Craft Beer Defies Definitions

Is it that Craft Beer as an industry has changed and thus changed the meaning of craft beer itself? Or, was what craft beer meant hard to define in the first place?  Does it need a definition? What effect does a definition have on the industry anyway? (*cough*  taxes  *cough*)

America loves to categorize things, including beer styles.  Take IPAs: American, east coast, west coast, no coast, English, double, imperial, triple, even IPA & 1/2.  It is one thing to label a beer so as to convey what it might taste like, but too much definition (or use of vague terms) serves only  to confuse matters. It seems we want the label on the bottle to tell us what to taste, instead of us taking chances and finding out for ourselves. Perhaps this is American as well…but that's another topic.

The Brewers Association has changed, or altered, its definition of Craft Beer several times. The reasons they have done so have been mentioned elsewhere and speculated just about everywhere. What defines craft beer? Ingredients, volume, ownership, origin?  One plausible reason that has not really been touched upon, as far as I can tell, is that defining craft beer may just go against craft beer's essence. Well, perhaps to a point.  But craft beer existed before its definition. How it started is where the essence lays: motivation for brewing beer.

The pioneers of the craft beer scene started brewing beer because they were not satisfied with the beer selections at the time. They thought beer could be better and decided to make their own. While making a profit was (probably) part of the equation, it wasn't the prime motivation. These brewers wanted to make and drink great tasting beer. This desire, and the beer they produced, defined craft beer.

Of course, motivation is difficult to quantify in the first place, but additionally arduous these days in that craft beer is selling quite well, which brings in profits, which in turn muddies the motivational waters.   Is a certain brewery making beer for sheer profit or great taste? Again, hard to determine at most levels. It seems fair to say, though, that acquisition of breweries feeds the desire to obtain profits and less about improving (or ensuring) quality.

To make matters even more unclear is the expense needed to open a brewery. And add to that the inspections, zoning, legal and social red tape a prospective brewery must navigate prior to first lighting of the kettle.  Brewing is a business after all, and money finds itself in the middle of it all. How it affects the craft of brewing differs among breweries.

This is a delicate balance in the craft beer world today; craft against business. Breweries face difficult decision making processes further complicated with multiple voices in the room. Do they sell an under-par beer with off flavors to make up for the cost of brewing it? Or do they dump it to maintain quality?  Either way it is an easy decision on one hand, and the wrong decision on the other.  But that decision could reinforce the craft essence or cast some doubt.

What would those craft beer pioneers have done?

Mediation Between Magic Hat and West Sixth Breweries

Magic Hat and West Sixth breweries go to mediation!   Well, sort of...

It is refreshing to see that the two parties in a trademark dispute are opting for mediation, according to reports.  Lawsuits and court processes are expensive, drawn out, unpredictable and uncontrollable by the parties. Mediation offers an alternative process that is quicker, less expensive, and retains control of the process to the parties. Unpredictability remains, but this is usually a good aspect allowing for the discovery of hidden or latent problems, and/or the creation of unique solutions. Hopefully, Magic Hat and West Sixth will benefit from this mediation, and I applaud them for their efforts.

What troubles me is the selection of a magistrate judge to serve as mediator.  Now, I do not know who this judge is, so I don’t want to…judge, but for the most part, judges are not mediators.  Sure, they can “mediate” according to their definition of mediation, but this falls short of the processes used by experienced mediators.  A common mistake is to assume that those in the legal profession (attorneys, judges, etc) are also seasoned mediators.  This is not true most of the time.  To be sure, some mediators are, or were attorneys and have changed professions. Yet, the experience gained in the court system does not translate well to mediation.

The primary distinction between mediation and litigation is the focus of advocacy.  Whereas the attorney advocates for her/his client and for a winning judgment, a mediator advocates for the mediation process and helps parties come to an agreeable resolution. The goal is not to prove right/wrong, legal/illegal, or decide who put forward a better argument; it is to overcome the dispute through a resolution that both parties agree on, and, for the most part, create.

Perhaps attorneys and judges realize this, and they probably do. Their challenge is to reach such resolution by using the most effective techniques during mediation. While facts and figures work well in the courts, they have little bearing in most mediations. Again, mediation is about resolving a dispute on agreeable terms by both parties, and not what the data influences. After years of argumentation, adjudication, and client advocacy, it is difficult for anybody to transfer to process-focused methods. This is not to say that some once-legal-minded mediators cannot effectively mediate, but merely to point out the fact that mediation skills are not easy to grasp and practice. Becoming a skilled and effective mediator takes time; it is a full time practice.

My fear is that the mediation West Sixth and Magic Hat will, reportedly, undertake may be more of an arbitration and less of a mediation.  That is, the mediator will hear the arguments and decide on a resolution for the parties, instead of the parties coming up with one with the assistance of the mediator. I could be wrong.  But if this mediation does not work, it will give Mediation in general a bad rap. And that will hurt everybody who becomes involved in a dispute, and that’s all of us.

Trademarks: Here We Go Again

It seems like we can't even blink between trademark disputes in the craft brewing industry. And it also seems like each dispute grows uglier than the previous.  Today, we see two breweries engaged in this ugliness: Magic Hat Brewing Co. and West Sixth Brewing, with the former suing the latter for trademark infringement. Social media sites just ooze of nastiness, mostly from supporters of each brewery, but occasionally from the breweries themselves--at least, they have not done much, if anything, to stop the flow.

Some of the rancor stems from the image of a giant beer company picking on a weaker one. And this does not sit well in a culture that has only recently become aware of the affects of bullying. Magic Hat is the playground bully; West Sixth is the new kid at school. The fight has begun.

Sadly, it could have been avoided. Private phone conversations, one-on-one discussions and even email would have been preferable to social media, lawyers' letters and lawsuits. Even though it sounds like attempts at personal contact were unsuccessful, going from discussion to lawsuit is a giant leap over some critical steps. Facilitated dialogue, mediation, and settlement conference are always options for disputants.  While more effective prior to retaining legal counsel, these options are still on the table.

Still, it surprises me that Magic Hat and its corporate connections have not figured out the power of social media. A power that can build and destroy. West Sixth knows this and are using it to their advantage. At least, so far. While I'm no prognosticator, this dispute will harm both breweries. And that's sad. 

What's More Important: Definitions or Beer?

What is a gypsy brewer?  How do they differ from regular brewers? Should they be held with the same regard as regular brewers?  These questions have come up, either directly or indirectly, in a recent blog from a brewer in Massachusetts. A gypsy brewer (or contract brewer) is one who uses other breweries' equipment to brew his/her beer.  Mikkeller is probably the most commonly known one, but there are many others. So why are they getting some heat?

The gist is that gypsy brewers are not real brewers since they do not brew the beer themselves and/or are not present when their beer is brewed. They do not own brick and mortar localities and rely on the talents of others for brewing their recipes. Financially, they have not invested or risked as much as those regular brewers, which makes them seem as just trying to get a piece of the pie with less effort.

These are opinions, based on facts.  It is a fact that gypsy brewers use equipment that is not theirs (or the bank's). It is true that sometimes they are not present when their beer is brewed. The opinions rise from there. 

But what is also true is the common claim, by brewers, that beer isn't beer until the yeast has done it's job: brewers make wort, yeast makes beer.  So, who are the real brewers?  Ok, so this is nitpicking a bit.  Yet, I think it's important to acknowledge the whole process before rendering opinions of absolute labeling.

Of course, we could look at new technologies and ask ourselves who the brewers really are. Push button computer software can follow the progress of the brewing cycle and make minute changes when need to follow a recipe. Some software can even be overseen and controlled off premise: that is, by the brewer from his/her couch at home. In this case, is the brewer still a brewer?

My answer is, who cares?  What's the deal with the focus on definitions of such trivial scale? Sure, I can understand the difference between sweating all brewing and picking up wort. I'm not saying brewing and gypsy brewing are the same. My question is why should it matter? Maybe giving credit where credit is due is the underlying issue.  If so, then perhaps labels on the bottles/cans can provide satisfaction.  I'm sure they are options to consider.

The bottom line for me is that if you admonish some beers for being "contracted", then you are missing some great beer.  AND doing disservice to those who actually did sweat all day making the wort. It's still great beer, those who worked on it got paid, and the yeast finished it off.

What's the Matter with Craft Beer? Cracks in the Foundation

The Craft Beer industry is taking off; sales are rising, approaching 10% of overall beer sales, which interestingly have dropped. Craft Beer is growing, even through Recession. No doubt this is time for rejoicing for craft beer, craft beer geeks and tap rooms. But there are fractures in the foundation that are coming to light. How these are managed can either fix the cracks, or expound them.

It is important to note that craft brewing is a business and must take on certain business responsibilities. One is establishing and protecting a brand. For the most part a brand is a name. To differentiate beers consumers (for the most part) identify with names: Sam Adams (by Boston Beer Company), Budweiser (AB-InBev), Coors (MillerCoors).  If Boston Beer Company labeled one of their beers "Bud", AB-InBev would see this as trademark infringement (and so, too, would a judge).  This blatant example illustrates why trademark laws are in place.

However, in the business world of trademark infringement the devil is in the details. While "Bud" is an obvious example, Righteous is not, nor is Seven Seas. In these cases the breweries involved are geographically separate, their markets do not overlap. Ostensibly the struggle is to keep other craft breweries from copying each other, stealing names and taking advantage of others' successes.

While some of this might be true, we must look at the business side: protecting trademark.  For if a company does not protect its trademark, then it could lose it, if not now then later. So a brewery on the west coast must keep an eye out for similar beer names/labels emerging on the east coast, not for fear of theft of customers, but of losing trademark. If that happens, then larger companies that are closer can start using that same name/label, and no infringement of trademark can be claimed.  

So, to take "Bud" as an example (which was actually contested in court), if Boston Beer Company started using "Bud" to label a product, and AB-InBev did not claim infringement, then anybody could start using "Bud"…even MillerCoors. Brand recognition would be out the window as would fair competition.

While this may sound easy to avoid, it certainly is not. Trademark infringement disputes are going to happen. In a growing industry full of small companies, it is inevitable that names/labels will fly under the radar, only to appear in the form of cease and desist (CD) letters.

And this is how management of these disputes can either fix the cracks, or widen them. Sometimes the business decision is not best for the business, especially in a personal industry like Craft Beer, and with the explosion of social media.  Trademark protection is necessary, but it's not as black and white as a CD letter. 

Craft and Crafty Beer

The Brewers Association recently announced that the time has come to draw a line between authentic craft beer and crafty beer. The BA wants clarity as to what companies produce which beers.  In other words, the BA doesn't want large breweries to claim to be producing craft beer when, according to BA definition of craft, they are not.

Ostensibly, the crux behind this debate is the definitions of craft and large breweries.  Is this simply a case of small companies trying to make a name for themselves? Or is it a case of large companies trying to dominate smaller ones?

The scale of production of a brewery is the central figure used to define “craft[1]” and “macro[2]”, but it’s not the only one.  A craft brewery cannot produce X amount of beer and still be considered "craft". But how does production affect the "craft" side of beer? That's a tough question for BA to address.  So, ownership is another factor, and its salience towards defining “craft” has increased in recent years for several reasons, mentioned below.

For the most part, craft and macro were separate and didn’t directly compete.  Anheuser-Busch's foes were Miller and Coors; Dogfish Head's (DE) foes were…well, that’s hard to say since their share of the beer market was less than 1% and localized.

But times have changed. Craft beer has exploded over the last 10 years, even during the Great Recession, while macro beer has expanded over the globe, into China and India. Today the number of small breweries in the U.S. has eclipsed 2,000 while the number of macros has decreased (due to consolidation) to a handful.  In that time Miller and Coors merged, Anheuser-Busch was bought by InBev and Boston Beer Company’s (Sam Adams) success has persuaded the BA to re-define “craft”.  The latter's growth has pushed the "craft" definition to new limits, literally.

While the big breweries were merging they were also keeping an eye on the small guys.  The latter’s success did not proceed unnoticed. The small breweries’ market share in the beer industry has surpassed 6%, while overall beer sales have decreased: Craft is going up, macro is going down. To assuage this, macros have taken to two tactics: compete with craft, or buy them (or both).

Buying is financially easy, but personally difficult. The beloved Chicago-based Goose Island brewery was bought by AB-InBev and ended that competition, and was greeted with intense beer-geek backlash.  And this highlights a dilemma: is Goose Island still “craft” even though it’s owned by AB-InBev?  And why would that matter? We’ll get back to that.

The other option, directly compete, is tricky, because in order to do so the macro company must admit there is a difference in terms between craft and macro, thus accepting the “craft” definition, and thereby admitting that there's a difference in product.  MillerCoors is attempting to compete directly by establishing smaller brew houses with their own brands and labels, like Blue Moon, Tenth and Blake, AC Golden. But why do they need to do this? Why not just produce the Blue Moon recipe under Coors labeling?  And here we are back to the question posited above: Why does labeling, and therefore ownership, matter?

First, we must establish that it does matter. The actions of BA and the macros establish that it does. And here we (finally) get to the core issues: product and livelihood. 

Product: The difference between the craft breweries' products and the macro breweries' products are vastly different. Craft breweries produce varieties of beer, while the macros produce, mostly, one. While craft brewers detest the product from macros, they do marvel at the consistency macros display on such large scale productions. In short, craft beers are more diverse, while more susceptible to production mistakes, while macros are consistent yet uniform. And this are the stigmas each carry.

Livelihood: The conflict attaches to the product, or perhaps more directly the stigmas.  Many craft beer geeks (their numbers are growing) don't see macro beer as "real beer", but as mass produced flavored water. They are defiant toward the macros and do not want any of their money going to these businesses. Macros know this, so they turn to tactics mentioned above.  If they succeed then the craft breweries will have direct competition with large breweries that they never really had before. And this threatens their passion and livelihood.

The key point here is that the BA and craft brewers do not wish to eliminate the competition. They are not calling for macros to cease production of certain beers. What they are calling for is the claiming of such beers by their owners. Those craft beer geeks want to support the small breweries, but are being deceived by small brewing operations owned (and operated) by the macros. And that is what the BA is trying to confront: displayed ownership of product. Why hide it? Be proud of your product is the BA mindset. Perhaps this sheds light on a larger difference in the modus operandi of marco and craft: To make money or make beer?

Further reading:

http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/media/press-releases/show?title=craft-vs-crafty-a-statement-from-the-brewers-association

John Cochran of Terrapin Beer Company highlighting the complexity of brewing, beer and business.

http://business.time.com/2012/12/27/trouble-brewing-the-craft-beer-vs-crafty-beer-cat-fight/#ixzz2K3fu06H9

---

[1] The term "craft" replaced the common term "micro" as the popularity of small breweries increased, and so too did their production, thus ushering in a need to change the definition

[2] Characterized as "American Adjunct Lagers" and commonly referred to as "BMC" (Bud/Miller/Coors)

Racism in Brewing? Not in this case

Recently some commotion has grown over the labels from Clown Shoes brewing. The label that started it was for Brown Angel beer, a brown style from the Massachusettes micro brewery. The label reflects the name:

Some see this as stereotypical of "black women" and because of this the owner of said brewery is implied to be racist. As such, some people will not support this brewery and, taking one step or two further, vocalizing this opinion to others.

There are many things going on here that frustrate me:

- The label, to me, isn't racist or stereo-typical, but the brewery could have foreseen such claims and provisions or alterations could have been made. Although, while perceptions made by others shouldn't dictate their plans, they can be prepared for explanation of how/why they chose said label
- The perception of stereotype. It has been claimed that this label depicts an ass-shaking mama, with the stereotype being seen as black women have big butts. Looking at the label it is difficult to see a 'big butt' as the term "big" must be relative, yet there is nothing in the label to give reference. It is almost impossible to see this "mama" as shaking her tush. As such, this claim is made up in the minds of those who look for negativity in others in order to promote or validate their idealistic visioning.
- It is also difficult to conclude the intention of the image, other than representing a brown angel. The image is graphed in a profile view of the whole body of a female angel. Not focused on is the butt, nor is the butt 'engaged' with a thong bikini
- Claiming racism just because an image of a minority is presented in a "questionable" manner (and I use questionable very loosely) is a form of racism itself. IF the image were of a non-minority, then would there be contention? In this case, the answer is a clear 'no'. Therefore, the "opinionated" sees said minority in a certain light--to be treated differently based on race perceived.
- Everyone has opinions and are free to express them. The question then surrounds motivation for expression. The expressing of the opinion sends a message attached to the actual opinion. What do I mean? Well, one person may maintain the opinion that this label is sexist. Nothing wrong with having that opinion (even if it's not factual). Posting this opinion on a public website is quite another matter. Why do it? Who would care what this person's opinion is? The answer is that the "opinionated" wishes to sway others to believe the same and/or validate this opinion, perhaps to fulfill some righteous crusade against all that is oppressive. Swing and a miss.
- Targeting only subjective offense. Not much, if any, hubbub was stirred up for other labels depicting many contentious issues; religion (demons, angels, saints), dictators (see: Avery), sex, aggression, etc etc). The "opinionated" was offended. For the most part, being offended is a choice. Empowering others to harm you is not healthy. To defend against this, offensive tactics are then used: here, the "attacker's" authority is questioned and dismissed, and unflattering image is painted for others to see.


The bottom line for me is this: the objector(s) have every right to hold opinion. And based on that opinion they can abstain from purchasing said product. But, just b/c they have an opinion does NOT mean their perception is correct. Those who post opinion must be open to criticism and amendment. Stating opinions as facts, with no motivation or will to learn more about the situation, is a step toward libeling. In this case, the sexism, racism and stereotyping displayed is by the "opinionated", and not the brewery.