A new Toad on the block

Last night we hit the newest Golden, CO brewery: Mountain Toad Brewing.  It's a cozy little spot with an open patio along the side. Still working out the kinks, like with the PoS system, but the beers on tap (there were only 3) were solid. No defects detected, which isn't the usual for new breweries.  Good location.

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)

Diageo and the BrewDog "un-winners"

Recently, a scandal rocked the beer world.  The Scottish brewery, BrewDog, won the Bar Operator of the Year award at The British Institute of InnKeeping (BII) Scottish Awards on Sunday May 6, 2012.  At least, they should have. See, the judges said so, but sponsor Diageo decided to ignore the judges and hand the award to someone else.  Essentially, Diageo used their leverage to “persuade” BII presenters into doing their bidding. This did not go over well with BrewDow, the BII, beer lovers and the judges.

Diageo is a large international conglomeration of wines, spirits, and beer. Notably, their British Isles beer influence comes in the form of brands such as Guinness, Smithwick’s, and Harp.  BrewDog, on the other hand, is a small nascent Scottish brewery that has, and pronounces, a reputation of going against the grain. In their own words, they are a “beacon of non-conformity in a (sic) increasingly corporate desert”.  The only thing these two companies have in common is that they make beer.

So why did Diageo refuse to award BrewDog as per the judges’ ruling? Apparently, only the Diageo representative at the BII Awards knows the answer, because Diageo corporate headquarters released a statement/apology saying the actions of said representative does not reflect in any way Diageo values. Still, this plays into the waiting hands of BrewDog. What better way to highlight their “against the grain” attitude than tangible evidence that it is affected the “grain”?  And BrewDog knows this, and has fired off several tweets, blogs, etc berating the Diageo action and apology.  So much so, that Diageo has pleaded with BrewDog to cease the ‘witch hunt’ of the involved representative.  There is no indication that BrewDog will heed this plea. Why should they?

But what’s the big deal, really? On the surface, it seems that it is just fun and games and BrewDog sees as an opportunity to promote themselves, play the victim.  Yet, below the surface, there are interesting factors. For instance, craft brew in the British Isles has changed in the last 40 years.  The small English pubs that produce their own beer are virtually non-existent. Those breweries mentioned above (Guinness, et al) are not in the hands of the original owners.  Real Ale almost disappeared, but thanks to Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) this tasty beer ‘style’ has come back.  But its return, and specifically CAMRA’s strict adherence to Real Ale, has been called into question by BrewDog.

While BrewDog has nothing against Real Ale, they would like to see more options in the U.K. other than Diageo and Real Ale. BrewDog makes very different kinds of beer than those two.  While it used to be a struggle between macro-beer and CAMRA, BrewDog enters to challenge both…or at least co-exist with them.  This latest issue at the BII is a rather obvious uppercut to BrewDog’s platform…but the punch missed.

Another issue is the market.  While craft beer still only makes up roughly 6% of the total beer sales, it is growing. And if you have 94% of the market, why not gobble up the remainder? If craft beer sales continue to grow, then that number can reach 10% maybe even 15% in a few short years.  That is enough for the big brewers (Diageo, AB-InBev, SABMiller, Heineken, Tsingtao, Carlsberg) to take notice and alter or implement some new plans. One can see this in the new labels (and their varieties) Anheuser-Busch and Coors are putting out: Blue Moon, Bud Light Lime, Shock Top, Wild Blue, Batch 19, Colorado Native, etc).  They want a piece of the craft beer pie, and if they can't make the bee, they'll buy it (see: Goose Island). Sadly, they see craft beer and beer in general, as a line item and not a passion.  Craft beer is growing because craft brewers make interesting and delicious beers.  Not because they add flavors and syrup to an already bad beer. BrewDog knows this. So, too, does Diageo. A bigger fight may be on the horizon.

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.

Brewer vs. Reviewers

Recently on Ratebeer.com and BeerAdvocate.com a copy of a blog was posted on these websites' forums. The blog was written by an irritated brewer from California. The message was simple: those who review beers on the aforementioned websites, and who do not brew large quantities of beer, have no business reviewing as they are ignorant about beer and to know what they are reviewing. While this claim is an opinion--about others' opinions--the reasoning and logic behind it were equally misguided. As it happens, the users/reviewers on Rate and BA tore this small brewery a new A-hole. Not only did they disagree with the premise, but they also shredded the thinking behind it.

The blog also attacked retailers who use these websites' rankings as "shelf talkers" in the stores. The lack of knowledge presented here is astounding. Yet, I will assume no offense was intended, so I will take none. For now....

Too bad for Mother Earth Brew Co. They've lost a ton of present and future business. Clearly the impact of their blog post was not weighed against its intent. And the 'apology' that followed made little sense and seemed insincere. The damage had been done. It can be repaired with huge doses of humility, apology, possibly humor and changes at the brewery.