Beer Sales: Down, Down, Down (As I Expected) -- And Those "Efficiencies" Are Paying Off

News today from MolsonCoors: Beer sales are down.

Of course they are. And you're scoffing at the idea that somehow this is all due to the dollar's strength against other currencies. That's because you read this and this. S

ee how all your new-found historical perspective is paying off when you read the news? History's not so bad. Really, it's not! (Note, too, that MillerCoors joint venture is indeed paying off, thanks to all those "efficiencies" the venture's leaders began working on a year ago. Which may be what saves them from the fate I predicted.) (Although to be fair to myself, when I made that prediction, I had no idea that InBev was about to ram the gates.)

And Then Moving Back To Beer and the Eternal "What's Good" Debate . . .

More thought-provoking ruminations from Jeff at Beervana.

The Guiness post he refers to, which contains the Velveeta comment from Patrick Emerson, is here. I took my own stupid stab at this here. But here's an entry that links back to the origins of the "good in relation to price" commentary from Jeff and Patrick. (By the way, apparently Patrick also has a separate beer economics blog.) (WHERE do people get their energy? And may I have some of it?)

Every "group," by the way, has its running debate about what's "good" and what's not.

Eg, writers will debate the meaning of "good writing" all the way to the pearly gates: Is a "good" writer one who creates lush, evocative strings of words, even if those strings of words don't produce a particularly compelling narrative? Or is a "good writer" one who produces rolloping great stories? (Yes, I made up the word "rolloping." It sounds good.)

Eg, frankly, J.K. Rowling wouldn't know evocative prose if it smacked her in the face, but, yowza! she can keep the reader's eye glued to the page with her plots and pacing. (If you're curious, by the way: I fall into the "good story" camp. Nuthin' I hate more than some "writer" who is in love with his/her own "voice" and whose characters are boring and plots non-existent.) (It's why I like Anthony Trollope: by god, he could craft lush, evocative strings of words, AND his characters and plots are addictive.)

(And I have to wonder: is it possible for me to post a blog entry without yammering on and on and on???????????)

And Speaking of Anheuser-Busch InBev and Hops . . .

. . . which I was doing just a few days ago: This just in from the hops industry. (Via, and tip o' the mug to, the folks at Rooftop Brew)

Don Barkley, New New Albion Beer, and the First SF Beer Week

Jay Brooks has posted photos of Don Barkley pouring/tasting the commemorative version of New Albion ale at San Francisco Beer Week.

I explored Don's connection with New Albion in chapter seven of Ambitious Brew, but here's a blog entry about his current venture, and another one from First Draft Follies about the brewpub in Mendocino, which is where he landed after the closing of New Albion.

Sidenote: I emailed Jack McAuliffe about this week's beer event, but have not heard back from him. Will update that end of the story as it happens.

Middle-of-Road Beer = Big Bucks = Happy Shareholders. MOR Beer Therefore = Smart Beer

I know that among the beer geeks, this is the standard view: Big Breweries make bland beer. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and disagree (which, yes, I so hate to do. Stan is smarter than me and he'll likely chop up this post and use it to mop his floor. . . .) Big Breweries make profits. They do so in order to make shareholders happy. That's what they do, because their owners went into business to make lots and lots of money.

And the way they could make money was by making beer that appealed to the largest number of people. Which, by definition, is a beer that contains a balance of malt and hops. Not a malt-rich beer.

Not a beer stuffed with as many hops as the brewer could stuff into it using his keeno, whiz-bang, hops-stuffing device. It's a beer that hits the middle road and therefore appeals to the most potential buyers.

Ain't no one, and I mean no. one., gonna get Big Rich making beer only for the roughly 50% of the population that prefers the flavor of hops.

Ain't no one gonna get Big Rich by making beer only for people like me, who prefer the flavor of malt.

The people who will make Big Bucks (and make their shareholders happy) are the ones who hit the sweet spot in the middle. So: it's not bland beer. It's smart beer.

(Because of the book I'm working on. I've been spending a lot of brain power lately thinking about how capitalism works, and why and how big corporations grow -- and thereby attract shareholders, and then grow more by making shareholders happy.)

What Happens When the Bean Counters Step In?

Stan replied to my previous post, and you can read his entire comment at that entry -- but I want to highlight something he wrote:

I worry, since they've been a great supporter of the Halltertau hops region, about what happens to the hops growers there when the bean counters step in.

He's referring here to Anheuser-Busch InBev, which is now in the hands of bean counters par excellence. Stan's right to worry, as are those hops growers. Indeed, one of my fears during the Great Takeover was that A-B will go the way of other great breweries that have been destroyed by bean counters -- the classic example being, of course, the spectacular collapse of Schlitz Brewing in the 1970s.

I console myself with this thought: People at A-B have read and studied my book (that's not intended to be boastful; it's fact), and so they know about what happened at Schlitz. Maybe they can persuade Brito to read that section of that chapter. (*1) Time will tell

. __________________

*1: A used copy of the book, of course, because he'd never agree to, ya know, buying a new copy. Although the library at ABI is still intact and it contains several copies. So the guy has no excuse.