Ratebeer Weekly email newsletter wrote:THE NEW YORK TIMES CRAFT-BEER KERFUFFLE
And My Response to Bad Beer Writing
Last week, The New York Times published a concerning article by Clay Risen on what was ultimately billed as the "wine-ification" <shudder> of beer, which took a pretty skewed look at something that's actually worth talking about: beer in bigger bottles. Now, I try to be patient in reacting to these things, for two reasons: (1) RateBeer Weekly looks a bit funny in all CAPS, and (2) seasoned veterans like Jay Brooks and Garrett Oliver are better at launching a frontal assault. All three preceding links are worth a read. For price perspectives on larger-format bottles, we've already covered this issue a bit in a previous edition of RateBeer Weekly.
The briefest of summaries: Clay Risen frames larger-format craft bottles as the beer industry striving to be more like wine, with customers and retailers balking. Jay and Garrett rightfully call out the arrogant wine-y tone, the lopsided rhetoric, and some pretty iffy details (of which there aren’t many to begin with). And Michael Tonsmeire, quoted in the original article, brings us back to the elephant in the room: We still really do need to talk about larger-format bottles. I'll dig into that later.
As someone who cares deeply about the quality of beer writing in this country, right now I'm most concerned about how coverage like this sees the light of day.
Key points: (1) It's not like Clay Risen can't write savvy beer content. I've enjoyed his work at The Atlantic in the past. (2) As someone who speaks to brewers on an almost-daily basis at this point, I know that many really do use larger formats to get the most $ per ounce for their beer, but it's not because they're actively trying to screw people or (facepalm) emulate wine. It's because, (3) contrary to the NYT article, restaurants and high-end consumers are buying the shit out of those beers. And those higher price points also allow smaller brewers (artists, I would argue) to make a living without going big. We choose whether or not to support them.
That's what that article should have been about. And that, I think, is the only way I can make sense of this whole thing, by asking: What does respectable coverage of this topic look like? I think I have a general inkling. It probably would have teased out the real dynamic at play here: a burgeoning artisanal industry still struggling to figure out its internal price points and its steady-state values. It would allow for more than a single viewpoint (without all the hasty generalizations). It would do the legwork of actual research. It wouldn't use 14 mentions of the word "wine" as a contextual crutch. It wouldn't conflate 22oz bombers with corked-and-caged 750s (nor would it completely thumb its nose at the existence of Belgian beer culture). Most crucially, it most certainly would not presume that NYT is the place for a part-time beer writer to think that he understands these issues so clearly that he can stop doing basic journalism.
Here's the thing: Part of me believes that Risen truly intended this article to be in defense of beer culture, a warning shot against what he interprets as bad habits. He's in a position to do such things, to have that sort of impact. Every part of me wishes he'd do a better job.
–Ken Weaver (RB: kmweaver)
Very clearly put!
Re: "I know that many really do use larger formats to get the most $ per ounce for their beer -It's because - restaurants and high-end consumers are buying the shit out of those beers. And those higher price points also allow smaller brewers (artists, I would argue) to make a living without going big. We choose whether or not to support them. "
- it's still kind of hollow to sell a very regular-value beer for an inflated price, solely because it's in a large bottle . I think the USA brewers at this time still have a firmer grasp on reality about when a beer is remarkable enough to charge more for VS when only the serving size is bigger.
What I'm saying is the packaging is still in itself no excuse to get carried away with gouging on prices. At least for the beer dollar I vote with. The whole 'making a living' justification still has to carry substance in how good the beer is, or the better-value products will kill them.
