Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

R.I.P. Here’s to Beer?

By

HtB
It’s been exactly a year now since Here’s to Beer debuted at last year’s Super Bowl. But this year there wasn’t even a whisper about the beer advocacy campaign and a quick survey of the website reveals that news there hasn’t been updated since September of last year and the most recent industry news is from last July. Now that Bob Lachky has been promoted onto greener pastures (he became chief creative officer in October) it doesn’t seem like A-B’s attempt to promote beer is really going anywhere.

I met with Bob Lachky at an A-B reception held in conjunction with GABF last September. He was quite gracious, even about all of the criticism about Here’s to Beer from me and others. He spoke with great enthusiasm about the project and indeed seemed quite sincere. But he also was so polished and well-spoken that he seemed a bit like a politician. That’s not necessarily a criticism but it made what he was saying lack spontanity and you couldn’t help but think he’d given this speech before, and probably over and over again. But, of course, you don’t rise quickly in a large corporation without learning a few things about how to present yourself, and I suspect that’s the reason Bob Lachky is where he is today.

But the week following GABF, Augie IV had a new job for Lachky and I’ve heard nary a thing about Here’s to Beer since. Nor has there been any news about the documentary film they are supposedly sponsoring, American Brew, by Roger Sherman. Sherman’s Florentine Films website still lists the film as “in production,” but they were showing a healthy, polished looking percentage of the film as a teaser at GABF back in September. The point is, with Lachky gone I suspect the enthusiasm for the Here’s to Beer idea has likely faded, too. A-B is no longer feeling as threatened as they did in late 2005, which is what led to them starting Here’s to Beer in the first place.

I continue to think an advocacy campaign to educate and promote good beer generally is a terrific idea, but A-B was never the right company to take on such a task. Perhaps the Brewers Association or the even the Beer Institute could take it over and do something with it. Until then, we’ll just have to continue promoting beer in the same we have been for years and years; one drink at a time, one person at a time.

ab-lachky
Bob Lachky, me and Bill Brand at the GABF reception given by A-B.

Dutch Wonderland to Join the Modern World?

By

Every state’s alcohol laws are arcane little systems of dysfunction and no two are exactly alike. I grew up with the laws in Pennsylvania, which have to be near the top, at least in terms of how seemingly bizarre and arbitrary they are. Until very recently, you couldn’t get a drink on Sundays, due to archaic “blue laws.” It’s also a case state, meaning you can only buy beer by the case, except in bars that can sell you a six-pack often at wildly inflated prices.

Pennsylvania is also know for it’s Amish, or Pennsylvania Dutch, population, and I grew up right near these communities. In fact, my ancestors who emigrated to the state in the early 1700s were Anabaptists from Bern, Switzerland. They settled in Bernville and for generations were Mennonite farmers. There’s also a cheesy theme park in the area, near Lancaster, called Dutch Wonderland. All of this has little to do with the story, except to explain why I’ve called the entire state “Dutch Wonderland” ever since I moved away from it over twenty years ago.

One of the odder features of the state, which ended when they introduced photo driver’s licenses, were PLCB cards. These were essentially “drinking cards” which served no other purpose than to legally allow you to enter a bar or other place where alcohol was served. A few weeks before turning twenty-one, you filled out a form and dropped it off at your local “State Store,” along with a pair of headshots from one of those old photo booths that dispensed a sheet of four photos for half a buck. Then on or after your birthday, you picked up your card back at the shop. After your driver’s license also included a photo, there was no need to keep making the drinking cards and they were discontinued. None of this has anything to do with the story, either, I just find it fascinating the lengths states will go to keep minors from obtaining alcohol. It was a pretty elaborate and complicated system. And at the time I was quite indignant because I was also in the armed forces and could never understand the logic that allowed me to die for my country but denied me the right to drink a beer. Plus it’s the weekend and my mind is pretty tangential, jumping from thought to thought without much regard to where it’s leading me.

Alright, back to the main story, and it’s a somewhat familiar one. Every few years it seems Pennsylvania flirts with the idea of changing their liquor laws in some fashion, but it never seems to go anywhere. Now it appears that finally the times, they are a-changing. On February 1, a convenience store in Altoona sold the first beer (sadly a 12-pack of Coors Light) in that type of store. There are still some pretty arcane rules at work such as having to keep the beer separate from other sales and using different cash registers — meaning you have to ring up your purchases twice at the same location at two different cash registers. But now that the Sheetz chain has opened the door, others are considering following suit, such as Wegmans and Weis.

Naturally, the current beer distributor system, through their lobbyist organization, the Malt Beverages Distributors Association of Pennsylvania, is opposing this change because it threatens their monopoly. I can’t say I blame them, but for most people the present system is a pain in the neck and makes it difficult for the brewers themselves, too. The writing may finally be on the wall on this one. I know if I still lived in Dutch Wonderland I’d be arguing hard for this change, especially having tasted the world outside Pennsylvania where alcohol is more freely available. In virtually every neighboring state, beer can be purchased in grocery and convenience stores. Most of the arguments against this change are the same old nonsense about protecting children.

As the Pocono Record editorializes:

Nonsense. Other states where private enterprise extends to alcohol sales have no higher rates of alcoholism, nor has there been a problem with cashiers’ age. These problems are surmountable if Pennsylvania, the do-anything-you-want state in so many other ways, could once get past the idea that government alone should decide when and where citizens can buy beer, wine and liquor.

The real motivation for the perpetuation of the PLCB is political power over an entrenched bureaucracy, not protection of citizens. Pennsylvania should leave the vending of alcoholic beverages to bar and restaurant owners, wine sellers and grocers and other merchants. These capitalists can decide, based on sensible rules and consumer demand, their hours and their prices. Competition would produce a much more consumer-friendly system than what we have now.

But now it’s up to the state’s Commonwealth Court, who has before it a case filed by the Malt Beverages Distributors Association of Pennsylvania seeking to keep the status quo intact for 1,100 beer distributors and 300 wholesalers. So far, experts seem to be leaning toward the court ruling against the distributors. They point to the fact that last year the court would not issue an injunction stopping Sheetz with going ahead with their plan. While certainly not dispositive, it does seem to be a positive sign. It will likely be a few months before the court is expected to decide the case. Until then, Dutch Wonderland will join the modern world, whether briefly or permanently, by allowing beer to be sold in the wider world.

The Chronicle’s Super Bowl Suggestions

By

With two days until the Super Bowl, as big a television party event as there is, the San Francisco Chronicle makes a few suggestions on how to choose the right beer for your party foods. Though the author, Christina Kelly, can’t resist throwing wine into the mix, too, because, of course, she’s a wine writer. And that’s exactly who’d you want to write a piece about beer and food pairings, a wine columnist.

So as a result, wine is the very first word written in one of the few articles one might reasonably expect could be, for a change, all about the beer. She admits “tradition” gives the Super Bowl to beer, but still can’t help talking about how inexpensive wines “work surprisingly well” with “[m]ost game day foods.” Which is, I think, hogwash. Most of the spicy foods enjoyed at the average Super Bowl party distort wine’s flavors. As Garrett Oliver explains it, spicy flavors turn “white wines hot and red wines bitter.”

But the Chronicle’s “rule of thumb” for beer is “the hotter and spicier the food, the darker the beer.” Why would you pair spicy foods with roasted malt flavors like coffee and chocolate? A much better choice would be lighter and/or hoppier beers that can stand up to the spices and cut through them. But of course, she’s probably talking about darker more modestly, insofar as almost everything with flavor is darker than American-style light lager.

So here are the snack foods and their suggestions. I’ll ignore the wine suggestions, as, I think, they should be ignored.

Guacamole

Okay, to be fair she didn’t do too badly here, suggesting a pale ale. I agree with that one though would add that an IPA would work well, too. I don’t know why she mentions an Australian beer, when one from Goose Island or the Pale Ale from Alcatrazz Brewing in Indianapolis would make more sense. Also, she suggests you “try a Pilsner beer like Beck’s,” which I wouldn’t wish on a mortal enemy. If you want a pilsner, get a real one, though I think a richer amber lager would work better anyway. The Super Bowl is a peculiarly American event, what’s with all the imported beer suggestions?

Chili

This is priceless. “A no-brainer here — select a frosty Corona or a Negra Modelo and a wedge of lime. It’s refreshing and the lime works great with chili, no matter how spicy.” I think the brain might be useful here after all, especially to help you avoid a beer with a lime in it and particularly Corona, one of the worst beer choices anyone can make. If I read her sentence again, it sounds like she’s also saying you could put a lime wedge in the Nega Modelo, too. I can’t imagine that’s what she means, but it does read that way.

Better still would be a nice brown ale, like BridgePort’s new Beer Town Brown, or an Irish stout. Even a pale ale or IPA would work better than an insipid Corona. You want something rich enough to stand up to the strong flavors in most chili.

Potato Chips

I know I promised to stay away from the wine suggestions, but I simply can’t imagine pairing cheese Doritos with “a medium and fruity Zinfandel.” I do, however, believe she’s correct when she writes “[p]lain chips work with nearly every beer.” Of course, I love potato chips almost as much as my children, so I’m not exactly rational about this one.

Nachos

If spice and jalapenos dwell on your nachos, go for a malty beer — Anchor Liberty Ale has a firm malt background that will cool the tongue. You can’t go wrong with Anchor Porter either.

Hmm. I’m not sure I think of Anchor Liberty Ale as a big “malty” beer. It’s hops are certainly restrained compared to, say, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, but it’s still a pale ale. If you think malty is the way to go, a marzen or Oktoberfest beer would probably work better. But floral, citrusy hops that’s found in most pale ales and IPAs would also work quite nicely.

Buffalo Wings

With the kind of spicing in buffalo wings, I’m not convinced that a hoppy beer — as she suggests — is the answer. She also states that “spicier needs the darker bitter to take on the hot sauce,” which to me seems to suggest the author believe that dark equals hoppy. Perhaps I’m mis-reading that, but what else could she mean by “darker bitter?”

Actually, I think a maltier beer such as a brown ale, a porter or even an amber ale would pair up much better. The author also mentions that “a hefeweizen brought those wings to their knees” when it was slathered in a red hot sauce, but I can’t see how wheat beer would stand up to it, much less bring them to their knees. But that, at least, I’d be willing to test.

Pizza

Finally we agree. Anderson Valley Brewing’s Boont Amber is an excellent pizza beer, as are most good pale and amber ales, along with marzens and amber lagers, too. Depending on the toppings, I can see an IPA performing well but generally a more well-balanced beer should do the trick.

Overall, Christina Kelly’s article and suggestions aren’t terrible though I do disagree strongly with some of her choices. More importantly, I still don’t quite understand why the media insists on handing out beer assignments to wine writers. That’s quite frustrating both on a personal and professional level. How much more fun would this article have been if the Chronicle had instead asked a wine writer to choose the wine pairings and also hired a beer writer to choose the beers? Let them go head to head. That would have been a much better way to go, in my opinion. In that way, they could have let the reader decide for themselves knowing an expert in each field had made the choices.

The OLCC vs. Humanity

By

Several people tipped me to this. According to the Oregon Brewers Festival website, after 19 years of it being a family event of sorts, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) will no longer allow minors at all at the Oregon Brewers Festival. Minors were allowed in previous years, though last year they were required to wear these ridiculous orange stickers. Not surprisingly, this has sparked a lot of discussion among the Oregon Brew Crew and on Beer Advocate’s forums. What did surprise me was that there were people out there who have so internalized the puritan propaganda of alcohol and children not mixing that they believe this is a good idea. That separating society into two parts, one that’s kid friendly and one that’s adults-only, is somehow a desirable way to orient the world.

Some of the most alarming are:

  • “I’m sorry, but no one under 21 has any business being at an event with “brew festival” in the name.”
  • “If I could afford micros over swill, I could afford a babysitter so that I could enjoy a brewfest without stress of watching my kids. There just has to be a better place to take the kids than something like a brewfest.”
  • “Why would anyone want to have their kids in a place where people are drinking anyway? You never know what might happen and what you might expose your kids to. It’s also a pain in the ass having strollers all over the place or having to mind yourself or edit yourself because a kid is around. Drinking experiences are meant for adults. It’s no ones fault but your own if you choose to breed. Don’t punish the rest of us because you have to have everything cater [sic] to you because your [sic] a parent now.”

Wow, I find these comments pretty frightening and unenlightened. But let’s look at the sentiments themselves.

According to the first person, no family should ever attend a beer festival. It’s simply not possible. I apparently have no business being there with my wife and our two young children. I have to make a choice, it’s either beer or my family. I guess I can’t have both. Heaven forbid we spend a day in the sun by the river with a picnic lunch and enjoy some good beer, too. How dare I wish to share such an experience with my loved ones and show them how beer is an integral part of society, not something separate to be feared, avoided or worst of all, binged on after the arbitrary prohibition of age is removed. The nerve of me for wanting to show my children what responsible drinking looks like so they can model such positive behavior when they get older.

The second comment is even more of a head-scratcher. This person appears to assume that the only reason someone might take their family to a beer festival is they were too poor to afford a babysitter. Is is possible he can’t conceive of someone actually wanting to spend time with their children? If he finds parenting too stressful to involve his kids at a fest, by all means he definitely shouldn’t, but I don’t understand why he feels the need to restrict the rest of us who actually like having our family members around us. Are there better places to take the kids? Personally, anyplace my family can all be together is a great place. Sometimes we do things I want to do, sometimes the kids get to decide. That’s what families do, they take turns and share experiences so everyone’s life is a little richer and more varied. Just because I’m a parent now doesn’t mean I have to spend all my weekends at Chuck-E-Cheese.

But it’s the last one that really deserves attention, because it’s so unbelievably laced with ignorance and selfishness disguised as advocating freedom for adults. So, one by one, then.

Why would anyone want to have their kids in a place where people are drinking anyway? You never know what might happen and what you might expose your kids to.

Why would I not want my family to be where I am? Why would I care if adult things are taking place in the presence of my children? I make my living from alcoholic beverages, should I be ashamed of that and shield my kids from knowing what they are? What could I possibly “expose” my kids to that they can’t see on television. And frankly, what better place for them to be “exposed” to things than at a place where their parents are there to explain, interpret and teach them about life. I don’t understand the mentality that believes children must be locked away and protected from everything the world might throw at them. That’s how you raise a child who can’t deal with anything different, or adapt to new challenges and situations or is just plain afraid all the time.

It’s also a pain in the ass having strollers all over the place or having to mind yourself or edit yourself because a kid is around.

Ahh, poor baby. Now I’m really feeling bad for this person. She has to be inconvenienced by not having wide open spaces to walk around. There might be things in her way, restricting her free movement. She might have to take a couple of steps to one side and walk around a stroller. Wow, what a hard life she has that she’s actually concerned about how that effects her and makes her life so difficult. And why does she feel she has to act or speak differently if children are around? Does she normally swear like a drunken sailor when there are no children about? And now I’ve burdened her by bringing my kid within earshot of her so that she feels like she has to think of another way to talk, and I can just imagine how difficult that must be. Assuming for a moment that I care if she swears around my kids — I don’t — is it such a burden to her delicate sensibility that she has to express herself more genteelly?

Drinking experiences are meant for adults. It’s no ones fault but your own if you choose to breed. Don’t punish the rest of us because you have to have everything cater [sic] to you because your [sic] a parent now.

Wow, it’s my own “fault” I chose to start a family. I hope she’s not still blaming her parents for making a similar decision. Apparently I’m punishing her because I decided to further the human race. I suppose we should all be pleased that this particular person chose not to breed. In a later comment, she actually claims to still “love” the little tykes, just not if they’re in her way or are a buzzkill to her having a good time. Without getting too melodramatic, what does she think would happen to the future of the human race if everyone decided to just get drunk and not have children, which is apparently her ideal society. Because ostensibly wanting a world where both children and adults can co-mingle is a selfish desire.

Where exactly did she get the idea that “drinking experiences are meant (exclusively) for adults?” Travel to almost any nation on the earth and you’ll find in a majority of them that alcohol and entire families coexist quite seamlessly, and with far fewer problems with binge drinking than we experience. But that’s the price our society has to pay. Keep children from seeing responsible drinking and make it the huge forbidden taboo that it is, and you see what happens. Not only does it create adults who can’t see the value in teaching their children how to be adults and engage in so-called adult activities responsibly but you also create people so selfish that to suggest that they might have to curb their behavior in public is akin to them being punished. What a tough life this woman has that she can’t stand to be dictated how to behave because there are children present. Does it mean that she walks through life avoiding children so that she can be herself and not mind what she says or what language she uses? Are there no adults that might not appreciate her endless cacophony of profanity she feels free to use in kid free zones? She must be a joy to be around.

Happily, not everyone is like this woman. Many people do see the OLCC’s draconian laws for what they are. For example.

Though I have but one wee one, I have LOVED the fact that my family — all 3 of us — can partake in my passion the last weekend of July. We always have gone just as the festival opens on Saturday — when the lines are non existent and the college “let’s get smashed” crowd is still comatose from the night before. While there will always be irresponsible morons where ever you go, for the most part it’s a wonderful family experience.

And.

I just don’t buy your argument that if we can afford micros, we can afford a baby sitter. Drinking the good stuff is a passion and a luxury and it’s BECAUSE it’s a family event that I can afford the indulgence.

We hear it over and over and over again, but I can’t stress enough my belief that responsible drinking starts at home and there is NOTHING wrong with including families in events where alcohol is present. Though there may be drunken boobery as far as your eyes can see, the real young ones will only pay attention to what YOU are doing. And if what they see is an adult drinking beer responsibly, then THAT is what they will learn.

I love Oregon and the fact that, for the most part, Portland is a pretty enlightened society, but rulings like this are an embarrassment and a reminder that, great as it is, our lovely city really isn’t THAT much different from the rest of the country.

One aspect this debate also overlooked is that the OLCC does allow minors to be present at wine events. For example, as one brew crew member relates.

The OLCC discriminates against beer drinkers as they allow kids to wine events. There will be 65 wineries at the Oregon Seafood & Wine fest next weekend and kids are welcome. Please don’t hesitate to let them and your governor know how you feel being unfairly treated as a beer slob, instead of as a wine snob!

So it’s not really enforcing Oregon’s minor posting law as the OLCC claims, or else children would not be permitted at any event that is predominately a drinking event as the law states. It’s again about unfairly treating beer as a negative in society while allowing wine to be perceived as a positive. How else to explain it?

Or as legendary beer writer Fred Eckhardt put it:

This is the same jerk who ruled that the Great American Distillery Festival could only allow THREE (that’s right THREE) quarter ounce tastings of the distilled liquors there. THREE. This at a festival where one could then BUY as many full strength mixed drinks as he/she wished for, while appearing sober, but sane sampling? Forget it. These guys have far too much power. IT’S A CLASS ACT IN STUPIDITY. THE OLCC IS regulating these things in a PUNITIVE MANNER. That’s not rational. If this A**hole would check he’d find that no self respecting child on the planet would drink anything as hoppy and dark and roasty as ANY craft beer. Kids don’t like this kind of beer. Like dry wine, it’s an acquired taste and it doesn’t really come until one is almost old enough to graduate from College.

The fact is that very few of the bigger beer festivals, in this country at least, do allow minors so there really aren’t that many opportunities to annoy non-breeders by traveling with our children. So it’s especially troubling to see one of the few that still was relatively kid-friendly change to adults-only. Frankly, I think this sends the wrong message about beer. It should not be restricted and separated from society because it is a part of society. To pretend otherwise is dishonest and does society a great disservice.

If you’ve been to the OBF, as I suspect many who’ve commented have not, you’d know it’s held in a very large space with big circus-sized tents and large open grassy areas overlooking the Willamette River. There’s plenty of room for both adults and families with children. There is plenty of food available and other activities, as well. It could easily be turned into much more of a family event if not for neo-prohibitionist agendas. The irony that this debate is raging around Portland should not be lost on anyone. There are more breweries within Portland’s city limits than anywhere else in America, meaning a good portion of the town’s economic health can be attributed directly to beer. Usually following the money would lead you to a government that actually cares about an industry contributing to its fiscal stability. But the wild card here is prejudice. Prejudice against vice, against the perception that beer is a social evil. And the number one tactic of neo-prohibitionist groups, as well as many other similarly misguided causes, is that old canard of protecting the children. As I’ve said many times here before, don’t you believe it. Family values is a euphemism for imposing a rigid set of values on everyone else. Because the truth is every family has its own set of values. And mine include enjoying a sunny day at a beer festival along with my wife and kids. Will my being there ruin the experience for someone else? If it’s that woman I’m punishing with my wanton procreation, I certainly hope so.

Proposed Man Law: Stick with Your Advertising

By

In a move reminiscent with all of Miller’s recent ad campaigns, they’ve decided to pull the plug of Man Laws, which debuted last spring. Miller announced last week while I was in London that their latest campaign will be on hiatus, perhaps until football season resumes once more in the fall.

The official reason stated is “that Miller is shifting its strategy to focus more on the qualities that make Miller Lite different from other reduced-calorie beers,” which is, of course, businessspeak for sales of Miller Lite continue to fall and the blame has been put on the advertising.

As AdAge (subscription) put it, “Man Law No. 1: Advertising Must Boost Sales.” This seems to be the way these things go nowadays, in a world that’s increasingly faster paced, where new television shows are cancelled within weeks, movies have very short runs, and nothing is really allowed to find its audience over time. If it doesn’t work immediately, then discard it and try something new, and fast. Was our appetite for the next quick fix created by marketing machines or are they merely playing into our natural tendencies using more sophisticated techniques? It’s worth asking, because I can’t believe an entire society with ADD was inevitable … or desirable.

But this seems to be Miller’s biggest problem with their ad campaigns over the past decade, perhaps longer. They had great success with the “tastes great, less filling” campaign of the 1980s but have never really found anything close to duplicating that success. Every couple of months, a new campaign (by a new agency, in many cases) is trotted out to great fanfare only to die in a fiery ball of collective yawns from their target audience. Either they’re poorly thought out (catfights, “Dick”) or they’re not given much of a chance (like the man laws). So then it’s on to the next one, with the predictably same result.

Anhesuer-Busch, on the other hand, has been far more successful in creating a series of memorable ads. Sales of their Bud Light, along with Coors Light, have seen recent single-digit sales increases.

But even if the Man Law ads haven’t translated directly into sales growth, the concept has been wildly popular, inspiring literally hundreds of thousands of proposed new man laws to the Manlawpedia at the Men of the Square Table website. They’ve obviously managed to capture something that appeals to a great many people, so it seems like a bad idea to abandon it before it has a chance to build more fully.

According to AdAge, the “new spots differentiate Miller Lite from its competitors by noting its spelling (“Lite” vs. the less distinctive but not misspelled “Light” used by A-B and Coors). They are expected to air until new work from Crispin, Porter & Bogusky — a return to the more comparative style of advertising Miller employed during Lite’s 2003-2004 renaissance — replaces them in April.”

Of course, in the end, what they really should do is make a beer with more flavor. Because Man Law #1 honestly should be “No one, man or woman, should ever drink a light — or lite — beer … ever.”

BB & A-B: The Unlikeliest of Unlikelihoods?

By

+ = ??

The rumor of Anhesuer-Busch in talks with Boston Beer left a foul taste in my mouth, and a few short weeks ago would not have given the idea a moment’s thought. The feud between Jim Koch’s Boston Beer Co. and Augie Busch’s little company is, though considerably shorter than Budvar’s, just as legendary. The production company “Ducks In A Row Entertainment Corporation” is supposedly even making a film about their famous feud with the tentative title “Beer Wars.” Last I heard, it was in the editing stage but that was some time ago. The point is, these are two companies that do not feel a great deal of affection for one another.

So my first reaction to this rumor would under normal circumstances be, “no F’ing way.” But that was before A-B inked deals with both InBev and longtime rival Budvar. With those deals, the Earth is already spinning off its axis, so why not Samuel Adams, too?

This particular rumor comes courtesy of Miller’s Brew Blog, who got it from the only other source to mention it so far, Beer Business Daily, a subscription-based beer news service. BBD reported that they have “been fielding about a half dozen inquiries a day from readers with the latest rumor du jour making the rounds out there: A-B and Boston Beer hooking up.” To no one’s surprise, neither side would comment on the rumors. But that was the same as the InBev rumors, at least, so who knows?

I’ve heard Jim Koch speak personally about his feelings concerning A-B and their business practices and given that, and all of the trouble they’ve tried to cause him over the years, it just seems incredibly unlikely that he’d entertain any offers from them. But at the risk of repeating myself, I keep coming back to how often the seemingly impossible has been happening these days.

The True Meaning of Beer?

By

This little screed came courtesy of a regular east coast reader (thanks Loren) by way of the Beer Advocate Forum, where it was commented on extensively already. It’s a column from yesterday’s Pittsburgh Tribune-Review entitled “Beer snobs forget the true meaning of beer.” Despite being a large former bouncer, the author, Mike Seate, is apparently vying to be the next Ann Coulter. He also writes a blog for the Tribune-Review called the “Hot Seate” and according to his bio there, he has already gotten a “stack of hate mail as tall as Shaquille O’Neal” and “collected more than nine hours of angry phone calls from readers, many of which he hopes to compile into a comedy CD tentatively titled ‘He Hate Me.'” So it seems clear he’s acting this way on purpose. He claims to be “writing about the grittier side of local life, focusing on touchy subjects like racism, economic strife, crime and the police, transportation, pop culture trends and, occasionally, the absurdity of modern politics.”

I won’t spend much time dissecting his article, it’s too intentionally inflammatory to bother and Todd Alstrom and the legion of Beer Advocates commenting after him have pretty much said it all already, anyway. Suffice it to say it’s the ignorant ramblings of a man who honestly appears to know nothing about the subject he’s writing on. It’s pure unadulterated opinion. There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion per se, plenty of beer writers have them — not that I’m naming names. It’s when you can’t back them up with supporting facts, any expertise or even familiarity with the subject matter that causes those opinions to become meaningless. Obviously anyone can say anything they want to. But that doesn’t mean anyone else has to listen. It’s unfortunate that some such people get an imprimatur from the mainstream media outlets by virtue of their thoughts being published. Newspapers, radio and television openly court controversy because it sells papers and air time. Now that “news” has become viewed largely in the same way as entertainment programming by their owners, ratings and revenue have become more important than providing a public service as a thank you to all of us and the FCC for giving them control of the airwaves so they can make billions of dollars. As the great writer A.J. Liebling wrote. “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.”

Seate reminds me of the peasants outside of Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory with pitchforks and fire, ignorantly mistaking the technological advances his work represents as a monster. He clings to the notion that the “true meaning of beer” is that it’s a “workingman’s drink,” ignoring centuries of history. Mike’s blissfully unaware that were it not for the “strange orders of Trappist Belgian monks who craft their beers in dank basements” he so blithely insults he would have no industrial light lager to swill from a Styrofoam cup. Like virtually every commodity the world has ever known, its role and status in society is always changing and evolving. Things very rarely stay the same. Mike is obviously uncomfortable with change and seems especially upset that beer with more flavor also is more expensive. Oh, the humanity!

It’s quite funny that the only to beers he mentioned are Guinness and Boddingtons, neither of which are held in great esteem by the beer snobs he so disdains, and both are from fairly large companies, especially Guinness, whose parent company Diageo is one of the biggest beverage concerns in the world. But he manages to mangle just about every assertion he makes in his piece and in the end, I think that must be the point. Shock and awe always creates more of a stir than thoughtful analysis and reason. And like Coulter’s ignorant pronoucements, it works. I should be ignoring what he’s saying but I can’t. The bait is there and I took it. It’s schadenfreude. I can’t look away.

So what is the true meaning of beer? It’s a good question, but not one that’s easy to answer, especially since it means different things to different people. But like it or not, there are probably many millions of people who are afraid of better beer just the way Mike Seate is, ignorantly lashing out at what he doesn’t understand. It’s a common enough strategy for those that cling to their precious status quo. Change is always a little scary. Perhaps all we can do is offer him our sympathy that his ignorance keeps him “doing [his] drinking at home, on the cheap, from a Styrofoam cup,” while the rest of us are above ground, out at one of “those so-called beer emporiums,” enjoying a beer so good it will make you cry out of a “tiny brandy snifter [or] elegant, hand-blown glass goblet.” Ah, now that’s the life.

Faux Canada

By

According to an article in today’s Montreal Gazette, Canadians are increasingly looking to buy better tasting beer. And like their American cousins, the big Canadian breweries are flooding the market with faux or stealth microbrews in order to compete with craft brewers. With these faux craft beers, they’re trying to fool customers into thinking they’re getting just want they want, a beer that’s been hand-crafted to taste great.

Labatt has a line called Alexander Keith, named for an early brewer in Nova Scotia. MolsonCoors, likewise, has Rickard’s family of brands. Both Rickard’s and Keith’s are listed on their respective company websites and acknowledged as their brands. Alexander Keith’s own website does disclose that it’s a Labatt brand, but only in the legal stuff like “terms of use.” They certainly don’t go out of their way to associate themselves with the parent company.

An interesting parallel, though the article goes on to discuss tarrifs between provinces and what their removal will mean for small players. I don.t know enough about the market to form an opinion, but it’s an interesting read.

Alexander Keith’s IPA, owned by Labatt; and Rickard’s Red, owned by MolsonCoors.

A Slice Missing

By

A regular Bulletin reader (thanks Ben) sent in a link to a short blurb that was in the San Francisco Chronicle on Friday. It was by wine business writer Cyril Penn, who also publishes Wine Business Online. Titled “Regular domestic beer loses its grip on U.S. market” it details another Mintel International research effort. The company does market and consumer research on a large scale around the globe and about big industries. So it’s not surprising they’d leave out an entire sliver of pie in their chart.

The new Mintel study claims that although “American light beers” (low-calorie diet beers) are showing growth, “domestic beers” are not. But by domestic, which should be all beer made within the United States, Mintel means only beers from the large manufacturers, such as Bud, Miller and Coors.

More findings from the Chronicle article:

Volume sales of imported beer have increased 27 percent over the last five years. In contrast, regular (non-light) domestic beer posted a 19 percent decline during the last five years.

According to Mintel’s research, only one quarter of American adults over age 21 drink regular domestic beer, a decrease of 15 percent since 2001.

The Mintel reasearch also found that the “light beer segment is the only domestic segment to gain sales over the last two years, growing 4.8 percent in volume.” Of course, that leaves a bit of the pie chart missing, specifically the craft beer segment, which has shown 11% growth through the first half of last year and 9% for 2005. It may be a small slice, but it is getting bigger. And that means the “light beer segment” is not the only domestic segment growing over the last two years. But that’s the way it is with the business press. Only the big, publicly traded multi-nationals are in their radar. For the craft breweries, the money just isn’t enough for them to talk about, except for a few exceptions like Boston Beer and Sierra Nevada.

And that’s fine if it’s business to business who’s utilzing this information. If one business is looking at this data and using it for their business decisions, then the limitations of the information doesn’t make much of a difference. For example when I was the beer buyer at BevMo, I regularly looked at IRI and Nielsen sales data. In both cases, they collect sales of beer at grocery stores, drug stores, big box stores, convenience stores and other mainstream sellers but ignore direct sales, independent liquor stores, and all sorts of non-chain store sales. That doesn’t make them useless, just incomplete. But knowing their limitations can still give revealing insights and show trends. They give a glimpse of what is happening to a certain portion of the market.

The problem is when that sort of limited research data is reported to the public in a news item without discussing those limitations. It gives the impression that the information is complete, reliable and unbiased. So when Penn’s little piece says that only light beer is growing, he’s not wrong insofar as the Mintel research data he’s reporting on, but that data itself is flawed in that it is not presenting a true picture of reality. It’s not meant to, it’s intention is just to show a very specific snapshot of the major portion of the industry. But as the headline suggests, all American beer is down, losing to imported beer. Maybe I’m not giving the general public enough credit, but how many people know the term “domestic beer” in this context is jargon for just the non-low calorie beers, the regular American light (in color) lagers manufactured by the big and traditional beer companies. They represent just a few handfuls of brands which mostly ignores almost 1,400 craft breweries and thousands of individual beers. And while “domestic beer” represents a large percentage of the total volume for beer sold in the U.S., it’s still not all the beer produced domestically. The stuff I — and hopefully you — love is growing again with wild abandon, and has been for a few years in a row. That’s a much rosier picture than the Chronicle’s piece suggests, at least for fans of the wonderful non-domestic beers made here in America, better known as craft beers.

Bud & Bud: Now They’re Buds?

By

+ = ?

I saw this last Monday but was too busy with deadlines for paying gigs to do anything more than drop my jaw in amazement at the news. To say I was surprised would be an understatement. The vigor with which these two companies have battled one another is legendary. For them to unceremoniously bury the hatchet — and not into each other’s back — even in just the U.S. market defies logic. I can see why Anheuser-Busch would want the deal. To have a Bud with flavor and another import that’s been selling well, with even greater potential, is a no brainer for them.

But why Budějovický Budvar would be so eager is an entirely different matter. I have a hard time fathoming that it was simply the profit motive and the tantalizing carrot of making a killing here in the U.S. that drove their decision. Not to mention all of the people this move — along with the earlier InBev agreement — have put on the unemployment line. The very people who built all of these brands into ones that A-B would be interested in poaching are now left out in the cold, all of their hard work for naught. Many of the ones I know personally are great people, too, so it seems remarkably unfair.

I guess I just don’t want to believe that the principles Budvar has been arguing for so vehemently could be set aside so easily just for a wad of cash. There are currently something like 100 lawsuits going on in 30 countries around the globe over the brand names Bud, Budvar and Budweiser. A-B just lost an appeal in Portugal, so the disputes between the two companies are far from over. And generally speaking A-B has been the aggressor in a majority of the cases, at least as far as I’ve seen.

Here in the U.S., and other countries where A-B has prevailed in court decisions, Budvar, Budweis and Budweiser are labeled Czechvar, conveying none of the heritage of a beer brewed in the town of České Budějovice, which in German is Budweis. A-B has publicly acknowledged countless times that it was their inspiration for the beer they named Budweiser in 1876. Disputes began a century ago and have not subsided up through the present time. Even A-B’s press release acknowledges as much.

After nearly a century of disagreements in certain parts of the world over rights to the Budweiser name for their beers, Anheuser-Busch and Czech brewer Budejovicky Budvar have formed a historic alliance in which Anheuser-Busch will become the U.S. importer of Czechvar Premium Czech Lager, the two brewers jointly announced today.

The agreement gives Czechvar, currently sold in 30 states, access to Anheuser-Busch’s marketing and sales expertise and wide-reaching U.S. distribution network. It gives Anheuser-Busch another European import as part of an aggressive push into high-end beer categories that has led to alliances with Grolsch, Tiger, Kirin and most recently InBev, which added Stella Artois, Beck’s, Bass Pale Ale and other beers to its import portfolio.

The agreement does not impact existing litigation or trademark disputes between the two brewers in other countries, and they have agreed the partnership cannot be used to support either side in any trademark cases.

“After years of differences, this is a meaningful step for two great brewers to form a relationship that is good for both of our businesses,” said August A. Busch IV, president and chief executive officer of Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc. “For Anheuser-Busch, it also represents an opportunity to enhance our import portfolio with a super-premium Czech import. Working with our family of wholesalers, we look forward to introducing Czechvar to a new audience of beer lovers.”

“At the same time, the agreement represents a historical turning point between our companies. We have managed to move away from discussions between lawyers and toward a practical dialog, which is going to be beneficial to both sides. Our corporation has therefore gained the best importer in the USA,” added Budejovicky Budvar’s CEO, Jiří Boček.

The agreement was effective Jan. 5. Terms were not disclosed.

Hmm. When a brewery with so much reason to feel a deep-seated animosity toward the world’s largest beer company can make nice for a fistful of ducats, what does that mean for the rest of the world’s breweries trying to sell their products here. Between the InBev brands (like Stella Artois), Grolsch, Tiger, Kirin, and now what many people refer to as “the real Budweiser,” Czechvar, this will make it increasingly difficult for other imported beers — and especially the smaller brands — to find a willing distributor to carry their products. Certainly no Bud distributor who wants to stay in Augie’s good graces would carry a non-A-B import. And that clutters the remaining distributors, especially where there’s only one other house that carries both Coors and Miller. Few distributors can carry everything presented them and that means less diversity in their territories, more so in states where it’s difficult or impossible for companies to self-distribute.

As usual, the losers will be you and me when we try to find that obscure import like Westmalle Tripel or Urthel Hop-It. Every time the highly efficient behemoth A-B distribution network adds another “official” beer to its portfolio, the available beers across the country become increasingly the same. If it keeps up like this, the only remaining diversity you’ll see at the local grocery store will be completely illusory. They’ll all be owned or have exclusive distribution agreements with a very small number of companies. And that will make it nearly impossible for a newcomer, whether an imported brewery or a local craft brewer, to find a spot on the shelf.