The Blogging Debate

March 26, 2007 By Jay Brooks

Tomme Arthur from Port Brewing sent me, and a few other brewers, a link to a San Francisco Chronicle article entitled “Food bloggers dish up plates of spicy criticism, Formerly formal discipline of reviewing becomes a free-for-all for online amateurs” by staff writers Stacy Finz and Justin Berton. Now given the internet’s erosion of traditional media like newspapers, it’s not terribly surprising that the Chronicle article, while somewhat balanced, does lean a little on the side of traditional critics like those employed by the San Francisco newspaper. Obviously, this particular story is about food but it’s just as applicable to beer blogs and ratings websites, too. A lively e-mail debate ensued, with many expressing their positive and negative feelings about beer writing on the internet. And that got me thinking once more about this question, which comes up from time to time, about whether blogging is a good or bad thing for the beer industry.

Brewers, quite understandably, view beer bloggers and ratings websites like Beer Advocate and Rate Beer as a double-edged sword. On the positive side, there are thousands (millions?) of passionate fans in the cybersphere talking about, discussing and tasting their products, helping to spread the word about good beer generally and certain breweries specifically. You literally can’t buy that kind of publicity. Of course, you can’t control it either. It’s very organic nature also has hidden dangers, some of which are not always fair. Not every passionate fan is an expert or has a consistent, developed palate for tasting. As a result, no single review can carry much weight without knowing more about the reviewer. Add them all together, and there’s no guarantee that the results are accurate, fair or consistent. The bigger sites with more reviews and more experienced reviewers do often at least seem present a consistent pattern of what’s good and not so good, but there are and always will be problems with how the overall score is effected by the inevitable bad reviewer who may still be learning or has a personal axe to grind. With individual bloggers, unless you know the reviewer’s experience level, knowledge, etc. it’s hard to know how seriously to take what they say about the beer they’re reviewing. It takes a long time to get to know another person’s tastes to the point where you can predict how they’ll rate a beer accurately. That’s true of any critic, be it a movie reviewer, music critic or what have you. And while a good review can be good for a business, a bad one can be devastating and I imagine quite frustrating if it appears mean-spirited, uninformed or inconsistent with other more positive reviews.

I have run across quite a few intelligent, seemingly normal, people who dismiss all blogging and in some cases everything on the internet as completely worthless. I’m not sure why they take this position, but no amount of persuasion or debate will move them from this position. There are few things I can name which have no redeeming value whatsoever, but they seem to take a position that if it isn’t perfect or there is a lot that’s bad they’ve seen personally then everything else is bad, too. Many of these people are media traditionalists who believe newspapers and the print media are the standard to which every other form of media must be held to, which to me seems quite laughable given the state of much newspaper writing I’ve read about beer over the last few years alone. The fact is there is good and bad in every sector of the media, and indeed the world, too. Nothing is all good or all bad. To me such extreme positions are ludicrous and indefensible. I have argued with such people, but have found them intractable and immune to reason, logic or common sense. Which is a shame, because the internet continues to hold much potential and promise. Despite very rapid growth, it’s a very new medium and, as such, is still growing through all the same pains that every media has gone through. There has been much crap on every new media. Not all early television shows were worth saving, nor was everything on early radio a jewel. Were there people who loved newspapers that refused to give radio a chance because some of the shows they listened to were terrible? I suspect there probably were, as many people do not like change no matter what it’s benefit.

If you haven’t read Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, I highly recommend you rush right out and buy a copy. Seriously. Although it predates the internet, Postman discusses at length how each new media has changed our society, both for good and bad. How every innovation changes us, as well. It’s quite interesting to learn that before the telegraph, for example, almost all ordinary people read entire newspapers and were generally very up to date on all issues of the day. It was not uncommon for politicians and other famous people of the day to come to town and speak literally for hours on end about complex issues facing people. Ordinary townspeople would know exactly what was being discussed and were not spoken down to or had the subject matter dumbed down for them. Postman relates one typical example where Lincoln was speaking somewhere for something like six hours, excused everyone to go home and eat supper, and then resumed speaking again an hour later. Then the telegraph made the spread of information much, much quicker. But because of all the dots and dashes, information became sound bites overnight. As a result, people’s tolerance for lengthier, meatier writing began to wane. And newspapers at the time who began getting their news from far away over the telegraph began writing shorter and shorter stories.

His point — and mine — is that no one can say that the internet or blogging is all bad. We can say it will change how we view the world, even if we can’t say how. But to ignore it and pretend it is completely unworthy of our time is sticking one’s head in the sand, or nose in the air. Are there problems with how beer is reviewed by bloggers and other internet sites? Of course, nothing is perfect. Should we therefore dismiss everything in the blogosphere? Only at our peril, because like it or not the ease of creating a blog pretty much insures anyone with access to the ether can voice his or her opinion. That may not always be a good thing all the time, but like every media before it, those with something to say will find readers and the shrill cacophony of others will eventually fall by the wayside.

There are some who feel traditional journalists are better suited to report the news because they supposedly have standards and ethics whereas “a blog can lie outright, and there are no consequences” making it little better than “mob rule.” But many of my colleagues, all of whom make at least a partial living writing about beer, have blogs in addition to participating in traditional journalism, as well. If any of us out and out lied about something or someone, I can guarantee there’d be consequences. We may not be as famous as an H.L. Mencken or even Michael Jackson, but in such an insular and incestuous little industry like craft beer people know who we are and would hold us accountable if we libeled one of our own. We’re obviously not all “just some guy” and if that’s true then this argument that all blogging is bad simply doesn’t work. I know that doesn’t change the fact that some of the blogs that write about beer do not do the industry any favors. But I am growing weary of having to defend myself every time someone makes a blanket statement that all blogging or internet writing is inherently bad.

Perhaps I shouldn’t take it so personally or feel that it’s me who’s being attacked. Certainly many people have said good things about what I’ve written and there is much that my colleagues write that I find admirable. It’s not my job to defend this medium, but I do find it hard to keep my mouth shut when someone says something that even inadvertently insults me and my confederates in this rarified trade we call beer writing. Last year, I was discussing the state of beer blogging with a friend who suggested that wine and food blogs were generally better than beer blogs in many respects, due in part to their having been around considerably longer (in internet time, at least). And I think he was onto something, because I’ve watched the quality of beer blogging rise over the last year and there are many more worthy beer blogs today than even one year ago. So it seems to me at least that already the state of beer writing on the internet is improving. Not to mention I’ve seen many more colleagues add their voices to the chorus, making the song all the sweeter.

I think absent some new paradigm shift on the internet, beer bloggers, ratings websites and other beer sites online are here to stay. Like the macrocosm outside, there is both good and bad to be found in a wide range of efforts. Find what and who you like, and support those writers, blogs and websites. Ignore or avoid the ones you don’t, and they will undoubtedly not be here in the near future. Nobody likes talking only to themselves for very long. But please don’t read one bad review, post or article and assume that everything else out there is not worthy of your time. Many of us work very hard at what we do and though you may not always agree with what we have to say, that doesn’t make what we’re saying meaningless or unimportant. Welcome to microjournalism and the 21st century. Word. Or make that words.

Here’s to Beer Alive and … Well, Here Comes Phase 2

March 9, 2007 By Jay Brooks

HtB
My rumors of Here’s to Beer’s demise were premature, it seems, as evidenced by some e-mails sent to me by colleagues and a call from Anheuser-Busch. I guess they were just taking a break. Brandweek is now reporting that “Phase 2” of the Here’s to Beer (HtB) campaign is about to be launched, coinciding with the warmer Spring weather that signals the beginning of beer’s big selling season (which generally continues through Halloween). When the Brandweek article begins by stating that “Skeptics and craft brewers in particular said that once Anheuser-Busch has wrung out whatever benefit it sought with ‘Here’s to Beer,’ it would drop the category-promoting campaign and move on to corporate priorities,” it would probably be presumptuous to think they meant me. Perhaps there were others, too.

But after I suggested HtB was a dead parrot, in part based on the fact that the website had not been updated since late summer of last year, A-B’s PR department gave me the opportunity to speak with Bob Lachky, the mastermind behind the Here’s to Beer campaign and the newly named Executive Vice-President for Global Industry Development. We talked for almost an hour about two weeks ago. Bob talked about the future of the HtB project with his now familiar polished enthusiasm. He characterized my criticisms as “fair” and indicated that they were in fact taking a break on the project and working behind the scenes on phase 2.

The second phase will consist of several steps. First, beer distributors and wholesalers around the country will start receiving generic materials that they can use to promote beer as a category. I haven’t seen the display pieces yet but if the distributors can manage to get them into retail stores, where consumers can see them, that might indeed be worthwhile, assuming that they do in fact have some educational value. There are many retail stores, including some large chains, that do not accept outside display materials as a matter of policy. Often these are high end stores who want to achieve a particular look that is more sophisticated than the corner liquor store. And though the high end stores are where the materials would likely find more customer willingness, any beer education at any level seems like it should be useful to the industry as a whole.

Also coming over to HtB will be Food Network chef Dave Lieberman. I don’t necessarily see anything in his bio or on his website that indicates any special affinity for pairing beer with food or cooking with beer, but at least he appears to be a prominent chef. But apparently he’ll be creating “educational videos about brew styles and food pairings” so I’d sure like to believe he knows more than having read a book or two. Then they’ll be a comedian impersonating historical persons such as Genghis Khan, Ben Franklin, Confucius, and Catherine the Great in online commercials about who you’d want to share a beer with if you could choose any person throughout history. And Chicago’s DDB advertising agency will create new spots in the continuing saga of who you’d share your beer with, including singer/songwriter Lyle Lovett and Columbian model/actress Sofia Vergara, which seems like the same old thing A-B is doing in their regular advertising.

All of these and more are now available at the new Here’s to Beer website which launched this morning. It has a decidedly green feel to it owing presumably to it being March, with St. Patrick’s Day around the corner. It’s marked Web Volume 1.01 (and further inside as Vol. 1 – March 9, 2007), so I presume content will be changing on a monthly basis. The new site reminds me a lot of A-B’s other new venture, Bud.TV. There are loads of little tiny videos at almost every part of the website. Some are introductions, some are more detailed and all are fairly short.

Sofia-Vergara
This is helpful in raising beer’s reputation and status?

So maybe it’s because I’m an old curmudgeon — and a reader — but I’m not convinced that these little video presentations are the way to reach people. Sure, it’s cutting edge technology and has that gee whiz factor but this is information we’re talking about. I can read it much more quickly, and I don’t need to be entertained every second of my day. I actually like reading and learning new things. Does that make me out of step with the modern world? Because if we use the internet as the arbiter of what people want, you’d think no one had any patience for reading but needed passive watching to amuse themselves à la television. But if I want to watch TV, I can turn mine on. If I want sound files, I can turn on the radio or fire up my iPod. In my opinion, the internet works best when it disseminates text and pictures, the other stuff is just empty bluster most of the time. I’m not saying I don’t enjoy the occasional viral video as much as the next guy, but it’s not necessarily the best way to educate. Just because there is new technology doesn’t mean it has to be used. But all the big corporations — A-B is certainly not alone here — insist on using flash technology and online video to make their websites seems more modern but the end result is just that it’s less useful and there’s so much less information that you grow tired of it more quickly and move on to something with more meat in it.

The lead story in the new HtB website is “The Pen and the Pint: Pub Fiction” (the first part of which I actually floated as a potential title for the beer bloggers “The Session” project) and it’s a mere 441 words, far shorter than my average blog post and about half the size of the average short magazine article. There are also video segments such as “Fresh” and “Thirsty Artist” which, while not without some interest, have little to do with teaching people about beer. And so it feels more like entertainment and less like there’s a lot of good information about the beer. Some of it is downright distracting although there still is some basic information available. But also some of the information that was part of the original website, such as beer and industry news, the beer archives, the brewhouse and more is curiously gone.

Is the new website better than the old one? To me, that’s trickier because the new one at least promises to change more often and as such may bring people back more regularly. I think I’d still like to see a basic component of educational information that was always available there for people to learn about if they wanted to. After all, if the ultimate goal is to have more people drinking beer then we have to provide reasons why they should rather than simply entertain them and hope that’s enough persuasion.

When I spoke to Lachky, he indicated that A-B was prepared and expecting to go it alone with HtB. There were no plans to encourage industry-wide participation as a trade effort, though he certainly seemed willing to embrace cooperation if it was volunteered. With an almost 50% market share, A-B felt it was enough to help themselves and further believed that they’d be helping the industry as a whole, as well. He again used the aphorism of a rising tide lifting all boats to illustrate this point.

As he put it in Brandweek:

“We’re a 50-share market leader, we’re an American beer company primarily, so it is incumbent upon us to grow this industry here,” said Lachky. “Other brewers may not have the same mission we have. Our mission is to grow the beer category, and others may have a mission to cannibalize the category. I don’t know; you’ll have to ask them what their mission is. Does Anheuser-Busch want to grow Anheuser-Busch? Yes, but if you make the pie bigger, everybody gets a bigger slice.”

Hmm. Maybe, but only if the effort does indeed celebrate all beer and doesn’t get stuck in one company’s agenda. Since A-B maintains complete control over what is essentially presented as an industry project then only one message is being sent. Right now that’s not necessarily problematic, but it may not always remain so. Imagine if “Got Milk?” was only funded and managed by the largest dairy or if “Pork, the Other White Meat” was done solely by the largest pig farm and you have some idea of what problems could arise for everybody else.

Is it working? Bob Lachky certainly believes it is and takes at least “partial credit” for the increased amount of beer stories in the mainstream media of late. Is that even in part because of HtB’s efforts? It’s hard to say, of course, but I have a hard time accepting that theory though it’s certainly possible HtB played some role, however small. Because the big three brewers (plus Pabst) gained a mere 0.5% in 2006 over 2005 whereas craft beer was up 11.7% for the same period. To me, the resurgence of craft beer is the story and more likely the catalyst driving increasing attention in the media. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, when microbreweries were new and hot, the media paid plenty of attention. Then the fledgling industry went through a shakeup and media attention dried up. But now renewed interest has sparked more coverage as well as more consumers. It’s not all been rosy, as any regular Bulletin reader can tell you, I think many of the stories have been downright injurious to the cause of raising the level of beer to where it belongs. But if you accept the theory that there’s no such thing as bad publicity then yes I guess it’s all good.

Something else that struck me while I was doing some research before interviewing Lachky was that in terms of the volume of sales beer far outsells the rest followed by spirits and then wine, trailing at the end. This is exactly opposite of the attention paid to these broad categories by the mainstream media with wine getting the lion’s share of attention yet accounting for the smallest slice of the sales pie. Most newspapers have a food and wine section, making them completely out of touch with the reality of what people are really drinking. So clearly the beer industry needs to do something to reverse this situation.

Phase 2 of HtB also brings more projects outside the website, too. Happily, the Roger Sherman documentary American Brew will finally air April 7 — the anniversary not of Prohibition’s repeal, but the return of low-alcohol 3.2 beer — on A&E at 10 p.m. EST (meaning 7:00 here on the left coast). It will also be available for sale on DVD shortly at the HtB website with loads of great extras. I’ll review the film later in a separate post.

Then in May, for Father’s Day, the slogan “give your dad something he will use.” As Lachky put it. “He will use beer.” Having worked for an alcohol retailer, I like this idea. For some reason it was virtually impossible to get people to buy dad beer for Father’s Day. Wine and spirits, yes, but beer’s bad image made it akin to buying dad a carton of smokes as a present. Years of dumbing down beer as a drink for the masses made it a poor choice to show dad how much you cared about him, even if was something he really wanted. It would be nice to see that change, but I can’t say I’m overly optimistic since I also believe it was the large breweries who created that poor image in the first place.

One last issue I have with the HtB website, though I want to stress that this has nothing to do with A-B per se, is the age verification entry to the website. Since the HtB website is purely for educational purposes, why on Earth do you have to be 21 to learn about beer? I know it’s illegal to drink beer before you’re 21, but is it likewise forbidden to read about it or learn about it? If you wanted to check out one of Michael Jackon’s beer books from the library, would you have to show I.D. to prove you were 21? I’m not just being facetious when I ask that, because it seems strange that minors are not allowed to even read about alcohol and educate themselves about it. It’s sadly consistent with America’s neo-prohibitionist and puritanical leanings, but isn’t this just one more self-fulfilling prophecy? If you don’t make it possible for kids to learn about beer then it’s a fait accompli that they’ll become ignorant binge drinkers in their late teens and early twenties. And how is that good for society or battling underage drinking as the neo-prohibitionists pretend to care about?

But it looks like HtB is back, at least, to make an effort in promoting beer. As much I embrace and encourage this idea, I also remain a skeptic and hope like hell I’ll be proven wrong in the end. And I certainly hope they stop undermining their own efforts with commercials that reinforce old stereotypes about beer. It will be interesting to see how it plays out over the coming months and whether or not they will continue to add useful and educational information to the website or if remains largely entertaining with some education thrown in. So I’ll try to reserve final judgment until we see what else the coming months will bring to the table from the in-store display pieces to the documentary American Brew. There’s so much that’s good about beer in almost all its myriad forms. Let’s hope that message comes across from Here’s to Beer and the rest of us.

Linda Starck Loses Her Battle With Cancer

February 23, 2007 By Jay Brooks

Sad news, indeed, today as I got the word that earlier this morning Linda Starck passed away in her home. She will be deeply missed. Thanks to all the brewers, homebrewers and other caring people who gave so generously to help Linda with her battle. I know that she and her family greatly appreciated the outpouring of support. In the last correspondence I received from Linda, she wrote “I’m overwhelmed by all that you are doing to help support my treatments. It really means a lot to me and my family.”

Linda Starck lost her valiant fight against lung cancer Friday, February 23 at 8:25 a.m. in her home. She was surrounded by family. Since being diagnosed a year ago, on February 28, 2006, she showed unbounded courage and grace in her battle. Linda was well loved in the brewing industry. She was a Brewers Association staff member for over 20 years. She was loved by those who knew her and will be missed by many.
A memorial service is anticipated — A Celebration of Life is being planned — hopefully Friday or Saturday, March 2 or 3. Additional information will be posted as it is determined by Linda’s family. A special memorial web page has been set up by the Brewers Association so people can write thoughts in celebration of Linda’s life. This page is now up and it will be the place to get updates and share your thoughts
The family is collecting photos immediately for use at the memorial service. If you would like to submit any photos, please include your name and return information if you would like photos returned.
Email digital photos to:
Bill Wolfkiel, AWTLLP@aol.com
Send photos to:
Bill Wolfkiel
6525 Gunpark Drive, Suite 370-501
Boulder, CO 80301
The family asks that no flowers be sent, but rather, contributions be made to the American Lung Association:
American Lung Association
61 Broadway, 6th floor
New York, NY 10006.
Thanks to so many who generously supported Linda throughout this last year. Join us in remembering Linda and share your thoughts and stories here. Check the memorial page for updated information.

Choosing Responsibility

February 22, 2007 By Jay Brooks

Join Together is a neo-prohibitionist group that is run by the Boston University School of Public Health. I say that, because they are funded primarily by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and in my opinion Johnson was an extremist nut job, especially with regards to alcohol. But Join Together does a great job of collecting news reports about their cause and so I get their newsletter so I, too, can keep track. Most of the missives I get are about new studies, horrific accounts of binge drinking, essentially anything that supports the neo-prohibitionist agenda. But today’s was a little different and may represent something of a shot over the bow to reversing the trend toward another Prohibition.

John M. McCardell, Jr., the former president of Middlebury College in Vermont has founded a non-profit organization called Choose Responsibility, with the goal of educating the public about binge drinking and furthering the debate for lowering the drinking age in the U.S. from 21 to 18. McCardell, of course, saw his share of drinking on his college campus and brings a unique respectability to the debate which I think will make it harder for anti-drinking groups to dismiss out of hand, which is their usual tactic for anyone who disagrees with them.

From the Join Together news summary:

McCardell said that college officials who think that they have campus drinking under control are “delusional,” adding that most officials are politically restrained from being honest about student drinking. He said his research shows that the age-21 law has had little positive impact on student drinking, adding that trends such as declining DWI rates could just as easily be attributed to other factors. “This is by definition a very emotional issue, but what we need is an informed and dispassionate debate,” McCardell said.
McCardell said the current law makes it hard for parents and schools to teach about responsible drinking. “You either become an arm of the law, which you are not about, or a haven from the law, which poses a fundamental ethical dilemma,” he said.
“I think the 21-year-old drinking age is a disastrous failure,” he said. “Many colleges are worried that if they talk about alcohol with their freshmen, they will be charged with condoning underage drinking.”
“This is not about giving more beer to young people,” said McCardell. “This is about opening our eyes to the social reality around us.”

That’s the chilling effect the decades of proselytizing against drinking by MADD and other neo-prohibitionist organizations has caused. I find it profoundly sad that this is a topic that people are afraid to talk about honestly. What good does it do our society when politicians, school officials charged with the care of our nation’s youth, trade organizations and companies that make alcoholic beverages are effectively muzzled from debating the neo-prohibitionist agenda? Because to these extremists you’re either with them or against them, there is no middle ground. But no topic should be off-limits for discussion, especially when the debate leads directly to public policy decisions. Imagine what would happen if any beer company came out in favor of lowering the drinking age, which clearly would be in their business interests. They’d be excoriated: charged with encouraging underage drinking, picketed and boycotted, and probably accused of clubbing baby seals. What chance at re-election would any politician have who had the temerity to even suggest looking into this issue? I’d put them at slim to none.

And that’s what I really hate about extremism, they take a position that anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy. It seems as if we’ve lost the very ability to have reasonable disagreements with others and still respect them, their opinions or even their right to hold them. We live in an almost completely polarized society, and that’s doing none of us any good.

However unpopular McCadell’s organization is bound to make him with neo-prohibitionists, he’s starting to make some waves. The Associated Press profiled the new group in a syndicated article last week. In the AP story, Choose Responsibility suggests the following.

[McCardell] said federal and state laws that raised the drinking age to 21 did little to keep young people between the ages of 18 and 21 from consuming alcohol. Instead, the laws drove drinking underground and — over the last 20 years — have helped fuel a surge in binge drinking, he said.
“We need to, I think, take our heads out of the sand and open our eyes to the reality and say to ourselves ‘Aren’t we better off trying to educate young people about alcohol and trusting them to exercise adult responsibility in the same way that we trust them when they are appointed to juries or sent to Iraq,” he said Thursday.

Unsurprisingly, MADD disagreed, pointing to the same contradictory statistics they always cling to. But like most advocacy groups, they use — and sometimes distort — only those studies that support their agenda and ignore or marginalize those that support the opposition.

Also last week, Inside Higher Ed, a blog focused on post-high school education, profiled Choose Responsibility in a piece entitled “An Honest Conversation About Alcohol.”

Choosing Responsibility has also set up a blog, Rethinking Drinking, in which they will track this issue in the media and across the web. They’re just getting started, but already there’s a lot of good information there. For example, Grace Kronenberg, Assistant to the Director at Choose Responsibility, posted the following, which gives a great foundation to the reasons and background about what they’re doing.

Ever wonder why we have a 21 year-old drinking age?
The primary reasons cited by supporters of the law:

It saves lives by preventing alcohol-related traffic fatalities among 18-20 year-olds and the rest of the population.
Since the developing adolescent brain is affected differently by alcohol than the adult brain, the 21 year-old drinking age protects adolescents and young adults from its potentially negative consequences.
It prevents adolescents from gaining access to alcohol. Some research has found that the earlier one starts to drink, the more likely he or she will experience alcohol dependence and related problems later in life.

Seem bold? We thought so too! Our research has shown that the arguments above are overstated:

There is no demonstrable cause and effect relationship between the 21 year-old drinking age and the decline in alcohol-related fatalities. While its proponents may claim that the 21 year-old drinking age is solely responsible, we found that many factors–increased seat belt use, development of airbag and anti-lock brake technologies, advent of the “designated driver,” and stigmatization of drunk driving to name just a few–had the effect of making our roads and vehicles safer over the past two and a half decades.
The claims of neurological research on alcohol and the adolescent brain have, in many cases, been overstated. Statements like MADD’s “teenagers who drink too much may lose as much as 10 percent of their brainpower” often exaggerate the findings of research findings based on data gathered from rat populations, leading to an oversimplified and alarmist approach to very complicated neurological research. Stay tuned here for more information on alcohol and the brain…
The context in which one first consumes alcohol is as, if not more, important as the age of initiation. Age is just a number. Scientific and anthropological data from around the world have shown that the context in which alcohol is first consumed cultural attitudes toward drinking are much more important in determining whether or not an individual will have alcohol-related problems later in life.

[used with permission]

And on the course they’ve set for themselves.

Why 18?
Besides the fact that much evidence cited in favor of the 21 year-old drinking age is exaggerated or misinterpreted (see above), there are several arguments against it:

The 21 year-old drinking age is an abridgment of the age of majority. By 18, Americans are legally adults and are entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that come with that role but one: the freedom to choose whether or not to consume alcohol.
The 21 year-old drinking age marginalizes the role of parents in the process of teaching and encouraging responsible decisions about alcohol use. There is near-consensus cross culturally that parents play an indispensable role in introducing their children to responsible alcohol use. The 21 year-old drinking age effectively eliminates this important parental role, forcing parents to either break the law by serving their under 21 year-old sons and daughters alcohol at home or to risk having their children’s first exposure to alcohol be at an unsupervised college or high-school keg party.
Under the 21 year-old drinking age, fewer young people are drinking, but those who choose to are drinking more. This alarming rise in the rates of binge drinking on campuses and in communities around the nation has caused a major, national public health problem. Almost daily, we are bombarded with horrific stories of heavy drinking teens and young adults. Between 1993 and 2001, 18-20 year olds showed a 56% increase in episodes of heavy drinking, the largest increase among American adults. The recent media barrage could not be more clear: the 21 year-old drinking age does not keep young people under 21 from drinking, and drinking dangerously.
The 21 year-old drinking age breeds disrespect for law and ethical compromises. The vast majority of people who drink in the United States began drinking before age 21, testament both to the inefficacy of the current law and of the rampant disrespect for its provisions. Because the law is inconsistently enforced and easily circumvented by underage drinkers and those who provide them with alcohol, it has created a climate that makes it all too easy for young adults to obtain and consume alcohol without realizing the legal and ethical consequences of their actions.

[used with permission]

Perhaps my deepest disagreement with 21 being the drinking age stems from when I was eighteen and a member of the U.S. military. We were permitted to drink alcohol on the base but the second we stepped off of it, we were treated like children once more, and were unable to even drink a beer. It was infuriating to be able to vote and die for my country but still not be able to legally drink a beer. At eighteen, we were told we were adults but not treated as such and did not realize the full benefits of adulthood for another three years.

By contrast, most other first world countries either permit their citizens to drink at a younger age or leave it to tradition, parents and local custom. Without the great taboo that exists here, most kids abroad seem to have a much healthier approach to drinking and binging is far less of a problem. When alcohol is part of the culture and not stigmatized, there is less abuse. When families learn to drink together, alcohol cannot tear them apart because those rituals are a part of them. Here, we separate drinking from family activities with, predictably, the opposite effect.

If nothing else, America is a nation of laws, which is both a good and bad thing. But we tend to create laws for everything and over time have gone completely overboard in the sheer number of laws under which we’re all expected to live. For every problem, a new law is passed. Does it actually fix the problem? Not usually, in my experience, and just as often makes it worse with some unintended consequences.

There’s an idea in Taoism which speaks to this problem. In his Tao Te Ching, Lao-Tzu says the following at chapter 57.

Conquer with Inaction
Do not control the people with laws,
Nor violence nor espionage,
But conquer them with inaction.
For:
The more morals and taboos there are,
The more cruelty afflicts people;
The more guns and knives there are,
The more factions divide people;
The more arts and skills there are,
The more change obsoletes people;
The more laws and taxes there are,
The more theft corrupts people.
Yet take no action, and the people nurture each other;
Make no laws, and the people deal fairly with each other;
Own no interest, and the people cooperate with each other;
Express no desire, and the people harmonize with each other.

Said another way, in Brian Bruya’s brilliant translation.

Therefore the Sage says:
“I take no unnecessary action, and the people change of their own accord. I am tranquil and the people are orderly of their own accord. I don’t trouble them, and the people are prosperous of their own accord. I am not greedy, and the people become simple of their own accord.”
Politicians seem to think they play some kind of special role in society, making up all kinds of rules and regulations according to their own ideas and then imposing them on everyone else. If people in power can rule through non-action, tranquility and no-desires, then there might be hope for peace in the world.

What does that mean for the debate on the drinking age? I think that by setting such an arbitrary point at which one day you’re not mature enough to handle alcohol but one day later you are is actually causing more underage drinking than it’s preventing. I drank as a minor. Almost every single person I grew up with drank as a minor, a condition which I suspect continues to this day. What damage did it do in the big picture? Generation after generation, children will continue to try whatever they are told is most forbidden. That’s just human nature. But by criminalizing it, going to such fantastic lengths to keep it from happening and making it impossible for families to choose how to teach their children about responsible drinking in the home we have created a society with a very unhealthy relationship with alcohol. And it shows, especially when you contrast us with other cultures.

Alcohol has played a vital role in humanity’s growth from hunter gatherers to gleaming skyscrapers, and quite possibly may have been the inspiration for civilization itself. But by the misguided efforts of a few who want to remake the world according to their own views, the rest of us have been saddled with the cumbersome, unwieldy system we have today that tries to regulate, restrict and, if possible, obliterate that heritage. At a very minimum, we should be able to talk about it. I’m glad that one more organization, Choose Responsibility, is entering the debate.

Bud TV Under Fire

February 21, 2007 By Jay Brooks

The first time I logged into Bud.tv, I had a heck of a time gaining access and proving that I was over 21 despite the fact that I’m more than twice as old as the age of consent. Presumably, that was because I’ve recently moved and I had to use my old information to get in. Frankly, it felt a little creepy thinking they had all of my personal information. I suspect that most people think that’s a small price to pay for keeping minors out of the website. I don’t agree, of course, and have grown weary of having to prove I’m an adult over and over and over again.

But as difficult as I — and many others it seems — found it was to register for Bud.tv, apparently it’s still not difficult enough for the attorneys general of almost half the states in the country. Here are the states who think it’s too easy for kids to get into Bud TV:

Alaska
Arizona
Connecticut
Delaware
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Nevada
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming

Plus two U.S. territories:

District of Columbia
Puerto Rico

The twenty-three attorneys general have written to Anheuser-Busch requesting “better tools to make sure underaged viewers aren’t accessing its new Bud.TV site.” Apparently name, zip code and birthdate aren’t invasive enough because a clever kid could know that information about their parents or another adult. It seems they won’t be satisfied until at least people have to enter “their name and full address, or a driver’s license number, exactly as it appears on a government-issued ID.” But that’s still not enough, as they’d also like to have a postcard sent to the person’s address or have someone phone the house to insure the registrant is “legal-aged adult, and not a child below the drinking age.” The states believe that because A-B is creating the content for some reason they “have a higher responsibility to ensure that youth are not exposed to the marketing on [their] site.” Using that logic, why haven’t these states sent similar letters to every network and cable channel that creates original programming? Why not hold every media that creates its own content to the same principle? Or are only businesses that advertise as well as “creating the programming” held to a higher standard?

That seems absolutely preposterous, especially when you consider that all this effort is being proposed not to keep alcohol from falling into a minor’s hands, but merely to keep them from watching TV on the internet. To go to such great lengths to keep kids from watching the same commercials they can see by turning on the television seems ridiculous, but all too typical. Of course, there is more than just commercials on Bud.tv. There are also several inane tv-like episodic shows. From what I’ve seen so far they seem more tame than the average HBO show, and with no apparent nudity or swearing. From the descriptions of the shows, it’s possible some have mature themes but it doesn’t appear any worse than the average evening cable show.

But here’s a kicker:

Maine attorney general G. Steven Rowe, who helped to spearhead the effort along with Louisiana’s Attorney General Charles Foti, said he didn’t have any evidence that underage children are accessing the Web site, but said it’s clear that more could be done to safeguard children.

So all this strutting and puffing doesn’t even have any basis in reality. It’s just a headline-grabbing stunt to “protect the children” from a threat that doesn’t even exist.

Here’s how Media Post Publications’ “Just An Online Minute” (free subscription required) for today questioned their logic:

But, while it’s probably true that people under 21 can access Bud.tv’s content, it’s unclear why this poses such a problem for the authorities. After all, minors have been exposed to the company’s marketing for years.
Consider, in addition to advertising on programs like the Super Bowl — certainly viewed by people under 21 — Anheuser-Busch has served as official sponsor of dozens upon dozens of professional sports teams, ranging from the Chicago Bulls to the Carolina Panthers to the St. Louis Cardinals (who play their home games in Busch stadium).
It’s hard to imagine that watching a clip on Bud.tv will somehow prove more powerful with minors than the company’s myriad ads and other marketing efforts in the offline world.

There’s nothing I find particularly compelling on Bud.tv, and I’m usually no great fan of A-B’s business practices, but this political stunt by these states is yet another contemptible, shameless and public deceit pretending “it’s for the children.” Curiously, only three of the top twenty beer-producing states (as of 2005 statistics) are among the signatories, but twelve of the bottom twenty are. Coincidence? Most likely not, as following the money will rarely steer you wrong. Notice Missouri is absent from the list of complaining states, as is Wisconsin and Colorado, where the number two and three biggest breweries are located.

So no matter how you slice it, I can’t see where the problem is that all these states were so quick to complain about. First, the attorneys general admit there’s no evidence whatsoever that kids are watching Bud.tv. Second, it’s already more difficult to gain access to the website than any other free site I’ve ever visited. Third, once you make it to Bud.tv, there’s no pornographic, violent or overtly adult content that children need to be protected from. At worst, it’s the sort of stuff you’d see on cable television. If anything, these states’ stunt will probably backfire and generate more buzz and traffic to the Bud.tv website than if they’d just kept their pens in their pockets.

So I find myself in unfamiliar territory, siding with A-B when they say the following:

‘Despite these extraordinary efforts, some have urged us to make the age verification process more difficult and even more invasive of people’s privacy,’ said a company spokeswoman, Francine Katz, in a statement.

I felt the current age verification was already pretty “invasive of people’s privacy,” certainly more than I felt was appropriate or necessary. Think about it this way. The internet, in terms of parenting, is really not much different than television. It is and should be up to parents to decide what their children see and at what age or time in their lives. Trying to protect children from perceived harm is no business of the state or federal government. It’s a lazy parent that wants to turn over control of what their child can watch to the powers that be. I think these attorneys general might want to spend more time with their own kids instead of telling me how to raise mine. Perhaps then they’ll see fit to spend their time and resources more wisely, going after true criminals and others who would do the people of their states real harm, instead of some vague potential for children possibly seeing something intended for adults. Seriously, who would you rather see the top lawyer in your state prosecute; the killers, robbers and rapists or the website that your kids might hack into and watch innocuous short films on a tiny two by three inch screen?

Newsweek Discovers Vintage Beer

February 16, 2007 By Jay Brooks

Alright, it didn’t make the magazine, but it is a “web exclusive” on the Newsweek website. It is an article by Andrew Romano entitled Beer By the Year (thanks to Joe in Florida for sending me the link). The article is about vintage beers and the 25 of them Gramercy Tavern in New York City has added to their menu. It’s great to see Newsweek do a piece on aged beers, though the article suffers from the usual snide disbelief that beer could be worth spending money on and be something beyond a drink for the masses, or as Romano envisions it, an “equal-opportunity inebriator.”

Then there’s this dissmissive description:

This is beer we’re talking about. You know, the stuff shirtless football fans drink from a helmet. Sure, boosters might do well to take a page from wine’s playbook: according to the latest figures from the National Institutes of Health, alcohol consumption from beer (per capita) is down 6 percent since 1992, while “classier” vino is up 17 percent.

A little later in the article Romano grudgingly admits that some beers may benefit from aging but then claims that that’s true only “in theory.” He makes this claim because the final product may not necessarily turn out to be good after all. Why? One explanation is that the aging must be done properly: at the right temperature, in a dark place, etc. Here’s his other reasons.

Brewers, unlike vintners, release their beverages when they’re ready to drink, and aging is an inexact science. Given time, some bottles soar; others sour. With vintage beer, you always run the risk of liking the final draft less than the first.

This makes it sound as if he’s inferring that wine doesn’t have such issues, that aging wine is an exact science. But the exact same risks he brings up are true for wine, as well. First of all, plenty of wines are released too early but just as many are ready to drink, too. And then to age a wine properly, all the same steps involving light, temperature and so on must also be followed for the wine to have benefitted from the aging process.

Many — if not most — of the beers meant to be aged are not released when they’re green, but have in fact been aged for a period of time before being released to the public for further aging. I spoke to Vinnie Cilurzo of Russian River Brewing and he confirmed that he does age many of his beers either in the tank, barrel or bottle before releasing them to the public, some for a few weeks and some for many months. He wants the flavors to be right and the taste to have mellowed or changed in a positive way before they’re out of his hands.

I don’t quite understand why the author feels the need to qualify aging beer as having unique risks. “Given time,” not every bottle of wine will age well either, so why is he making it sound like aging is a different process for wine and beer?

Happily, Romano doesn’t stick with that tone and for the most part is convinced that vintage beers are worth their higher price tag. Romano and his dinner companion try six vintage beers and like all of them, and love a couple, especially the 1992 Thomas Hardy.

According to the article, Gramercy Tavern “gave beer-by-the-year its big-league, fine-dining debut with a select 25-bottle list of vintage suds from Europe, Japan and North America. The response, says assistant beverage director Kevin Garry, has been ‘amazing’—and it could mean more mainstream acceptance to come. ‘Based on how our guests have reacted, I can totally see vintage beer catching on at other places,’” says Garry, who pairs his bottles with cheeses and desserts. ‘I’d love to see it become the next cool thing in the fine-dining world.’”

As the article ends, Romano can’t resist bad-mouthing beer one more time in his last sentence, which concludes, “[w]e stumble home shortly thereafter.” Let’s see, two men share six bottles of beer. That’s three apiece. And not all were big 750 ml bottles. Thomas Hardy bottles are 11.2 ounces. Yes, some of the beers were strong, but overall not compared to the average wines. Would a wine writer having consumed an equal amount of wine ever claim to have “stumbled” home afterwards? Not in a million years.

Reunion Beer to Benefit Bone Cancer Research

February 5, 2007 By Jay Brooks

Once upon a time, Pete Slosberg created Pete’s Wicked Ale. And the brown ale was good. He had help spreading the word, of course, and in the early days Alan Shapiro and Virginia MacLean also helped Pete’s become a nationally known microbrewery. Pete, of course, moved on to chocolate and Alan Shapiro worked for a time with Merchant Du Vin and now heads his own import company, SBS Imports. Virginia MacLean, in the meantime, left the beer business but as she approached her fortieth birthday was diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma, which is a type of bone cancer that currently has no known cure. For more information about the disease, see the MMRF or the Institute for Myeloma & Bone Cancer Research.

Recently, Pete Slosberg and Alan Shapiro got together and decided to help their friend by creating a new beer to help raise awareness and money to fund research into this disease. The beer is named “Reunion,” and it’s a big, imperial brown ale and is the first commercial beer Slosberg has done since selling Pete’s Wicked Ale to Gambrinus in 1998. He worked with award-winning brewer Daniel Del Grande at Bison Brewing in creating the organic beer. In the Bay Area, Beverages & more and Whole Foods will be carrying the beer. Please support this worthy cause and buy a bottle or a case.

The press release:

INTRODUCING REUNION
A BEER FOR HOPE UNIQUE COLLABORATION TO BENEFIT
THE INSTITUTE FOR MYELOMA & BONE CANCER RESEARCH
In the early days of the craft brewing business in the U.S. Pete Slosberg brought Alan Shapiro and Virginia MacLean to help lead his emerging namesake company and take his Wicked Ale® to new heights. While these long-time friends ultimately pursued different professional paths, some 18 years later they have reunited to create a beer inspired by Pete’s early recipes.
REUNION – A BEER FOR HOPE is an organic imperial brown ale brewed by Pete and Dan Del Grande at Bison Brewing Company’s organic brewery in Berkeley, CA. It will be sold in 22 ounce screen printed bottles via Shapiro’s SBS Imports distributor network in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, and Illinois. It has a suggested price of $4.99 per bottle. All profits generated by SBS from the sale of REUNION will benefit The Institute for Myeloma & Bone Cancer Research in Los Angeles, CA. “Alan informed me that our good friend Virginia had been diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma — a form of bone cancer,” Pete Slosberg recalled. “He later called with the idea of reuniting to create a beer to celebrate our friendship and bring hope to Virginia and others battling this disease. I am thrilled to be a part of the effort to raise funds for this worthwhile organization.”
“Virginia has been a close friend from the day we met at Pete’s back in 1989,” noted SBS Imports President, Alan Shapiro. “I wish I was a great scientist who could help find a cure — but at least I can make a small contribution by raising both funds and awareness for this disease. I have met Dr. Berenson’s team at IMBCR and have seen their work in progress. I know the funds we raise will help make a difference.”
About Multiple Myeloma & IMBCR:
Multiple Myeloma is a unique cancer of plasma cells that attacks and destroys bone. The term is derived from the multiple areas of bone marrow that are usually affected by the disease. Worldwide, over 1,000 people a day are diagnosed with this currently incurable form of bone cancer. Led by Dr. James Berenson, IMBCR is one of the world’s leading research organizations combating this disease. IMBCR specializes in developing novel chemotherapy drugs and treatments. For further information on multiple myeloma or IMBCR, please visit www.imbcr.org or contact 310-623-1210.
About the Beer:
REUNION is a collaborative beer created by Pete Slosberg & Dan Del Grande and inspired by Pete’s original recipe. It is brewed with 6 different organic malts, 3 different hops and dryhopped. It is 7.5% alcohol by volume. REUNION will be available at leading specialty beer retailers and many Kimpton hotels in the western United States. More information is available at www.reunionbeer.com.

The back label:

R.I.P. Here’s to Beer?

February 5, 2007 By Jay Brooks

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

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

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

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

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

Bud TV Launches Tomorrow

February 4, 2007 By Jay Brooks

Today’s Super Bowl extravaganza will feature something like thirty confirmed advertisers, with the lion’s share going to Anheuser-Busch who is expected to air around ten spots, to the tune of $2.6 million per thirty-seconds. Undoubtedly at least a few of those will feature content from A-B’s new online channel, Bud TV, which will debut tomorrow. The site will feature the commercials from the Super Bowl along with original web series such as:

Afterworld: A science-fiction show, partially animated.
Blow Shit Up: Just what it sounds like, the audience submits stuff they’d like to see blown to bits.
Finish Our Film: A spoof of reality shows and a making-of-a-film documentary that will be produced by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s production company.
Futureman: Another science-fiction show, though presumably a comedy.
Happy Hour: This show will feature up-and-coming and wannabe stand-up comics.
Ice Vision and Chef: A mockumentary about the attempted comeback of a defrocked superhero.
Replaced by a Chimp: A comedy in which real people’s jobs are replaced by a monkey.
Truly Famous: Another spoof of reality and celebrity shows.
What Girls Want: A female version of “Queer Eye” with a trio of lovelies giving dating advice to some hapless schmo.

Anheuser-Busch is spending a lot of money on it, approximately $30-40 million over the first year of Bud TV. But that’s a drop in the bucket of A-B’s staggering billion dollar plus annual marketing budget, although A-B has also announced they will be reducing the portion of their ad budget usually reserved for network television shows. Still, about $600 million will be spent on more traditional advertising.

Later “channels” on Bud TV reportedly will likely include the following.

Bud Tube: Consumer-generated video, including homemade ads for Bud or Bud Light.
Reality Programming: One show is a live version of The Dating Game show from the 1970s aired from bars and restaurants in 25 cities. Another is “Fool’s Gold,” in which contestants can only take as much gold out of the dessert as they can carry and survive, while a half-crazed miner tries to thwart them.
News: Updates on news and unusual events, designed to give viewers something to chat about over a beer.
Sports: Sports will be featured in some fashion.
Hollywood: Celebrity coverage.

You do have to register so they can be assured you’re over 21, which does seem a little weird since the tv commercials at least can be seen by anyone with access to a television. It appears that after inputting your name, birthdate and zipcode that BudTV accesses a database to confirm that information. Mine, for example, didn’t match at first because I’ve moved within the past year and I was then prompted to insert my previous zipcode. I know I lean a little heavily on the paranoia side, but I find it a little troubling that they have at their fingertips the information to confirm my identity and rough age.

Today’s New York Times magazine has an in-depth piece called Brew Tube about the venture.

The Bud TV host greets you and talks you through how to use the website.

Yuengling Video Tour

February 3, 2007 By Jay Brooks

The National Association of Manufacturers has a really cool series of videos on their website showing “Cool Stuff Being Made,” with a new one every week. This week’s video features a 23-minute tour of the Yuengling Brewery in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. Our tour guide is assistant brewer Jeffrey Tito, who shows the ingredients (including corn grits!), the brewhouse, the mill, the bottling line and a detailed walk through the entire brewery. Yuengling was founded in 1829 and, as such, is the oldest American brewery still in operation. I’ve visited the brewery many times, having grown up not too far from there. It’s located in a small coal mining town in the eastern part of the state.

To watch the video, you do have to register, but it’s simple and free. In addition, there’s an archive or other really cool stuff being manufactured, like clarinets, motorcycles, candy and even parade balloons. The archive also inclues brewery tours of Anheuser-Busch and the Boston Beer Co. If you want to keep up with new videos, there’s an RSS feed for the films and also a feed for video podcasts, which appear to be created a few weeks after the original airing date.

« Previous Page