The Bar Towel

I know Mike from KBC sometimes posts here, so hopefully he won't mind me linking to his blog:

http://www.kensingtonbrewingcompany.com ... ft-part-1/

Can't wait to see what he writes, and I'm sure it'll generate some interesting dialogue!

Sounds good to me. I mean this is exactly how competition should work. If the big guys fear losing market share to other high quality beers, I would much rather they take notice, and start making more flavourful products because I don't really see the problem. I would much rather they do that than spend their money coming up with things like cold certified cans, microcarbonated beers or other stupid promotions.

Kel Varnsen wrote:Sounds good to me. I mean this is exactly how competition should work. If the big guys fear losing market share to other high quality beers, I would much rather they take notice, and start making more flavourful products because I don't really see the problem. I would much rather they do that than spend their money coming up with things like cold certified cans, microcarbonated beers or other stupid promotions.

+1. I don't understand the post (and not just because the italics is impossible to read). Anyone who is actually into good beer will pretty quickly identify bad beer. I don't drink Creemore Keller because the dastardly marketeers at Molsons have tricked me, I drink it because it's tasty. He says it himself, nobody goes back to swill after buying into quality. If the branding is what's bothering a small brewer, then the problem probably lies with their beer.

Bytowner wrote:+1. I don't understand the post (and not just because the italics is impossible to read). Anyone who is actually into good beer will pretty quickly identify bad beer. I don't drink Creemore Keller because the dastardly marketeers at Molsons have tricked me, I drink it because it's tasty. He says it himself, nobody goes back to swill after buying into quality. If the branding is what's bothering a small brewer, then the problem probably lies with their beer.

IFIIFFI corporate beer figured out a reasonable range of tasty products (say a mass version of pale ale, IPA, maybe a porter, etc) and put their marketing and distribution might behind it that would have to scare the bejeebus out of the small craft brewers.

The big guys will never be able to go after all the more extreme beers, but if corporate beer managed to find a way to soak up a lot/most of the Mad Tom/Lugtread/whatever sales that would eat a ton of cash away from the smaller folks and surely stifle a lot of innovation.


Right now, the craft world can really sell taste and quality, but if some or a lot of that was taken away they'd be left with much less easy selling points (buy local!) while losing a big chunk of the middle of the road beer pie.

Not sure if it'll ever really happen, but I can see them being afraid of that. And, if losing sales of some of their mainstream beers mean the craft guys don't have the money to innovate, then we all lose.

I'm just talking out of my bum, so maybe I'm missing the whole point...

Although there are some good macro owned beers I will only buy them if my choices are between them and macro swill. Not because the quality is poor, but because I prefer to spend my money supporting the smaller guys. Same reason I don't shop at Walmart or other huge chains if i can help it.

I really hate this us vs them mentality. I mean do big companies like Inbev does some sneaky business practices? Of course, but to me it is all just business.

Plus I hate the idea/assumption that small brewers exclusively make good beer and big companies only make swill. I mean I would rather drink just about any Granville Island product (or Goose Island Product) than pretty much anything from Trafalgar.

Plus as far as big vs. small goes a few year ago (it might have changed since then) I looked up some numbers and found out that Fuller's in the UK was making more beer per year than all the OCB members combined.

Agree, the current dynamics are very healthy for encouraging local production and importation of GREAT craft beer, and for supporting companies like Muskoka that have a wide reach with their 'safe' craft beer choices.

It's a complate shift at the consumer level - people are buying in to the quality ethic, and they cannot be dis-educated away from that so easily. And (like it or not, MolBatt) we have an unstoppable, free market here! Even the LCBO is seeing the Craft Beer dollar signs now. The snoozing Beer Store will need to keep up with the trend as well.

Not ironically we used to have that 'small brewer' old-Europe model right here in North America, much in the way pre-war Germany once had thousands of breweries. There were skilled immigrant brewers and open opportunities. But those wars and industrialization and prohibiion diminished and partially destroyed that brewing tradition. So the re-emergence of small breweries and true 'taste for beer' is a rebalancing of something that has been out of whack for a long time. It's a return to the way things have to be.

Hey guys,

This is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping to achieve.

It is, unfortunately, one of those subjects that does require a lot of clarification. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about beer produced in large quantities. I do, however, take issue with lip service being given to the craft movement while the same old bag of tricks are employed by the big boys.

Bland/bad beer is bland/bad beer. What I'm interested in is the intersection of emotion, passion, and perhaps a counter culture influence, and the subjective nature of beer. It's clear to those I speak with that it's about a heck of lot more than just the taste. It does seem to matter who owns the company, no matter how good the beer is.

Mike-KBCo wrote: I do, however, take issue with lip service being given to the craft movement while the same old bag of tricks are employed by the big boys.

I think it is getting to the point where the large companies are realizing they have to do more than just pay lip service to go after this segment of the market. Things like "premium microcarbonated lager" aren't going to cut it and very soon they are going to start producing flavourful products to go after that 5% of the market. As for the other 95% I think they just don't care, and aren't looking for a flavourful product. They just want Coors like to quench their thirst and get them moderately drunk without having to mix ingredients together.

Mike-KBCo wrote: Bland/bad beer is bland/bad beer. What I'm interested in is the intersection of emotion, passion, and perhaps a counter culture influence, and the subjective nature of beer. It's clear to those I speak with that it's about a heck of lot more than just the taste. It does seem to matter who owns the company, no matter how good the beer is.

To me I really don't care who owns the beer company as long as the product is good. It is the same reason I will watch shows like Sons of Anarchy, even though it is produced by a Newscorp affiliate and they are involved in some much more shady business than Inbev ever has been.

Mike-KBCo wrote:I do, however, take issue with lip service being given to the craft movement while the same old bag of tricks are employed by the big boys.

My two thoughts are 'caveat emptor' and 'fool me twice, shame on me!'

Those pseudo-craft brews aren't likely to pass my palate more than one time, yet I guess they could keep the 'craft curious' segment in a prolonged state of confusion.

Maybe indefinitely - or maybe not? I wonder if those 'almost craft' beers can serve as an unintentional gateway to 'hey this tastes even better' REAL craft brands. It's a risk.

So perhaps pseudo-craft may both help the big boys AND their own competition?

My view is that the term "faux craft" is problematic because craft beer can be indifferent or bad. The term seems to imply the superiority of craft, i.e., small-scale vs. large scale brewing, but my tasting experience does not bear this out. Isn't a bland, adjunct-laden beer just as "bad" as a craft IPA or stout that is damp-paper oxidized, or wonky-tasting in some other way?

At present, the great majority of fine beer issues from the craft segment, but this can change in the future. Pilsner Urquell shows us that a great lager - possibly the best blonde lager in the world - can be made by a very large concern. Six Pints in Toronto has shown that it can make some pretty creditable beer. Creemore and Granville Island beers are examples too for many I know although I never really felt their beers were superlative.

I think the best guarantee of success for brewers no matter what their size is to make a great product. Those who don't brew well technically, or brew an indifferently-tasting product, will not get my support no matter what size they are. At the same time, small producers will always have a flexibility the big players don't have. They can make new products more often for example, and keep their ear close to the consumer base. No matter what the big guys do, a flexible small producer can develop a following and grow.

Although not greatly bothered if a big brewer does something which suggests a craft image, they really don't need to go there IMO again. Most dedicated beer fans will know anyway who makes what is in their glass.

Just make something good, that is all that matters (to me).

Gary

G.M. Gillman wrote:My view is that the term "faux craft" is problematic because craft beer can be indifferent or bad.

Well I think we're really talking about the intent to mislead the 'craft curious' away with corporate-minded swill. It is about pretense motivated by greed.

Barking Squirrel does this to some extent, Urquell does not.

Let's look at just two rules of business.

1. Everything will eventually grow, consolidate or disappear. Enjoy your artisanal producers while they are on their way up, nothing lasts for ever.

2. Everything requires capital. Not many small breweries have enough friends and family to support them. At some point they will need a banker or investor. What's worse a banker who knows nothing of beer or a big brewer who at least has a clue? Is a brewery no longer "local craft" when a foreign bank capitalizes them?

Yes it bad for all of us to see a predatory company buy one we love to get them out of their way, but it's also hopeful that they are buying to be part of the revenue opportunity or new direction. I'm not going to slam the many great owners of micro breweries I have had the good fortune to get to know, but I do know, very few will forever hold their ground for the craft over the dollar. The luxury to do that simply does not exist. Even if they do, the next generation will be faced with pressures of growth and change.

At some point in history, Moslon, Labatt and all the rest were on a quest to produce to the highest standards. Scale was not the only thing to ruin that, business reality was.

I should add, that I am grateful for the craft movement having broken the monopolies that existed and expanded our choices. My past post was not to advocate an acceptance of going back to the old days of complacency in brewing.

Also, having worked for and owned businesses big and small, my heart goes out to anyone working for a big public company. I have seen how corrosive it is to creativity, quality and the basic dignity of people. I would never work for or lead such an enterprise again. But I still recognize we can't avoid them in our world and hope the occasional one gets it right.

Tapsucker wrote: 1. Everything will eventually grow, consolidate or disappear. Enjoy your artisanal producers while they are on their way up, nothing lasts for ever.

That is something I have been thinking about a lot lately. I mean we really are still in the first generation of the whole craft brewing thing. What happens when people like the owners of Brooklyn, or Founders or Dog Fish Head decide they are ready to retire. These people have created multi-million dollar companies. If they don't have family to turn their companies over too, or employees ready to make an offer they are going to have to sell their companies. And with companies at those values there aren't going to be that many people around who are going to make serious offers.

I see there being three possibilities here: offer made by a company who say they will try to keep your company craft oriented, offers by an investment firm, or offers by someone like Inbev. If you take the first one there is no guarantee that the buyer will keep to his word. And if InBev is offering say 20% more than anyone else, how would you turn that down considering you spent most of your life pouring your blood, sweat and tears into your business, and knowing that you want to retire and be able to take care of yourself and your family.