Cider: It's Not Beer

Now, I have nothing against hard cider (i.e. cider with alcohol).  It can be delicious and comes in many variations. Cider (apple, pear, pineapple…) can be refreshing and paired nicely with food.As a sub-market of the adult beverage industry, it is booming. And that is good to see.   I hold no ill will towards cider millers. More power to them, and I hope they enjoy success.  But, cider is not beer. Not even close.

Hard Cider is riding the coattails of craft beer and its incredible boom. I see ciders at beer fests, beer magazines and just about everywhere one finds beer. Why? Cider is not beer.  It is not brewed and more closely (very closely) resembles wine: Fruit is crushed into juice, which is fermented then blended and packaged. Beer has many more steps that (should) adhere to precise scientific measurements.  The only commonalities they have are alcohol, liquid and packaging.

Big deal, right? Wrong…well, somewhat wrong.  In the grand scheme of things it is no big deal. But the constant integration of cider with craft beer blurs the line separating craft beer and cider. Too many times customers ask me for cider-beer.  Never heard of it, guy, sorry. It also minimizes the efforts, techniques, skill and art of brewing beer, which are widely misunderstood (or unknown) anyway. Brewers are the most underappreciated artisans of the adult beverage industry, mostly due to the complicated and specific production cycle of their craft and the depth of knowledge of chemistry it requires.  Plus, the massive effect a minor miscalculation or error can have on the product. In other words, it takes precision, patience, vigilance and integrity.

(Recently, I was at a beer festival that had several cider companies showcasing their products. I boycotted them at first, but decided that was kind of dumb.  Strange thing, though, when I asked about the pear cider as to what kind of pear juice did it contain--Bosc, Bartlett, D'Anjou…. The reply from the owner of the company did not know!!  Say….what??)

It's also a personal matter to me.  As the beer buyer at Grapes and Grains in Denver, I have worked with the owner to expand the craft beer choices for our customers. Ten years ago, it seemed each color had its own door; silver for Coors Light, gold for Coors Banquet, blue for Bud Light, red for Budweiser, white for Miller Lite, gold/black for MGD. Then separate doors for these companies' respective "premium brands" (Michelob, Blue Moon, Natural Light…).  The bottom line was that 3 brewers commanded 7+ doors, and there was little difference in flavor among them.

Today, we can see our progress in expanding beer choices from, say 6, to well over 100 brews. This wasn't easy. Bud, Miller and Coors (BMC) surely did not want to give up their spaces, nor their color coded displays.  They bullied, manipulated, lied and tried to strong-arm us into ordering for their benefit. But we persisted and now boast a very nice array of Colorado breweries, who themselves worked hard to arrive on our shelves…only to see shelf space dwindle a bit to make room for cider.

KKAAAAHHNNN!

While sometimes delicious (and often too sweet), cider can be a great beverage. But it's not beer or cider-beer or beer-cider.  If cider producers want consumers (and others) to appreciate their product, then perhaps they should develop their own identity. It can only help them.

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?

Craft Beer Saturation: Lesson Learned, Lesson Followed?

A recent article from Time Magazine online mentioned some concerns over the rapid growth of the craft brewing industry. While this article barely scratches the surface of the concerns mentioned (it doesn't even touch others), it focuses on the associated industries' ability to accommodate this growth. Restaurants, bars and retail stores are finding it difficult to provide space for these new breweries and their new beers. As such, competition among craft breweries for this limited space is intensifying. Some see this competition as a very strong adversary to not only the continued growth of craft brewing, but its chances of sustaining its current status. In other words, after the Big Bang comes the Big Crunch.

This is not a surprising or unrealistic prognosis. Craft brewing saw a Big Crunch in the 1990s, so there's ostensibly no reason to foresee it not to happen again. Except there are several. One is that after the 1990s Big Crunch, say the last 10-15 years, the big breweries (Anheuser-Busch, Miller, Coors) refocused their targets on each other, allowing the few craft breweries who survived to build strong foundations.  Breweries like Sierra Nevada, New Belgium and the largest craft brewer, Boston Beer Company, helped cultivate a resurgence of craft beer.  Under cover from the giant breweries' gaze elsewhere, small breweries crept back into the market, and this time they assessed what went wrong before to apply what they learned today.

The main lesson was that direct competition with the financial capital of big breweries is suicide. No need to attract attention from Bud, Miller, and Coors beating themselves up. Which is another point: the big breweries consolidated.  Miller, Coors and Molson merged (for lack of a better term), AB was bought by In-Bev, which just acquired Group Modelo. Meanwhile, the craft beer lover was not to be forgotten. The Internet plays a big role here as well.  Beer lovers took to cyberspace to advocate for better beer.  Websites like BeerAdvocate and Ratebeer are consumer driven, contain open forums and information on beer, beer styles, beer events and beer…you name it. The need for advertising through Super Bowl commercials, billboards and sporting event sponsorships became fleeting, and therefore big money was not the dominant weapon it once was.

While other factors differentiate today's craft brewing boom from the 1990s, the focus now is on how to keep it up, and to keep at bay the Big Crunch. Back then the competition was for tap handles and cooler doors, and this is still a part of the scene.  Yet it's not the whole picture. Perhaps the most unique characteristic of today's craft beer scene is the scene itself.

The size of breweries opening up today is relatively tiny. One brewery will not make a dent on the national share of the beer sales market. Places like Denver Beer Co and Hogshead Brewery reside in small buildings, like old auto mechanic garages, where their consumer base spans less than a square mile.  Restaurant tap handles and retail shelf space are not their primary concern. It is a different business plan than the big breweries and the craft breweries of the 1990s. Craft breweries are becoming the neighborhood hangout, which harkens back to Colonial days.

This is what can prevent a Big Crunch, if many craft brewers stay extremely local. If money is poured into competing for limited space, then big money can be lost.  Attention should be, first, on the beer.  Good beer will lure people in and persuade them to stay.  Next should be customer service (well, you need a tasting room first). Making people feel like friends, or guests, rather than customers is not a secret, but it isn't all that easy to do. Skills in personal interaction are rare in today's social media world, yet are vital to small business.  So, the people have come to drink great beer, and they're staying…what else can they do at these small breweries?

The brewery is not just a drinking hole; it's a gathering place for everybody, although only adults can enjoy the beer.  Atmosphere is important--otherwise people would just stay home.  Music, volume, space, table arrangement, outside seating, etc all affect the brewery. Some places provide board games, others have periodic group meetings. Accommodating designated drivers, children, pets and tourists have little to do with beer…but everything to do with a neighborhood brewery.

And this is working: These places are busy. Sometimes breweries cannot keep production ahead of consumption; there is more demand than supply. That's a good business recipe, yet it shouldn't be a sign for breweries to expand and start distribution. While a particular neighborhood is familiar with their brewery, many others are not, and to make them aware takes money and time.  Both of which are needed in the original location to maintain great beer, customer service and atmosphere. If they do this, then they have established a strong opposition to any Big Crunch that may occur.

Some believe that the lack of retail and tap space will hurt craft brewing, and this may be true for breweries looking for space.  But revenue does not have to come from distribution; on premise tasting rooms are becoming neighborhood hot spots.  While this may not provide short term profits, it can lead to long term, established success. People want to gather, mingle, talk, play and meet.  The neighborhood brewery is the perfect place, away from the labyrinth of distribution. With so many neighborhoods in the U.S. saturation is a long way off.

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.

Why I Love Beer

People who do not really know me think I drink a lot.  Just because I have reviewed over 1,600 beers online doesn't mean I drank them in 4 days. No. I take my time drinking a beer.  It's rare that I have more than 2 beers a night, and most nights I don't have any.  Of course, this was not always the case. 

While I didn't touch any alcohol until I was 21 years old, when I did start to drink it was mostly beer (Bud) with some shots mixed in. Still, I never drank alone. It was a social thing back then, and remains (mostly) so today, albeit with a little more style than yesteryear. I love the differences in making beer, the variety of ingredients and variations of combining them, and the spectrum of flavors; from super sour to malty sweet.

When I was younger, Cheers was my favorite TV show--still is. The closeness and camaraderie in that studio bar really hit home with me. Combine that with my history degree that highlighted the role of pubs and taverns through the Colonial days, and I started to see beer (and pubs) as an important social cog in the wheel of civilization.

Living in Denver facilitates this interest: The metro area has a ton of breweries, tap rooms, and beer bars, not to mention many beer geeks.  It's no wonder that places such as Denver Beer Co., Hogshead, Dry Dock, Prost and Strange Brewing Co are packed with patrons every night.  Consider that these places are not the only on-premise beer joints.  Denver is also home to several very large liquor stores that carry hundreds of beers.  If beer were the only factor, then people would be drinking it at home and not packing  the beer halls.  No, there is something more than just drinking beer.

People go to these beer venues to try new and good beer. And to mingle with their fellow citizens, meet new friends, tell and hear great stories, and have fun. This is one reason why I love beer.  It truly is a social lubricant. It helps people unwind, not from the alcohol, but from the joy of drinking good suds (the Colorado scenery doesn't hurt either).

More people should take advantage of what beer halls have to offer. The Pub Dialogues is an effort to do just this: Gather people to share beer and ideas about social, political and community issues. Colonists did it years ago, and look what came out of that.

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)

Support local, or support best?

In a recent issue of BeerAdvocate the magazine a reader (and fellow BeerAdvocate member) clarified his position on the 'support local' idea.  In his feedback column (which is a limited space to write one's position) he stated that there one should support whichever brewery produces the best beers. In other words, don't support local brewers just because they are local; crap beer is crap beer, no matter who makes it.  I can understand this viewpoint, and agree with it...to a point.

On a level playing field his point is valid. Just because one brewer is local doesn't mean he/she deserves our money, time and effort. Yet, this is the real world. The playing field is not level.  Big, chain breweries can afford the nuances that smaller, local guys cannot provide. When is comes to beer, maybe this is quality control, or sufficient production, or it could be that they cannot afford the extra electricity is takes to operate ceiling fans. Whatever the discrepancy may be, it is important to note that the local businesses of brewing cannot compete with the chain juggernauts head to head, and especially right of the starting line.

A local brewer needs to tweak recipes, brewing times, batch sizes, minimize expenditures (overhead stuff like AC), and still, perhaps, work another job.  Basically, they need time to fine tune his/her product. To do this, they sell their initial product to consumers, who in turn like it, love it, or hate it. Sometimes this version of the product isn't up to snuff, and the tweaking begins. They cannot take as much negative publicity as the big chains, and need more patience from consumers.  Sure, Flingers (see: Office Space) can provide quick service, comfortable AC, satellite television, and ice cold beer; that's expected from them.  But they have the capital to provide those.  Locals do not: They must start off slow and build up.  They need support.

But why should we support their business growth?  What's in it for us?  Several things:

• After fine tuning their product, local brewers can provide awesome beer that is unique to them
• Money spent on their beer, at their business, is kept local (for the most part. Credit/debit card acceptance costs a LOT of money to run and maintain, and that money goes elsewhere)
• A local business values its customers more, and more personal attachments build
• Customers can experience the growth themselves. They can witness how the beer changes from recipe to recipe, and be a part of the evolution of a particular brewery: the life of a beer

So, sure, I understand that if a brewery continues to make bad beer, or just beer that you don't like, to avoid them (or not support them).  But keep in mind that brewing beer takes time, patience, tweaking, and money. 

Cheers!

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.

About

So this is my "beer blog". The reasons for this blog are:
1) to provide a space for beer discussion based, in part, on my experiences,
2) to provide a space for those interested (for whatever morbid reason) to observe my beer enjoyment progress, process, enterprise, etc. whatever,
3) to serve as a 'test site' for possible future business ventures (consulting, advising, education, etc.),
4) to serve as a "second home" for my beer reviews for current musings and future retrospection,
5) to practice my blogging

Why beer? Good question. My first attempt at beer ended in disgust and surprise. At the time I didn't know what to expect from beer. I tried two 'American Macro Adjunct Lagers'. Carbonation was a surprise and the musky, malt, stale aroma and taste turned me away. Thinking all beer was like this, I stayed away. Years later I tried it again, and liked it a bit better, the surprise factor was gone and I found that the colder the beer, the more hidden were 'non-beneficial' flavors. For years thenafter I drank Budweiser. Only. Nothing else. Brand loyalty.

Then I headed to Free State Brewery in Lawrence, KS. More so because of the place's female population. Lo and behold, the beer was different, surprising (hops?) and good. This prompted me to search for other beers and styles. My collection was off and running, but I still didn't know much about beer.

Then I moved to Denver, out of school, lost of love, broke and wanting a change. Oh, and Denver has a great beer scene. It wasn't until I moved to Denver that I contemplated why I liked beer. I think it stems from a sit-com; "Cheers". I loved that show. And loved the tagline 'Where everybody knows your name'. Sure, there are many drinks available at a bar, but beer is the common factor. Every bar has beer, every party, every 'get together'. To me, it represents the foundational premise of 'a good time'.

Yet, beer is very complex. There are over 100 styles of beer, each with it's own recipe, taste, feel, affect and process. As one author suggests, wine is pre-fabricated by Mother Nature, beer is the recipe of humans. Brewers decide what ingredients to add, how much to add, how ingredients interact, how long to 'cook' the beer, and what modifications are viable. It's complex, and interesting.

So, this blog is an attempt to pull all of this together. If you have any questions, comments or ideas please don't be shy.