team is made up of a diverse group of people each with their own perspectives. It'd be a mistake to treat me and GBH as one entity. The days of me being the lone voice, or even the most common voice, are long gone.

Having clients in beer is absolutely an influence on me as a writer. I come to know and understand those companies in different ways than I know other companies. And the scrutiny is perfectly welcome. I think that's what we're doing right now.

I guess that's the difference between skepticism and cynicism for me. I'm have a healthy skepticism of everything I read. That's just part of being an active reader. In the end, I'd hope that people would find more value in debating the actual content of what I write than why they think I wrote it. I don't see any value in trying to disqualify someone when their argument or opinion is based in real knowledge.

but you're missing the (maybe just my) key point here - why continue to write on the editorial side of GBH when you clearly cannot have an impartial opinion given your financial relationships?

you've clearly stated that the client and editorial side of GBH are separate, yet you float between the two without any real distinction. this discredits any editorializing you do.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

but you're missing the (maybe just my) key point here - why continue to write on the editorial side of GBH when you clearly cannot have an impartial opinion given your financial relationships?

You've clearly stated that the client and editorial side of GBH are separate, yet you float between the two without any real distinction. this discredits any editorializing you do.

Sorry you feel that discredits me. That's a decision you have to make for yourself.

For others, it's actually where I get all my credibility. I'm not just another writer reporting what I can see from the outside. I'm writing from a perspective that's unusually informed and experienced from within the day-to-day workings of the industry. That's uncommon.

Some of our writers are outsiders. Some are actually professional brewers themselves! We're all just trying to capture the spirit of this thing as it evolves.

For me, the most compelling voices on a topic are the ones who live it. Like Hemingway in the war, or Jack London's ocean travels, or David Quammen's naturalist essays. They're part journalist, sure, but they're also living the thing they're reporting on. To me, they're not just saying "this happened" they're "this is what it's really like to be here doing it."

Now, I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal with those people — those are my heroes. But they didn't unnecessary hinder themselves because of conflicts of interest, or relationships, or bias. They were certainly aware, and alert to those things because they'd damage the writing if left unchecked. But ultimately they got on with telling a story in a way that no one else would or could, from a unique perspective. And in the long-run, that wins out. That's what creates my best stories.

And on behalf of the reader, we disclose our relationships early and often.

Here's our mission statement that addresses this clearly: http://goodbeerhunting.com/mission-statement

I hope if even that doesn't satisfy you, you might at least accept that that's my fullest answer.

 

[Saugusbrewer]

Once they pay you your ability to be critical evaporates which is followed closely by your credibility. It's actually quite simple.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Once they pay you your ability to be critical evaporates which is followed closely by your credibility. It's actually quite simple.

If your brain is capable of functioning critically at your job even after you get a paycheck, then maybe mine can too, and I think maybe we'll all be okay.

 

[Treebs]

If your brain is capable of functioning critically at your job even after you get a paycheck, then maybe mine can too, and I think maybe we'll all be okay.

When I get paid to critically think at my job it is based around how can we as a company make the best decisions for the business moving forward. Now I imagine I had to do that for multiple clients. Now if I had a second job where I bashed decisions those client decisions, other client team members opinions, current processes, etc. I'm sure I wouldn't be working for those clients for very much longer. If I wanted to keep that second job I would pretty much only write about metaphoric rainbows and puppy dogs regarding those clients. This is how MANY people view your position within the triangle you've created. It's pretty simple. You're trying to buck the old proverb "You can't have your cake and eat it too", but seemingly at the expense of your credibility with a large demographic of your targeted audience.

 

[afternoondelight]

If your brain is capable of functioning critically at your job even after you get a paycheck, then maybe mine can too, and I think maybe we'll all be okay.

If your paycheck is coming from the breweries you've been hired to promote, please explain to us how you are also able to be critical of them?

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Well, sure, if I was an unthinking, bi-polar human being only capable of either bashing or metaphorical rainbows, I suppose that'd be an issue. In between that wide gulf you've created is where most writers would work to understand the context of those decisions, find a way to respectfully challenge some of those decisions, and express an opinion that was both fair and appropriately critical. If we're still talking about Goose/AB, we've done that plenty: here, here, here, here and here.

There are also twelve other writers and an independent Editorial Director in GBH's network that have no connection whatsoever to Goose or AB. That's my burden, not theirs.

But I don't know what world you come from, so maybe you're more used to yes men and crazy people who just want to watch the world burn. Over here, we're more than capable of handling the pressure of someone wanting a positive review and not giving it to them, like adults.

And the irony is that because of that very normal ability, we actually get hired again, by many different people, that see us as reasonable, responsible, and honest people that they can trust. If I hired someone who only gave me these metaphorical rainbows instead of the actual critical input I needed, that's the person I would fire. I understand the cynical expectation you have of how the world might work, but for people who are serious about growing a business and improving their performance, you've got it backwards. In my experiences in the beer world, rainbows get you fired and questioning decisions gets you hired.

 

[Snarf1]

Well, sure, if I was an unthinking, bi-polar human being only capable of either bashing or metaphorical rainbows, I suppose that'd be an issue. In between that wide gulf you've created is where most writers would work to understand the context of those decisions, find a way to respectfully challenge some of those decisions, and express an opinion that was both fair and appropriately critical. If we're still talking about Goose/AB, we've done that plenty: here, here, here, here and here.

There are also twelve other writers and an independent Editorial Director in GBH's network that have no connection whatsoever to Goose or AB. That's my burden, not theirs.

But I don't know what world you come from, so maybe you're more used to yes men and crazy people who just want to watch the world burn. Over here, we're more than capable of handling the pressure of someone wanting a positive review and not giving it to them, like adults.

And the irony is that because of that very normal ability, we actually get hired again, by many different people, that see us as reasonable, responsible, and honest people that they can trust. If I hired someone who only gave me these metaphorical rainbows instead of the actual critical input I needed, that's the person I would fire. I understand the cynical expectation you have of how the world might work, but for people who are serious about growing a business and improving their performance, you've got it backwards. In my experiences in the beer world, rainbows get you fired and questioning decisions gets you hired.

Pro-tip: Don't start sentences with conjunctions. You can put that one in the bank, chief.

 

[Treebs]

Well, sure, if I was an unthinking, bi-polar human being only capable of either bashing or metaphorical rainbows, I suppose that'd be an issue. In between that wide gulf you've created is where most writers would work to understand the context of those decisions, find a way to respectfully challenge some of those decisions, and express an opinion that was both fair and appropriately critical. If we're still talking about Goose/AB, we've done that plenty: here, here, here, here and here.

There are also twelve other writers and an independent Editorial Director in GBH's network that have no connection whatsoever to Goose or AB. That's my burden, not theirs.

But I don't know what world you come from, so maybe you're more used to yes men and crazy people who just want to watch the world burn. Over here, we're more than capable of handling the pressure of someone wanting a positive review and not giving it to them, like adults.

And the irony is that because of that very normal ability, we actually get hired again, by many different people, that see us as reasonable, responsible, and honest people that they can trust. If I hired someone who only gave me these metaphorical rainbows instead of the actual critical input I needed, that's the person I would fire. I understand the cynical expectation you have of how the world might work, but for people who are serious about growing a business and improving their performance, you've got it backwards. In my experiences in the beer world, rainbows get you fired and questioning decisions gets you hired.

You should be a politician.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Pro-tip: Don't start sentences with conjunctions. You can put that one in the bank, chief.

That would be an amateur tip. http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/

 

[Snarf1]

That would be an amateur tip. http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/

Did you just post a link that won't bring you any revenue? FAIL!

 

[Snarf1]

That would be an amateur tip. http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/

Sorry, I should have been more clear. How about don't start paragraphs with sentences with conjunctions that aren't conjuncting anything?

Also, look up irony.

See what I did there?