Will you buy Goose Island beers now?

[bob1852]

FWIW, I don't think I can even find Goose Island beers in Arizona.

 

[JLem]

FWIW, I don't think I can even find Goose Island beers in Arizona.

bet you will pretty soon

 

[Backporchbrewery]

edited for drunken rambling that I took off topic

 

[coryforsenate]

All other things equal, I'd rather support an independent brewery than a multinational corporation.

When money>>>>>>>>quality, you know things are going to start going downhill. I imagine they'll keep things the same for a little while and then slowly start cutting corners.

 

[passedpawn]

That's not really my point. I'm not arguing quality of beer. All breweries (companies for that matter) are in it to make $$. But since I have many, many choices of from whom to buy really excellent beer, I am choosing to give my $$ to a company that makes significantly less than $30 billion per year. If, hypothetically, Goose Island had the best beer I've ever drank and was doing something I couldn't get somewhere else, then yes, I would buy Goose Island beer. But at the present moment, this is not the case .

I don't understand. Why penalize successful companies? Is success bad?

 

[Yuri_Rage]

Interesting how this thread quickly moved in a direction I hadn't really intended. There has been a fair amount of talk about whether this sale was good or bad (or neither) for craft beer, whether the beers will ultimately change, etc. I thought it would be interesting to know if people here were still interesting in buying the beer. I wasn't (and am still not) trying to make judgment on what the "right" answer is.

Thank you for trying to remain somewhat objective. This thread is going to spark some emotions and elicit strong opinions. So long as the arguments remain friendly, it's an excellent discussion.

 

[lschiavo]

All other things equal, I'd rather support an independent brewery than a multinational corporation.

When money>>>>>>>>quality, you know things are going to start going downhill. I imagine they'll keep things the same for a little while and then slowly start cutting corners.

To me multinational means the profits are going elsewhere.

 

[bob1852]

I don't understand. Why penalize successful companies? Is success bad?

I think the problem is that in the overall beer market, success = light american lager (based on market share), which strikes a bad taste in the mouth of many people who prefer beer styles other than light american lager.

 

[JLem]

Thank you for trying to remain somewhat objective. This thread is going to spark some emotions and elicit strong opinions. So long as the arguments remain friendly, it's an excellent discussion.

My intent all along was complete objectivity - will you buy GI beers? Just trying to gauge where folks stand. Clearly though when we are talking about making a choice about where to spend our money we are ultimately making a value-judgment. When value-judgments collide, things can become more heated. It does make for an interesting discussion though.

 

[passedpawn]

I think the problem is that in the overall beer market, success = light american lager (based on market share), which strikes a bad taste in the mouth of many people who prefer beer styles other than light american lager.

The topic is Goose Island, which makes pretty good beer I hear. I responded to JLem, who said he wouldn't buy it because its parent company was successful.

 

[Strave19]

I voted no. I was bummed when I heard that they were bought out - though I didnt know that InBev already owned a big share of them. I will stock up on Sofie if I find it sometime soon though... I'd rather spend my money on beer from a smaller company that makes beer that is just as good or better. YMMV

 

[JLem]

I don't understand. Why penalize successful companies? Is success bad?

No, but is success reason enough to support one company over another? What I have been trying to explain about my spending habits is that given my limited resources I need to make choices and given equal quality products I am choosing the smaller (by many orders of magnitude) company.

 

[bob1852]

The topic is Goose Island, which makes pretty good beer I hear. I responded to JLem, who said he wouldn't buy it because its parent company was successful.

Yes, and why is AB successful? Because they've mass-marketed the Light American Lager around the world.

And yes, that is largely due to AB and other capitalizing on the world's market's preference for a light, quaffable beer.

 

[mcwilcr]

This is a tough one... I really like their Honkers ale and the 312 wheat so as long as AB does not change anything I would probably still buy it when I am in an area where I can get it. My concern is that they will substitute cheaper ingredients and change the beer to some kind of sub-par AB interpretation of of what they think good beer should be.

so really, when I vote NO it is more of a prediction that the quality will not be the same as it once was and then I will stop buying it.

 

[passedpawn]

No, but is success reason enough to support one company over another?

That, in fact, is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Emc]

Personally, neither of the 2 GI beers I have tried ( i have only seen a few here in CA ) impressed me so the buy out makes it easy for me to decide not to try more, my 2 cents first.

Capitalism is great, and I wouldn't penalize them for making a profit or being a "sell out", but as history has shown, once in bev buys something, leffe as an example, ingredients change, recipes change, corners get cut, it's no longer the same beer. If it's a great beer using good, quality ingredients then sure, I'll swallow hard and support the multi national, multi bazzilion dollar company. Hey, good for goose island, he saw a way to make some dough, hopefully retire, and hopefully keep a bunch of people employed. As for the beer quality, my bet history will repeat itself and it's down hill from here. Anyone, please name one good beer you feel is worth drinking, and worth the premium price, made by anyone owned by the big three.

 

[JLem]

That, in fact, is exactly what you are doing.

Ok. Given two equal choices I will choose to support the lesser successful company. Success isn't bad, but neither is lack of success.

 

[ChandlerBang]

Not for long,their little loss is the strategy.If i was a craft brewry i would want to say **** you but they are just a bank.

Its about power and control really,same with the food system they see a market buy it cheap it up lie and turn it to ****.Poison it keep us coming back for more.

^^^^^^^^ This guy.... I don't think 'seething hatred for capitalism and business' quite captures what you are saying. Then again, I can't quite tell what you are saying for the lack of proper spelling. And grammar. And spaces between sentences.



I buy products. I don't ask for a balance sheet or an income statement before I whip out the plastic. I'm also a big fan of capitalism.

Here's a thought. The remaining shares of GI was bought for $40 million? Is that what those numbers added up to? Anyway, $40 million dollar brewery and they are distributed in half the country? Maybe a third? How many teeny tiny breweries are there out there that can't even get their brew out of the county because distribution costs sooooo much. I would like to see BMC take a bigger interest in craft beer. It will increase distribution of smaller brands. As well as shield the industry from wacko fundamentalists that think alcohol is the Devil's plan to enslave the world.

If you choose to not buy a beer because the company may be owned buy a massive corporation, I won't judge. That is your RIGHT in a free society.

~End rant.

 

[ChandlerBang]

Personally, neither of the 2 GI beers I have tried ( i have only seen a few here in CA ) impressed me so the buy out makes it easy for me to decide not to try more, my 2 cents first.

Capitalism is great, and I wouldn't penalize them for making a profit or being a "sell out", but as history has shown, once in bev buys something, leffe as an example, ingredients change, recipes change, corners get cut, it's no longer the same beer. If it's a great beer using good, quality ingredients then sure, I'll swallow hard and support the multi national, multi bazzilion dollar company. Hey, good for goose island, he saw a way to make some dough, hopefully retire, and hopefully keep a bunch of people employed. As for the beer quality, my bet history will repeat itself and it's down hill from here. Anyone, please name one good beer you feel is worth drinking, and worth the premium price, made by anyone owned by the big three.

Blue Moon.

 

[Dome555]

I'll buy their stuff until I notice the, in my opinion, inevitable decrease in quality. Unless of course Greg Hall picks up somewhere else where he left off at GI. I know he's said he's not doing any more beer but I still have hope.

And just to weigh in on the debate or whatever. I also like supporting the little guys as opposed to the giant companies. It's not because I don't like capitalism, it's because I do like capitalism and want the little guys making good beer to succeed too.

 

[northernlad]

My intent all along was complete objectivity

Ok, I'll be the guy: You are quite clearly biased on this subject.
Ceasing to buy a product because they were bought by a major company makes as much sense as the dipshyts who were callng on everyone to not buy gas on the 15th.
It will make no difference to anybody but the hardworking folks at the brewery who may (but not likely) suffer from lost revenue from you. I am sure they will understand when you pass them in the unemployment line.
Before you start proclaiming cheapened ingredients remember you are talking about the best brewers in the world whose product has nothing to hide behind except their skill.
The reality is, if you didn't know they were purchased by InBev, you would never know. Now that you do your palate is tainted.
Perhaps Goose Island is better off without you.
I don't drink mass produced American Lager because it is crap and its taste offends me but that has never stopped me, nor will it, from enjoying a beer that happens to have the financial backing of an umbrella.
I wish I had as much time on my hands as you...

 

[AussieBrewerInColorado]

I've researched AB Inbev in the past. There are some brands/operations they buy up to add to their portfolio, add capital and leave them be as long as they keep profitable. It's when the cult following diminishes, sales drop, and things go down hill that they get involved. At last, that is not true for every acquisition, but for the most part i've noticed the product stays mostly in tact. If you take a look at the brands they have it is overwhelming, they pretty much own every national beer in every country. AB had to sell off Labatt Blue before selling so there wouldn't be a monopoly.

 

[InLimbo]

I've researched AB Inbev in the past. There are some brands/operations they buy up to add to their portfolio, add capital and leave them be as long as they keep profitable. It's when the cult following diminishes, sales drop, and things go down hill that they get involved. At last, that is not true for every acquisition, but for the most part i've noticed the product stays mostly in tact. If you take a look at the brands they have it is overwhelming, they pretty much own every national beer in every country. AB had to sell off Labatt Blue before selling so there wouldn't be a monopoly.

Just to play Devil's advocate here, look what happened to Blue Moon. Yes, I know it's not InBev, but the principle remains.


I personally stopped buying GI products years ago. Felt the quality of their flagship beers (Honker's, IPA, 312 Wheat etc..) was declining and the only good craft offerings are their over priced BCBS variants, as well as their fancy belgian offerings like Juliet and Sofie.

 

[luvhopps]

Not a fan of GI to begin with, that's all I got to say about that.

 

[two_hearted]

I personally stopped buying GI products years ago. Felt the quality of their flagship beers (Honker's, IPA, 312 Wheat etc..) was declining and the only good craft offerings are their over priced BCBS variants, as well as their fancy belgian offerings like Juliet and Sofie.

Same here. Honestly, their flagship beers are nothing special. IPA is ok, 312 is disgusting, Nut Brown was good but they discontinued that about a year ago. Their Belgian specialties are apparently good, though I'm not particularly a Belgian fan.

 

[two_hearted]

Ok, I'll be the guy: You are quite clearly biased on this subject.
Ceasing to buy a product because they were bought by a major company makes as much sense as the dipshyts who were callng on everyone to not buy gas on the 15th.
It will make no difference to anybody but the hardworking folks at the brewery who may (but not likely) suffer from lost revenue from you. I am sure they will understand when you pass them in the unemployment line.
Before you start proclaiming cheapened ingredients remember you are talking about the best brewers in the world whose product has nothing to hide behind except their skill.
The reality is, if you didn't know they were purchased by InBev, you would never know. Now that you do your palate is tainted.
Perhaps Goose Island is better off without you.
I don't drink mass produced American Lager because it is crap and its taste offends me but that has never stopped me, nor will it, from enjoying a beer that happens to have the financial backing of an umbrella.
I wish I had as much time on my hands as you...

A little dramatic don't you think? Best brewers in the world? I mean it takes skill to produce a beer that has nothing there to hide any flaws, but you still end up with a beer with nothing there.

Some people like to believe that there are people/companies out there that value quality over quantity. Seeing a brewery potentially go from producing quality beers to more bland, mass produced versions is a hard pill to swallow. From my experience with their flagship beers over the last 5-6 years it seems that GI is already on that track. I think this is what the OP is trying to say. If GI's beers continually got better this would be a non-issue.

 

[JLem]

Ok, I'll be the guy: You are quite clearly biased on this subject.
Ceasing to buy a product because they were bought by a major company makes as much sense as the dipshyts who were callng on everyone to not buy gas on the 15th.
It will make no difference to anybody but the hardworking folks at the brewery who may (but not likely) suffer from lost revenue from you. I am sure they will understand when you pass them in the unemployment line.
Before you start proclaiming cheapened ingredients remember you are talking about the best brewers in the world whose product has nothing to hide behind except their skill.
The reality is, if you didn't know they were purchased by InBev, you would never know. Now that you do your palate is tainted.
Perhaps Goose Island is better off without you.
I don't drink mass produced American Lager because it is crap and its taste offends me but that has never stopped me, nor will it, from enjoying a beer that happens to have the financial backing of an umbrella.
I wish I had as much time on my hands as you...

Perhaps you haven't read through carefully enough or perhaps you don't care and are lumping totally separate posts by multiple people together. Of course I am biased. We all are. We are making conscious decisions everyday and few of those are done with the flip of a coin. I have never said that I am not going to buy GI beers because of cheaper ingredients or watered down flavor. Do I think those beers might head in that direction eventually? Yes I do, but that is a different issue and one that is not influencing my current decision. I have choices. We all do. I expect everyone to choose how they want, based on whatever value system they posses. I'm not calling for a boycott. I have no pretenses to think me not buying GI beers will have an ounce of effect on AB InBev. I'm not trying to have an effect on AB InBev. However, perhaps my meager contribution to some smaller brewery can in some small way help them continue making good craft beer.

You want to support GI and AB InBev? Go for it. It's your choice in this wonderfully capitalistic economy we have here. I have a choice too (that whole free market thing and all) and I (note the singularity there) am choosing to not support them. This in turn allows me to support a different brewery that makes an equally good beer.

You are right that if I did not know GI had been bought out then I wouldn't stop buying their beer. But I do know and now my purchase decisions are more informed and I can spend my beer money to better match my own, personal economic values.

And excuse me for having more time than you. Didn't realize that was my problem too.

 

[heferly]

I see no need for ab to change anything if sales keep up the way they are...you bet they looked over all the books and projections before they bought GI. GI will still employ their people, and i doubt they will shift their attention from their craft...maybe with the exception of having to clear new ideas through ab.

That said, i see no reason to go out of my way to avoid GI beers...

 

[Zamial]

I voted NO. I won't buy any now. I did not buy any before so it is really a moot point. If one were given to me, I would drink it.

 

[Pilgarlic]

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.