Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

U.K. Shows Perspective in Rejecting Increasing Beer Tax

By

Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary for the U.K.’s Department of Health, during an interview Friday in youth newspaper First News told them that she would ask the British government to increase the tax on alcohol, and especially alcopops, as a way of combating underage binge drinking. And not just increase them, but “really increase taxes on alcohol.”

The Treasury Department quickly rejected her call for the increase, suggesting that it was her job to combat binge drinking and raising taxes on all alcohol would “punish responsible drinkers in an attempt to change the behaviour of a small minority.” Amen.

And according to the Daily Express, another “Treasury source said the idea was misguided because the main consumers of alcopops were no longer youngsters, while the move also risked driving whisky producers out of business.”

Now if only our government could find its spine to stand up to the neo-prohibitionist agenda in similar fashion. Ah, dare to dream …

New York Magazine Letter to the Editor

By

A couple of weeks ago, New York Magazine did a tasting of several unrelated beers and published their findings. Stephen Beaumont wrote an essay decrying the article and I likewise threw in my two cents, adding some random complaints.

The magazine, to their credit, invited Stephen to write a letter to the editor and he graciously invited some other beer writers to also sign the letter, in the hopes of having it carry more weight. The issue for the week of October 30 has printed his letter in their Letters to the Editor section, and I’ve also reprinted it below.

Ales in Comparison

As writers and editors who specialize in beer, we’re always delighted to see our preferred beverage receive coverage in the mainstream press, even when the story doesn’t involve any of us. Really, we are. But we’re dismayed when said story fails to treat such a noble drink with the respect it deserves, as was the case in Ben Mathis-Lilley’s “Ales in Comparison” [“Strategist: Taste Testing,” October 16]. Would New York Magazine assemble a random group of “enthusiastic” art lovers to critique the latest show at the MoMA? Would it publish a review of a haphazardly selected group of wines, sherries, ports, and champagnes, dismissing one as “girlie,” another as “sissy,” and a third simply because it has “a funny name”? Again, likely not. Yet this is exactly what Mathis-Lilley does, presumably because beer’s egalitarian reputation makes it somehow okay. Please, continue publishing stories about beer. There is a wealth of choice out there, and consumers no doubt appreciate all the guidance they can find. But before you commission your next article, please take a look at the methodology involved and ask yourselves, “Would this be acceptable were the topic fine wine, theater, or the city’s latest culinary hot spot?”

—Stephen Beaumont, writer, worldofbeer.com; Julie Bradford, editor, All About Beer; Jay Brooks, writer, brookstonbeerbulletin.com; Lew Bryson, writer, lewbryson.com; Tom Dalldorf, publisher, Celebrator Beer News; John Hansell, publisher, Malt Advocate

Will it do any good? Who knows, but you do what you can, fight the good fight and hope for the best.
 

Pete’s Wicked Stout Marinade?

By

In today’s North Coast Journal, a weekly alernative rag for Humboldt County, California, in the food section called Talk of the Table, Joseph Byrd has an article titled Texas Chili. The food information looks sound enough, but I’m no expert on chili. He begins by detailing what chili is, where it originated (San Antonio, according to the article), and begins going through detailed instructions on how to make it, all well and good. However, mid-way through his piece he writes the following:

The meat is put into a marinade of dark bitter stout overnight. There is a dark beer called “Pete’s Wicked Ale” which I find nasty and undrinkable, but it’s perfect for this purpose.

Now Pete’s Wicked Ale began its life as an American Brown Ale. Now that the original Pete has left for more chocolatey pastures, my memory is that under Gambrinus these days it more resembles an amber ale. And it’s ironic that Pete’s Wicked Ale today is brewed in San Antonio, Texas, the home of chili. But either way, it’s hardly a stout, and frankly I have a hard time calling it a dark beer. But I suppose if industral light lager is your standard — which is my guess — (with something like 1 lovibond) then I suppose Pete’s Wicked Ale is at least much darker.

I can certainly imagine it would make a fine marinade — after all, many beers do — but to describe the beer as “nasty and undrinkable” seems downright pernicious, and not just to the beer but also to the author’s own reputation. I say that because such a description shows a certain ignorance for the subject matter and calls into question his qualifications overall, in my opinion. It’s one thing to dislike a particular beer — I dislike plenty — but to label it “undrinkable” and confuse it with a stout shows a certain lack of sophistication regarding his beer knowledge. And it begs the question why such an aside was even necessary? What was the purpose of offering how distasteful the author found the beer? It doesn’t really add anything to the story, unless he wanted to be sure none of his readers might mistake his endorsement of the beer as a marinade for actually liking to drink it, too.

At first, I thought the story originated in Texas, before later realizing he’s right here in California, just a short drive up the coast from me. If he’d been a Texas native, I might more easily forgive his apparent lack of beer savvy, but here in California as a food writer it’s an unpardonable sin.

Giving the Bishop the Finger

By

Did you know sex sells? Yeah, me neither. The late comedian and social critic Bill Hicks used to say that the advertisement that big business wants to run is simply a photograph of an attractive woman fully naked and the text “Drink Coke” (or any other company’s slogan). Unlike me, he made it sound funny, of course, but the point is that it’s not really a secret that sex is used to sell almost every imaginable kind of product or service. I had a whole semester on this subject in college, where we were even shown the word s-e-x spelled out in an older version of KFC’s Colonel Sanders logo, along with much else.

Among beer advertisements, especially those of the big breweries, sex is a frequent sales tool from the Coors Twins to St. Pauli Girl. A review of older beer ads will quickly reveal that this is not a new phenomenon, either. Many early breweries used attractive women in their advertising. I’m not necessarily opposed to seeing an attractive woman per se, but when it’s used merely to pander to base instincts and outmoded stereotypes then it’s bad for the beer industry, at least in my opinion. Most of the worst examples of this — Miller’s mud wrestling “cat fight” ad was a particularly bad one — essentially take the position that their target audience is all but exclusively male or certainly male enough that they can safely alienate half the total population. And not just any male, but a certain kind of unenlightened male, the ones for whom Jackass, Beavis and Butthead, Dumb and Dumber, and Beerfest are all high art. Does that make me elitist? Maybe, but I’d rather that than see beer’s image continue to be so unceasingly tarnished.

Not surprisingly, that is outmoded thinking, because the demographics of beer are changing and beer drinking among women is on the rise. Some recent studies show that of the total beer consumed in America, women drank 25% of it. And while it may be no surprise that the age group with the most women beer drinkers is 21-30, the number of women drinking beer who are over age 50 is growing significantly.

But I wouldn’t argue that sexual imagery should never be used in advertising (or art or anywhere else). I don’t think that’s the right solution and frankly I don’t think it possible. Despite fundamentalist attempts globally to suppress sexual awareness and expression, it is a potent part of human nature. Without the sexual urge, we might never procreate and continue as a species so it certainly fills a very vital role in the life cycle.

I would suggest, however, that common sense and a sense of perspective and context might be employed in how sexual images are used, not least of which because we’ll never evolve if advertising continues to keep us wallowing (and literally wrestling) in the mud of our basest primal instincts. The people whose products are being advertised in these ways should have a bit more respect for themselves and their product. Why the big beer companies want to associate themselves with mud wrestling, talking frogs, man law, flatulent horses, etc. is beyond me because it does nothing to elevate the image of their product. Interestingly, when Miller tried to change that carefully created image by using the tagline “Beer: Grown Up,” hardly anyone was buying it. USA Today polls showed a majority of people didn’t like the ads and didn’t think they were effective. Despite Terry Haley, the brand manager for Miller Genuine Draft, saying “[w]e believe in what we’re doing, [w]e’re tapping into a true social trend, and we’re going to stay the course,” Miller quickly dropped the ads, and switched ad agencies, who presumably will return to the puerile.

But the other side of this debate is one of easy offense and our willingness to censor should even only a sole complaint be lodged. Advertisers, advertising and the media generally beat a very hasty retreat when faced with criticism, which is a powerful wedge for organizations and individuals with agendas and an axe to grind. (The media, of course, is paid for by advertising — you may think that you are TV, the magazine and the newspaper’s customer but you are not. Their customer is the advertiser.) For years, organizations with a small, minority membership have caused havoc for the rest of us when they cried offense at one imagined slight after the other. The media landscape for a time was (and probably still is) rife with stories of letter writing campaigns from citizen’s groups in which television shows (and other media) were deemed by these yahoos to be too provocative, too sexy, used too much bad language, showed different morals then their own, and on and on. Basically, much like neo-prohibitionist groups, some people cannot rest until the world is remade in their own image, indeed they cannot tolerate any difference of opinion or alternative (to their own) lifestyle being on display, especially if their children might furtively glance longingly at such imagined hedonism. Worse still, entire entertainment programs have been altered, changed or canceled, books have been banned, and songs have been censored all on the basis of a few complaints or even a single complaint. That 299,999,999 people in the U.S. do not complain seems to carry no weight, or at least far less weight than the single whiner who does. This is literally the very opposite of a democracy, in which the desires of the many are circumvented and denied by a tiny handful of individuals, or in some cases a single person.

This is, of course, true of advertising as well. The hue and cry against much advertising is loud and shrill and seems never to cease. And while I may not disagree with all of it — I’m no fan of a lot of advertising — I find truly reprehensible the impulse to inflict one’s beliefs on the rest of society, as if any person could be certain of the one, true moral compass and way to live one’s life. That anyone pays attention to these nutjobs is a sad commentary indeed on the way our world is heading, but that’s a debate for another day and another forum.

What prompted all of what preceded, is an item reported yesterday by the BBC News in an article titled ‘Provocative’ beer ad criticized. According to the report, a complaint was filed with the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority, an organization that is paid for by the advertising industry and which acts essentially as an ombudsman. That means that people offended by advertising may file complaints and have their cases adjudicated by the ASA. In this instance, a print ad for Bishop’s Finger, a popular beer brewed by the Shepherd Neame Brewery of Kent, England had a complaint filed against it. The ad that prompted the complaint has been removed from Bishop’s Finger’s website, but here is a similar one:

In the offending one, which apparently ran in the magazine Time Out, the woman was seated on a bale of hay and the text read, “I love a good session on the Bishops Finger.” And here are all seven print ads, after the offending one was quickly removed. The name “Bishop’s Finger” has it’s origin in the “ancient finger-shaped signposts that showed the Pilgrims the way to Canterbury Cathedral” that are unique to the Kent area of southeastern England.

It is overtly sexual? Sure. Is it offensive? Not to me, I find it mildly amusing. It does play on the origin of the beer’s name and hearkens back to Chaucer’s time. It uses a pretty obvious double entendre, of course, but it is in context. According to the BBC article, Bishop’s Finger is known for running humorous ads. At least it’s not a scantily clad bikini gal holding a beer for no discernible reason other than to titillate.

The ASA examined the ad for four breaches of the UK’s advertising guidelines and only found that they had violated one, and ruled as follows:

We considered that the text “I love a good session on the Bishops Finger” played on the connotations of drinking and sexual activity. We considered that the woman’s pose was suggestive and concluded that, in combination with the headline text, it was likely to be seen as linking alcohol with seduction and sexual activity.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 56.9 (Alcoholic drinks).

Here’s 56.9 in its entirety:

Marketing communications must neither link alcohol with seduction, sexual activity or sexual success nor imply that alcohol can enhance attractiveness, masculinity or femininity.

Based on their ruling, the the “Advertising Standards Agency told the beer maker in future to adopt an approach that did not link alcohol with sexual activity.” Okay, I’m sure they’ll get right on that. And given that alcohol and sexual activity are, in fact, linked insofar as sexual activity can be linked with practically anything, I’m not even sure how you could possibly enforce such a perniciously vague standard. Right or wrong, alcohol has been called a “social lubricant” for centuries. That’s one of its roles in society, to pretend otherwise seems dishonest.

But here’s the thing, and perhaps the point of all this — finally — only ONE person in all of England complained about this ad. Only One. Out of a population of more than 60 million people, only ONE person was offended enough to complain. That one person being offended by the ad prompted a full-scale investigation involving who knows how many people, a news article in the BBC, and a major brewer to withdraw an ad from the market. Does that seem reasonable? It sure doesn’t seem so to me. Like many issues of censorship, the person who lodged this complaint could have asked a few friends before starting this ball rolling. Perhaps some friend’s support or non-support might have changed or strengthened their resolve. But even if a 100 people had complained, a hundredfold increase, I would still be skeptical that justice had been served. Perspective has to play in role in looking at issues of censorship and people being offended. I’m sorry this person felt as badly as she (or possibly he, I suppose) claims to have, but that doesn’t mean the whole of England should have to sit up and take notice. Is there anything published in the world today that you couldn’t argue might be offensive to somebody? It’s one thing to be sensitive to the views of others, but quite another to insist the world be inoffensive to all. Every time we pander to such an extreme minority view, however well-intentioned, we fan the flames of intolerance and make it harder for all of us to co-exist. Why can’t we all just have a beer and get along?

How Craft Beer Can Save the World

By

The world’s cup runneth over with living beer traditions. But this vast repository of cultural brewing capital is under attack by global corporations. The top five brewing companies, all of which are American- or European-owned, control 41% of the world market. Perversely, economists and politicians calculate the conquest by industrial breweries as economic growth while the value of small-scale traditional brewing goes uncounted. Much will be lost if this global “beerodiversity” is lost to the forces of corporate-led homogenization.

So begins a very interesting essay at Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF), a think tank, which, according to it’s website, “brings together scholars, advocates, and activists who strive to make the United States a more responsible global partner.” The essay, The Perils of Globeerization, is by Chris O’Brien, who first contacted me a few months ago to tell about his beer activism at his cleverly titled Fermenting Revolution website. The essay is heavy on foreign policy, big business, history and local traditions of alcohol. It may seem somewhat radical to the more conservative, but it certainly agrees with my own view of how the world works. His take on the history and economics of brewing, and especially how the dominant breweries are effecting brewing traditions across the globe is fascinating. And perhaps most importantly, there are obvious parallels to the craft beer industry in America, as well.

O’Brien also has just published a new book, Fermenting Revolution, too, which is available from the publisher, New Society Publishers, or from Amazon. The subject matter seems pretty interesting, I’m looking forward to reading and reviewing it.

 

Drinking in Germany and Nebraska

By

My friend and colleague, Lisa Morrison, sent me this provocative essay by a woman who grew up in Germany but has lived in Nebraska since she was 17. Angelika Byorth, writing in the Daily Nebraskan speaks to how alcohol is handled differently in the two countries and wonders in print whether adopting a lower drinking age and introducing alcohol into the home as a natural part of daily life might not remove some of its stigma. She makes some great points and it’s nice see an alternative viewpoint to the one the neo-prohibitionist lobby is always pushing. Angelika Byorth lost her husband at 47 to alcoholism and still argues in favor of changing our country’s alcohol policy, so she may be harder for the neo-prohibitionists to dismiss and rebut than usual. Regardless of your side on this issue, an interesting piece and well worth reading.

J-Schools and “Happy Amateurism”

By

I’ve been writing quite a bit lately about journalists in the mainstream media who write about beer yet appear to know virtually nothing about the subject. I’ve had a few of my own theories about this phenomenon but I recently came across another one that I hadn’t considered in a book I happened to be reading. The book was 100 Ways America is Screwing Up the World by John Tirman. Number 99 on Tirman’s list is “‘Professional’ Schools, by which he means medical schools, law schools and the one that caught my attention — journalism schools. Here’s his general take on J-schools:

And journalism schools — what is it exactly they teach? What is it that one can learn that will improve skills as an investigator or writer that other disciplines cannot provide? Journalism schools do not and cannot teach problem-solving skills — critical thinking — as well as the social sciences or humanities or natural sciences.

Okay, I think it’s pretty clear he’s no fan of modern journalism. But it was the next sentiments Tirman expressed that really got me thinking about this issue. I hadn’t considered it before, but it makes a lot of sense. Here’s his analysis of the problem:

More than half of the new hires in newsrooms hold undergraduate degrees in journalism. There is an ethic among many in this field of “happy amateurism” — that one can report on anything using certain standard methods. You need not know anything about the covered topic, which means you’ll be at the mercy of people purporting to know — usually the well-heeled who can afford fancy P.R. operations.

That’s exactly the way beer is reported in many instances. A lot of stories originate with press releases from the big breweries, the ones with large marketing budgets. A reporter is then assigned to write the story who appears to know little, if anything at all, about the subject and often seems to do no discernible research. I have always suspected that the way beer is reported extends to other subjects, too, but since I don’t know much about those other disciplines I have no way of knowing. Because if they’ll assign reporters with no knowledge of one subject, why wouldn’t they do the same thing for other topics. So it makes a lot of sense that the problem is the process itself. I mean, it would be simple-minded and ridiculous to suggest there was a conspiracy against beer so this theory goes a long way in explaining why beer is so poorly covered by the media.

Happy amateurism may not explain everything but it seems a very viable start. Unfortunately, if Tirman’s assertion that this is a trend that’s essentially growing as older reporters retire and are replaced by J-school graduates then this problem is only going to get worse unless we can collectively figure out a way to get beer the respect in the media we think it deserves.

Carlsberg to Import Faux Micros

By

Denmark’s Carlsberg Brewery was founded in 1847 by J. C. Jacobsen. It’s the largest brewery in Denmark by a wide margin, with something like 75% of the market, and is the fifth largest brewer worldwide. Carlsberg beers are sold in over 50 countries. In addition to the flagship Carlsberg brand, they also make Elephant, Tuborg and many others. That makes them the Budweiser of Denmark, in terms of size, market share and dominating business practices.

But craft breweries are slowly gaining a toehold throughout the Denmark with over 40 of them currently in operaion plus around 17 brewpubs sharing 2% of the total market. So last year in response, Carlsberg set up the Jacobsen Brewhouse as a separate entity within the main brewery in Valby. As reported earlier this year, by 2008 Carlsberg will be moving all of its production to its Frederica facility, which now mainly brews Tuborg and a few others, and will close the Valby plant. But the Jacobsen line along with the administrative offices will remain in Valby. The new venture is “located in a building dating from 1878 in the old part of the Carlsberg brewery” and part of the Carlsberg Visitors Centre. Undoubtedly this was done to create positive PR for the brewing giant.

So like Pacific Ridge, Plank Road and Blue Moon before them, Carlsberg is making “specialty beers” under the brand name Jacobsen Brewhouse. To their credit, they make no secret of this fact and proudly display the Carlsberg logo alongside the newer Jacobsen one. The unique shape of the bottle is based on the old lighthouse building at the entrance to the old brewery and no expense appears to have been spared on packaging and marketing, which is one of the dangers of these type of beers, in my opinion. Currently four styles are being made: Bramley Wit, Brown Ale, Saaz Blonde and Original Dark Lager. And so far three seasonals have been made under the name “Jacobsen Limited Edition” with more to follow. The initial seasonals were Chocolate Mint Stout, Golden Christmas Ale and Imperial Barley Wine. And according to the website, they “will also produce four beers from Carlsberg’s successful Semper Ardens series: Criollo Stout, IPA First Gold, Abbey Ale, Winter Rye and Christmas Ale.”

Carlsberg just announced that two of the Jacobsen Brewhouse beers, Saaz Blonde and Bramley Wit, will be imported to England this year, and no doubt America may follow. I’ve never tried any of these beers, so I can’t knock their taste. They may very well be fine, well-made and tasty beers.

Here’s how Carlsberg describes these two beers on the Jacobsen Brewhouse website:

Jacobsen Bramley Wit

Jacobsen Bramley Wit is inspired by the Belgian wheat beer tradition, but with a North European touch in the form of Bramley apples for a flesh, sour flavour and Belle de Boskoop apples for a rounded finish. The Belgian wheat beers use dried orange peel, but we have preferred fresh orange peel for a less bitter impression. Jacobsen Bramley Wit has a light colour, an attractive creamy head and a muted bouquet of cloves and coriander.

 Jacobsen Saaz Blonde

Jacobsen Saaz Blonde is brewed according to Belgian traditions for light, top-fermented beers. “Blonde” is the traditional French word for light-coloured beers, while the distinguished Czech malt Saaz with its character of pine needles gives a rounded, aristocratic flavour. Extract of angelica adds a juniper flavour to complement the fruity taste of the yeast. The colour derives from the Pilsner malt characteristic of the Belgian “blonde” tradition, and from a touch of caramel malt to add a slight sweetness.

But all of this brings up the larger issue of big breweries competing with smaller ones on an uneven playing field. Because not only do they try to compete by imitation but also with their larger resources, bigger marketing budgets and a host of other advantages that make the fight anything but fair.

I have no problem with the big breweries making flavorful beers instead of the same old insipid industrial light lagers that dominate the market worldwide, especially when they disclose who’s making them. I have equally no doubt that the big breweries are technically capable of making flavorful beers.

But the heart of the problem is often that the big breweries are big businesses, very big businesses. And all big businesses share a similar ethos and culture that chant the same mantras. Keep costs (ingredients, labor, etc.) low, manipulate the public through advertising and marketing, grow the business every quarter, and the main one (especially for corporations), keep the share price up no matter what.

So it begs the question why in 2005 did Carlsberg feel the need to create a “specialty line of beer” to compete with a handful of tiny breweries catering to very small segment of the market? Why after almost 150 years of making primarily the same products was this decision made now? According to the propaganda, it was “to give people new taste experiences, and we want to challenge and develop beer culture. It’s about making the most of what nature has to offer.” Uh, huh. Sure it is. But let’s assume brewmaster Jens Eiken, head of the new brewhouse (whose quote that is), really believes that — which indeed he probably does — why now? Why not ten years ago, or 50?

In Carlsberg’s the press release when they initially opened the Jacobsen Brewhouse, Nils S. Andersen, Carlsberg’s President, had the following to say:

“In keeping with Carlsberg’s traditions, this is a full and wholehearted venture. This is not some overgrown microbrewery or an exhibition centre — it’s a state-of-the-art brewery where our brewers’ ideas can be brought to fruition with consistently high standards of quality. After all, this is Carlsberg — which means that we have an obligation to maintain the highest quality even when it comes to specialty products and experiments.

“Naturally the Jacobsen brewhouse can draw on all of our expertise at Carlsberg and on the research results from our laboratories, but Jacobsen is to be its own brewery with both the freedom and a duty to create and produce the best and most exciting specialty products in the world — or at least ‘probably the best’, given that these things are always a matter of taste!”

If you’re a regular reader of the Bulletin, you no doubt already know I view large corporations with a great deal of cynicism. I question their ability to make moral or even fair and honest choices when their legal duty to the shareholders is so strikingly singular. They are bound by legal precedent to do only what is in the best interests of the company, and everything and everyone else be damned. Taken to its logical conclusion, that’s how we ended up with so many Enrons, Adelphias, WorldComs and so on. Institutionalized greed with a legal mandate creates environments that cannot tolerate any competition or any erosion of market share. And last year, many larger breweries began to see their customers abandoning their core brands for craft beer, imports (at least here in the U.S.) and even wine and spirits. So as many countries around the world begin to follow the American model and start their own microbrewery revolutions, the status quo big breweries will react in much the same way as they have here in the U.S.

That’s almost certainly the reason why a multi-national company like Carlsberg, with three-quarters of the market in their home country, would feel threatened by 2% of the beer market shifting to craft brewers. They’re incapable of perspective. It’s not permitted any more than losing even an infinitesimal portion of the market can be tolerated. All of the lofty ideals expressed in their marketing is just propaganda, which is what almost all marketing is in reality. In the early days, pioneers like Edward Bernays called it what it was, propaganda. But Hitler had been very impressed with the U.S. War Department’s Office of Public Information (which was headed by Bernays) and its amazing ability to sway public opinion for war just before and during World War One. In fact, so much so, that he adopted many of the same techniques after seizing power in Germany and as a result the term propaganda took on negative connotations and was superseded by the less tainted “Public Relations,” of which marketing is just one part. But as they say, “a rose by any other name …”

So it’s hard not to view the world’s fifth largest brewer waltzing down the same garden path as A-B, SABMiller and Molson Coors (2nd, 3rd and 6th largest, respectively) with anything but suspicion. The beer may, indeed, be good. It may use no adjuncts and be quite delicious. And, if so, I would not hesitate to drink it or support it as I might any well-made craft beer. By the real underlying reasons for making the beer, propaganda aside, are to maintain control and domination of the market and I believe these Goliaths will try to crush every one of their David-like competitors however they can. They may appear to hold out the olive branch of cooperation, tolerance and even support but look behind their back and in the other hand is very large hammer. The only uncertainty is when the hammer will fall.

The Jacobsen Brewhouse at the Carlsberg Visitors Centre in Valby, Denmark.

Dowd on Beer

By

I must confess until a week or so ago I’d never heard of William M. Dowd and his Dowd on Drinks column. He’s got ten blogs — seven of which have something to do with alcohol — under a business umbrella he calls Circle 7 Associates. Based on his resume it appears most of his writing is about wine and spirits, which may explain why I’m not familiar with him. His writing is apparently very widely distributed by both the New York Times News Service and the Hearst News Service. His website lists dozens of newspapers and websites that carry his work. But one of his blogs is “Dowd’s Brews Notebook” and purports to cover beer. And here’s where I think his knowledge is on thinner ice.

The last time I mentioned Dowd was when he wrote that “startled gasps” would occur to being told James Bond might actually drink beer. He was one of the legion of media duped by Heineken (and the film company) that Bond drank beer in Fleming’s first novel, Casino Royale, and only in that novel. Both claims were not true but no one in the press questioned the propaganda.

In his latest missive, on the very same day it was published, Dowd took the ABC story about Miller’s new chocolate beer and re-worked it, using some of the same phrases and not attributing the original story. I don’t wish to suggest it rises to the level of plagiarism, because it doesn’t. Rather Dowd appears to have taken the ABC story and re-wrote a smaller part of it using some of the same quotes and using some of the same specific language in his piece, all without ever mentioning the original story. Maybe that’s okay legally, since it’s certainly different enough but is seems to me a little unseemly at best.

For example, here’s his first sentence. “Fans of unusually flavored beers are largely limited to small craft products.” The ABC story was the first time I’d ever heard craft beer described or defined as “unusually flavored” and it was this phrase that first put me on the trail of Dowd’s story origin. The original press release Miller released the previous day has none of the language in the ABC piece. Dowd then goes on to describe Miller’s chocolate beer and mentions Anheuser-Busch’s Michelob Honey Lager and Michelob Amber Bock as competing beers. These are the same beers also mentioned in the ABC story, though it would have made more sense to compare A-B’s new chocolate and vanilla-flavored beers, which I sampled at the A-B event in Denver at the end of last month. But Dowd appears to have only one source for this story, and it didn’t talk about those beers.

To be fair, there are original bits in his piece when he mentions Miller’s medal for this beer last year and at the end, when Dowd does acknowledge that Miller didn’t invent chocolate beer, listing Samuel Adam Chocolate Bock and Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout as earlier chocolate beers.

But I think the larger problem here is another drinks writer who appears quite fluent with wine and spirits trying to write about something he is not quite as expert on as his main oeuvre. A quick glance at his recent beer musings reveal he’s writing about many of the top stories and has some generally decent content, but it all seems somewhat rehashed. Now I realize I’m always complaining that wine writers don’t write about beer so perhaps I shouldn’t be complaining here. And I am glad he is writing about beer since, unlike most beer writers, he appears to have access to the mainstream press. But in the last two pieces I noticed by Dowd, he’s regurgitated two beer stories and added little to the stories. And he appears to be selling himself as an expert on beer when he describes himself as a “veteran newspaper journalist and editor as well as a competition judge and writer in the fields of food, restaurants and alcoholic beverages.” And while he may be doing a better job than many wine and food writers, he’s still got a long way to go before we “fans of unusually flavored beers” can consider him an expert on beer.

Lagunitas Labels Trashed by Beer Man

By

The Beer Man, Todd Haefer, is at it again. A few weeks ago he wrongly accused wood-aged beers of being a passing fad, despite record numbers of them entered at GABF. The upcoming Barrel Age Beer Festival at The Bistro was expecting to get about 50 beers entered and as of a few days ago 65 were coming. So for that reason I was a bit suspect of his using a moniker that implied expertise and respect. He may be “a” beer man, but I don’t think he’s “the” beer man.

Today’s prouncement confirms that, I think. In a review of Lagunitas’ Censored Ale (f.k.a. Kronick) which in and of itself wasn’t bad, he attacked brewery owner Tony Magee’s delightful beer label ramblings with a no-holds-barred, tell-me-how-you-really-feel, full-frontal-assault. Here’s what Todd had to say:

I do have to mention that Lagunitas has some of the dumbest beer-style descriptions I’ve ever seen on a Web site. Just check out this link for Censored Ale and you’ll see what I mean. It’s not funny, not cool, not cute, it’s just … dumb and doesn’t tell you anything about the beer.

Here on the left coast, Lagunitas’ labels have something of a cult following and articles have been written on the labels alone. Not the beer, mind you, just about the labels. Of course, we also have the benefit of context and knowing Tony. Oh, and we have a sense of humor, too. Because Tony’s labels are often hysterical, and many times confounding and perplexing. But the one thing they never are is dull. Who said beer labels have to tell you something about the beer or the beer style? Go in your refrigerator right now. How many beers have a story about the beer on the label? Half, maybe less? So why can’t Lagunitas let the beer speak for itself and have a little fun on the labels? After re-reading this label I’m a little confused as to why Beer Man thought it was a beer description, albeit a “dumb” one, in the first place. Here is the label rant from Lagunitas Censored Ale:

Anyway, we were going out to, uh,the ,uh, you know, thing, and all, and when we got there, well, uh, the dude was, like- “whoa man!” I mean, and we were all, uh, you know – “whoa!” and stuff, and when I said to him, like, you know, “hey man”, and all they, I mean he, was all “what?” and stuff- and I just told him what you said and all and they were all man- “not cool dude”, but whatever- so, uh, we split and went back to my lair and just hung out and whatever, but the whole thing was, like, just SUCH a bummer and all but, you know, it was cool and stuff, but you just gotta, you know, about the dude and all, like, it’s cool and all you know, but what’s up with that “blah blah blah”? Whatzit got to do with beer and all? I mean, really, dude, whatever…but, it’s cool and all…

So what part of that did Beer Man think was a “beer-style description?” Honestly, even if you don’t find it funny, cool, cute or informative, you can’t really believe it’s trying to describe the beer, can you? You’d have to figure it was ironic and not serious wouldn’t you? But it proves once again Tony Magee’s most prophetic quote.

“Beer Speaks. People Mumble.“