One of the folks at After These Messages, a new blog created to examine and critique advertising, sent me a link to the following tribute video on YouTube for the town of Latrobe, Pennsylvania. It’s both irreverent and moving, and a nice glimpse inside the brewery itself, too.
UPDATE: For reasons I can’t explain, this video is no longer available at YouTube. If anybody knows if it’s available elsewhere, please let me know.
I get a lot of e-mails on a regular basis from PR firms pitching one story or another for their clients. Many times they don’t even have anything to do with beer because most firms don’t have a separate category and just lump all beverages, and usually food, together in one category. Today I got one that at first glance seemed destined for the delete key, though it was more interesting than most of the ones I get.
It was titled the “Ten Trends to Watch in Packaged Goods in 2007” and was complied by the market research company Datamonitor. Of the first nine, a few of their predictions could have some relevance to craft beer, but more likely to fringe malt beverages or other kinds of drinks. Those categories are Calorie Burning Beverages, Satiety-Enhancing Foods & Drinks, Local Sourcing of Ingredients, and Immunity Boosting Foods & Drinks.
Number 10, on the other hand, was “Better for You” Beer – Blame it on the “French Paradox.” Here it is in its entirety:
With beer losing ground to wine in many markets around the world, beer makers are beginning to fight back with new products promising new health benefits for beer. Stampede Light is claimed to be the “first ever government approved vitamin beer” for the USA market with its B-vitamins, folic acid and folate. In Germany, Karlesberg Braueri is out with a pair of new functional beers aimed at women. Karla Well-B, for instance, is made with lecithin, folic acid and other vitamins. Karla Balance mixes hops with lemon balm. Both products have just 1% alcohol by volume. Beer may never be the same.
That’s not one of the trends in beer I would have predicted needed watching, but then I don’t have the research apparently Datamonitor does. But I already have prima facie questions about it. Their initial justification is that “beer [is] losing ground to wine in many markets around the world.” But I haven’t seen anything more than polls that only anecdotally support that, and even some of that data doesn’t support that conclusion. Sales of beer are still many times wine (4 to 1 in the U.S.) so how true is that assertion?
I have no problem with the health benefits of beer being touted in beer marketing and advertising. Craft beer without any additives at all has many proven and theoretical health benefits. That the TTB doesn’t permit beer companies to make those claims because it might promote drinking is puritanical nonsense that has no place in a free society. Beer with health additives seem like novelties to me, however sincere their makers may be. Many I’ve tried taste just fine to me, but there appeal seems largely aimed at persons for whom the particular claim of each one resonates in some particular way for that customer. In other words, their appeal is more limited. They are, after all, niche products by definition and many are sub-niches of broader categories like health food products or organics.
So I just don’t see these as trends worthy of our constant attention next year. Far more likely trends to watch, I think, will be organic beers and gluten-free, but only time will tell. What do you think? What will be the hot new trends in beer next year?
To start talking about Anhesuer-Busch’s first big ad campaign since acquiring the Rolling Rock brand, you first should see the first volley, this “beer ape” commercial. Go ahead, press play. I’ll wait.
The next commercial on television now features a Ron Stablehorn apologizing for the ad you just watched as being offensive to the “Friends of Rolling Rock.” And you can see why, the ad is about as offensive as any other A-B ad I’ve seen. But if you didn’t already see it coming, the whole thing is a sham, a put-on, a con job — use whatever phrase you like — it’s a fake controversy created as a part of a more complicated ploy. There is no Ron Stablehorn and no “Friends of Rolling Rock” organization. The irony I think is that there truly are no friends of Rolling Rock left after A-B’s controversial decision to not purchase the Latrobe Brewery where Rolling Rock had been brewed since 1939 and move production to Newark, New Jersey. Maybe it’s just me, but a pretend controversy just months after a real one in which the Latrobe Brewery closed and hundreds of workers have been unemployed since late July, seems a tad insensitive to me. I realize the brewery has been sold and should reopen, but that doesn’t change the fact that an entire town was effected by A-B’s decision not to buy the brewery in Latrobe.
Apparently I’m not the only one, either as an article in today’s Pittsburgh Tribune-Review makes clear.
From the article:
Kelley Skoloda, a partner at Ketchum Communications, Downtown, said viral marketing generates attention for a company by using outrageous, ludicrous or funny images, which create buzz and give consumers something to talk about. It typically resonates with the coveted Gen Y demographic, and is meant to spread organically, from friend to friend, rather than through a spokesman with an agenda.
But Skoloda and Robert Gilbert, professor of marketing at the Katz Graduate School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed that the beer ape-bumbling executive campaign will get a much different response in Western Pennsylvania, since this summer Anheuser-Busch shuttered the Latrobe brewery, home of Rolling Rock beer for nearly 70 years.
Skoloda also said that “from what she’s seen of the campaign, most people don’t think it’s all that funny. I think the key to creating a viral campaign is transparency,” she said. “It may not be as clear as it needs to be with this campaign.”
Gilbert added that the campaign “is probably a whole lot less offensive than taking their jobs away from them. I’m not sure the people at Anheuser-Busch are getting great joy throwing salt in the wound, I just think it never dawned on them.” It may not give them great joy, but they do seem to do it an awful lot. See for example, my previous rant about that very issue, in which I even used the exact same language.
Tom Marflak, the mayor of Latrobe, Pennsylvania (and now a Coors Light drinker), had this to say:
“They destroyed this city. It was a total slap in the face when they came in here, and just bought everything, even the green bottles.”
It’s funny how good A-B’s advertisers are at doing an ad with no substance that’s designed to be just slightly offensive, just enough so that they’d be convinced it was possible that viewers less enlightened then they are could find it offensive but without finding it offensive themselves. That’s a pretty thin tightrope to walk. Did they succeed? Apparently half-a-million visitors have gone to Rolling Rock’s website to learn more about the supposed controversy, so yeah, people really are that gullible.
Another oddity about the new ad campaign is the way they’re framing the kind of beer Rolling Rock is, which the ads describe as a “classic extra pale lager with a rich tradition.” First, I don’t see how you call something that’s “extra pale” a classic, but perhaps that’s my own prejudice. Pale is defined as “lacking intensity of color; colorless or whitish.” How can something have an “extra” lack of color or be “extra” white? Next, invoking a “rich tradition” is weird when you consider Rolling Rock’s richest tradition is that the beer came “from the glass-lined tanks of old Latrobe,” a tradition A-B dismantled when they moved production to the next state over.
Is this a dignified way for A-B to rebuild the brand after buying it? Over the years they’ve used horses, frogs, dogs, lizards and now an ape to promote one of their brands so it’s certainly fits with their pattern of ad campaigns. They’re going after young twenty-somethings, obviously, and I realize the “beer ape” is not really a spokes-animal for Rolling Rock (unless of course, it proves popular) but it’s hardly an audacious beginning. I would have expected something aimed above the level of primates, but maybe that’s the demographic A-B is going after: people who closely identify themselves with apes. Was Jane Goodall at that pool party?
In award-winning Philadelphia beer writer Don Russell’s Joe Sixpack column Friday, he argues persuasively that the term “beer sommelier” is oxymoronic because the word “sommelier” by definition refers specifically to wine. He’s right about that, of course. Here’s the dictionary definition:
a waiter, as in a club or restaurant, who is in charge of wines.
“sommelier.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Other dictionaries also mention wine specifically in their definitions, too. It’s clear the word is clumsy at best. It’s only usefulness stems from being a word most people already understand, at least in wine terms.
But Russell also argues that we should not borrow from the wine industry’s terms, which he describes as “the winofication of beer.” I heartily agree with that sentiment. It seems a shame that wine analogies are often so effective and it’s for that reason I’m guilty of using them, too. But we should be able to describe beer using its own vocabulary.
Don’s suggestion to replace beer sommelier with the term Cellarman, which has a rich history in the brewing world. I’m not quite convinced that’s the right word, but he’s definitely on to something and like the direction he’s taking the debate.
This is a strange admission for me, but — geez, I can’t believe I’m saying this — I actually agree with almost all of Miller’s list of “Man Laws,” part of their newest ad campaign to persuade people that drinking Miller Lite isn’t just for kids, er … young adults, anymore. Maybe that says more about me than the Man Laws, who knows? If you’re a regular reader of the Bulletin, you know how I feel about low-calorie light beers — no sane person should drink them … ever. But I have to give Miller their props, especially after a number of ill-fated and ill-advised ad campaigns. Anybody else remember the ads by “Dick” in the late ’90s? Or the infamous Catfight? The Man Laws are at least somewhat clever. There was an interesting article in yesterday’s New York Times by Stuart Elliot all about the unusual partnership between Miller and the magazine FHM (For Him Magazine), a British men’ magazine with an American version. FHM is a men’s magazine in the mold of Maxim or Stuff, not Playboy.
Apparently in one of the new models to get advertising for major accounts, magazines are pitted against one another to come up with the concepts themselves, essentially taking on the role of advertising agency for the privilege of winning a company’s advertising. I guess that’s cutting edge and obviously winning the accounts is lucrative for the magazines, but it sure feels a little sleazy to me. I’m sure that’s my own naivete and sense of fair play, but how about these companies come up with their own ways to advertise their products?
From the Times’ article:
The FHM print campaign was selected after a competition that pitted ideas from the magazine’s ad sales department against those submitted by their counterparts at several other monthly men’s magazines. As is becoming increasingly common as magazines battle the new media for ad dollars, the FHM campaign involves elements that extend beyond prosaic ad pages.
Readers can take part in a contest on a special Web site (fhmus.com/manlaws), to which they can upload photographs to report “violations” of the laws. The contest is also accepting entries through cellphone text messages and e-mail messages.
Here is a list of all of the current Man Laws:
The best photographs depicting violations of the Man Laws are then entered into a contest, which … let’s let the Times continue explaining how it works:
In an example of the trend known as consumer-generated content, the best entries from the contest will be compiled in a 16-page booklet to accompany the May issue of FHM. For readers who cannot wait that long to learn the finer points of “man laws,” Miller Lite will be the sole sponsor of a 2007 calendar that will be included free with the January/February issue of FHM.
It’s an interesting concept and certainly better than most of Miller’s recent ad campaigns. Now if only they’d put some more effort into making some better tasting beers.
There was an interesting rant in today’s Canada Free Press by a Dr. W. Gifford Jones who was incensed about a Canadian brewer who was told he could not inform his customers about any health claims about his beer whatsoever under Canadian law. Dr. Jones used that incident as a jumping off place to question the hypocrisy in this aspect of Canadian society, which undoubtedly parallels that of the U.S., at least with respect to this issue.
I somewhat optimistically assume the slight that beer receives at the hands of our intrepid mainstream media will never get as bad as the last example of it, and yet more often than not I am proved wrong. Take MSNBC’s list today of their choices for the world’s Top 10 cities for beer lovers. Or rather the advertisement pretending to be news, because MSNBC’s list has no discernible author but instead appears to have been compiled and written by Sherman’s Travel, making it more like an infomercial than actual news, though it’s shamelessly made to look exactly the same as any real news item. But maybe it’s a good thing it’s not real news, because as news it’s laughably bad. As travel suggestions, at least it makes a little more sense since the goal is not to educate but to sell vacations. As a consequence accuracy or even logic is not only unnecessary but might get in the way of their ultimate goal. It’s a little sad that MSNBC, which at least is masquerading as a real news outlet, would “partner” with a travel agency to essentially hoodwink their readers into believing an author who knows what they’re talking about is sharing the inside track on beer destinations. But unfortunately the blurring between commerce and the media is all but complete.
Here’s the list Sherman’s Travel offers up as the best ten places worldwide for people who love beer:
Notice anything funny about that list. It’s not immediately apparent on MSNBC, but when you see them as a straight list then it’s obvious the list isn’t even trying to put them in any kind of order, because they’re alphabetical. There’s already been a lively debate about the order of the choices but I think we can dispense with any further discussions about rankings since there really aren’t any. Viewed in that light, it becomes obvious they were more concerned about a list that was spread out across the globe, the better to sell travel packages, the bread and butter of travel agencies.
But let’s look at their choices and the reasons they give for them.
1. Amsterdam: After listing the best known Dutch beers as “Heineken, Grolsch, and Amstel” (hardly the reason to visit Amsterdam, not that there aren’t good reasons to go) they suggest trying instead “artisanal blends [huh?] and witte (wheat) beers from neighboring Belgium.” Um, wouldn’t it make more sense to go to Belgium and drink there? I’m not planning a trip to France so I can sample the Napa Valley wines.
2. Berlin: Since this is the only German city on the list, apart from mentioning Munich in the introduction, it seems reasonable to assume they think it’s the best city for beer in Germany. There are places all throughout Germany, of course, rich with brewing heritage and Munich alone is a better choice than Berlin, as is almost anywhere in Bavaria.
3. Brugge: While it’s good that there is a Belgian city on the list, sadly there is no beer brewed today in Brugge so it seems an odd choice. Perhaps they have a good airport.
4. Burlington: This one is a bit of a head-scratcher. While I think Magic Hat Brewing does indeed make some very fine beers, and I’ve enjoyed my trips to Vermont immensely, I cannot fathom by what possible criteria this small college town has a better beer scene than San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Philadelphia or any number of other American cities.
5. Dublin: While there is indeed history aplenty in Dublin, it’s all pretty one-dimensionally Guinness, apart from the few recent craft brewers in town. There are lot of great pubs here, but diversity is not this city’s hallmark. And given what Diageo has done to Guinness’ reputation and the beer itself, it’s pretty hard to justify Dublin as one of the ten best, beer-wise.
6. Mexico City: Ha, ha, ha , ha. Mexico City as a beer town. Stop, you’re making my sides split. The article suggests trying “Corona, the signature Mexican brew” could be the height of your trip. Now why anyone even drinks the stuff is beyond me, but that aside why on Earth would you go to Mexico to get one, when every 7-11 and corner liquor store has stacks of it? Well Sherman’s Travel suggests you can try the Dos Equis or the Bohemia, also ubiquitous north of the border. Ridiculous.
7. Montreal: Okay, I’ll buy this one. I’m not sure it quite makes my personal top ten list, but it would be close and given how bad some of the other choices are, this has obvious merits.
8. Portland: No question Portland should be on the list, and probably near the top.
9. Prague: Okay, I’ve got nothing against Prague but here’s how the articles sells it. After giving the dubious reason that it’s inexpensive it’s “also home to the original (and many would say better) Budweiser.” Um, Prague is the home of Budvar? Did I miss a meeting? Did the town of České Budějovice merge with Prague? Given that it’s at least 40 miles south as the crow flies, I’d say that’s a bit of a stretch.
10. Sapporo: The reason they chose this Japanese town is because you can “purchase [beer] from vending machines on the street.” Now that’s a reason to spend fourteen hours on an airplane, so I can buy a can of beer from a vending machine. No thanks.
What a joke this list is, and as much for what they left off as what they chose. There’s not one British city, not even London, where ale is king. How is that possible? And several (Berlin, Burlington, Mexico City and Sapporo) have absolutely no business being on this list. MSNBC should be embarrassed to lend their name on something this grotesque. I’d be curious how much it costs to pretend your advertisement is news.
The “smell of fermentation?” More like the smell of incompetence, as respected wine writer Thom Elkjer bumbles wildly through a new beer article in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, apparently angling to become the Sergeant Schultz of beer. His first impression upon entering the Russian River Brewery is the stainless steel tanks and the “smell of fermentation.” When I read his article, the only scent I get is of his ignorance.
The article is titled Artisan brewers thrive in the Wine Country and in it he profiles Russian River Brewing Co. of Santa Rosa and Anderson Valley Brewing Co. of Boonville, and also talks more generally about craft beer in the Bay Area.
He begins by sampling Russian River Brewing’s wonderfully complex Damnation and spits out the sample into the floor drain, thus missing half the beer’s flavor! That’s only the first outrage in what I believe quite possibly may be the most ignorant piece of writing on the subject of beer that I’ve read all year. I’m glad that the Chronicle is once more writing about beer after Linda Murphy, the one wine writer that knew something about it, left in August. But there are so many mistakes and insults in Elkjer’s feature article that I almost feel embarrassed for him. And the Chronicle likewise should feel embarrassed for doing such a disservice to its many beer-loving readers.
There are so many things to call attention to in the article that I could spend all day on it, but I’ll confine myself to just a few and leave it to others to discover the rest.
He claims that early craft brewers originally “went into the commercial business to make a fresh, draft version of their favorite bottled import.” But most early craft brewers made a pale ale or amber ale as their flagship beer, while a majority of imports were still lagers. To be sure there were some pale ales — Bass Ale springs to mind — but they were a relative minority. Imports certainly “inspired” many early brewers, but for a variety of reasons making ales was a much more cost effective way to start a microbrewery in those days.
Elkjer goes on to describe “stout and ale” as some of the “time-honored categories” to describe “their beers — just as winemakers do.” I’m pretty sure wines are usually described by the primary grape or the region (appellation) they come from. Wouldn’t that mean that Sierra Nevada Pale Ale should be called “Cascade Ale.” And when did ale and stout become distinct categories? They’re not, of course, and I can’t even bring myself to insult my readers by explaining this.
After reporting how Vinnie Cilurzo is embracing Brettanomyces to create many of Russian River’s bolder beers, unlike winemakers who generally hate the stuff, he says its odor reminds “most people of barnyard manure.” So is he saying Vinnie’s beer using that yeast tastes or smells “shitty?” I think the more common description of Brett is “horse blanket” or similar allusions and while I accept that many people find it off-putting, I’ve never considered scatological descriptors. I think that’s a little insulting, frankly.
Elkjer next explains that Russian River is not the only brewer making this type of beer, and mentions Tomme Arthur, too, before dropping this bombshell. “There are, for example, more than 400 different beers made at Belgium’s Trappist monasteries.” Wow, that’s a lot of different beers made at a grand total of seven — count ’em — seven Trappist breweries in the world (6 in Belgium, 1 in The Netherlands). Some very simple fact-checking would likely have revealed this error, but it suggests a lack of follow-up or research, along with a careless disregard for the subject matter.
The author then talks about the history of hops in northern California’s past, explaining how hops were once “roasted” throughout the region. I don’t know what they did with the hops after they roasted them — assuming they didn’t catch on fire — because they’d be all but useless in making beer. While I can’t say some hop pellets have never been put in a frying pan for a few seconds to get some different qualities out of the hops in dry-hopping by some eccentric brewer, generally speaking nobody in their right mind roasts hops. There are far better and safer ways to get roasted flavors in your beer. But to Thom, “[r]oasted hops are one of the two essential ingredients in most beer (the other is malted barley).” I’m not sure what happened to the yeast and water, perhaps they’re not as essential?
And apparently it’s not just beer that Elkjer is ignorant about, he’s not so hot at math, either. In discussing the alcohol (a.b.v.) in Russian River’s beers, he claims Deification at 6.35% is “around twice the average of mass-produced beers.” Budweiser weighs in at 4.9%. You do the math, does that add up? He later refers to a 5.5% beer as a “session beer,” which he also defines as a beer to drink “during a long meal.” I didn’t realize “length of meal time” was one of the criteria you should use in choosing the right beer pairing for your dinner.
Later, he reveals the target demographic for “session beers” are “women as well as immigrants” and that’s who microbreweries are focusing on appealing to. Now, do female immigrants want a beer that’s twice as low-alcohol since they’re both “women as well as immigrants” or are they just twice as likely to want one? It’s amazing how dismissive and insulting that sounds, but frankly that’s how the whole things strikes me. This just seems to be written by someone who all but hates what he’s writing about.
But there’s more condescension around the next corner where Elkjer writes off brewpub food as “simple, hearty and well matched with the beverages,” implying, of course that the “beverages” are simple, too. Oh, and if you spend the entire day drinking beer, by all means learn from the adults, your betters, and, as Elkjer suggests, “do what the wine tasters do: rent a limousine or choose a designated driver.” Thanks Thom, that would never have occurred to me, what a thoughtful suggestion. We beer folk are such simple people, we sure do need your sophisticated guidance, by golly.
Elkjer ends his article, at least online (in the paper I believe it’s probably a sidebar), with a list and short description of wine country craft breweries, though curiously he omits Dempsey’s in Petaluma, among others. Here are just a couple of his comments:
Bear Republic has “a goofy gift shop.”
Calistoga Inn Restaurant & Brewery is a “real restaurant that happens to make 400 barrels of beer.” So the other brewpub restaurants aren’t “real?”
Now apparently Thom Elkjer is a very well-respected wine writer who writes for numerous wine magazines and newspapers, including, according to his biography on WineCountry.com, “Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast, Wine Country Living, VINE Napa Valley, and WINE.” He’s also written several books about wine. But from some simple searching, I can’t find another instance where he’s written about beer before and, if that’s true, boy does it show. But as some of my own critics have pointed out, the fault lies more properly with the editors, the publication handing out the assignment rather than the author. And that certainly may be true to a certain extent. Because I, too, would probably not turn down an assignment that paid well in a prominent publication, even if they asked me to write about something outside my area of expertise. But I also would have done a lot of research, fact-checked the piece to death, and asked people who did know the subject to look at it first. I would have gone over it with a fine tooth comb if for no other reason than simply to not embarrass myself and also insure that it wasn’t the last assignment I ever got from the publication.
Elkjer’s piece, on the other hand, is so riddled with simple, laughable errors and insulting, dismissive rhetoric that I’m truly perplexed that his article moved from the editor’s desk to the copy editor and on the printing press without somebody noticing something might be amiss. I know these are busy people. I know they have deadlines. I know they don’t know jack about beer. But how do you miss insulting “women and immigrants” by reinforcing stereotypes and suggesting they both prefer low-alcohol beers. I need look no farther than my own wife to know how wrong that stereotype is. And by now isn’t it fairly common knowledge that while wine tasters spit out the samples, beer aficionados do not?
This is or should be, I think, a source of much embarassment to the San Francisco Chronicle. Their newspaper is smack dab in the middle of one the most exciting places on Earth for craft brewing, where there are countless innovations taking place right under their noses. Yet the largest news organization in the Bay Area remains blissfully ignorant of what’s going on all around them, or even that it’s going on at all. More and more people are discovering craft beer in all its wonderfully varied diversity despite the Chronicle’s best efforts to keep their readers in the dark. And that may be the saddest commentary of all.
Stan over at Appellation Beer put me on to this. In Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, drinks writer Eric Felton, in reviewing Maureen Ogle’s Ambitious Brew, says the following in his concluding remarks:
It was a taste that favored bland beer, and the brewers bowed to that public preference until the microbrewery revolution that got going in earnest about 20 years ago. Ms. Ogle tells that story with appreciation for the new school of brewers but without the snarky prejudice against the big corporate beer companies that is so common to today’s beer snobs. It is one of the virtues of her history of American beer that Ms. Ogle isn’t afraid to admit admiration for the bold risks and ambitions of the capitalists — then and now — who have made beer their business. [my emphasis]
Now I’m a self-avowed beer snob. Do I have a “snarky prejudice against the big corporate beer companies?” Let’s look at what that means.
Snarky is defined by the O.E.D. as “sharply critical” and I am certainly that with regard to most of corporate America, but yes, especially the big beer companies. And Merriam-Webster defines it as “sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner.” I’m certainly often sarcastic and irreverent, though I don’t believe I’m impertinent (which they also define as “not restrained within due or proper bounds especially of propriety or good taste” or “given to or characterized by insolent rudeness.”). I don’t really believe the relationship between critic and the object of criticism should be restrained by any bounds or should avoid being rude under some circumstances or that any company necessarily deserves to be treated within “proper bounds.” I don’t mean to suggest one should go out of their way to be impertinent but we likewise shouldn’t shrink from it if appropriate. So by the more common definitions, impertinence aside, I am often snarky, and quite proud of it. What’s wrong with drawing attention to things I believe to be false, misleading, etc. That’s what journalists are supposed to do in reporting to the public. The media should “comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.” But more often today’s media does just the opposite, promoting the agenda of their advertisers, who are almost always businesses.
But now let’s look at prejudice. That’s a much more loaded word. Here are its most common meanings:
- an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
- any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
- unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
prejudice. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved November 01, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice
And the O.E.D.’s main definition is a “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience.”
So prejudice is based on forming an opinion, and usually an “unreasonable” one, “without knowledge, thought or reason” or “without experience.” Now is that why so many beer snobs do not care for the big beer companies? Is is that we just don’t “get them?” If only we’d experience them by drinking their products, think about them, or learn the true message of capitalism they’re bring to the world then we’d stop our misguided criticisms of big business. Only then perhaps we could celebrate their “bold risks” and admire their deeds.
What utter nonsense. Beer snobs don’t like the big beer companies precisely because we have experience with them. Our opinions are based on a thorough knowledge of what they’re up to, we can reason that their business practices often harm smaller business. Experience has shown us that the bigger beer companies have been putting the smaller ones out of business for decades. I should admire such predatory instincts as they decimate this country’s brewing heritage with their ambition and their bold risks (which are not actually usually that bold given government subsidies, lobbying efforts, etc.)? I know that the big companies are capable of brewing more flavorful beers but choose not to and then deceive the public with advertising designed to disguise that fact and in fact try to destroy the image of all beer so they can sell the more cheaply made industrial equivalent they sell in its place. How admirable. Am I being snarky. You bet I am. But this is not a beer snob’s prejudiced opinion, it’s an opinion based on experience, knowledge, thought and is utterly reasonable under the circumstances.
Should wine snobs appreciate Gallo, Wild Turkey and Blue Nun, too? Is the only reason they don’t because they’ve failed to admire the bold risks and ambitions of the capitalists who have made wine their business? Is the reason I don’t like Wonder Bread because I don’t admire the bold risks and ambitions of the capitalists who have made bread their business?
I realize Felton writes for the business focused Wall Street Journal and he probably can’t help being a cheerleader for big business. The Wall Street Journal is, after all, owned by Dow Jones, making it in effect big business itself. But he sincerely pisses me off when he accuses the good beer community of not supporting big business because we’re ignorant of their boldness, their risk-taking ambitions, or because they’ve made beer their business, too.
Beer snobs celebrate what’s best in beer and that’s not usually the core brands of the largest beer companies. We’ve tasted them and tasted them to come to that conclusion. The best beer snobs I know will taste any beer and make a sober assessment of its quality as a beer, regardless of who made it. But like anything, the more you taste the different products of a brewery over and over again, certain patterns tend to emerge. Brewery A tends to make very good beers. Brewery B does not. Those are not prejudices but realistic impressions that are created over time. And from time to time, Brewery A makes a dud and B brews up a winner and beer snobs are the first to admit it when that happens.
Eric Felton is, quite simply, full of it, and is being quite snarkily impertinent himself. He’s certainly jumped to an unreasonable and unsupportable opinion about beer snobs — now that’s prejudice.
I got a comment today to an old post about the daughter of a Latrobe Brewery employee’s petition and open letter to Anheuser-Busch president Augie Busch IV hoping to persuade A-B not to move production of Rolling Rock and close the Latrobe Brewery.
Here’s the comment, from Bud:
The brewery has nothing to do with A-B. The letter and these comments are meaning less.
The original post was from May of this year, one week after the announcement that the Latrobe Brewery would be closing at the end of July and A-B would move production to their plant in Newark, New Jersey. It was an emotional time, especially for the town and the families who were losing their livelihoods when and if the brewery closed. So many people, myself included, didn’t initially focus on the details. But as it was later pointed out, it was InBev who would decide the fate of the Latrobe Brewery, not Anheuser-Busch. A-B bought the rights to the Rolling Rock brand and not the brewery itself from InBev. Of course, we don’t know if the brewery was originally part of the deal and it was negotiated away as one of the terms of the sale to A-B. We know A-B didn’t need another brewery. We know later in May A-B categorically said they were not interested in the Latrobe Brewery. It’s tricky to speculate, of course, but it seems logical that InBev would have preferred to sell both the brand and the brewery to one buyer. That would have been better for them but as we’ve seen, not for the ultimate buyer of the Rolling Rock brand.
Regardless of who carved the brewery out of the deal or even if it never was part of the deal, there was a backlash against A-B. Many people were upset that A-B was moving production of the brand to New Jersey. From a purely by-the-numbers business point-of-view, one can certainly see the logic in the decision. But, of course, business is often not just about the numbers. There are also PR considerations, especially for a company so large and so visible as Anheuser-Busch, one that claims in lofty terms its desire to be a seen as a good corporate citizen. So A-B was certainly involved, even if indirectly, in this story and they indeed played some role in the future of the town of Latrobe, the Latrobe Brewery and the employees of the brewery. To believe otherwise I find quite naive. A-B may not have had a legal obligation to the brewery or its employees, but an argument can be made that they did have a moral one. They made the decision to not buy the Latrobe Brewery — there’s no question InBev would have sold it to them — so it’s not unreasonable for A-B to shoulder some of the blame. It may be merely an externality (an economic term for costs not borne by a company, but by others as a direct or indirect result of the company’s actions) but people were harmed by their decision. It did not happen in a vacuum, as Bud, our commenter, seems to believe. InBev, did eventually find a buyer and City Brewing of LaCrosse, Wisconsin finalized the sale in late September, but the brewery did close at the end of July. As of today, I don’t believe the Latrobe Brewery employees are back to work yet.
But let’s get back to Bud. Why should we care if he doesn’t understand how A-B might have been even a little responsible for what happened in Latrobe, Pennsylvania? Why should we take offense if Bud asserts that if A-B has no legal obligations, then anything the people effected by these events have to say about it is “meaning less (sic)?” Well here’s the thing. Bud may have used his America Online account to post his comment, but he sent it from work. And apparently he’s unaware that you’re never completely anonymous in cyberspace, because thanks to a signature embedded in his post I know he’s an Anheuser-Busch employee. He made his comment from a server at One Busch Place in St. Louis, Missouri and, from the look of it, one of the corporate servers. I suspect he’s not in the marketing department or upper management — they would have known better. But I guess people caring about their community, brewing history and their livelihoods really rankled Bud and he couldn’t resist proclaiming A-B’s innocence in all of this. Coming from an A-B employee, his otherwise simple cluelessness comes across to me as arrogant and showing a distinct lack of compassion. People fighting for their community, their heritage and their ability to put food on the table to feed their families should never be called “meaningless,” least of all by the very people forcing them into that situation.
Christina Gumola, the woman who wrote the letter, later responded to my own reservations about the potential efficacy of her letter to Busch IV as follows:
Of course my efforts may seem far fetched; however if people just accepted being told “no” and didn’t fight for what they believed in then chances are they are not too happy. I’ve always fought for what I believed in and most of the time had positive results by doing so. I am also a realist and understand that nothing may occur as a result of my efforts. At least I know that I tried! I would like to thank those of you who, though may be pessimistic, but are still supportive. I really appreciate it. Finally, fight for what you believe in-you won’t have the chance for what you want if you just let it go!!
It’s hard to read that and not want to take Bud by the scruff of his arrogant little neck and shake him a little bit just to see if he’s got a heart beating in his chest. All of her efforts may be meaningless to you, Bud, but at least she tried to fight for what she believed in, however hopeless. What have you done lately that you can be proud of besides pour salt into a wound your employer helped open in the first place?