Michael Kiser of Good Beer Hunting

[goodbeerhunting]

given that many people don't separate your two enterprises (considering that they are operated from the same website), isn't it disingenuous to portray GBH as a "labor of love" when it's clearly a self-sustaining enterprise, paid for by advertising and agency work for breweries?

I get that they look the same from the outside. They're certainly related (I call them a virtuous cycle, above). But on the inside they're fairly separate in their operation. We have an Editorial Director, Austin Ray, who lives in Atlanta. He makes all the story assignments, works with our writers, edits and schedules posts, runs a lot of our social, etc. Ultimately his salary is partly paid by the site's own e-commerce, and the rest is made up for by profits from the agency side. Same for all the writers, who are independent journalists. They don't work on the agency side at all, and they live all over the world. So in that regard, it's a bit like advertising paying for writers at a newspaper. And we like the increased independence that gives us between the agency and the editorial. I don't believe a completely independent or unbiased operation is possible, but there's a scale, and we aim to increase it whenever possible. Hiring Austin was a big step in that direction.

On the agency side, I have an art director, a few designers and illustrators, an experience director for all our events, and some part-time helpers. This team focuses on our client's needs, including brand strategy, design, start-up challenges, etc. This is the business. If we didn't pay all those writers and photographers for the site, this business would have made $70k more last year. That's not small. That's a mortgage. And that's what I mean by labor of love. Sure, the site has a value to the agency, but not $70k worth. But we want it to grow, and we can afford to fund it (we'll find ways to lessen the burden maybe through ads, increasing e-commerce, etc.) so we keep doing it anyways. Hence, a labor of love.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Which part?

One part is explainable, the other is way past that point.

You missed the joke.

 

[regularjohn]

given that many people don't separate your two enterprises (considering that they are operated from the same website), isn't it disingenuous to portray GBH as a "labor of love" when it's clearly a self-sustaining enterprise, paid for by advertising and agency work for breweries?

 

[tikk]

Chicagoland is certainly where most of the flack we get comes from, largely because we share our opinions on Goose Island freely. That comes with some arrows. But Chicagoland is still our most popular geography for the site and it's where we host events like Uppers & Downers that routinely sell out. So I guess I question weather you might be speaking for more people than you should be when you say that. Bit of a bubble you're in there, perhaps.

*whether

I second what cneville stated. I thought you were a beer blog site, not a pr firm. That's why I asked the question of journalistic integrity.

I get in this day and age, companies are going to give out some handouts for favorable reviews, ie dontdrinkbeer's new digs, free review beers, travel expenses to the brewery or events. But I feel that being a paid consultant opens a whole new can of worms.

 

[tosh1]

You missed the joke.

Obviously one of us did.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

*whether

I second what cneville stated. I thought you were a beer blog site, not a pr firm. That's why I asked the question of journalistic integrity.

I get in this day and age, companies are going to give out some handouts for favorable reviews, ie dontdrinkbeer's new digs, free review beers, travel expenses to the brewery or events. But I feel that being a paid consultant opens a whole new can of worms.

I get it. That's why we call attention to any potential conflicts when they arise. That episode was branded a GBHype piece, the intro clearly explained the context, and we've answered plenty of follow-on questions about it. We feel our operation maintained its integrity. You're welcome to disagree.

 

[SheerHeartAttack]

Longtime lurker, first time poster. Seems like there's a small handful of unpleasant folks here with a curious agenda. What do you think that's about?

 

[PHBoiler]

You've stated countless times across multiple platforms that you're not a journalist and GBH is not journalism. If we are to accept those statements, why did you report (which is journalism) the news of Eric Hobbs being bought out at Penrose? It's not just about why would GBH be so hypocritical but also why is that the reason to cross that line? With all the stories across the country that GBH has told, why break news on a small suburban Chicago brewery that hasn't had beer on shelves in over a year? Honestly I'm only interested in real answers on this one. Please don't try and pull the I'm so glad we could be the ones to tell your story BS like you did on Hobbs FB account. He didn't want it out there.

Furthermore do you consider any lines uncrossable? In the case of reporting, wouldn't you want to remove yourself from reporting on friends?

Second question: what is there for the GBH brand to gain from taking personal shots at industry people on Twitter? You've had unfair criticism sent your way plenty of times be it to GBH or yourself personally. How is the brand in a better place by returning fire? The example I would give here would be your comments about The Beer Temple shop (not the podcast) on Memorial Day. You did eventually delete them but nothing on the Internet truly goes away.

Context is lost in typed words. I'm not firing this off in some angry state of mind. I'm truly curious. Both of these issues are months gone by. They both also profoundly changed my level of consuming GBH content.

 

[cneville1]

I don't believe a completely independent or unbiased operation is possible, but there's a scale, and we aim to increase it whenever possible.

but isn't the the crux of why what you do rubs people the wrong way?

take this article: http://goodbeerhunting.com/blog/2016/12/22/critical-drinking-thats-cus-its-so-rare-dawg

a substantial portion of this piece, on your editorial site, relies on your access to goose island. this isn't a particularly consequential piece (and i don't mean that to be an attack), but it's a clear example of how the line between GBH as paid agency and GBH as editorial content creator is, at best, blurred. even if goose didn't pay you for this article--are you discussing their product because it's the perfect example of the style? or are you discussing it because it's what you're most familiar with due to paid work--and hey, it endears you to one of your biggest clients?

 

[goodbeerhunting]

Longtime lurker, first time poster. Seems like there's a small handful of unpleasant folks here with a curious agenda. What do you think that's about?

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.

But like most things, the more they understand about what they do, the more curious, rather than cynical, they become. This article called How We Hustle did a great job of illuminating our vision as it evolves.

 

[Mofferman1]

I fully understand why you like him and what he's done for you guys.

I like Mike solely b/c he's awfully swell.

 

[disapowzment]

I like Mike solely b/c he's awfully swell.

I just love you and your short Jorts.

 

[FTowne1]

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.

But like most things, the more they understand about what they do, the more curious, rather than cynical, they become. This article called How We Hustle did a great job of illuminating our vision as it evolves.

 

[regularjohn]

I'm thinking about starting a blog dedicated to clothing for dogs. Would anyone subscribe to it? Just curious. Thanks!

 

[tikk]

I do think in this day and age we are all skeptical about where we get our info. Some will see you only for your marketing side, which I do have to admit you use the right verbiage for, maybe try to use the term paradigm shift a bit more. Bonus points if you have already used them.

Being an "agency" and a beer blog is a very hard thing to separate. This site is one of the more cynical ones and a lot of people are going to see the two sides as one piece and question what you are doing.

You have this AMA and the head Brewer from a local brewery, that you no doubt have written good words about, joins in on the fun the same day. Any planned stories about said brewery?

 

[goodbeerhunting]

You've stated countless times across multiple platforms that you're not a journalist and GBH is not journalism. If we are to accept those statements, why did you report (which is journalism) the news of Eric Hobbs being bought out at Penrose? It's not just about why would GBH be so hypocritical but also why is that the reason to cross that line? With all the stories across the country that GBH has told, why break news on a small suburban Chicago brewery that hasn't had beer on shelves in over a year? Honestly I'm only interested in real answers on this one. Please don't try and pull the I'm so glad we could be the ones to tell your story BS like you did on Hobbs FB account. He didn't want it out there.

Furthermore do you consider any lines uncrossable? In the case of reporting, wouldn't you want to remove yourself from reporting on friends?

Second question: what is there for the GBH brand to gain from taking personal shots at industry people on Twitter? You've had unfair criticism sent your way plenty of times be it to GBH or yourself personally. How is the brand in a better place by returning fire? The example I would give here would be your comments about The Beer Temple shop (not the podcast) on Memorial Day. You did eventually delete them but nothing on the Internet truly goes away.

Context is lost in typed words. I'm not firing this off in some angry state of mind. I'm truly curious. Both of these issues are months gone by. They both also profoundly changed my level of consuming GBH content.

Understood.

Me as an individual, and the people who work for GBH are two different things. Similar to the way that they guy who owns the Tribune is not a journalist, neither am I. I own and operate a business that has a journalism component. That business also has an agency component. If I choose to write on that platform, it's usually industry criticism and it's done as someone working in the industry. That's where I'm coming from. Occasionally it's a piece about a brewery that's close to my heart and I want to share it. That's just my prerogative. But I think to call myself a journalist would be to ignore too much of what my role really is, which is to run and build the business.

But the people who conduct our reporting on Sightlines, that dude is a journalist. The photographers and writers who create our editorial, and our editor who runs that side of the operation – they're journalists. Their job is to tell compelling, honest stories about beer that inspire people. That's also what I pay them to do.

The Hobbs piece — as a simple news piece, that story would have zero relevance outside the tiny bubble of Chicago breweries. But Sightlines isn't a news blotter. It's where we try to relate one piece of news to a trend or insight for the industry at large, and in that case the story was highly relevant. It was about partnerships, even seemingly unbreakable ones, being delicate. And how where you get the money matters, even if its from individuals you think you trust. That was our perspective. And no one fully knows the context of how Hobbs felt about it. I know more than most, but probably not all. We spoke on the phone the next day, and it was fine. He was even proud of some elements of it. And it didn't break before the Penrose team was informed either, as some have claimed. That whole story has been tortured to serve other people's weird agendas.

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.

Beer Temple — I don't recall the exact context of those Tweets, but it was certainly related to the ongoing cynicism and ****-talking of the BT podcast — in my view, it was going through a dark time that only got darker. It really wore me down. I deleted the Tweets because I felt they weren't going to do anyone any good, and wrote Chris an apology before he even knew they'd been published. His response was professional and understanding. It was over in minutes.

 

[cneville1]

I'm thinking about starting a blog dedicated to clothing for dogs. Would anyone subscribe to it? Just curious. Thanks!

only if you called it dogclogblog.woof

 

[regularjohn]

only if you called it dogclogblog.woof

My market research shows that this is a pretty viable name. Thanks!

 

[housepants]

question for the mods

you guys get any money from this ama? how come i'm not getting warnings about using up my 5 free views of this page?

 

[FTowne1]

Understood.

Me as an individual, and the people who work for GBH are two different things. Similar to the way that they guy who owns the Tribune is not a journalist, neither am I. I own and operate a business that has a journalism component. That business also has an agency component. If I choose to write on that platform, it's usually industry criticism and it's done as someone working in the industry. That's where I'm coming from. Occasionally it's a piece about a brewery that's close to my heart and I want to share it. That's just my prerogative. But I think to call myself a journalist would be to ignore too much of what my role really is, which is to run and build the business.

But the people who conduct our reporting on Sightlines, that dude is a journalist. The photographers and writers who create our editorial, and our editor who runs that side of the operation – they're journalists. Their job is to tell compelling, honest stories about beer that inspire people. That's also what I pay them to do.

The Hobbs piece — as a simple news piece, that story would have zero relevance outside the tiny bubble of Chicago breweries. But Sightlines isn't a news blotter. It's where we try to relate one piece of news to a trend or insight for the industry at large, and in that case the story was highly relevant. It was about partnerships, even seemingly unbreakable ones, being delicate. And how where you get the money matters, even if its from individuals you think you trust. That was our perspective. And no one fully knows the context of how Hobbs felt about it. I know more than most, but probably not all. We spoke on the phone the next day, and it was fine. He was even proud of some elements of it. And it didn't break before the Penrose team was informed either, as some have claimed. That whole story has been tortured to serve other people's weird agendas.

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.

Beer Temple — I don't recall the exact context of those Tweets, but it was certainly related to the ongoing cynicism and ****-talking of the BT podcast — in my view, it was going through a ark time that only got darker. It really wore me down. I deleted the Tweets because I felt they weren't going to do anyone any good, and wrote Chris an apology before he even knew they'd been published. His response was professional and understanding. It was over in minutes.

 

[Mofferman1]

I like Mike solely b/c he's awfully swell.

 

[goodbeerhunting]

I do think in this day and age we are all skeptical about where we get our info. Some will see you only for your marketing side, which I do have to admit you use the right verbiage for, maybe try to use the term paradigm shift a bit more. Bonus points if you have already used them.

Being an "agency" and a beer blog is a very hard thing to separate. This site is one of the more cynical ones and a lot of people are going to see the two sides as one piece and question what you are doing.

You have this AMA and the head Brewer from a local brewery, that you no doubt have written good words about, joins in on the fun the same day. Any planned stories about said brewery?

LOL, I'm genuinely shocked that Mofferman has a Talk Beer account.

No SOB story plans. One of Austin's first requests after becoming editor was something like "can we never write about Solemn Oath again? Great thanks."

The thing is, I write about the places and people I spend time with. And in their early start-up days, I spent a lot of it with Solemn Oath. I was already close friends with Paul Schneider. Me and John Barley hit it off quickly as entrepreneurs (we learned a lot from each other in those early days). Also, very little was happening in the scene back then. And because I was the only one writing with any regularity, that sort of disproportionately became a theme.

They're doing a case study at Uppers & Downers again this year, so I might jet out to Naperville to document some of that. If that shows up on the site, well, sorry for partying.

 

[cneville1]

but isn't the the crux of why what you do rubs people the wrong way?

take this article: http://goodbeerhunting.com/blog/2016/12/22/critical-drinking-thats-cus-its-so-rare-dawg

a substantial portion of this piece, on your editorial site, relies on your access to goose island. this isn't a particularly consequential piece (and i don't mean that to be an attack), but it's a clear example of how the line between GBH as paid agency and GBH as editorial content creator is, at best, blurred. even if goose didn't pay you for this article--are you discussing their product because it's the perfect example of the style? or are you discussing it because it's what you're most familiar with due to paid work--and hey, it endears you to one of your biggest clients?

I do think in this day and age we are all skeptical about where we get our info. Some will see you only for your marketing side, which I do have to admit you use the right verbiage for, maybe try to use the term paradigm shift a bit more. Bonus points if you have already used them.

Being an "agency" and a beer blog is a very hard thing to separate. This site is one of the more cynical ones and a lot of people are going to see the two sides as one piece and question what you are doing.

You have this AMA and the head Brewer from a local brewery, that you no doubt have written good words about, joins in on the fun the same day. Any planned stories about said brewery?

LOL, I'm genuinely shocked that Mofferman has a Talk Beer account.

No SOB story plans. One of Austin's first requests after becoming editor was something like "can we never write about Solemn Oath again? Great thanks."

The thing is, I write about the places and people I spend time with. And in their early start-up days, I spent a lot of it with Solemn Oath. I was already close friends with Paul Schneider. Me and John Barley hit it off quickly as entrepreneurs (we learned a lot from each other in those early days). Also, very little was happening in the scene back then. And because I was the only one writing with any regularity, that sort of disproportionately became a theme.

They're doing a case study at Uppers & Downers again this year, so I might jet out to Naperville to document some of that. If that shows up on the site, well, sorry for partying.

follow up: why are you going out of order? get out of my space, tikk!

 

[dontdrinkbeer]

*whether

I second what cneville stated. I thought you were a beer blog site, not a pr firm. That's why I asked the question of journalistic integrity.

I get in this day and age, companies are going to give out some handouts for favorable reviews, ie dontdrinkbeer's new digs, free review beers, travel expenses to the brewery or events. But I feel that being a paid consultant opens a whole new can of worms.

Hahah wait what

My new digs wat is hapen

 

[ForkAndSpoonOperator]

 

[PHBoiler]

Understood.

Me as an individual, and the people who work for GBH are two different things. Similar to the way that they guy who owns the Tribune is not a journalist, neither am I. I own and operate a business that has a journalism component. That business also has an agency component. If I choose to write on that platform, it's usually industry criticism and it's done as someone working in the industry. That's where I'm coming from. Occasionally it's a piece about a brewery that's close to my heart and I want to share it. That's just my prerogative. But I think to call myself a journalist would be to ignore too much of what my role really is, which is to run and build the business.

But the people who conduct our reporting on Sightlines, that dude is a journalist. The photographers and writers who create our editorial, and our editor who runs that side of the operation – they're journalists. Their job is to tell compelling, honest stories about beer that inspire people. That's also what I pay them to do.

The Hobbs piece — as a simple news piece, that story would have zero relevance outside the tiny bubble of Chicago breweries. But Sightlines isn't a news blotter. It's where we try to relate one piece of news to a trend or insight for the industry at large, and in that case the story was highly relevant. It was about partnerships, even seemingly unbreakable ones, being delicate. And how where you get the money matters, even if its from individuals you think you trust. That was our perspective. And no one fully knows the context of how Hobbs felt about it. I know more than most, but probably not all. We spoke on the phone the next day, and it was fine. He was even proud of some elements of it. And it didn't break before the Penrose team was informed either, as some have claimed. That whole story has been tortured to serve other people's weird agendas.

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.

Beer Temple — I don't recall the exact context of those Tweets, but it was certainly related to the ongoing cynicism and ****-talking of the BT podcast — in my view, it was going through a ark time that only got darker. It really wore me down. I deleted the Tweets because I felt they weren't going to do anyone any good, and wrote Chris an apology before he even knew they'd been published. His response was professional and understanding. It was over in minutes.

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.

 

[RedCoffee]

The question on everyone's mind:
Are you a grit or a grain kind of fella?

 

[goodbeerhunting]

follow up: why are you going out of order? get out of my space, tikk!

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."

 

[SheerHeartAttack]

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

 

[regularjohn]

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