Okay, it’s not exactly a full-blown apology, but the words “for that we apologize” do appear in a statement released today by the Boston Beer Co. regarding what they characterize as “clarification” of “what really happened in Portland, Oregon.”
The statement begins:
The Boston Beer Company, brewer of Samuel Adams Boston Lager, wishes Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams the best of luck in his pursuit of higher office. And guess what – Samuel Adams Beer has in no way ever suggested that Sam Adams the candidate cannot use his own name. But, according to recent stories in the media, it sure hasn’t looked that way.
Which I guess is their way of saying Intellectual Property Manager Helen Bornemann never said “she’s willing to discuss Adams’ use of his name on his Web sites “probably for the length of the time the election is being held,” as was reported by the Associated Press. It sure looks like a direct quote. It would nice to have a more definitive answer about that statement, because frankly that’s the one that stuck in my craw. She either said it or she didn’t. Which is it?
Boston Beer continues:
A little history: last week The Boston Beer Company learned that an individual named Dave Anderson of Portland, Oregon had registered two domain names that featured the name Sam Adams. Not knowing his intent, we sent him a letter asking him not to use these sites. Next thing we knew, we had a call from the legal department at broadcasting conglomerate, Clear Channel, at which point we learned that Dave Anderson is a DJ at Clear Channel’s KEX radio and that a man named Sam Adams was indeed running for Mayor of Portland. We wish we had learned a little more about Portland’s race for mayor before sending out that initial letter, and for that we apologize.
Notice how in the statement they use the passive phrase “asking him not to use these sites.” Reread the original letter again and see if that sounds like they’re just “asking?”
The only thing they really admit to in the letter is that they “wish [they] had learned a little more about Portland’s race for mayor before sending out that initial letter.” Amen, that is the problem in a nutshell. And that’s the only thing they’re apologizing for, that they wish they’d “learned a little more.” I hate to keep beating a dead horse, especially over a company I generally like a great deal, but that sure seems like a pretty half-hearted apology. Notice that they’re not actually apologizing for sending the letter, making threats or not using a more measured approach or even for Bornemann’s statement that “she’s willing to discuss Adams’ use of his name on his Web sites ‘probably for the length of the time the election is being held.'”
They go on to say that they reacted so swiftly because they’ve had bad experiences in the past and characterize themselves as “a small company.” Technically that’s correct because the federal standard for a brewery business to qualify as a small business it must have less than 500 employees. According to Google Finance, Boston Beer has approximately 433. Certainly they’re smaller than Anheuser-Busch, Miller, Coors and even Pabst, but with total revenues last year exceeding $285 million they are the biggest microbrewery in the country, and by a pretty wide margin. The next closest brewery is Yuengling, and while they’re privately held so I don’t know their revenue, I do know they have only 185 employees and are not distributed nationwide. With numbers so much larger than a majority of their peers, calling them small seems a little hard to swallow. I doubt they talk about themselves that way to investors. But if you’re trying to garner a little sympathy, the underdog card is always a good one to play.
They go on to explain their actions:
Why did we ask Clear Channel and Dave Anderson not to use those domain names? In the past we have experienced times when individuals and organizations have tried to use our brand name for commercial purposes or to disparage our good name. We have learned that, as a small company, we need to protect our identity. At the least we wanted to prevent a situation where people looking for our Web site end up linked to a radio station promotional site.
On the other hand, there have been occasions over the years when individuals actually named “Sam Adams” have registered domain names that included the words Sam Adams, and we have had no quarrel with that.
Those are, of course, all legitimate reasons and any company should protect its intellectual property. But as they say, a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. When you use a bludgeon, you should expect things might go awry. Would it have mattered if Bornemann had waited another day or even a few hours to send the letter, giving her ample time to figure out the true nature of the situation she was facing? Would such a modest delay have weakened her case? Could she not have called her company’s local field representatives and/or the distributors of Samuel Adams beer working in the Portland area soliciting what they knew? Could she not have looked up the website of the radio station or the name “Sam Adams” along with the modifier “mayor?” I think any of these actions might have been quite revealing and saved her company much grief.
But there’s one more thing I think would make all of this go away, and that’s perhaps the hardest thing for any modern company or person, for that matter, to do: and that would be giving an unqualified apology or just saying a blanket “I’m sorry.” I’m not sure why that’s so difficult for people these days, but it does seem spin always gets in the way. You almost never hear people just simply say they’re sorry. Instead they “regret,” or “wish it had been different” or some other similar device so it sounds like they’re apologizing without actually doing so. There’s a great phrase used in a song by one of my favorite songwriter/singers, John Wesley Harding, and the line is “naked as a true apology.” And I think that nicely captures people’s feelings today about apologizing, that it somehow makes them vulnerable or open to attack. But sometimes it really is the best thing to do, right or wrong. I’ll even start the ball rolling. To all of the people I’ve met over the years and who are my friends at the Boston Beer Co., I’m sorry for having been so hard on the company over the last couple of days.
Keith Brainard says
I was as mad as anyone about the way that Boston Beer Co. tried to strongarm the perceived infringement on their IP with the infamous letter. I even remarked about it at my own little blog at brainardbrewing.blogspot.com. But I am glad to see that they are trying to make it right. But at the same time, it really is a half-hearted apology, since they apologize basically only for not doing the extra research. And their statement about “you can use your own name for the election season, I guess” is pretty offensive.
But it is also hard to blame them for not doing extra research. It is really easy to look back at an incident and say “if only they had done this…”, but it is a lot harder to look forward at an action and say “I better do this…” I can think of lots of times that I acted in this same sort of “shoot first, ask questions later” manner.
So I want to just forget the past and move from where we are now. Boston Beer Co. said they never meant for Sam Adams the candidate to not be able to use his own name, so let’s believe them. Even if we as Nanobrewery fans think of Sam Adams as just barely smaller than Bud, really they are a small company, and if any of us got to their point, we’d probably be pretty strong defending our brand, too.
Jim Randell says
I don’t find this matter worth the publicity it’s getting. I’m much more interested in beer and brewing than in such side trivialities as how beer businesses defend their intellectual property. I personally hope to read more about beers and brewing and less about such matters in future.
J says
Well, Jim, I don’t know what to tell you. Thanks for your honesty, I guess. When the publications that pay me to write for them give me assignments, I write about whatever topic they want. If you want to pay me, I’ll be happy to write about whatever you want. Until then, on the Bulletin I tend to write about what I find interesting. Given that I get a fair number of visitors, I suspect I’m not entirely alone in my tastes.
While the “beer and brewing” is unquestionably a very important aspect of the beer business, it isn’t the only aspect and not everyone believes IP to be a trivial subject. If all you want is reviews, there are plenty of blogs and websites that provide nothing but, including the 500-pound gorillas, Beer Advocate and Rate Beer. I try to provide an insight into how the business works in addition to covering beer and brewing generally.
I hate to think I’m losing a reader, but as you’re the first to suggest what they want to see written here, I feel I must continue to be true to myself and choose my own subjects to write about.
Sincerely,
J
Jim Randell says
My not finding the matter worth the amount of verbiage devoted to it is a far cry from suggesting no coverage. I had hoped that one reader sharing his preferences would be of at least passing interest and was simply doing that. There was no suggesting that I would discontinue reading your site nor any suggesting that I wanted exclusively reviews. I’m actually very familiar with IP from work I’ve done in other industries and find Sam Adams initial approach very much in line with the state of play in that arena and I see no reason to expect a beer business to behave differently than others, for what I want from a beer business is good beer simpliciter.
J says
Boy did I misread that. Sorry about that Jim, I think you caught me in a weird mood where I was suspicious of everything and in hindsight I read into your comment more hostility then is actually there. Again, Sorry. I was having a frustrating dialog with someone last night and this morning, and I think I took some of that frustration out on an innocent bystander: you. Thanks for writing back even when I was clearly being a jerk. All the best, J.
Gary McGath says
samadamsformayor.com is still displaying a statement that it can’t say anything because of the legal threat. Until Boston Beer retracts its Cease and Desist notice in full, it doesn’t deserve any conciliatory treatment.
Jim Randell says
J
No blood, no foul! I’ve had a weird mood myself from time to time, mostly due to good beer deprivation! Keep on keepin’ on with the fine beer bulletin!
Jim
Motor says
I think this Sam Adams issue is relevant to beer because we’re all waiting for the day that A-B can buy the real Budweiser and take its name throughout the world. History- good bye!
As a Cal fan, the NFL attempted earlier this year to trademark the phrase “The Big Game”. Cal and Stanford’s football (some years rugby) seasons have ended with the Big Game for over a century. NFL backed down, but if they wanted to fight, think of the money wasted by the schools.
Sam Adams’ people should have done just a bit before unleashing on the guy’s site.
-Motor
ps: thanks for the shirt J. One of the nicest ts in terms of quality I’ve had in a while.
Janjan says
Well, Beer-folk, I’m from Portland Oregon and this certainly deserves commentary. I thought the article was really good and appreciated the thoughtfulness that was put into it. This is a case of a company with lots of money at its disposal, assuming that an individual was out to get them. We all know what happens when we assume… What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to good old common sense? I believe this should receive wide coverage because it’s a lesson to be polite. If SA Beer would have been polite and asked, they wouldn’t have gotten the bad press. And oh by the way, the irony here is that what SA Beer wanted was to avoid having Sam Adams who’s running for mayor use them as a marketing tool to get attention… and they’ve failed miserably. Come on you’ve got to admit, that’s funny!