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

[cheezydemon3]

It is a lot more sinister than just capitalism.

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

well crap. that link doesn't seem to work.

Basically Bud's fleet of attorneys sued Dogfishhead for their Punkin Ale, just to make them spend money, money bud had to burn and dogfish didn't.

 

[aubiecat]

It is a lot more sinister than just capitalism.

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

well crap. that link doesn't seem to work.

Basically Bud's fleet of attorneys sued Dogfishhead for their Punkin Ale, just to make them spend money, money bud had to burn and dogfish didn't.

Can the the AB apologist please explain that one. Is it it just good ole capitalism when AB sues Dogfishhead because they use the words Punk'in Ale and Chickory Stout on their beers.

 

[eastoak]

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?"

it does not mean that they prevent others from trying but big brewers have certainly bought up whatever craft breweries they can (goose island) and in some countries with even weaker laws than ours you will not open a competing brewery period.

my point is that we should not bow down to how things are "supposed to be" for it's own sake. we create the society we want to live in by the choices we make or don't make. capitalism is NOT sacrosanct, people are.

 

[Yooper]

it does not mean that they prevent others from trying but big brewers have certainly bought up whatever craft breweries they can (goose island) and in some countries with even weaker laws than ours you will not open a competing brewery period.

my point is that we should not bow down to how things are "supposed to be" for it's own sake. we create the society we want to live in by the choices we make or don't make. capitalism is NOT sacrosanct, people are.

The other thing to consider is the "three tier distribution system" in the US.

I have a friend who owns a nanobrewery, and he can self distribute a limited amount. He can barely keep up with orders, so did consider a distributor.

He told me on Saturday that it's "pay to play"- that is, pay the distributor to carry his beer and offer to stores. He can't afford it, so he will continue to self distribute.

They recently changed the law in Wisconsin, but the way it generally works is that InBev can set up "brewery branches", so they can also monopolize the distributors.

So, smaller breweries, have to "pay to play" as well as find a non-owned InBev distributorship! Not easy, not fair, and legal in all but about 16 states. And not to take this political, which is against our forum rules, but I suggest looking up the top contributors to governor's and other elected official's campaign financing to figure out why it's not an issue in most states.

 

[heferly]

The pay to play in chicago goes further..you may have to gift an extra keg per month just to be considered for a takeover tap...if i remember, I'll post a link to a great article

 

[cheezydemon3]

Absolutely Yooper. Not to mention shelf placement.
The distributors get 90% of their revenue from BMC so that is who calls the shots.
BMC pays lobbyists to make sure that the 3 tier system stays, keeping them in control.

 

[Zamial]

SABMiller just finished slamming the door shut in my state on any new brew pubs or breweries. Granted you can technically still open one but you would not be able to compete with the ones in place now.

They started to lobby against Inbev complaining that Inbev owned all the distributors in the state save the one they owned. They started to scream "monopoly!" and started to get a law through. This law, even though they claimed it it was geared to stop INbev from owning distributors, had NOTHING to do with Inbev at all! (I do not remember the exact number so do not hold me to the flame on it.) This law targeted breweries that made under 30,000 barrels of beer a year. It makes any new small breweries or brewpubs sell their product to a distributor then buy it back before they could even GIVE IT AWAY or sell it.

All the breweries/brew pubs that were in existence prior to this getting passed are exempt...

 

[motobrewer]

SABMiller just finished slamming the door shut in my state on any new brew pubs or breweries. Granted you can technically still open one but you would not be able to compete with the ones in place now.

I thought the number was 300,000 - and I thought it specifically allowed breweries under 300k the right to self-distribute....?

 

[Homercidal]

The other thing to consider is the "three tier distribution system" in the US.

I have a friend who owns a nanobrewery, and he can self distribute a limited amount. He can barely keep up with orders, so did consider a distributor.

He told me on Saturday that it's "pay to play"- that is, pay the distributor to carry his beer and offer to stores. He can't afford it, so he will continue to self distribute.

They recently changed the law in Wisconsin, but the way it generally works is that InBev can set up "brewery branches", so they can also monopolize the distributors.

So, smaller breweries, have to "pay to play" as well as find a non-owned InBev distributorship! Not easy, not fair, and legal in all but about 16 states. And not to take this political, which is against our forum rules, but I suggest looking up the top contributors to governor's and other elected official's campaign financing to figure out why it's not an issue in most states.

The pay to play in chicago goes further..you may have to gift an extra keg per month just to be considered for a takeover tap...if i remember, I'll post a link to a great article

That is the kind of crap I most dislike about the big boys. I feel states should make it easier for small breweries to start production. Then once they start expanding beyond the local markets, up the cost proportionally to start distribution beyond the state.

There are likely many people who want to start small local breweries who would make great employers. Who doesn't want more businesses going up in their state? The smaller breweries wouldn't be a threat to the larger breweries, and when they do get big enough, they would face the same requirements the big breweries already face. Seems fair.

I'd like to see the 3-tier system studied and some alternative methods proposed. If only the lobbying wasn't a problem...

 

[TyTanium]

That is the kind of crap I most dislike about the big boys. I feel states should make it easier for small breweries to start production. Then once they start expanding beyond the local markets, up the cost proportionally to start distribution beyond the state.

+1 for deregulation!

 

[motobrewer]

+1 for deregulation!

!!!!!

 

[heferly]

This was the article i read awhile back, but gives a nice story about the distributors in chicago

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20101120/ISSUE01/311209986?template=mobile

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Hooray for Chicago. I need to find a different big city to frequent...