Will you buy Goose Island beers now?

[CTownBrewer]

The only GI beer I've ever really liked is their Night Stalker Imperial Stout...and I can get many other equally good ones from craft breweries that are not owned by a company that dominates the industry.

I'd prefer to give my money to a company that tries to further the craft beer market, not destroy it. Craft beers are a small part of the beer market, not by choice, but by force. They aren't able to ship their beers like they want to because the big 3 dominate truck space. They come out with 50 ways of packaging the same product to dominate shelf space at any major store that sells beer.

They even go as far as to create "craft beer" without putting their name on it so the consumer doesn't even know it's theirs...jacks pumpkin spice ale, wild blueberry, etc. I know people who after months of convincing, finally wanted to try a craft beer. Then they tell me how horrible this pumpkin beer was that they tried...you guessed it...they bought the cheapest one they could find called jacks pumpkin spice. Now they won't try craft beer again. Who'd buy a $10 4-pack of DFH Punkin when they could try jacks pumpkin spice for $5 for a 6-pack? This behavior is not what I would call furthering the beer industry. It's making money no matter what the cost.

 

[Pappers_]

I'm fortunate to live in a metropolitan area with many great breweries. I seldom buy beer that isn't from one of those local breweries. I think local often means fresher. In addition, I choose to support these small, local, independent breweries because they add to the beer culture here from which I benefit.

I enjoy Goose Island and will certainly drink it. But if I have the option of buying Metropolitan, Half Acre, Two Brothers, Finch, or Three Floyds, I usually do.

 

[JNye]

I won't bother with them. I've had it plenty as I live in Chicago. I haven't been drinking them much the last year or so anyways. I understand exactly what the OP is saying. When I am out drinking on tap I always prefer local beer. Sure I drink the occasional west coast bottle or something but I generally feel like beer making isn't that hard. Good quality beers aren't that different. I would much rather have pint of two brothers, 3 floyds, or bells then Goose at this point.

This is also one of the reasons I make beer. Good beer isn't that mysterious. I make IPAs, APAs , and quaffable seasonals almost exclusively(house beers essentially). They taste great, as good as anything I can get at the store in the same style. Consequently I only buy the big beers that I don't want 5 gallons of. I think the hardest part of owning a brewery is marketing/selling the beer. Sad but true.

 

[downtown3641]

This must be regional because in my town there is little evidence of this.
Putting aside who actually owns what, my local grocery chain has more of what most of us would consider quality beer than BMC in the coolers. A large regional grocery chain is about 50/50. I would not consider this a stranglehold.
Now, if you find yourself in Texas about all you will get besides Coors Light is a token sixer of Sierra Nevada.

We're actually fortunate in my town to have a good craft beer community. However, distributers who distribute AB can only distribute AB products or the handful of craft brewers to which AB owns distribution rights. Miller-Coors actually allows their distributers to distribute beer from independently owned breweries. So, essentially, AB-InBev will account for at least 50% of the beer distributed in certain areas because of the their manipulation of the distribution system.

 

[redcoat_or_rebel]

this is akin to not listening to a band anymore because they signed a major label deal.

if the beer is still good and they didn't screw anyone over in the process or don't dump toxic waste in the river or move their brewery to china for the tax rates, then drink it. if it is local, all the better.

i agree with JNye. while i admire others skill in brewing the subtle differnces that can be achieved are fleeting. the magic is in the simplicity of the whole process.

 

[Pilgarlic]

Good analogy to a band signing to a major label. Nearly every band that does so finds that it no longer has creative control and, yes, I often stop listening.

 

[northernlad]

this is akin to not listening to a band anymore because they signed a major label deal.

if the beer is still good and they didn't screw anyone over in the process or don't dump toxic waste in the river or move their brewery to china for the tax rates, then drink it. if it is local, all the better.

i agree with JNye. while i admire others skill in brewing the subtle differnces that can be achieved are fleeting. the magic is in the simplicity of the whole process.

I was thinking the same thing. In addition I find it curious that the evil one here is Inbev when if, being true to a principle, the fault is Goose Islands for selling their soul to the devil, yet no one is calling them out on that.

 

[Pappers_]

I was thinking the same thing. In addition I find it curious that the evil one here is Inbev when if, being true to a principle, the fault is Goose Islands for selling their soul to the devil, yet no one is calling them out on that.

As the OP has said a couple of times, he (and I) don't think InBev or Goose Island is evil. Just because I prefer to spend my money on beers produced by local, independent breweries doesn't mean that I think that Stella Artois is evil or bad.

 

[lou2row]

Didn't like any of the beers of theirs I've tried, so I voted no.

 

[Nightbiker]

Sure I'd buy it if it were available here. I don't really care who owns a beer that I like (I've never had this one so I'd buy it at least once just to try it). I don't drink my beer just because someone (in particular) does or does not own the brand. I DO drink my beers based on taste. If I like it, I drink it (and when I try to clone it, I use it as the control sample to see how close I came -and then of course will just brew my own from that point forward). I like trying different beers. Sure, its a nice thing to know it was brewed in a local microbrewery, but if that was your litmus test, you would take away a significant number of beers to enjoy.
PROST!

 

[bruin_ale]

never tried there beers, we don't get them here.. I'd glady buy one to try if they start distributing here. I don't care who owns them, if the beer is good - I'll drink it. Although, now that I've got my own brewery pipeline full I don't buy alot of common type beers - my beer money goes mostly to unique beers like DIPA, Belgians, etc.

 

[ChandlerBang]

I'd prefer to give my money to a company that tries to further the craft beer market, not destroy it. Craft beers are a small part of the beer market, not by choice, but by force.

AB InBev is furthering the craft beer market by investing in it. It takes large infusions of cash to get any product out of your front door, let alone on shelves across the country. You are assuming (ignorantly so) that all beers will get an equal chance if distribution was equalized. WRONG. The guy buying Bud Light will NEVER pay $14.99 for a Southern Tier Cuvee 3 bomber. The basic principle of supply and demand is economics 101 stuff.

All BMC has done is developed a product that will sell at high volumes at a low price point. If you don't agree with their business practices, fine. But (speaking to CTownBrewer now) don't bring wild accusations and otherwise ignorant arguments into a civilized debate.

To the OP, I LOVE this country because of the choices and freedoms (although dwindling) that it gives us. I chose to buy beer that I like to drink, a decision not based on the brewery. I hope this debate keeps up, I like hearing all of opposing (and intelligent) viewpoints.

 

[sunnykiol]

Yes,of course.

 

[Pappers_]

Originally Posted by CTownBrewer
I'd prefer to give my money to a company that tries to further the craft beer market, not destroy it. Craft beers are a small part of the beer market, not by choice, but by force.

AB InBev is furthering the craft beer market by investing in it. It takes large infusions of cash to get any product out of your front door, let alone on shelves across the country. You are assuming (ignorantly so) that all beers will get an equal chance if distribution was equalized. WRONG. The guy buying Bud Light will NEVER pay $14.99 for a Southern Tier Cuvee 3 bomber. The basic principle of supply and demand is economics 101 stuff.

All BMC has done is developed a product that will sell at high volumes at a low price point. If you don't agree with their business practices, fine. But (speaking to CTownBrewer now) don't bring wild accusations and otherwise ignorant arguments into a civilized debate.

To the OP, I LOVE this country because of the choices and freedoms (although dwindling) that it gives us. I chose to buy beer that I like to drink, a decision not based on the brewery. I hope this debate keeps up, I like hearing all of opposing (and intelligent) viewpoints.

Chandler, I'd like to point out that the post you are bashing didn't once denigrate another poster here. Your post, on the other hand, twice called another member here ignorant. Not very 'civilized', in my opinion.

 

[aggieactuary]

AB is an oligopolistic actor in its beer market (not the craft market) and I prefer not to support oligopoly, which is antithetical to free markets. AB also has a strong legacy of massive financial participation in our political system, which I think is corrosive of our political system. There is a thriving, entrepreneurial, competitive, creative market consisting of a huge and growing number of craft brewers out there that I'd much prefer to do business with, rather than with a plutocratic, oligopolistic, anti-competitive corporation that hasn't developed an interesting product in the better part of a century. Oh... for the whoo hahs: please, I don't believe that AB is "evil". It is perfectly rational for them to dominate markets if they're allowed, to, and to buy policy if they are allowed to. They would be fools not to. I don't for a moment believe they are evil; they're behaving rationally in a very flawed system that ought to better regulate huge corporations and their impacts on both markets and politics.

I agree with you except for your last thought. AB InBev are acting rationally, but it isn't better regulation we need, it's less. It's the legislation/regulation that resulted in the three tier system that is the problem. Requiring a wholesaler causes a huge hurdle to entry to the market. We need to repeal the legislation that results in the three tier system.

Just to restate, I think capitalism works when we let it, but we don't have a free market for beer.


To the OP, it doesn't bother me that GI was bought by a successful company. If that was the end of the story I would still buy GI. But the fact is that, as noted above, AB InBev have a huge lobby at the Capitol (trying to keep the 3-tier system), and I don't want to support that. I want to end that.

If GI had been bought by Sam Adams, Frito-Lay, or Pepsi then I would still buy GI.

 

[CTownBrewer]

AB InBev is furthering the craft beer market by investing in it. It takes large infusions of cash to get any product out of your front door, let alone on shelves across the country. You are assuming (ignorantly so) that all beers will get an equal chance if distribution was equalized. WRONG. The guy buying Bud Light will NEVER pay $14.99 for a Southern Tier Cuvee 3 bomber. The basic principle of supply and demand is economics 101 stuff.

All BMC has done is developed a product that will sell at high volumes at a low price point. If you don't agree with their business practices, fine. But (speaking to CTownBrewer now) don't bring wild accusations and otherwise ignorant arguments into a civilized debate.

To the OP, I LOVE this country because of the choices and freedoms (although dwindling) that it gives us. I chose to buy beer that I like to drink, a decision not based on the brewery. I hope this debate keeps up, I like hearing all of opposing (and intelligent) viewpoints.

Actually, I never said all beers will get equal chance if distribution was equalized. It is still about supply & demand...however, there is a greater demand for craft beer now more than ever, but the distribution balance has not changed to meet that increased demand. You are twisting words around to prove your own point. I'm saying that there are many craft breweries that want to be able to distribute their beers country-wide, but because of BMC dominating all the distribution channels, they cannot. The system is flawed. I have more of a problem with the system that BMC has been allowed to operate within for years.

Also, your assumption that a Bud Lite drinker will never buy a $10-15 bomber of craft beer is incorrect in my opinion. Every craft beer drinker I know started out drinking BMC products. Now, they happily buy craft beers at triple the price. I have also seen Bud Lite drinkers try "craft beer" like jacks pumpkin spice or wild blue, absolutely hate it, then never be willing to try craft beer again due to one bad experience with a cheap, off-brand BMC product. This isn't furthering the craft beer industry IMO. They intentionally do not put their BMC name on these off-brand products because they are trying to deceive the general public.

As far as their business practices go, I don't like what they are allowed to do. The example I gave was with their packaging & shelf space. Go look up how many ways they package their beer...6/12/24 packs of both glass bottles & cans, vortex bottles, re-sealable pint cans, cans that change color by temperature, bottles you can write on, the list goes on and on. All major stores need to stock each type of BMC beer & all this packaging for each. This us done for one reason...to limit the shelf space any other competing product can get (craft beer). Your naive if you believe its all done for their consumer & their needs. All BMC products are displayed right up front within eyesight/eye-level. You have to go hunting to find craft beer.

BMC is all about making money & monopolizing the industry using the cheapest ingredients they can get & any means necessary. Craft breweries care about the quality & integrity of their products.

 

[IffyG]

Also, your assumption that a Bud Lite drinker will never buy a $10-15 bomber of craft beer is incorrect in my opinion.

Never might be a stretch, but from my experience the proportion of BMC drinkers willing to drop 10-15 bucks on a bomber (or even a six pack) of beer is slightly higher than zero. I couldn't tell you how many times I've had people at the liquor store ask me why I'm buying such expensive beer when I grab a 12 dollar bomber or a 20 dollar six pack. Hell, the cashier at my usual liquor store that I was nuts when I was buying a 5 dollar can of Ten Fidy...

 

[Pilgarlic]

I agree with you except for your last thought. AB InBev are acting rationally, but it isn't better regulation we need, it's less. It's the legislation/regulation that resulted in the three tier system that is the problem. Requiring a wholesaler causes a huge hurdle to entry to the market. We need to repeal the legislation that results in the three tier system.

I think you're missing something about capitalism and "free markets" that has been recognized since Adams Smith's "Wealth of Nations" first posited "the invisible hand" in 1776. The efficiency that capitalism brings doesn't come from "free" markets, per se, but from "competitive" markets. Competitive markets require a large number of free, rational actors as both sellers and buyers, with none of those buyers being able to exert market power. Free markets, in fact, in many industries, tend toward oligopoly or monopoly which, in order to preserve the efficiency, creativity and productivity benefits of capitalism, must be reasonably regulated. "Free" markets are not a panacea if they are oligopolistic or monopolistic markets, and monopolists and oligopolists, acting rationally in their best interests, WILL create economic inefficiencies and inequities.

The three-tier system is a small part of the inefficiency and inequity in the fizzy beer industry but I agree with you that it is a bad regulation, aimed not at preserving markets and opportunities, but limiting them The existence of bad regulation doesn't support a conclusion that regulation is bad.

 

[northernlad]

I'm saying that there are many craft breweries that want to be able to distribute their beers country-wide, but because of BMC dominating all the distribution channels, they cannot. The system is flawed. I have more of a problem with the system that BMC has been allowed to operate within for years.

Also, your assumption that a Bud Lite drinker will never buy a $10-15 bomber of craft beer is incorrect in my opinion.

The three tier system is not responsible for one not being able to get a beer they like from outside their region. As was stated before, and to bring back the Musician analogy, it is mostly about distribution (supply). It costs money to get beer out to the world and a little company just does not have the capital to make that happen. On the demand side, you, being a fan of finer beers happen to live in Ohio which, in my travelling experience does not appear to be much higher than Texas regarding demand for something other than piss water.Therefore you suffer.
As I stated in an earlier post, two grocery stores within a mile of my house have at least an equal amount of good beer as BMC, and one of them recently increased their craft offering to more than BMC.
Secondly, a Bud light drinker will not by a $10 bomber of beer. A $10 bomber of beer drinker will occasionally drink BMC. There is a world of difference between those people.

 

[ChandlerBang]

Actually, I never said all beers will get equal chance if distribution was equalized. It is still about supply & demand...however, there is a greater demand for craft beer now more than ever, but the distribution balance has not changed to meet that increased demand. You are twisting words around to prove your own point. I'm saying that there are many craft breweries that want to be able to distribute their beers country-wide, but because of BMC dominating all the distribution channels, they cannot. The system is flawed. I have more of a problem with the system that BMC has been allowed to operate within for years.

Also, your assumption that a Bud Lite drinker will never buy a $10-15 bomber of craft beer is incorrect in my opinion. Every craft beer drinker I know started out drinking BMC products. Now, they happily buy craft beers at triple the price. I have also seen Bud Lite drinkers try "craft beer" like jacks pumpkin spice or wild blue, absolutely hate it, then never be willing to try craft beer again due to one bad experience with a cheap, off-brand BMC product. This isn't furthering the craft beer industry IMO. They intentionally do not put their BMC name on these off-brand products because they are trying to deceive the general public.

As far as their business practices go, I don't like what they are allowed to do. The example I gave was with their packaging & shelf space. Go look up how many ways they package their beer...6/12/24 packs of both glass bottles & cans, vortex bottles, re-sealable pint cans, cans that change color by temperature, bottles you can write on, the list goes on and on. All major stores need to stock each type of BMC beer & all this packaging for each. This us done for one reason...to limit the shelf space any other competing product can get (craft beer). Your naive if you believe its all done for their consumer & their needs. All BMC products are displayed right up front within eyesight/eye-level. You have to go hunting to find craft beer.

BMC is all about making money & monopolizing the industry using the cheapest ingredients they can get & any means necessary. Craft breweries care about the quality & integrity of their products.

Ignorant: Lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified. Although our society assumes this is a "slam" or a "run-down" I was actually using as it is defined. I'll admit it does read back-handed.

I made the incorrect assumption that you are on the evil corporation bandwagon. And while it appears you may be, you do look towards the system in which BMC operates for the root cause. I agree with this part of the argument that aggieactuary brings up and you expand on.
I disagree with the fundamental idea that just because a bunch of beer snobs on some internet forum (I am including myself in this) think BMC is putting out crap beer and not letting competition into the market we should cry foul and start changing "the system". The same thing goes for "big oil" or "big catsup". I bet there are hundreds of delicious alternatives to Heinz but that doesn't mean the government should blow up the condiment distribution network to allow for more even participation.

I like the feeling I get when someone tastes one of my beers or a craft beer that I give them and they really like it. They comment on the full body and richness of flavor. Next weekend I'm in their shop and they still have their favorite BMC in the fridge. We can't legislate better taste, we can only support the companies and products that we like and share that with our friends and family.

America really likes cheap rice beer. That isn't going to change overnight.

EDIT: You are correct, there is a greater demand for craft beer now more than ever. That is why the beer aisle at my local Krogers store is only 50% BMC. The rest is well marketed and well distributed craft beers. Some are Blue Moon types and some are legit craft beers.

 

[ChandlerBang]

The existence of bad regulation doesn't support a conclusion that regulation is bad.

Well said, sir. I just wrote that down. Generally I'm on the de-regulate bandwagon, but I understand the need for well designed regulation in some industries. Aviation and medical some to mind.

The three tier system is not responsible for one not being able to get a beer they like from outside their region. As was stated before, and to bring back the Musician analogy, it is mostly about distribution (supply). It costs money to get beer out to the world and a little company just does not have the capital to make that happen. On the demand side, you, being a fan of finer beers happen to live in Ohio which, in my travelling experience does not appear to be much higher than Texas regarding demand for something other than piss water.Therefore you suffer.
As I stated in an earlier post, two grocery stores within a mile of my house have at least an equal amount of good beer as BMC, and one of them recently increased their craft offering to more than BMC.
Secondly, a Bud light drinker will not by a $10 bomber of beer. A $10 bomber of beer drinker will occasionally drink BMC. There is a world of difference between those people.

Yes. Or beer selection generally sucks.

I work at a LARGE factory here. I think most folks have no idea how much moving product costs. Supply Chain accounts for nearly 40% of our TOTAL product cost.

 

[JNye]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I hear alot about the 3 tier system being the problem for not getting distribution nationally/out of state. The way I see it this is wrong. A small craft brewer can't afford to get their beers around the country without a distributor.(The whole point of the sale of GI revolves around this fact). The problem arises when they are forceed to use a distributor to sell their beer to the bar/liquor store down the street, when they could easily sell it to them cheaper and at a higher profit themselves. The 3 tier system should be beneficial to the small guys throwing a few cases on a BMC truck headed 2 states over.

 

[downtown3641]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I hear alot about the 3 tier system being the problem for not getting distribution nationally/out of state. The way I see it this is wrong. A small craft brewer can't afford to get their beers around the country without a distributor.(The whole point of the sale of GI revolves around this fact). The problem arises when they are forceed to use a distributor to sell their beer to the bar/liquor store down the street, when they could easily sell it to them cheaper and at a higher profit themselves. The 3 tier system should be beneficial to the small guys throwing a few cases on a BMC truck headed 2 states over.

The problem isn't the three-tier system itself. The problem is the fact that, in most areas, breweries can't distribute directly to retailers. So, the distribution system is the only way for breweries to get their beer to retailers. I don't think the three-tier needs to be abolished. Breweries just need the option to distribute directly to retailers. The issue folks have with AB-InBev is that they lock distributers into only distributing their products, shutting out competition.

 

[aggieactuary]

Some good points.

I agree that not all regulation is bad, but this regulation is bad. (and I think bad regulation heavily outweighs good regulation)

I agree that the three tier system itself is not the problem, but the fact that it's the only method of distribution is a problem.

Also, the three tier system isn't the only problem, but think it has contributed to many other problems over the years.

 

[muse435]

I personally buy beer on taste alone. I pour it in a glass, and there is no label om my glass.

 

[logan3825]

I work in manufacturing and know for a fact that the price you see in stores on our product is drastically higher than we sell it for. An item we sell to the store for $12 goes for $25-30 in the store.

I will keep buying GI beers. At least in the styles that are hard to find around here, mostly Belgina styles, until/unless the quality drops. I can find plenty of the rest of their styles from other local breweries. I prefer to buy local whenever possible. We are very lucky to have a pretty good local brewery in Wisconsin. You may have heard of New Glarus.

 

[jonmohno]

I would just have to say no,I passed it up many times,thought one of the 3-4 i tried was above average but not seekable not saying i wouldnt try the specialty ones or even pick up a mixer with it or six pack but not regularly.If i think it sucks i wont be buying it anytime soon but i always give one a second or third chance because i thought 2 hearted was ok the first time then went back to it next thing i had it in my fridge montly.And became one of my favorites.
I did drink a summertime and honkers on tap at a resteraunt because killians milller and bud were the other few to choose on tap,tasted somewhat stale not blaming GI for that.

 

[emjay]

Not that I've ever even had an opportunity to try GI, but I do try to avoid stuff owned by the megaswill corps. Why? Because I live in Ontario, which is without a doubt the playground of these guys. A long time ago they convinced the government that it was in everybody's best interest for them to have a monopoly for beer distribution and retail. To this day, beer still can't be found in a grocery store or independent retailer - it is bought at The Beer Store, a chain now jointly owned by Inbev, Coors, and Sapporo.

And perhaps watching their underhanded tactics to maintain the status quo has made me bitter. Heck, I blame the government more than I do the corporations - they can pretty much be expected to do whatever they can get away with. But that doesn't mean I'm going to support all their attempts to squeeze out the little guys with every dirty possible trick they can think of. Want a beer in their stores? That'll be $25,000 per SKU - good luck with that!

But to say that this attitude somehow is anti-capitalistic is a bit offensive. This IS capitalism, and I'm merely "voting with my dollar" because I don't agree with their practices. Here I thought a main argument in support of unbridled capitalism was that people would stop giving their dollars in support of corporate practices they don't agree with, and now people are labeling my choice to spend based on something OTHER than the product itself as petty? Stupid, but not surprising.

That doesn't mean I'm going to drink any less though, I'll simply drink something else. And it's a fact that a small independent brewery employs way more people per 100Bbl, so the idea that it'd somehow be putting people out of a job is hilarious - Inbev might employ way more people overall, but if everybody decided to switch entirely to drinking their stuff, the net effect would be lost jobs, whereas many jobs would be created if everybody started drinking local craft beer. I'm not saying that either has a chance of happening, but it's undeniable that choosing to buy my beer from small, independent breweries does more to employ people than choosing to buy an Inbev product.

Happy Easter

 

[jonmohno]

Not that I've ever even had an opportunity to try GI, but I do try to avoid stuff owned by the megaswill corps. Why? Because I live in Ontario, which is without a doubt the playground of these guys. A long time ago they convinced the government that it was in everybody's best interest for them to have a monopoly for beer distribution and retail. To this day, beer still can't be found in a grocery store or independent retailer - it is bought at The Beer Store, a chain now jointly owned by Inbev, Coors, and Sapporo.

And perhaps watching their underhanded tactics to maintain the status quo has made me bitter. Heck, I blame the government more than I do the corporations - they can pretty much be expected to do whatever they can get away with. But that doesn't mean I'm going to support all their attempts to squeeze out the little guys with every dirty possible trick they can think of. Want a beer in their stores? That'll be $25,000 per SKU - good luck with that!

But to say that this attitude somehow is anti-capitalistic is a bit offensive. This IS capitalism, and I'm merely "voting with my dollar" because I don't agree with their practices. Here I thought a main argument in support of unbridled capitalism was that people would stop giving their dollars in support of corporate practices they don't agree with, and now people are labeling my choice to spend based on something OTHER than the product itself as petty? Stupid, but not surprising.

That doesn't mean I'm going to drink any less though, I'll simply drink something else. And it's a fact that a small independent brewery employs way more people per 100Bbl, so the idea that it'd somehow be putting people out of a job is hilarious - Inbev might employ way more people overall, but if everybody decided to switch entirely to drinking their stuff, the net effect would be lost jobs, whereas many jobs would be created if everybody started drinking local craft beer. I'm not saying that either has a chance of happening, but it's undeniable that choosing to buy my beer from small, independent breweries does more to employ people than choosing to buy an Inbev product.

Happy Easter

This is the same princaples they use with farming squezze out the small farmer make it impossible for the little honest guy,produce swill for the masses.
Just like i dont support nike,or walmart they dont need my business.

 

[heferly]

This is the same princaples they use with farming squezze out the small farmer make it impossible for the little honest guy,produce swill for the masses.
Just like i dont support nike,or walmart they dont need my business.

Except if the majority of us craft brew drinkers (us, the minority of beer drinkers) boycott GI, the brand could die...once it loses its profitability, AB will dump the brand.

Just another thought spawned by this discussion...

 

[emjay]

Except if the majority of us craft brew drinkers (us, the minority of beer drinkers) boycott GI, the brand could die...once it loses its profitability, AB will dump the brand.

Just another thought spawned by this discussion...

Perhaps, but I don't really care about an AB Inbev "brand."

 

[Jayman931]

I am resurrecting this thread.....I use the search function alot instead of just making a new thread.

I personally won't buy from Goose anymore not cause they "sold out"....I won't buy from them anymore because G.I's Brew Master Quit as soon as InBev signed the paper. InBev then b(r)ought in the old head brewer from Deschutes. Did they build a new brewery yet? (not sure if they did...)

With all these changes I will not buy Goose anymore. I am not a fan of InBev's business practices (ie Rolling Rock....) and really won't give them anymore money than I have to...(I do drink an occational Hoegaarden)

my $.02

 

[Stoutman82]

As I reply to this I'm drinking a sofie and say yes I will

 

[makomachine]

Don't have it in my area, but if they distributed here I'd surely try it. It's all about the beer - if it's good, they get my money...whomever they is...

 

[robtotten]

I prefer to support independent breweries, but I'll still pick up the occasional sixes of Honkers

 

[Demon]

I still drink them. Here is a list of the rare beers they are serving tomorrow at The Beer Bistro in Chicago. Taking over all the taps for one night.
http://www.gooseisland.com/pages/event_page/48.php?id=1082

 

[heferly]

I still drink them. Here is a list of the rare beers they are serving tomorrow at The Beer Bistro in Chicago. Taking over all the taps for one night.
http://www.gooseisland.com/pages/event_page/48.php?id=1082

Hot damn that looks awesome...couldnt tell on my phone, you know if there are still seats left?

 

[jonmohno]

I just had their ipa,its been a while-it was really good.

 

[BeerWard]

hell yes i'm going to buy it, i can't wait for the next batch of bourbon county stout to come out, now with this deal, there's gonna be much more of it available, and available in more places.

+1

 

[temptnmonkey]

I'd rather have many, many breweries creating new and unique products, than one brewery creating the exact same product over and over at the cheapest price just to keep up with distribution and optimal profit margins.

Hard to envision Goose Island maintaining their big beer product line from year to year when these small batches yield small product and profit yield compared to just pumping out the same wheat and pale ale over and over.

Flagship beers are great (Sierra Nevada pale ale, New Belgium Fat Tire), but it is also their innovative special releases that keeps the breweries fresh and interesting.