Michael Kiser of Good Beer Hunting

[Saugusbrewer]

Is Grit and Grain something you produced? Just curious because I read that article and would've expected a disclaimer based on your responses in this thread if it is. Also to suggest that that article is critical of GI is a laughable stretch.

Based on one of his earlier posts that linked a few articles he has a different definition of critical than most.

 

[Beer4B]

I don't assume it's any shared agenda. I think we've just come to be cynical about the things we read online, and we've been taught that relationships ruin objectivity. There's enough confirmation bias available to make those opinions unchangeable. We also have a weird model as an editorial site that's also an agency. Not many of those in the world yet. And most people haven't experienced what a branding or design agency does either, so it's tough to get on the same page with folks..

It seems like this is where you are catching the most flack here, which is hard to argue with really.

You are right that there aren't many of those around but for good reason. That business model is inherently setup for scrutiny and cynicism on the editorial side. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of publishers who do not own/run an agency who essentially publish "paid for content" or "advertorial" behind close doors (or rather out in the open if the reader is educated in the slightest). Or their decisions on content, content direction, inclusion of outside vendors, etc, is very directly related to those buying ads or supporting them in other ways. Neither way maintains editorial integrity.

With that said, I think the questioning of your editorial integrity is maybe a bit overboard here, but at the same time it is with merit. Even the most pure publishers/writers/websites get accused of sponsored/paid content even when it isn't. In the end, the easier money is on the agency side so there isn't a lot of financial incentive for you to bother proving it further.

FWIW: the last line quoted above gave me a giggle. A creative or banding agency isn't quite like being an astrophysicist. Most of what they do is pretty clearly written on each of their websites. Only takes a few bullet points!

 

[Lansman]

Is Grit and Grain something you produced? Just curious because I read that article and would've expected a disclaimer based on your responses in this thread if it is. Also to suggest that that article is critical of GI is a laughable stretch.

What are you talking about?

So to summarize, if you're reading an article in our editorial feed, it's not sponsored. And any expenses that were covered, or relationships we have that we feel might bias the piece are clearly stated, like we did here with Greg Hall's interview.

I get it. That's why we call attention to any potential conflicts when they arise.

As for lines to cross — we draw them all the time. We assign certain writers to stories where I don't want my relationships to conflict. And we've killed stories when we chose to do work for a brewery on the agency side, and we felt like things needed some space. We don't really believe in mandates over here as much as we trust each other and talk about the conflicts, and sort them out to our mutual agreement. I trust people more than rules that way.

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

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

Oh.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Only takes a few bullet points!

If there was a lord in heaven. There is no brevity nor length to which we can go, apparently.

The skepticism has merit — which is why I've respectfully responded to those questions as thoroughly and honestly as I can muster, and did an AMA. It might not change anyone's underlying opinion (that's sort of how opinions work these days), but at least I can say I earnestly tried.

I do take exception that the easier money is on the agency side There's nothing easier than selling ad space.

 

[hamberder]

Then he filed the story with great quotes from pub owners about the discounts, his perspective on the scarcity and marketing angles they were taking, and and and...we published it.

This is the only quote I saw regarding the discounts:
“All pubs need good value beers with support. We also need great local and independent brewers. Camden has always been an exceptionally good value beer as well,” McVeigh says of the AB InBev-owned London brewery. “Beers with brand recognition will always sell more and in some instances will also deliver a higher profit margin—that is a good thing for pubs.”

But McVeigh doesn’t think that the better value available from brands such as Goose Island will be to the detriment of independents, stating that there’s room for everyone.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

This is the only quote I saw regarding the discounts:
“All pubs need good value beers with support. We also need great local and independent brewers. Camden has always been an exceptionally good value beer as well,” McVeigh says of the AB InBev-owned London brewery. “Beers with brand recognition will always sell more and in some instances will also deliver a higher profit margin—that is a good thing for pubs.”

But McVeigh doesn’t think that the better value available from brands such as Goose Island will be to the detriment of independents, stating that there’s room for everyone.

And that's his opinion, not ours. I don't know the guy.

This context provided by Curtis right before that quote is highly relevant to that McVeigh quote. It doesn't let it off the hook just because McVeigh think's its fine (which of course he does, discounting is a practical way for him to make more money, and unless he's a craft zealot, it's irrelevant).

"In addition to opening its own chain of pubs, Goose is also making significant inroads into the UK on trade, with rumors of heavily discounted kegs circulating around the industry like wildfire, much like last year's Pacific NW uproar when it was learned that AB's craft kegs were being sold for nearly half-price."

McVeigh's followup, weather he thinks it's good or bad, confirms the discounting.

 

[Beer4B]

If there was a lord in heaven. There is no brevity nor length to which we can go, apparently.

The skepticism has merit — which is why I've respectfully responded to those questions as thoroughly and honestly as I can muster, and did an AMA. It might not change anyone's underlying opinion (that's sort of how opinions work these days), but at least I can say I earnestly tried.

I do take exception that the easier money is on the agency side There's nothing easier than selling ad space.

Hah! You don't have to run a creative or branding agency to understand what they do or the points you are making. That was my point.

As to the money, depends on your editorial vehicle. Selling online ad space is cake as long as the data is there. Then again, if selling ad space was cake for you your editorial division wouldn't be operating at a 70k loss, no?

 

[hamberder]

And that's his opinion, not ours. I don't know the guy.

This context provided by Curtis right before that quote is highly relevant to that McVeigh quote. It doesn't let it off the hook just because McVeigh think's its fine (which of course he does, he's making money).

"In addition to opening its own chain of pubs, Goose is also making significant inroads into the UK on trade, with rumors of heavily discounted kegs circulating around the industry like wildfire, much like last year's Pacific NW uproar when it was learned that AB's craft kegs were being sold for nearly half-price."

McVeigh's followup, weather he thinks it's good or bad, confirms the discounting.

Here's my problem- you stated there were "great quotes from pub owners about the discounts". I could only find one quote from a single pub owner.

 

[RyanG1]

Y'all mother ****ers need to be at some upcoming cabinet appointment hearings.

 

[hamberder]

I'd also like to state I'm not out here in the crowd with a pitchfork. I hadn't heard about your blog or anything else that you do prior to this AMA. I appreciate someone willing to come in here and participate in an AMA, especially when they're not being treated kindly. That said, c'mon! That piece is not critical of GI and it plugs what I assume is one of your other ventures without disclosure.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Hah! You don't have to run a creative or branding agency to understand what they do or the points you are making. That was my point.

As to the money, depends on your editorial vehicle. Selling online ad space is cake as long as the data is there. Then again, if selling ad space was cake for you your editorial division wouldn't be operating at a 70k loss, no?

Indeed!

 

[goodbeerhunting]

I'd also like to state I'm not out here in the crowd with a pitchfork. I hadn't heard about your blog or anything else that you do prior to this AMA. I appreciate someone willing to come in here and participate in an AMA, especially when they're not being treated kindly. That said, c'mon! That piece is not critical of GI and it plugs what I assume is one of your other ventures without disclosure.

We should definitely add disclosure on that — already sent a note along to that effect. In my most recent story about the Clybourn pub closing, I did exactly that.

If that's a plug, it was weak sauce. He simply mentioned it as a point of fact that they used the film at a screening event as part of their marketing initiatives. Saying we creative directed it would have been an actual plug, not the other way around! He didn't even say it was good.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

I could only find one quote from a single pub owner.

You're right. There was an earlier quote from Tom McKim about venturing beyond "local" for some bigger brands, but that wasn't about discounts specifically. I'm also remembering a pub owner we almost had on the record who was going to show us an invoice, but he bailed — and it couldn't be included as a result. We were bummed about that.

 

[rwitter]

Hey what about the fact that Curtis is a idiot and buffoon? I hated his Brewdog piece. Mostly because they ****ing flew him up there to brew a beer with him and some other bloggers and he never mentions that. He can write pretty words and photo but I still think he be dumb.

 

[sacrelicio]

Y'all mother ****ers need to be at some upcoming cabinet appointment hearings.

This is about ethics in beer gaming journalism!

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Hey what about the fact that Curtis is a idiot and buffoon? I hated his Brewdog piece. Mostly because they ****ing flew him up there to brew a beer with him and some other bloggers and he never mentions that. He can write pretty words and photo but I still think he be dumb.

well, he's going to be covering all the rainbow project collabs he can get to. So maybe you guys can work it out in person. I'm sure he's keen on hearing your opinion.

 

[ObsessiveCTBrewer]

Tell us what you think about the future of beer journalism and media. What do you see as the correct place/avenue for criticism in the industry? Is there enough criticism? I often see the beer industry as a medium void of self criticism - full of congratulatory high-fives and hugs. The voice of dissent, or introspect, is met with sideways glances and raised eyebrows - "shots fired". Does it belong?

How does beer, collectively, innovate and fulfill ones yearning for "craft" and ingenuity, while politely shunning those that "**** it up" by demonstrating an ego-driven, this is me and mine, type of behavior? Is coolness and shiny images more important than what's in the glass? If so, how can beer rid itself of those brewers that don't 'get it'?... those that are focused on collective collaboration and marketing, "friendship" rather than quality - all the while patting themselves on their backs...

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Hey what about the fact that Curtis is a idiot and buffoon? I hated his Brewdog piece. Mostly because they ****ing flew him up there to brew a beer with him and some other bloggers and he never mentions that. He can write pretty words and photo but I still think he be dumb.

We hired him to write about BrewDog at our request, he didn't pitch it. And he had flown up there prior to us engaging him. All we knew was that he'd been there and had photos and a perspective on them that we wanted for an American audience. He certainly should have disclosed that at the time so we could have disclosed it as well. It was his first piece for us (or any major outlet that I'm aware of) and Austin hadn't been hired yet so things were loosely defined. That mistake is on me.

Apart from that, I still like that piece. He captured their tone well, spoke to their start-up story and current challenges, and even took a bite out of their marketing rhetoric with his final line.

One of the patterns we've seen in our readership is that if someone hates a brewery for some personal reason, they want us to hate it too. And when we don't, they call us shills or accuse is of being in the take for brewery xyz. Comes with the territory I guess. But it sucks to see you calling Curtis names like that - he's one of our best. And it's beneath you.

 

[rwitter]

Me calling him a buffon wasn't because of that article.

 

[mateoloco]

Me calling him a buffon wasn't because of that article.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Tell us what you think about the future of beer journalism and media. What do you see as the correct place/avenue for criticism in the industry? Is there enough criticism? I often see the beer industry as a medium void of self criticism - full of congratulatory high-fives and hugs. The voice of dissent, or introspect, is met with sideways glances and raised eyebrows - "shots fired". Does it belong?

How does beer, collectively, innovate and fulfill ones yearning for "craft" and ingenuity, while politely shunning those that "**** it up" by demonstrating an ego-driven, this is me and mine, type of behavior? Is coolness and shiny images more important than what's in the glass? If so, how can beer rid itself of those brewers that don't 'get it'?... those that are focused on collective collaboration and marketing, "friendship" rather than quality - all the while patting themselves on their backs...

Good stuff!

There's a few things happening in beer journalism right now. First, it's making its way into mainstream business reporting because it represents a large enough market that the casual business reader is mindful of it. Jason Notte for Marketwatch is one of my favorite writers in this vein. And it's encouraging that the industry is thriving enough beyond the typical "5,000 breweries!" headline and cementing its place in our national business conversation at a deeper level. And most big city papers have a part-time beer reporter that straddles business and product information. Josh Noel is the Tribune's travel and beer writer, for example.

Craftbeer.com, the website devoted to marketing craft beer from the Brewers Association, just went through a big re-design and seems to be publishing bigger and better content daily. That's a lot of investment, and shows they think there's value in putting their message into a journalistic form in addition to lobbying. Similarly, Dogfish Head started a print mag called Palate, which is very pro-indie brewery, in Sam's terms, and it's sort of lifestyle focused. Another way to mainstream craft.

Many of the better magazines (Draft, Imbibe, All About Beer) upped their production quality game a in the last few years, which will help them reach a wider audience for sure. And online tools are enabling bloggers to establish a bigger voice.

All that brings a wide mix of journalism and a variety of perspectives, which is healthy. We can all figure out the people and outlets we prefer for a variety of reasons.

All of that to say, that craft beer has matured like many other enthusiast-based industries — cars, sports, food, etc. — and now it has the noise level to prove it! The food writing culture is a good one to follow if you want to see how those internal debates will play out in our near future. Plenty of folks there who are critical of each other, tired of the same approaches and high-fives, as you say. There's a real effort to find a new ethos to follow, but it's hard to get a signal in all that noise. Personally, I follow Helen Rosner of Eater to keep up with that kind of debate. She's pretty open about her opinions, but also thoughtful and help me find the writers I like.

For GBH, we started with the idea that we'd elevate the breweries we loved, and ignore the ones we don't. As a former art critic in my grad school days, that's sort of an Arthur Danto approach. We only have so much time and energy to invest, so why not focus it on the good? That worked pretty well for us, and mostly still does. But the conversation has been heating up a bit internally and challenging that notion now that there are so many breweries and beers that are simply not good. We still don't want to draw attention to a specific brewery or beer that we think sucks unless there's really a reason to do it. But when we see a trend that's developing that we think is negative, we've tried to write about those things, and we're eager to do much more. But we do it in a way that enables even the offenders to hear the criticism and consider their actions rather than dropping names and making them defensive — that never has a positive effect. Some of our readers want us to just name names, but I thinks that's more about entertainment factor than making a difference.

Beyond that, I think craft beer has an enormous feedback system for both positive and negative opinions through things like Untappd. It's easy to dismiss things like that (I know I do), but even in its flawed state, it's still an incredible amount of free market research. We could use to normalize the data better, which I wish someone smarter than me would do. But other industries, like coffee, are actually jealous of all that input our breweries get. It has real potential.

So, I think we could use a lot more criticism. Jeff Alworth does it well. And I'd love to have more like him. But an informed opinion takes time to develop, tons of experience to back up those opinions, and a steady hand to deliver a criticism without the clickbait entertainment factor that only serves to alienate people rather than inspire critical thinking. With a whole new generation coming of age and drinking only craft beer their whole lives, I'm optimistic that we'll be getting a lot more good thinkers and writers for the industry. I know I'm keeping my eyes peeled for them. Bryan Roth was an incredible addition to our team that way — and he came out of nowhere for me. He just won blog of the year and so much of it is challenging conventional wisdom with data and breaking down some of the rhetoric this industry suffers from more than most.

Have you found any writers that are especially good at delivering fair criticism? Any examples of what you'd like to see more of in that regard?

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Tell us what you think about the future of beer journalism and media. What do you see as the correct place/avenue for criticism in the industry? Is there enough criticism? I often see the beer industry as a medium void of self criticism - full of congratulatory high-fives and hugs. The voice of dissent, or introspect, is met with sideways glances and raised eyebrows - "shots fired". Does it belong?

How does beer, collectively, innovate and fulfill ones yearning for "craft" and ingenuity, while politely shunning those that "**** it up" by demonstrating an ego-driven, this is me and mine, type of behavior? Is coolness and shiny images more important than what's in the glass? If so, how can beer rid itself of those brewers that don't 'get it'?... those that are focused on collective collaboration and marketing, "friendship" rather than quality - all the while patting themselves on their backs...

Sorry, had to put the kids to bed. But wanted to come back and touch on the other part you mentioned in your question, which was the actual danger of all high-fives and not enough criticism.

First, I think it’s important to remember that a lot of people starting these breweries are first-time entrepreneurs, and the rest recently were and carry some of those start-up scars with them. Especially at the smaller scale. And that’s a delicate position to be in for handling criticism. That’s not to say that criticism isn’t needed, in fact, it's even more important for people like that. But the message and the messenger matter. It needs to believe delivered in a form that they can hear and act upon. And the best people to do that are their peers. A brewer who offers specific feedback to an up-and-coming brewer is a real godsend to someone who’s not quite on sure footing yet. In our own small way, we try to help in that regard. Brewers send us samples and pilot batches, and we taste through and provide feedback privately.

We could do that publicly through blind tastings and reviews. There might be some value there. But we decided a long time ago that there was already so many versions of that mechanism that we didn’t feel like we were bringing anything new to the table. But! We recently had an interesting idea that we think does. We started tasting through larger portions of a brewer’s portfolio and documenting our impressions as we worked through 6, 7, 8 different beers. The fascinating thing for us is that we started to perceive more of the brewer’s intent from one beer to the next. And that gave context to some of our subjective opinions. Rather than reacting to a single beer in a vacuum (which has it’s own value, for sure), we found that our criticisms actually became more developed and articulate. We plan to share these results out soon for a few breweries we started with. And we think that form and thoughtfulness will yield a better understanding of a brewer while also delivering more needed criticism.

But the danger in all those high-fives, and a lack of criticism, is that too many people drink without forming real preferences based on knowledge of why they like, and don’t like, certain things. And brewers continue making beers that might sell well, but don’t create fans that really lust after their beers like they might if they were improving. We all run the risk of making this whole “craft” thing seem like marketing fluff instead of progressive, artful pursuit, and then people tune it out completely. That danger is real.

But man, publishing criticism is hard. Did you see what happened when the Craft Beer Cellar told their franchises that they wanted to institute a quality program to weed out the undeserving breweries from their shelves? People lost their damn minds. Instead of applauding their efforts, so many people, professional and not, took to Twitter basically asking “how dare they.” As if people who operate one of the country’s biggest craft retailer chains has no right to reject bad beer if customers want it. That it would somehow harm local breweries (which presumes that those breweries are low quality, oddly), and that they were playing politics. Since when is quality considered politics?!

So when it comes to incentive, being critical in public has very little upside. The people you’re criticizing will reject you, the audience that likes them will reject you, and rather than debate your option they’ll just question your integrity. It's like sports writing that way. If you like my team you're a genius, and if you criticize my team you're an idiot. And everyone else is some sort of "shill" and their right to have an opinion that’s any more elevated than my own is immediately questioned. Our culture is an iconoclastic one, moreso today that ever before — “experts” irritate everyone who wants the delusion of their own expertise.

 

[ObsessiveCTBrewer]

I suppose what I'm seeking is an honest and reliable outlet from which to gather sound information.

Maybe I don't review the popular outlets often enough...but I can't recall recent media (that was easily accessible...and not ultra specific) that constructively casts criticisms on beers (or more specifically breweries) where things like flaws, off flavors, or mishaps in process existed (regardless of the hype train).

There is a certain degree of confidence authors must posses to cast strong criticism; people like this are feared when they walk through the door of a brewery.

But these people truly have two purposes...1.) as a beer drinker, they are advising me of their experience - being thoughtful enough to tell me all the "goods", while also setting the right expectations about the "bads" 2.) as a brewer/brewery, they're telling brewers what they did wrong (or right), what it tastes like, and why the brewer ****ed up...the brewer can either learn and grow, improving the quality of their beer, or they could do nothing and continue to produce sub-par beer...if everyone is a "yesmen" we are easenrlly settling for the status quo, regardless of the quality.

The truth can cause hurt feelings, etc...but it is necessary for refinement. This begs the questions 1.) do brewers recognize flaws and 2.) do brewers take actions if they are confirmed. Critical reviewers need to be more brutally honest and brewers need to be more humble; digesting, and interpreting criticism, using it to produce better quality.

Where can I find a brass-tax, no-BSs, reputable, honest, reviewer/writer? Do they exist?

Do you think beer media is honest or genuine enough? Why does it have to be so socially unacceptable to call something the way we see it? Will it get better...maybe worse? Only time and people's actions (or inactions) will tell.

Appreciate your thoughtful reply and insights - I'll need to follow up on the links embedded.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

I suppose what I'm seeking is an honest and reliable outlet from which to gather sound information.

Maybe I don't review the popular outlets often enough...but I can't recall recent media (that was easily accessible...and not ultra specific) that constructively casts criticisms on beers (or more specifically breweries) where things like flaws, off flavors, or mishaps in process existed (regardless of the hype train).

There is a certain degree of confidence authors must posses to cast strong criticism; people like this are feared when they walk through the door of a brewery.

But these people truly have two purposes...1.) as a beer drinker, they are advising me of their experience - being thoughtful enough to tell me all the "goods", while also setting the right expectations about the "bads" 2.) as a brewer/brewery, they're telling brewers what they did wrong (or right), what it tastes like, and why the brewer ****ed up...the brewer can either learn and grow, improving the quality of their beer, or they could do nothing and continue to produce sub-par beer...if everyone is a "yesmen" we are easenrlly settling for the status quo, regardless of the quality.

The truth can cause hurt feelings, etc...but it is necessary for refinement. This begs the questions 1.) do brewers recognize flaws and 2.) do brewers take actions if they are confirmed. Critical reviewers need to be more brutally honest and brewers need to be more humble; digesting, and interpreting criticism, using it to produce better quality.

Where can I find a brass-tax, no-BSs, reputable, honest, reviewer/writer? Do they exist?

Do you think beer media is honest or genuine enough? Why does it have to be so socially unacceptable to call something the way we see it? Will it get better...maybe worse? Only time and people's actions (or inactions) will tell.

Appreciate your thoughtful reply and insights - I'll need to follow up on the links embedded.

Try Will Gordon for concise reviews like that. I don't agree with a lot of his wider perspectives, but I find him to be a smart, funny, honest taster and always enjoy reading his takes on specific beers or styles. But you're right, there's very little of that being done.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

I suppose what I'm seeking is an honest and reliable outlet from which to gather sound information.

Maybe I don't review the popular outlets often enough...but I can't recall recent media (that was easily accessible...and not ultra specific) that constructively casts criticisms on beers (or more specifically breweries) where things like flaws, off flavors, or mishaps in process existed (regardless of the hype train).

There is a certain degree of confidence authors must posses to cast strong criticism; people like this are feared when they walk through the door of a brewery.

But these people truly have two purposes...1.) as a beer drinker, they are advising me of their experience - being thoughtful enough to tell me all the "goods", while also setting the right expectations about the "bads" 2.) as a brewer/brewery, they're telling brewers what they did wrong (or right), what it tastes like, and why the brewer ****ed up...the brewer can either learn and grow, improving the quality of their beer, or they could do nothing and continue to produce sub-par beer...if everyone is a "yesmen" we are easenrlly settling for the status quo, regardless of the quality.

The truth can cause hurt feelings, etc...but it is necessary for refinement. This begs the questions 1.) do brewers recognize flaws and 2.) do brewers take actions if they are confirmed. Critical reviewers need to be more brutally honest and brewers need to be more humble; digesting, and interpreting criticism, using it to produce better quality.

Where can I find a brass-tax, no-BSs, reputable, honest, reviewer/writer? Do they exist?

Do you think beer media is honest or genuine enough? Why does it have to be so socially unacceptable to call something the way we see it? Will it get better...maybe worse? Only time and people's actions (or inactions) will tell.

Appreciate your thoughtful reply and insights - I'll need to follow up on the links embedded.

And maybe I was too assuming when I decided "it's been done." If I'm hard-pressed to find examples, then it's dramatically underserved.

 

[BanquetAndChill]

Where can I find a brass-tax, no-BSs, reputable, honest, reviewer/writer? Do they exist?

The sorts of writers you're talking about haven't had the time to exist yet, given the relative youth of the "craft" segment. We're all familiar with those sorts of folks: food critics, film critics, television, music, etc. But those are all well-established industries with a history of critical discourse built over decades. Beer hasn't had the time. You're asking for someone to fill a white space that has barely been opened.

Is there a need for it now? Absolutely. I don't think there's any arguing that, for the very reasons you listed — unbiased advisor for the drinker, impartial evaluator for the brewer, and no-********-standard-setter for all.

I think what you're conflating, however, is the role of a writer versus the responsibility of a critic. There's a reason why folks like Frank Bruni or Roger Ebert or Lester Bangs are thought of as critics, and not simply writers. While they hold sacred their objectivity in review, they sacrifice their objectivity in intent, meaning they are not writing to simply inform, or amuse, or explore, but to be critical. And to your point, people like this are feared when they walk through the door.

The industry is just now big enough for that fear to have to a place, and to have a reason. Big enough that I think some writers will make the natural transition into critics, while others will spring up from nowhere. And I think we've reached a point that those critics have an extremely valuable role to play. Before now, criticism within craft was largely met with a, "hey, we're not the enemy, macro's the enemy" which has, in many ways, delayed the honesty we need now in our growth.

Not that my opinions mean anything, but: I think beer media has been as honest/genuine as has been prudent; that social acceptance is undergoing a major paradigm shift as more (mediocre) breweries come online; and it will only get better. It can only get better. Whether or not GBH is the right outlet for that is TBD. But somebody's gotta do it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[disapowzment]

The sorts of writers you're talking about haven't had the time to exist yet, given the relative youth of the "craft" segment. We're all familiar with those sorts of folks: food critics, film critics, television, music, etc. But those are all well-established industries with a history of critical discourse built over decades. Beer hasn't had the time. You're asking for someone to fill a white space that has barely been opened.

Is there a need for it now? Absolutely. I don't think there's any arguing that, for the very reasons you listed — unbiased advisor for the drinker, impartial evaluator for the brewer, and no-********-standard-setter for all.

I think what you're conflating, however, is the role of a writer versus the responsibility of a critic. There's a reason why folks like Frank Bruni or Roger Ebert or Lester Bangs are thought of as critics, and not simply writers. While they hold sacred their objectivity in review, they sacrifice their objectivity in intent, meaning they are not writing to simply inform, or amuse, or explore, but to be critical. And to your point, people like this are feared when they walk through the door.

The industry is just now big enough for that fear to have to a place, and to have a reason. Big enough that I think some writers will make the natural transition into critics, while others will spring up from nowhere. And I think we've reached a point that those critics have an extremely valuable role to play. Before now, criticism within craft was largely met with a, "hey, we're not the enemy, macro's the enemy" which has, in many ways, delayed the honesty we need now in our growth.

Not that my opinions mean anything, but: I think beer media has been as honest/genuine as has been prudent; that social acceptance is undergoing a major paradigm shift as more (mediocre) breweries come online; and it will only get better. It can only get better. Whether or not GBH is the right outlet for that is TBD. But somebody's gotta do it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

TL;DR joins makes first post a wall of words in a thread that's already a wall of TL;DR posts. You'll fit right in here.

 

[Stubs]

So there is this small, underwater village located about 35 miles off the western coast of Africa. In this town is a small fish mill company, run by two dolphins. This mill is part of a larger fish corporation, called FishCo, which is known for its high quality fish. Now, with a high-quality product must come a high-quality production system, and FishCo is no exception. Their business system, which is loosely based on the Toyota Production System, is well-known around the Atlantic ocean as one of the best.

The two dolphins running the mill, however, don't have the strongest faith in the FPS (FishCo Production System), so they choose to ignore some of the points of this system. They get away with this for several months, because FishCo is such a big corporation that it only looks at those mills that aren't reaching their production goals, so these two dolphins don't need to worry about some big fish (look, a joke within a joke) getting upset about their lack of FPS progress.

All that changes in one month's time, though, when one of the fish machines goes down only two days into the new month. The dolphins send out for a repair man as quick as they can, and he has it fixed as soon as possible, but its not good enough; they're 5000 fish short. They try to ramp up production, but the end of the month soon nears and they are still 4500 fish away from their goal.

Knowing that a missed month, especially one by so much, would bring some undesirable attention from upper management, they spring into action. They have overtime everyday, and bring the workers in on the weekend to try to meet the demand. They are also fully aware that the small village in which their mill is located is pretty much supported by them, so they call on the help of the locals. They have a "fish drive", where villagers can bring in their home-grown fish and add them to the pot, with the knowledge that every fish they bring in helps them stave off the possibility of the fish mill closing and the town growing bankrupt.

The fish are flying in at them from all angles: the mill is producing at a higher rate than ever before, the fish drive was a huge success, and the outsourced orders they made when the machine went down for fish came in. When all was said and done, they were only 750 short for the month. The dolphins breathed a sigh of relief, as being only 750 short should keep them off the list of 10 lowest for the month. If your mill is on that list, you get an automatic visit from corporate, and they figured with their excellent track record, they should be forgiven one bad month.

The dolphins came into work on Monday (the first one of the next month) with the belief that the bad month is behind them, and they would be able to go on with business as usual. However, when they checked their e-mail, they had a horrible shock; a message from corporate! Apparently there were strong currents off the coast of south america which led to those mills (usually some of the lowest) producing at unprecedented levels, and the east Galveston mill (always one of the worst) had caught fire and burned to the ground, keeping them off the list. This meant, unfortunately for the dolphins, that they were now on the 10 lowest list, and management was swimming their way right now and would arrive in 3 days.

The dolphins tried their best to bring the mill up to code with the FPS, but it was to no avail. They were reamed in a meeting for more than 2 hours on how the production system would have saved them from such a horrible month, and how they were incredibly ignorant to ignore it. When all was said and done, they were left with an expansive list of orders, and the knowledge that management would be coming in every month to see their progress.

At the end of that horrible day, the two dolphins decided to head to the local pub and get a drink. As was the case with most of the buildings in this town, the pub had many leaks (after all, they were underwater). And if the day couldn't have been any worse, a new leak sprung right over where one of the dolphins was sitting. Being dolphins, he didn't mind very much, but every time he would turn to check the score, his blowhole would fill up, forcing him to blast the water out of it (the dolphin equivalent of spitting). Unfortunately for the other dolphin, this "spit" would hit him right in the face. This happened a number of times, and each time the dolphin apologized, saying it was an accident.

As the game was drawing to an end, the dolphin was so fixated that he didn't realize his blowhole filling up until it was almost too much for him to handle, he took a deep breath and blasted the water out of his blowhole harder than he had ever before, forcing all the water into the face of his dolphin-friend.

This was the last straw. the other dolphin stood up, took a deep breath, and shouted, "come on, you're doing that on porpoise!"

 

[goodbeerhunting]

The sorts of writers you're talking about haven't had the time to exist yet, given the relative youth of the "craft" segment. We're all familiar with those sorts of folks: food critics, film critics, television, music, etc. But those are all well-established industries with a history of critical discourse built over decades. Beer hasn't had the time. You're asking for someone to fill a white space that has barely been opened.

Is there a need for it now? Absolutely. I don't think there's any arguing that, for the very reasons you listed — unbiased advisor for the drinker, impartial evaluator for the brewer, and no-********-standard-setter for all.

I think what you're conflating, however, is the role of a writer versus the responsibility of a critic. There's a reason why folks like Frank Bruni or Roger Ebert or Lester Bangs are thought of as critics, and not simply writers. While they hold sacred their objectivity in review, they sacrifice their objectivity in intent, meaning they are not writing to simply inform, or amuse, or explore, but to be critical. And to your point, people like this are feared when they walk through the door.

The industry is just now big enough for that fear to have to a place, and to have a reason. Big enough that I think some writers will make the natural transition into critics, while others will spring up from nowhere. And I think we've reached a point that those critics have an extremely valuable role to play. Before now, criticism within craft was largely met with a, "hey, we're not the enemy, macro's the enemy" which has, in many ways, delayed the honesty we need now in our growth.

Not that my opinions mean anything, but: I think beer media has been as honest/genuine as has been prudent; that social acceptance is undergoing a major paradigm shift as more (mediocre) breweries come online; and it will only get better. It can only get better. Whether or not GBH is the right outlet for that is TBD. But somebody's gotta do it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Great point about the timing/evolution. Until recently, a brewer could sell every drop regardless. Now if a well-regarded critic plucks a gem from the crowd, or tarnishes a reputation with a bad review, it may have a real impact on sales, which has become more difficult than ever for many.

 

[BanquetAndChill]

TL;DR joins makes first post a wall of words in a thread that's already a wall of TL;DR posts. You'll fit right in here.

You're right. I should've just posted this instead.

 

[tikk]

You're right. I should've just posted this instead.

That's not a gif, I don't have the attention span for this

 

[disapowzment]

When you put the toilet paper on are you an over or an under type of person. Personally I like the under.

 

[tikk]

When you put the toilet paper on are you an over or an under type of person. Personally I like the under.

Well in this level of discourse you can't really knock either way. It all depends on how you're monetizing your business.
It's much easier to put advertising on an over the top toll so you see it as it is being pulled. The editorial arm see that it is easier to pull coming on the under. It also depends if you are a sit or stand type of wiper. Market analysis shows that sitters prefer under, while standers prefer over. No matter what you prefer, Charmin Ultra Strong is best at cleaning this shits you take after a night of drinking. Charmin Ultra Soft is great when you have that explosive lambic diarrhea, feels like wiping with a cloud. If you have too many shits and want to save some money, Charmin Basic is a fantastic choice.




This post is a hype post, sponsored by P&G

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Well in this level of discourse you can't really knock either way. It all depends on how you're monetizing your business.
It's much easier to put advertising on an over the top toll so you see it as it is being pulled. The editorial arm see that it is easier to pull coming on the under. It also depends if you are a sit or stand type of wiper. Market analysis shows that sitters prefer under, while standers prefer over. No matter what you prefer, Charmin Ultra Strong is best at cleaning this shits you take after a night of drinking. Charmin Ultra Soft is great when you have that explosive lambic diarrhea, feels like wiping with a cloud. If you have too many shits and want to save some money, Charmin Basic is a fantastic choice.




This post is a hype post, sponsored by P&G

This check out.

 

[Fingolfin]

After reading I believe this thread is best understood through metaphor.

Based on actual events. Names were changed to protect the innocent.

goodbeerhunting is a like a nerdy kid. We'll call him Gus.
Goose Island is like a hot girl. We'll call her Gina.

You see, Gus always had a thing for Gina in middle school. But since Gus was a nerd Gina never reciprocated the feelings. So Gus started talking a lot of **** about Gina to everyone else at the school. But no one believed Gus because Gina was so hot.

High school starts for our pair: Gina is even hotter and Gus even nerdier. Gina really starts getting around at this point. But never had the time of day for Gus. He's been talking **** about her for years. Until one day, the rumor starts that Gina has an STD. She's infected. Gina needs to set her reputation straight. She decides the best way to do that is to have Gus start telling everyone that she's clean. If Gus, her arch nemesis, saysbshe's clean then everyone would believe her.

To get Gus on her side Gina offers to sleep with him. Excited for the opportunity to finally get his chode wet, Gus agrees to Gina's terms.

Now Gus spreads the news that Gina is clean, but his opinion means ****. Everyone knows he ****ed Gina.

There is no happy ending.

 

[Os]

Try Will Gordon for concise reviews like that. I don't agree with a lot of his wider perspectives, but I find him to be a smart, funny, honest taster and always enjoy reading his takes on specific beers or styles. But you're right, there's very little of that being done.

he's awful. He's ill informed and petty. He blocked me of all people from twitter for disagreeing with him. Then he told me that beer people are not his target... basically, he writes for people who are not knowledgeable enough to call out his crap

 

[cneville1]

Then he told me that beer people are not his target

this seems 100% reasonable? am i missing something?

 

[Os]

this seems 100% reasonable? am i missing something?

I mean, you're obviously writing about beer and only people interested in beer are reading it... so are you limiting it to only people who don't know better?

it's like a sports writer saying they don't write articles for sports fans

or did I just miss sarcasm?

 

[mateoloco]

After reading I believe this thread is best understood through metaphor.

Based on actual events. Names were changed to protect the innocent.

goodbeerhunting is a like a nerdy kid. We'll call him Gus.
Goose Island is like a hot girl. We'll call her Gina.

You see, Gus always had a thing for Gina in middle school. But since Gus was a nerd Gina never reciprocated the feelings. So Gus started talking a lot of **** about Gina to everyone else at the school. But no one believed Gus because Gina was so hot.

High school starts for our pair: Gina is even hotter and Gus even nerdier. Gina really starts getting around at this point. But never had the time of day for Gus. He's been talking **** about her for years. Until one day, the rumor starts that Gina has an STD. She's infected. Gina needs to set her reputation straight. She decides the best way to do that is to have Gus start telling everyone that she's clean. If Gus, her arch nemesis, saysbshe's clean then everyone would believe her.

To get Gus on her side Gina offers to sleep with him. Excited for the opportunity to finally get his chode wet, Gus agrees to Gina's terms.

Now Gus spreads the news that Gina is clean, but his opinion means ****. Everyone knows he ****ed Gina.

There is no happy ending.

 

[tehzachatak]

he's awful. He's ill informed and petty. He blocked me of all people from twitter for disagreeing with him. Then he told me that beer people are not his target... basically, he writes for people who are not knowledgeable enough to call out his crap

Seriously, Will can go **** himself. I had pleasant Boston beer-related conversation with Will on twitter for probably a year and a half - it would have been pretty hard for him to not remember this - and then I had the gall to disagree with him one time (when he wrote that idiotic "Cantillon Iris is bad" article), and he blocked me in about half an hour.

I'm fine with "beer people not being your target." That's cool. There's plenty of very good writers on all sorts of subjects (music, other art, food, wine, etc.) who write for audiences that are not the core crazy people in each audience. If I was a beer writer, I sure as **** wouldn't want to be writing for us. We're know-it-all dicks, largely, and there also probably aren't enough of us to sustain you as a writer.

But those very good and often very successful writers at least usually pretend to have some core competency/knowledge around the thing they're writing about. Love or hate GBH, I don't think I've read GBH stuff and come out the other end thinking "well, these people just have literally no idea what they're talking about." When Will Gordon writes about, say, Lagunitas IPA, I guess I don't have that feeling either. But most of Will's pieces read as if he hasn't even taken an hour to do basic background research, which is just totally insulting to the informed reader. And the uninformed reader reads it and says "well, now I have knowledge!"