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?
The Seattle Times reported that Jeff Smiley of Baron Brewing was recently elected Commissioner of Washington State’s newly created “Beer Commission.”
According to the Brewers Association’s Director, Paul Gatza, he believes Washington’s “commission may be the first state-sanctioned promotional group for craft brewers.”
Gatza continued:
“That it’s part of the state government system, that it’s recognized as a pretty important agricultural product to the state, makes it exciting,” he said. “When you’re dealing with an alcoholic beverage industry, it’s hard to get the state to get anywhere near it except to regulate it. But to promote the quality of the state’s beers is just a wonderful direction.”
It’s certainly great to see a state take an active interest in promoting craft beer. It implies they recognize the importance of small, local businesses and want to help support them.
I’ve met Jeff on many occasions and he seems like a great person for the job. I hope he does a terrific job and other states use Washington state as a model to do their own similar beer commissions.
The new Beer Commissioner, Jeff Smiley (at far right), along with beer writer Fred Eckhardt, “Crazy Dave” Heist, owner of HopTown Brewing Co. in Pleasanton, California (in back), and Jeff’s wife, homebrewing enthusiast Kate Gaiser. This was taken at GABF in 2005.
The new James Bond movie, Casino Royale, opened this weekend, and supposedly he drinks a Heineken in the movie, for which the Bond production company was paid an undisclosed six-figures. I’ve already ranted about this before. I don’t like Heineken and I’m not a fan of most product placement, although others have convincingly pointed out that even in Fleming’s novels Bond used brand names as a way of showing the character’s sophistication. Here’s the Heineken print ad
I certainly agree that beer shouldn’t be shaken or stirred, but if it is indeed all about the beer, then it can’t be about Heineken. Heineken may be popular, but it’s a lousy beer, too often skunked due to the green bottle and even when not lighstruck is a pedestrian pilsner at best. James Bond is all about the finer things in life, and Heineken is definitely not one of them, beer-wise. But enough carping, I love James Bond. Here is the television commercial they shot on the set of the new film with Bond girl Eva Green. Despite what it’s advertising, it’s a pretty funny ad.
But I have to admit a certain fondness for the poster art from the original Casino Royale, which had almost nothing to do with the story in the novel, but which had it’s own goofy charm nonetheless and included such big name stars as David Niven (which was Ian Fleming’s ideal Bond), Peter Sellers, Woody Allen, Ursula Andress, Deborah Kerr, Orson Welles, George Raft and John Huston.
UPDATE (11/20): Okay, this is a little strange, but I saw the film yesterday (it was terrific, BTW) and I didn’t see one elbow bent with a beer, Heineken or otherwise. That strikes me as quite odd given the amount of coverage a few months ago about that very issue, that Heineken had paid a pile of cash precisely so James Bond would be seen actually drinking a beer, complete with fabricated justifications to boot. I didn’t even see the Heineken logo anywhere in the background (apart from being listed in the credits). It’s certainly possible I missed it but I do have pretty strong beer-dar for these things. Just ask my wife. If there’s beer in a film I tend to point it out, much to her exasperation. Did it end up on the cutting room floor or did they change their minds? It’s not like they didn’t pimp other brands. Ford (who also owns Aston-Martin) was in plain sight, and Bond mentioned his Omega watch by name. So I’d love to know what happened to de-rail the million dollar plus deal. I didn’t hear much outcry, really, apart from a few shrill words on my part, hardly enough to sour such a lucrative tie-in. Anybody know why they didn’t go through with the Heineken plan?
I get regular e-mails from the publisher of the DBBB, the Domestic Brewers Bottled Brands, with trends in beer sales and other press release information. Today’s e-mail included a chart of IRI Data by beer style showing sales of beer from the beginning of the year through November 6th of this year. IRI is short for Information Resources, Inc., a company that surveys sales of beer (and everything else) from over 15,000 retailers (mostly groceries) in the U.S. As a result, their data is invariably skewed toward the national and regional brands since it doesn’t take into account direct sales and sales from small mom & pop stores. I used to get IRI data from almost every medium to large brewer who called on me when I was a beer buyer for a chain of liquor stores. And while it’s not accurate for craft beer in specific, it does give you a general idea of certain trends, especially when you follow it over a period of time.
Simultaneously in a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal, on Monster.com and Yahoo’s Hot Jobs listings, Starwood Hotels’ Four Points by Sheraton posted a job listing for Chief Beer Officer, an intriguing job title if ever there was one. And with a job title so likely to get a record number of applicants, it made the news, too, as several news outlets ran stories about the position, such as Marketing Daily, BrandWeek and Hotel Chatter.
It certainly sounds like a job any beer geek would feel fortunate to get, and I think that’s why it sounds too good to be true. First of all, the stories about it and the online application itself are just a little too clever, too tongue in cheek to be a serious job offer. And you’re not actually hired by the company, but will be an independent contractor, a part-time consultant. The pay is unspecified (though apparently there’s a generous travel allowance) and requires less than one years experience yet is considered to be “Executive Management” and according to Monster.com is at the “Senior Executive” level, on par with the President and CFO.
The online application also includes a short quiz to test your beer knowledge but the questions are so telescoped that only the truly dull-witted could fail to ace it. For example, one question is “Which is not a variety of hop?” And your choice of answers is “Amarillo, Boy George, Fuggle and Williamette.” Another is “Name one of life’s joys that can accompany goat cheese?” And here the answers could be “Basketball, Acoustic guitar, or Beer drinking.” They’re all like that, so I can’t help but think this is just a clever promotion and whoever gets the job will be a random winner, not that that makes the new CBO position any less enviable.
Starwood did announce at the end of the award ceremonies at this year’s GABF that they were launching the “Best Brews” program at all of their locations, with the help of the Brewers Association. The program is designed to offer a better beer menu than the average chain hotel bar and restaurant. Four Points in L.A. has been hosting some wonderful beer dinners for some time now and I can only imagine their success with good beer may have been the inspiration for this program.
Here’s the job listing on Yahoo:
Help Wanted: Chief Beer Officer® (CBO)
Four Points® by Sheraton seeks Chief Beer Officer to act as independent, part-time consultant for their Best Brews Program. This fall, Four Points by Sheraton, purveyor of pie and champions of contentment, is launching their Best Brews Program. In addition to featuring over 200 domestic and imported beers, they are seeking a Chief Beer Officer. The successful candidate will have a passion for beer, a basic understanding of brewing and an interest in further educating themselves about this glorious libation.
CBO duties will include:
- Act as a beer ambassador for the hotel at microbrewery tours, beer festivals and on bar stools across the country.
- Develop an intimate knowledge of the over 200 domestic and imported beers that are part of the Best Brews Program (which will be supplied to the candidate)
- Introduce these to the public through monthly blog reviews.
- Brew eloquence and a bubbly personality are both a plus.
Are you ready to make your love affair with beer public? To apply please visit www.FourPoints.com/CBO. To be eligible, all one needs is a love for beer, a basic understanding of brewing, and an interest in learning more. You must be 21 years of age or older.
So what are you waiting for, apply now. Either way, it should be a hoot.
Jamie Floyd’s new brewery, Ninkasi Brewing, had a nice profile in the Eugene, Oregon local newspaper, the Register-Guardian. It was in today’s business section and titled, “Brewers Tap Into Trends.” It includes an overview of Oregon’s recent brewing history along with interviews with Jamie Floyd, Teri Fahrendorf and Jack Joyce. The paper also has an interesting article about the likelihood of Oregon raising the tax on beer called “Uncap Beer Tax?”
Jamie Floyd inside his new Ninkasi Brewery in Eugene, Oregon.
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.
BusinessPOV, a Chicago media enterprise doing online video micro-journalism, contacted me about their latest effort, a video profile of Goose Island Brewing. It includes a short interview with Brewmaster Greg Hall interspersed with footage of the brewery and Goose Island’s beers. It’s a little over five minutes and manages quite nicely to give a good flavor of what their business is all about. It’s definitely worth checking out.
Click above to watch the video profile.
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?