Nice article on how AB InBev is trying to destroy good beer for higher profits

[TyTanium]

Sounds like political rhetoric to me. Capitalism is amoral; it only reflects the values people bring to it. If we no longer value manufacturing in Flint, relative to something else, then artificially subsidizing manufacturing in Flint may not be optimal. I realize jobs & livelihoods are at stake here; that comes with the territory of capitalism. So then it comes down to whether the incentives it creates are worth those costs.

So, can we find a way to make manufacturing in Flint competitive in a global economy? If not, then perhaps those resources are better allocated elsewhere.

MODS: I realize this can get political real quick since at the core the InBev discussion is political & economic theory & beliefs.

 

[eastoak]

Sounds like political rhetoric to me. Capitalism is amoral; it only reflects the values people bring to it. If we no longer value manufacturing in Flint, relative to something else, then artificially subsidizing manufacturing in Flint may not be optimal. I realize jobs & livelihoods are at stake here; that comes with the territory of capitalism. So then it comes down to whether the incentives it creates are worth those costs.

So, can we find a way to make manufacturing in Flint competitive in a global economy? If not, then perhaps those resources are better allocated elsewhere.

MODS: I realize this can get political real quick since at the core the InBev discussion is political & economic theory & beliefs.

this makes my point rather nicely. who is the WE you are referring to? the people who lost their jobs? the "comes with territory of capitalism" encapsulates the religious dogma that whatever the results are they must be seen as good...for someone, and that's good enough. this is not a political or economic discussion, it's more a religious discussion since it's mostly faith based; you have to have faith that capitalism will save....someone. maybe not you or me, but that shouldn't matter, the free market will most efficiently allocate the resources. NOT. the last thing big money wants are free markets and they spend billions trying to insure that the markets are free for them and a little less free for anyone else. "regulatory capture" is what they call it, and it's legal so that tells you a little more about who's really winning in these "free markets".

 

[TyTanium]

Ahh, I see where you're coming from now. Yeah, I'm not a fan of regulatory capture either, and agree that in many respects the free markets aren't "free". Regulators definitely have an important role to play, but I'm all too familiar with the costs imposed by over-involvement (I'm a banker).

I'm reacting to the notion that someone (e.g., gov't) should intervene when industries change...the government (and by extension, regulators) exist to set and enforce the rules, not pick winners & losers. So it sounds like we're in agreement there. As far as "big money" being in cahoots with regulators, I don't even want to go there. I'm content to leave that one be.

 

[neko]

"Analysts speculate that it will acquire SABMiller, the world’s second-largest brewer."

Haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I have a feeling this wouldn't pass the antitrust authorities.

 

[cheezydemon3]

At what point do anti-trust laws come into play? (Laws which evidently must have been UNFAIR before they were signed into law:cross

 

[callmebruce]

All the article made me do is to look a little more closely at the beer I buy. And kick myself, since I've fallen for Beck's, Bass and Stella Artois. So it made me more determined to purchase locally brewed beers and wander over to a Growler shop.

If other folks want to drink AB InBev stuff, enjoy it, and like the lower prices - that's fine. If they decide to try something else and take a closer look at craft-brewed beer or locally brewed beer - all the better.

 

[TyTanium]

At what point do anti-trust laws come into play? (Laws which evidently must have been UNFAIR before they were signed into law:cross

Generally the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is used to measure market concentration. You plug in market share numbers of both parties and other competitors, it gives you an indexed number, and depending on how high it is, it raises various levels of antitrust scrutiny.

An InBev/SABMiller merger would almost certainly raise the antitrust flags.

And again, having a monopoly isn't illegal, it's taking action to create or protect one (such as buying SABMiller).


http://www.unclaw.com/chin/teaching/antitrust/herfindahl.htm

 

[aubiecat]

All the article made me do is to look a little more closely at the beer I buy. And kick myself, since I've fallen for Beck's, Bass and Stella Artois. So it made me more determined to purchase locally brewed beers and wander over to a Growler shop.

If other folks want to drink AB InBev stuff, enjoy it, and like the lower prices - that's fine. If they decide to try something else and take a closer look at craft-brewed beer or locally brewed beer - all the better.

I did the same thing. I looked at the list of beers and put that in the memory bank. I have no desire to feed the beast.

 

[kombat]

I did the same thing. I looked at the list of beers and put that in the memory bank. I have no desire to feed the beast.

Do you boycott all companies that sacrifice quality for profits, or just this one?

If the answer is "all," then I have to ask: Where the heck do you shop?

 

[aubiecat]

Do you boycott all companies that sacrifice quality for profits, or just this one?

Sometimes we don't have the luxury of choice in a matter like that.
Luckily we still have a choice in what beer we buy. Not buying AB products is an easy thing to do.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Do you boycott all companies that sacrifice quality for profits, or just this one?

If the answer is "all," then I have to ask: Where the heck do you shop?

Do you KOMBAT Everyone?? or just everyone?


I hates inbev because they took EXISTING beers, cheapened them by cutting corners and buying crappier ingredients, and then sell them as the same product it was before the changes.

It is like Mcdonalds putting cheaper ingredients, like earthworms in the burgers and selling them as if nothing was different......wait, what???



Oh yeah! I EFFING HATE McDonalds too!!!!

Gonna tell me I'm wrong?

(I inserts mugs and winks, and talks like a pirate so that I seem less kombative)

 

[Zamial]

Do you KOMBAT Everyone?? or just everyone?


I hates inbev because they took EXISTING beers, cheapened them by cutting corners and buying crappier ingredients, and then sell them as the same product it was before the changes.

It is like Mcdonalds putting cheaper ingredients, like earthworms in the burgers and selling them as if nothing was different......wait, what???



Oh yeah! I EFFING HATE McDonalds too!!!!

Gonna tell me I'm wrong?

(I inserts mugs and winks, and talks like a pirate so that I seem less kombative)

I hate all of BMC not just Inbev and refuse to shop in a Walmart or eat fast food.

CD3 you sir get a :rockin:

People do not understand the power they have when they stop spending on corporations (and the tax dollars that go with it). Starve the beast, it will die.

Yar!

 

[cheezydemon3]

I hate all of BMC not just Inbev and refuse to shop in a Walmart or eat fast food.

CD3 you sir get a :rockin:

People do not understand the power they have when they stop spending on corporations (and the tax dollars that go with it). Starve the beast, it will die.

Yar!

Yar yerself!!

 

[iambeer]

"Analysts speculate that it will acquire SABMiller, the world’s second-largest brewer."

Well ... maybe. But then obviously InBev is going to buy all the bratwurst companies, close down all but two sausage factories, fiddle with the recipes (frog meat tastes a lot like pork when processed the Rite Way), fire all the traditional bratwurst veal and pig farmers, fire thousands of sausage factory workers, pretend there are still a dozen brands using same old dumb marketing techniques instead of really just one hideous puppet master wizard of oz machina-thing brand, and occasionally swallow a budding young independent craft bratwurst meat packer that walks by. Then, when they are done cutting costs, they will be left to sell sausages.

 

[Yooper]

Do you boycott all companies that sacrifice quality for profits, or just this one?

If the answer is "all," then I have to ask: Where the heck do you shop?

I can answer that! I boycott all that I can. I boycott B/P, Wal-Mart, In-Bev, etc. I have friends who boycott Boy Scouts due to their "no gay" policy, and I support them but have no children of that age so it's not really a boycott.

I don't think they miss me, but I think it's important to live by your convictions. I think it's wrong to decry the policies of a company, but then run through their drive-through at lunch. I think a person of strong convictions must stand by them.

 

[Homercidal]

I won't make a decision to boycott all of inBev, or any of the large brewers. My general preference for local beers is close to a boycott in all but name. However, I may soemday feel the urge to pick up a lighter macro beer for whatever reason. I'm not interested in spending time finding out who owns what brand, or carrying around a cheat sheet on the off chance I might decide to buy something other than a Michigan beer or favorite craft.

If they tweak their recipes enough to make people stop buying their beer, then they get what they deserve. If they don't lose customers due to the recipe changes, then the people get what they want. Like Lee Iaccoca once said, the dog must like their dogfood!

That stuff doesn't bother me. The illegal leaning on distributors to give their brands preference is not right, but that seems to be loosening up more every day.

Oh, and did you hear about the new beer coming out from Bud? 6% ABV, baby! Apparently they think craft beer drinkers drink craft beer because it has more alcohol. Either that or they figure more people buying their beer for the buzz... I'm not sure which.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I won't make a decision to boycott all of inBev, or any of the large brewers. My general preference for local beers is close to a boycott in all but name. However, I may soemday feel the urge to pick up a lighter macro beer for whatever reason. I'm not interested in spending time finding out who owns what brand, or carrying around a cheat sheet on the off chance I might decide to buy something other than a Michigan beer or favorite craft.

If they tweak their recipes enough to make people stop buying their beer, then they get what they deserve. If they don't lose customers due to the recipe changes, then the people get what they want. Like Lee Iaccoca once said, the dog must like their dogfood!

That stuff doesn't bother me. The illegal leaning on distributors to give their brands preference is not right, but that seems to be loosening up more every day.

Oh, and did you hear about the new beer coming out from Bud? 6% ABV, baby! Apparently they think craft beer drinkers drink craft beer because it has more alcohol. Either that or they figure more people buying their beer for the buzz... I'm not sure which.

Watch beer wars yet? Bud has been aiming for the craft brewers in absolutely diabolical sneaky ways for a long time.

 

[bob1852]

Watch beer wars yet? Bud has been aiming for the craft brewers in absolutely diabolical sneaky ways for a long time.

And it is working, with craft beer's market sharge surging and all.

Just admit it cheezy, you hate wealthy people.

 

[Homercidal]

Watch beer wars yet? Bud has been aiming for the craft brewers in absolutely diabolical sneaky ways for a long time.

I'm not sure I've seen that one yet or not. I think I netflixed it once.

A craft brewery gets in trouble when they desire to expand beyond what they can manage. That often sets them up for loss of control or for a takeover. Sometimes the owner is just tired of working and want to sell.

A beer company just can't walk into a private company and buy them.

 

[Gravedigger]

IMO if you enjoy a product and you find the price resonable then by all means keep buying and enjoying. That is probably the case with most of the people who enjoy BMC's flagship offerings. Most of those people don't really care what ingredients are used or how fresh they are. Not trying to flame anyone that likes those beers just my experience/opinion. The biggest problem I have is when companies take a "premium product" and mess with quality by using cheap ingredients then they still market it as "premium" and continue to sell it at a premium price thus deceasing the quality while increasing profits by trying to fool consumers. For instance AB Inbev bought Goose Island a little over a year ago. GI has some good offerings and then they also have a premium line of Belgian styles such as Matilda. I don't believe it has happened yet but it seems to standard practice for In Bev to reduce the quality of ingredients so they have higher margins. If they were to do that to Matlida they would be destroying a great product. Regardless of what they price the product at, that is very dissapointing.

Just to be clear I'm not saying they have done that to the GI offerings yet, but they do have a habbit of that practice.

 

[kombat]

I can answer that! I boycott all that I can. I boycott B/P, Wal-Mart, In-Bev, etc. [...] I think a person of strong convictions must stand by them.

But that's the part that's confusing me. What "convictions" are you standing by here? How is this not simply economics/capitalism? A business survives by giving customers what they want, at a cheaper price than their competitors. If they cheap out too much and it becomes noticeable, then the customers switch to their competitors, and they either have to restore the quality, lower their price, or die.

This is all how things are SUPPOSED to work. What are you opposing here? That companies don't just blindly produce the highest-quality products, regardless of the price, and regardless of whether people actually like it or not?

I just don't get the argument here. This is how economics is SUPPOSED to work. It's simple supply and demand, and capitalism. Nothing is broken here!

 

[zeg]

[...]A business survives by giving customers what they want, at a cheaper price than their competitors. If they cheap out too much and it becomes noticeable, then the customers switch to their competitors, and they either have to restore the quality, lower their price, or die.

This is all how things are SUPPOSED to work. What are you opposing here? That companies don't just blindly produce the highest-quality products, regardless of the price, and regardless of whether people actually like it or not?

At one level, "boycotting" in the way Yooper described is exactly what you say: the quality isn't adequate for her, so she doesn't buy it.

However, I don't agree that this is how things are "supposed" to work, at least, not always. The problem is that maximizing "shareholder value" (i.e., profit, more or less) doesn't solve every business problem. Many high-end brands, beer and otherwise, could probably increase profits by cutting quality and price. In some cases, this is silly and inefficient, but in others, it's a benefit to those who place a lot of value on high quality goods and services.

There are other issues, too, in that businesses don't exist in some magical economic world where the only thing that matters AT ALL is money. Businesses are made up of people, employ people, and serve people. These people have moral and ethical responsibilities, and it's not like that vanishes when you incorporate. If maximizing your profit means screwing over your community, I'd say that's not how things are "supposed" to work.

 

[eastoak]

But that's the part that's confusing me. What "convictions" are you standing by here? How is this not simply economics/capitalism? A business survives by giving customers what they want, at a cheaper price than their competitors. If they cheap out too much and it becomes noticeable, then the customers switch to their competitors, and they either have to restore the quality, lower their price, or die.

This is all how things are SUPPOSED to work. What are you opposing here? That companies don't just blindly produce the highest-quality products, regardless of the price, and regardless of whether people actually like it or not?

I just don't get the argument here. This is how economics is SUPPOSED to work. It's simple supply and demand, and capitalism. Nothing is broken here!

who says that's how economics works?

 

[kombat]

who says that's how economics works?

John Maynard Keynes.

 

[Calichusetts]

John Maynard Keynes.

Sounds more like Adam Smith than Keynes...

 

[cheezydemon3]

And it is working, with craft beer's market sharge surging and all.

Just admit it cheezy, you hate wealthy people.

.......Bud made up a craft brewery somewhere in CA, Greensomething brewing with all organic ingredients. If you went there to visit the brewery there was nothing but a giant bud factory.

Deception, pure and simple regardless of socioeconomic status.

I'm not sure I've seen that one yet or not. I think I netflixed it once.

A craft brewery gets in trouble when they desire to expand beyond what they can manage. That often sets them up for loss of control or for a takeover. Sometimes the owner is just tired of working and want to sell.

A beer company just can't walk into a private company and buy them.

See above. It was more of Bud pretending to be a craft brewery. also bud copying a style and then sueing the craft brewery that originally offered it. Another way for them to force a brewery to spend lots of money, even if the brewery ends up winning, they are financially worse off from having to hire attornies.

http://www.dogfish.com/forums/the-bar/7333/06/08/2009/dogfish-head-v-anheuser-busch.htm

Pretty effing sickening. Bud with their army of attornies who weren't that busy hamstringing an up and coming brewery.

They made it, but it is thill sh!tty.

 

[eastoak]

John Maynard Keynes.

well, that's not true he dealt more with deficits, employment, and other macro issues, but maybe you meant adam smith? in any event economic theory does not matter as much as economic practice does it? InBev can walk into any congressional office and probably get some action whereas you and i can't so what does economic theory do with that? isn't that the true "invisible hand" the hand that can pay? in very simple terms the market should favor the best (actor, whatever it may be) but in practice it tends to favor capital. your brewery is going to lose against InBev. period. the fact that your beer is better quality is irrelevant, so is the price. according to (some) economic theory this should not be the case, but it is.

 

[kombat]

maybe you meant adam smith?

They've both contributed greatly to economic theory, but I'll concede that crediting Smith would've been more appropriate to my argument.

your brewery is going to lose against InBev. period. the fact that your beer is better quality is irrelevant, so is the price. according to (some) economic theory this should not be the case, but it is.

Is that why there are more craft breweries in North America today than at any other time in history? Because small breweries inevitably lose against the big guys, "period?"

 

[Yooper]

But that's the part that's confusing me. What "convictions" are you standing by here? How is this not simply economics/capitalism? A business survives by giving customers what they want, at a cheaper price than their competitors. If they cheap out too much and it becomes noticeable, then the customers switch to their competitors, and they either have to restore the quality, lower their price, or die.

This is all how things are SUPPOSED to work. What are you opposing here? That companies don't just blindly produce the highest-quality products, regardless of the price, and regardless of whether people actually like it or not?

I just don't get the argument here. This is how economics is SUPPOSED to work. It's simple supply and demand, and capitalism. Nothing is broken here!

I won't get too involved with it here, but I boycott based on the way companies treat their workers, their impact on the environment, their unethical business practices, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with price. Sometime you should see "The High Cost of Low Price".

I don't care about product quality in off-brand stores, and that is not what why I refuse to shop at certain retailers. I also have no issues with capitalism. I will not shop with places that have a poor record of contaminating the environment, that force their workers to have substandard pay and working conditions, corporations that use deceptive business practices, etc. I do not eat meat from factory farms, eggs from factory farms, packaged food from conglomerates, etc.

InBev is just one of the companies I just to not support. I don't think everybody needs to do what I'm doing, as it's an individual choice. As an informed consumer, I have lots of choices.

 

[Gravedigger]

But that's the part that's confusing me. What "convictions" are you standing by here? How is this not simply economics/capitalism? A business survives by giving customers what they want, at a cheaper price than their competitors. If they cheap out too much and it becomes noticeable, then the customers switch to their competitors, and they either have to restore the quality, lower their price, or die.

This is all how things are SUPPOSED to work. What are you opposing here? That companies don't just blindly produce the highest-quality products, regardless of the price, and regardless of whether people actually like it or not?

I just don't get the argument here. This is how economics is SUPPOSED to work. It's simple supply and demand, and capitalism. Nothing is broken here!

To me it's boderline monopolistic behaviour. The company owns so many brands they don't care if you stop buying one product. They probably own the substitute brand that the consumer buys. Alot of the brands you think are "craft" are actually owned by BMC(AB Inbev inparticular). I realize it's not really a monoply (plenty of breweries out there) but they're actions are similar to the way a monoply would act