MillerCoors sued for marketing Blue Moon as craft

[mdbrewer1]

But they are both labeling practices...

Scratch that.

 

[Psylocide]

If we are talking about labeling practices, its apples to apples.

How is it not apples to apples? Country of origin labeling vs. parent company labeling? One is currently legally required, one is not currently legally required.

Are you saying that miller/coors should not have to put on the label of blue moon "Product of Miller/Coors"?

Yes, I'm saying that Country of Origin labeling is nothing like parent company labeling. At all.

 

[mdbrewer1]

But they are both labeling practices...

So? They're different labeling practices.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

Yes, I'm saying that Country of Origin labeling is nothing like parent company labeling. At all.

It isn't. I know that already, country of origin labeling is important when we run into issues that involve someone getting mercury poisoning or a plastic bottle leaching arsenic into your babys milk. I realize the level of damage caused by not having the country of origin labeling on a product is MUCH higher than the damage caused to some dude thinking he's buying a craft beer product.

Asking something simple of a company to put their name on the label though, is an *extremely* small ask of them. Even if its small at the bottom of the can "Product of MillerCoors company", at least it is there, and consumers can make an informed decision. Maybe it switches over enough consumers to buy from a local brewery that happens to make a delicious (insert beer here) year round (though this is slightly unlikely with the whole seasonal availability deal). Hyperbole: maybe by switching over that one drinker it made the difference between the local small company from shutting down or not (end hyperbole)

My point being, yes, I realize the level of damage caused by country of original labeling vs. parent company labeling is an ocean apart. Though, that does not change that I think that it should be required, however we arrive at that place where they put their names on those products is fine with me, I wish it was a simple law that gets passed and done, they have to put their name on the labeling.

 

[MaxStout]

If we are talking about labeling practices, its apples to apples.

How is it not apples to apples? Country of origin labeling vs. parent company labeling? One is currently legally required, one is not currently legally required.

Are you saying that miller/coors should not have to put on the label of blue moon "Product of Miller/Coors"?

You've obviously never looked at a house-brand item from Walmart, Costco, Aldi, etc. Those typically state "distributed by [store]" Those products usually don't state who produced it. I guess that must be "deceptive" as well. :cross:

 

[cannman]

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

You've obviously never looked at a house-brand item from Walmart, Costco, Aldi, etc. Those typically state "distributed by [store]" Those products usually don't state who produced it. I guess that must be "deceptive" as well. :cross:

If I am buying a house-brand product at a store, if I need/want to know, I look it up. Same as how I would treat a beer I an contemplating buying, I learned the practice *from* "craft" beer. Should everyone have to go through the same steps? No. I take the responsibility on myself to know what I am buying. If I am buying the house-brand product I am not buying it cause I am thinking its locally made organic fancy saltine crackers, I am buying the house brand because its usually the cheapest.

Recently a lot of my family got really up in arms about the whole fish bladder non-sense being in Guiness. They didn't spend any time to look up the fact that its used in a lot of wine to clear wine as well, and I had to set them straight that they've probably consumed it in wine. So I am not always the pitch forks and burning torches type, I wish a lawsuit had never been file but I also wish the Blue Moon label had the parent company information on it already then we can tell guys like this dude who filed the lawsuit that, he's a gigantic moron for not reading the entire label.

 

[hunter_le five]

I buy our local grocer's store-brand ice cream. The grocery store doesn't actually make it. The label just says "Made with care for [grocery store name]", but doesn't mention who specifically manufactured it. I don't care who made it, and continue to buy it because I like the way it tastes and it's cheaper than Blue Bell.

Either you like Blue Moon or you don't. Who owns the company that produces it is pretty irrelevant to me.

 

[rmyurick]

I don't know if there's an agreed-upon definition of craft beer. I'm sure MillerCoors can find any number of experts to say that it's beer is "crafted". Frankly, I don't consider it craft beer, but I can't say it's really crossing any "bright line" to call it so.

I think ABInbev products, like Goose Island, now say "brewed in Baldwinsville and Chicago and LA" (or something--can't remember the third one).

 

[boganll]

I think it's a simple matter of people having the common decency to not file petty lawsuits against businesses and businesses having the common decency to market a product for what it actually is. Maybe that's asking too much..

 

[MaxStout]

If I am buying a house-brand product at a store, if I need/want to know, I look it up. Same as how I would treat a beer I an contemplating buying, I learned the practice *from* "craft" beer. Should everyone have to go through the same steps? No. I take the responsibility on myself to know what I am buying. If I am buying the house-brand product I am not buying it cause I am thinking its locally made organic fancy saltine crackers, I am buying the house brand because its usually the cheapest.

The trouble with your logic here is your insistence that marketers provide full disclosure of all of the product origin information. Hence, your "apples and apples" stance.

What you fail to distinguish, is the difference between what information is truly important to consumers, versus what is just trivial. There is a reason why regulatory agencies mandate certain information on product labels. Things like nutritional data, ingredients, etc., are deemed important by those agencies, and thus, required. OTOH, knowing what company or factory produced your organic crackers under contract for some retail store isn't deemed as important in the grand scheme of things, and therefore, not mandated.

If MillerCoors plays hide-the-ball about the true corporate origins of one of their products, it can be argued by some that that is morally deceptive. But there is a difference between what is morally deceptive and what is legally deceptive.

Expecting total transparency in consumer commerce is nice navel-gazing, but terribly unrealistic. But if you feel strongly enough about people knowing every bit of information about their products' supply chains, you can always lobby Congress for more stringent truth-in-labeling laws.

Let us know how that goes.

 

[m00ps]

Well, they aren't calling it craft. It is being *marketed* as a craft beer. No where on the label, anywhere, do you see that its a Miller/Coors product. That to me *is* a problem. I love Blue Moon, to the point that most of other craft wits and such I don't like as much as I like Blue Moon (nothing beats a cold blue moon 16oz can on a kayak on the lake on a hot day).

The labels really should display who the parent company is. Owned by New Glarus, you can see on all their labels "Oh it's a New Glarus beer brewed by New Glarus Brewery". Blue Moon "Hmm, Blue Moon, this must be brewed by Blue Moon Brewery in uh, somewhere, looks like craft and it doesn't say BMC on the label so it must be a craft beer". If the label said in no uncertain terms "This beer is a MillerCoors product" SOMEWHERE on the label, then people have no excuse to say "oh its marketed as a craft product", without that its completely reasonable mistake to assume its a craft beer.

Edit: Also what chewse posted, theres a legal definition of what a craft beer is, and isnt.

agreed. It kinda echoes how people will get upset in politics when candidates deliberately try to make it appear they aren't associated with a some interest group but they really are

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

I think it's a simple matter of people having the common decency to not file petty lawsuits against businesses and businesses having the common decency to market a product for what it actually is. Maybe that's asking too much..

This has been the basis of my entire argument. Too lazy to *know* what you are consuming? Thats your own fault. Leaving the parent company name off the labeling deliberately because you *know* it will hurt sales. Thats deceptive marketing.

 

[hunter_le five]

There's nothing magic about the phrase "craft beer". I've had plenty of sh!tty beers produced by small "artisanal" breweries, and by the same token being produced by a large brewery doesn't automatically mean it's crap.

Let's say your favorite local brewery owned by Mom & Pop produces your favorite craft beer. One day, they sell out to Sam Adams. Current management stays in place, the same brewers stay on staff, business practices and brewing practices stay the same, only the ownership of profits has changed. Is your favorite beer suddenly sh!tty because of the new owners?

"This beer used to taste like LLC, but now it has S-Corp off-flavors."

Ownership is irrelevant. Size of the brewery is irrelevant. How the beer tastes and how it was produced is ultimately what makes beer "craft" to me.

Should Sam Adams stop calling themselves craft because they've gotten so big? Sierra Nevada? New Belgium?

 

[boganll]

There's nothing magic about the phrase "craft beer". I've had plenty of sh!tty beers produced by small "artisanal" breweries, and by the same token being produced by a large brewery doesn't automatically mean it's crap.

Let's say your favorite local brewery owned by Mom & Pop produces your favorite craft beer. One day, they sell out to Sam Adams. Current management stays in place, the same brewers stay on staff, business practices and brewing practices stay the same, only the ownership of profits has changed. Is your favorite beer suddenly sh!tty because of the new owners?

"This beer used to taste like LLC, but now it has S-Corp off-flavors."

Ownership is irrelevant. Size of the brewery is irrelevant. How the beer tastes and how it was produced is ultimately what makes beer "craft" to me.

Should Sam Adams stop calling themselves craft because they've gotten so big? Sierra Nevada? New Belgium?

I think the outcry here is that, although there is no "magic" about the phrase "craft/artisan beer", there needs to be some transparency in beer marketing.

I know I've seen people countless times buying Blue Moon because they thought they were supporting a small business. If they had known they were fueling an industry giant it most likely would've impacted their decision.

That being said, ownership absolutely is relevent as is size. The momentum behind the craft beer revolution has been in direct opposition to the industry giants and the near monopoly they've held for decades. They do everything they can to feed low quality beer to the masses by making it seem like it isn't.

I would be willing to bet that MillerCoors (along with AB and the others) have substantially more money tied up marketing than they do in production. What small, privately owned brewery can compete with that? Most don't have the money to run a marketing campaign at all and it's because the focus is on the product itself, not the volume.

I like Bluemoon, but I will choose a local beer over it every time for the same reason I choose local produce over something grown on an industrial farm: I don't agree with the business tactics of major corporations.

 

[brewprint]

Some people just want to sue for anything nowadays!

WAAAAH that's not craft beer and I didn't realize it! I'm suing!

That's about the bottom of the barrel low.

 

[podz]

They didn't say it was craft beer, they said it was artfully crafted. That is skating right along the north side of the border and it's deceptive but it's still technically not lying.

One of my teens tries this with us all the time. I call her out for it and it simply does not fly with me. I tell her that this is not a court of law or a democracy, so skating just north of the border is still punishable if I deem that the intent is to circumvent the intent and meaning of my rules.

Milk product vs milk, juice drink vs juice, cheese food vs cheese, etc. This sort of attempted deception where "CHEESE food" is on the label, with the word "food" being in as large of a font difference from CHEESE as is legally permitted and potentially even with a very light grey colour, has long existed. You will not win against big business.

 

[Psylocide]

**** it.

I'm suing 3 Floyds because their famous APA is not made with real zombie dust.

See you guys on the golf course.

 

[MaxStout]

their famous APA is not made with real zombie dust.

 

[1977Brewer]

Two Hearted contains 0 actual hearts. Contact me at 800-626-5483 for information on my pending class action suit against Bell's.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Budweiser is not really aged on wood from a beach. LAWSUIT!

 

[Psylocide]

Two Hearted contains 0 actual hearts. Contact me at 800-626-5483 for information on my pending class action suit against Bell's.

I could see if they used at least one heart, and maybe like a mechanically separated heart sludge or something, but nothing?

It's so on.

 

[m00ps]

Budweiser is not really aged on wood from a beach. LAWSUIT!

Yeah that ad had me baffled. I wasn;t sure what to make of it. Were they trying to be serious? If bud was aged on wood, you know what it would taste like? Chewing splinters into your gums. There's no other flavors in bud to pair with and the barrel flavor would take over the entire beer.

 

[bob1852]

I don't know if there's an agreed-upon definition of craft beer.

It's hard to have an agreed-upon definition since the Brewer's Association keeps changing their definition of craft.

Should Sam Adams stop calling themselves craft because they've gotten so big? Sierra Nevada? New Belgium?

No, because the BA keeps changing their definition of "craft" to accommodate Sam Adams' growth.

There's no other flavors in bud to pair with and the barrel flavor would take over the entire beer.

It's not aged in barrels...the beechwood chips (which have a very mild flavor) are put into the bright tanks. It's reported to help with yeast flocculation.

 

[1977Brewer]

Yeah that ad had me baffled. I wasn;t sure what to make of it. Were they trying to be serious? If bud was aged on wood, you know what it would taste like? Chewing splinters into your gums. There's no other flavors in bud to pair with and the barrel flavor would take over the entire beer.

I hate to "well, actually" you, but it is, and has been for a long time, part of their brewing process. Beechwood imparts zero flavor to the beer, it has something to do with speeding the fermentation along. I saw an explanation in one of the threads after the Super Bowl ad fiasco.

 

[hunter_le five]

It's hard to have an agreed-upon definition since the Brewer's Association keeps changing their definition of craft.



No, because the BA keeps changing their definition of "craft" to accommodate Sam Adams' growth.

Exactly. Defining "craft" based on level of output is completely arbitrary, doubly so when you keep changing the definition to accommodate your largest members.

 

[rmyurick]

Yeah, also the Beechwood (not "beach-wood") that they use in lagering Budweiser is sterilized, so basically they boil all the taste elements out of it.

 

[bob1852]

Exactly. Defining "craft" based on level of output is completely arbitrary, doubly so when you keep changing the definition to accommodate your largest members.

It's based on ownership % also; and they've had to tinker with that (and will keep doing so) too, as "craft" breweries keep selling off minority stake for capital and increased distribution.

 

[Homercidal]

What it comes down to is that "Craft" beer has a definition to *some* people. The Government doesn't care. It's only interested in how much it can tax a brewer based on it's output.

A brewer is not required to state whether it is a craft beer or it isn't. And anyway, Blue Moon NEVER stated it was craft beer.

Country of origin may or may not be required to be on a beer label, but that's neither here nor there as Blue Moon AND Miller are both products of USA. Also, at this time Blue Moon is under no obligation to divulge it's corporate lineage. It is the legal entity manufacturing, selling, and paying taxes on, Blue Moon brand beers.

Ever hear of Buick? It's not really Buick, it's GMC. Some Buicks are even built in GMC factories. They aren't required to put a sticker on the car notifying customers that the Buick is actually owned by GMC.

Bottom line is that Corporate ownership is not required to be on beer labels, only the company selling the beer. If this is not suitable to your fancy, feel free to go above and beyond the government requirement and do your own investigating.

Oh, and BTW did anyone know that Angry Orchard is actually owned by Boston Beer Company? Good luck finding that on the label (Or their website). Traveler Beer Company? Collaboration between Jim Koch and some Magic Hat founders. Do they sell under Boston Beer Company? No.

There is PLENTY of that kind of thing going on, not just in beer, but in all kinds of products and it's been going on for many, many decades.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

Exactly. Defining "craft" based on level of output is completely arbitrary, doubly so when you keep changing the definition to accommodate your largest members.

Are we talking about the definition of "craft" breweries, or are we talking about truth in labeling?

The definition of a "craft brewery" is ridiculous now, exactly for the reasons that are being pointed out. It changes constantly based on the biggest "craft" companies. It's probably more accurate in todays market to describe it as a local/state/regional/national/international brands, rather than giving a subjective term like "craft". Distribute only within a couple counties of your brewery? Local brand. Distribute throughout your state? State brand. So on and so forth. (Obviously this is just a suggestion, it would take people far smarter to really hammer out a more accurate way of categorizing these, but "Craft" has obvious FAR out grown its usefulness based on the number of brands that are going national and international at this point) So yes, lets throw that out, I dislike it as well.

If we are talking about truth in labeling, am I really in the minority here that thinks its NOT THAT MUCH TO ASK of miller/coors (insert any company) to put on the labels that its a miller/coors(insert any company) product? Sometimes this community confuses the hell out of me, how is it that much of a big deal to expect truth in labeling when it comes to who produced your product.

I do expect everyone to take the time to research it if its important. But that's just like, my opinion, man.