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?

Oligarchy in the USA

A recent study published by some Princeton and Northwestern University professors finds that the U.S. is under an oligarchy of the very rich (the richest 10%) of the population. In general terms, if the top 10% do not agree with a policy, then it is likely to change even though a majority of the other 90% agrees with it. Same goes with policy change; if the majority of Americans want such change, they are unlikely to get it if the top tier do not want said change. The very rich rule the country.

Shocking?  Not to me or many other people. And it would be difficult to refute this study as such observation is fairly obvious notwithstanding the research, which only adds an affirmation. But after pondering this "news" I've come up with a couple of observations:

It's suppose to be that way

What might be shocking is that this country was founded to support an oligarchy. Upon ratification of the Constitution, only white, male, adult property owners were allowed to vote. This, in some estimation, counted only 10-16% of the total population. Not only was the voice of the majority unheard, it would not have even counted. Today, votes are secondary to influence, and those with the most influence own most of the wealth. Back then property was top value; today it is money.

Maybe oligarchy is better

Even though the majority may disagree with the top 10%, it does not mean that agree with each other. With over 100 million voting voices (presumably), how could they ever agree on anything? How would anyone hear such a multitude of opinions, wants, needs, theories, etc? We scoff at Congress when it is gridlocked.  Imagine the whole country in such a state.  At least in an oligarchy decisions are made by those with huge "voices" and vested interests.  Which leads to…

The majority has no clue

By allowing only a certain section of society to vote (white, male landowners) the government was relying on the vested interests of those voters. In other words, since they have something to lose, these voters were assumed to have knowledge of policies, policy changes, issues, and laws. In this sense they were the educated bunch. They knew what they were doing.  It is a extremely farfetched idea to assume today's voters know (i.e. understand) much about anything in governance, policy, foreign relations, law or anything connected with the issues of the day. Do we really want a country based around the whim of an ignorant public? The Founding Fathers said no, and they were no dummies.

It can change

All of this does not make oligarchy the correct form of rule, and those oligarchs have no wish to change it. We cannot rely on them to suddenly change their attitudes and put their interests secondary to the majority. It would be incorrect and unreasonable for the majority to think and expect this. Change must come from the majority, and it won't be easy.  First, know the opponent. Who are these oligarchs? On what is their power based? What is their reach (i.e. what do they own)? We give them their power, either by purchasing their products and services, or believing their propaganda.

Second, think for yourself. Just because something was on MSNBC or FoxNews does not make it true or important. Finding truth and relevance is not easy. It requires critical thinking skills that are not taught unless we seek it out (that is, it's not in public education curricula). Even then, it is tough to put emotions aside and think with reason. Mistakes will happen, we must learn from them.

Third, the majority must educate itself, at least to some degree, on issues, events and policies. Sitting in front of the TV watching Duck Dynasty or Real Housewives of wherever is antithetical to this goal. The top 10% enjoy seeing their mindless shows capturing the attention of the majority, thus keeping them uninformed of their surroundings. Yet, education is not easy. It does take time and energy to search through the propaganda to find realities, but they do exist (note: not in television lineups we see every day. FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc only entertain and do not inform).

Fourth, do not expect politicians to do…anything. They use buzzwords to excite emotions, from which they trust a vote to follow. Since the majority do not generally think and instead react on emotions, this is the best way for politicians to garner votes. They will say (and have said) anything to swing emotions (votes) their way: Flip flop, charged language, accusations, sidestepping questions, and issue warnings.

These are not easy to follow, but it is happening. Today's world is so much more faster than that of 200 years ago. But this government is of the people, by the people and for the people. It is up to the people to sustain it.

Expect disappointment

It is important to note the difference between an unjust law and an unpopular one. Some policies will not agree with a good number of people. We will not receive everything we want, but we will get some things. In a sense, the people of the United States are a team. They live with each other and interact on a daily basis.  We must be magnanimous in our victories and forgiving in our defeats. We are not the enemy of ourselves. We should not gloat or hold grudges, if only for the simple reason that one day it could be us on the short end of the stick, and who would protect us then? We enjoy the highs and endure the lows together; this is the power of the U.S. We can take it back…if we really want to.

The Problem Big Beer Faces

Brewing is an ancient art, dating back thousands of years of human civilization. It was used in bartering, as currency, to purify water and as a social lubricant. It is, and has been, everywhere in daily life as part of the community. It should come as no surprise, then, that brewing can be big business as illustrated by the sheer numbers of production from the largest breweries.  Bases on such numbers it would seem that these breweries’ beers are revered and loved by all. This is not the case and 20 years ago the big breweries paid no mind to detractors. With over 95% of the beer market, why would they?   

However, that 95% is no more. The Brewers Association envisions that by 2020, what made up that other 5% (namely craft breweries) will increase to 20%, thus decreasing the value of the aforementioned largest breweries, who are now taking notice. It seems their reaction has two main tactics: buy up craft breweries, and/or produce beers similar to those of craft breweries. The first is straightforward. Goose Island Brewing out of Chicago sold to AB-InBev a few years ago, much to the chagrin of craft beer lovers. Many saw this as a giant, international corporate conglomerate bullying the small, local family business into submission—not the best image to have for large corporations, even though it is not accurate.

The other tactic is a bit cloudier. Instead of straight up producing and offering other types of beer, some large breweries create smaller breweries, which then produce such beer. This avoids the stigma associated with the big breweries created by the first option. It seems creating a smaller brewery, using a different name, and producing different types of beer is preferred to just buying a smaller brewery.  Perhaps this is the better way to go…at least in the short term.

Here is the problem: deception lasts only so long before it comes back to bite. The second option addresses a symptom of big brewers’ perception, not what produces this perception.  While the first option, buying smaller breweries, comes with push-back, at least it is honest and open. Maybe this is by default as it is difficult to hide a multi-million dollar deal.  Still, the public is not deceived, either in reality or (importantly) through perception.  The creation of smaller, otherwise named breweries is not only deceptive, it is willful intent to deceive. What the public calls “lying”, and this betrays any relationship and significantly damages trust.

From there, it does not really matter how the beer is produced or even if it is high quality.  The public has a tendency to shun those who have betrayed them.  While America is a forgiving country and allows for mistakes, it has little tolerance for those who manipulate its patience, sympathy and embrace of small business.  As the voices of craft beer lovers gets louder, so too will their cries of foul play of Big Beer. This is starting to happen and an example of the counter-reaction from Big Beer is more deception...without lying.  The prime example is the new Miller Fortune, labeled as an “undistilled beer” (every beer is undistilled) and a “spirited lager”, clearly (and intentionally) aimed at the whiskey market.  Do they really want to deceive those consumers as well?

In the mean time, craft beer drinkers will continue to expose Big Beer whenever they can, shun Big Beer and tell others to follow suit. However, just as America has no acceptance of deception, it still is forgiving. An apology, a real one, followed by acts of conciliation (more than “gestures”) can go a long way. It remains to be seen if Big Beer comprehends this, accepts it, and follows through. The bottom line is that the animosity towards Big Beer is not aimed at the Beer (although that is where the fallout lands), but at the Big—not the product of Big Beer, but Big Beers’ treatment and value of relationships.