Todd Antz wrote:None of the mega breweries ever put their names on the beers they brew as a "craft brand". For some reason the seem ashamed to put their name on them. Blue Moon was always "Blue Moon Brewing Company" Anheuser names their "breweries" right after the name of the beer (Hop Hound Brewing, Blue Dog Brewing, etc). While it is deceptive, its been pointed out that this has happened for years with other products in the alcohol industry. I've personally never understood why they wouldn't just put their name somewhere on the label. If you are known for making a cheap a$$ whiskey, but can crank out something respectable, and sometimes amazing (Heaven Hill is the king of this) then be proud and put your name somewhere on the label. Just because a bottle of Bernheim Wheat has Distilled and bottled by Heaven Hill on it wouldn't scare me away, but they won't put their name on it at all. As it is, I look at a label now, and wonder exactly how Bardstown Kentucky manages to fit 50+ distilleries in such a small geographic area.
DanB wrote:Corporate parentage should be a non-issue. If you buy a Blancpain watch you won't see Swatch Group on the box. A Bugatti sure won't have Volkswagen stamped on it anywhere. And a bottle of Dom Pérignon won't be any less or more drinkable if it had LVMH on the label. The guys who make this Colorado brew might be every bit as schooled in, and dedicated to their craft as the most diligent microbrewer on a side street in Denver. Sure they get help with financing and accounting. I'm sure most microbrewers would be jealous of their parent's deep pockets. But in the end if it's a quality product made with artisanal/craft instincts at a fair price and managed at arm's length by some corporate, I as a consumer am all for it. This "ethical" argument is rubbish in my view. It's not like Coors tortures ponies or makes pygmaes work 24 hour shifts brewing their swill.
As someone who is not an über beer geek, and not emotionally involved in this David and Goliath epic of us versus them, I find it a bit of a turn-off when the small guys try to make an Orwellian Goldstein out of the major brewers. I mean, they're just big companies with a shite product 99% of the time. If you make something better at a fair price, you're gonna find a reasonable level of success. If they are copying you, look at it as a success story.
Chris M wrote:This whole thread is just the usual "Big business is bad and has unfair influence.. the little guy always gets screwed" that seems to make up half the threads on this board.
Chris M wrote:... seems to make up half the threads on this board
Robin Garr wrote:Chris M wrote:... seems to make up half the threads on this board
Want to count 'em and report back. I'd suggest the ratio may be closer to 1 in 100 on actual analysis. It's a valid issue, though. Plenty of cities our size don't offer much of an indie option to chains. Do any of us really want to see that here?
Chris M wrote:The only person who has any power at all is the consumer. People can chose to buy or not buy whatever they want.
Joel Halblieb wrote:"Stop blaming the big brewers for playing the game by the rules that the government has set up."
Did you catch the part in Beer Wars where there was a huge bash for governement folks by one of the big two? How much money does Miller/Coors and AB spend on political lobbying? I am just saying the big guys have a large say in how any beverage law is written concerning their business. If you think not you are fooling yourself.
Rob Coffey wrote:Chris M wrote:The only person who has any power at all is the consumer. People can chose to buy or not buy whatever they want.
I wish those statements were true. Alas, they are not.
Steve H wrote:Joel Halblieb wrote:"Stop blaming the big brewers for playing the game by the rules that the government has set up."
Did you catch the part in Beer Wars where there was a huge bash for governement folks by one of the big two? How much money does Miller/Coors and AB spend on political lobbying? I am just saying the big guys have a large say in how any beverage law is written concerning their business. If you think not you are fooling yourself.
I hadn't seen "Beer Wars" link before I posted.
Plus you misunderstand my point. The only reason that the "Big Two" can pay lot's of money and through big bashes to influence the government is because government manipulates the market. The original reason for almost all government market manipulations is for the ostensible reasons of protecting the little guy, e.g. the consumer.
Unfortunately, what ALWAYS happens is that the government agencies that over see the applicable regulations always end being subverted by the biggest players in the market that they oversee. This happens like clock work. This is how the government will almost always end up protecting vested and moneyed interests instead of promoting free competition. That's why many states are burdened with three tier marketing requirements, which ultimately do nothing to protect customers. But it does plenty to put money in the hands of cronies, who can then be funnel it back into politics and politicians pockets.
It's amusing that the more leftist among us are the same ones that complain about the big chains and the big companies that stifle competition. When ultimately, it is government power that lays foundation for these situations.
More government equals more corporatism. Simple.
Rob Coffey wrote:Chris M wrote:The only person who has any power at all is the consumer. People can chose to buy or not buy whatever they want.
I wish those statements were true. Alas, they are not.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 30 guests