Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 11

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

Finally, there’s the three-tier system.

The film portrayed the system as a weapon wielded by evil corporate giants who use it to hold down little guys like Sam and Greg, and to prevent Americans from gaining access to “real” beer.

I disagree.(*1) It’s not that simple, and to understand why, we need to know something about the history of the three-tier system. I know what you’re saying:

“Yeah, yeah. The 3-tier system was created after Prohibition. So what? The past is irrelevant. All that matters now is that the 3-tier system allows wholesalers to exercise too much power over beer distribution.”

Again, I disagree. The original reason for the 3-tier system is as relevant today as it was in 1933, and is connected to why craft brewers have a hard time getting their message across to consumers.

So. Short history lesson. Before Prohibition, breweries could own saloons and use them as retail outlets for their beer. Nearly every brewer owned one, and big brewers owned many of them. The prohibitionists believed that if they could outlaw the saloons, the brewers would have no place to sell beer and they would go out of business. (It’s not a coincidence that the group that spearheaded the drive to ban alcohol was named the Anti-Saloon League.) So they launched a (successful) campaign against the saloon, painting them as a threat to decency, law, order, and the family; as dens of iniquity that harbored criminal activity, such as gambling and prostitution.

The Prohibitionists made their point, and an entire generation of Americans grew up fearing the power of the saloon. So when Prohibition ended, Americans wanted to avoid the return of this alleged evil.To that end, lawmakers at the federal and state level passed hundreds of laws aimed at constructing barriers between Americans and alcohol: Sunday closing laws, the state-control of the sale of alcohol, liquor-by-the-drink laws, the power for localities to remain “dry” and so forth.

I wrote about this in a longish op-ed piece for U.S. News a few months ago, so I won’t repeat myself. You can read that piece here.

Next: The 3-tier system as vehicle for demonization.

______________

*1: That doesn’t mean that I think the film was bad. As I noted earlier in this absurdly long discourse, I thought Anat’s film was first-rate. I disagree, however, with part of her “message.” It’s possible to praise the messenger and the medium and still disagree with the message.

Pete Brown's New Book is Out

British beer writer Pete Brown (one of THE nicest guys on the planet) has a new book out:Hops and Glory: One Man's Search for the Beer That Built the British Empire. The book was released in the UK, but you can get free shipping to the US by ordering it here. His blog is here.

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 10

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

Yes, I’m almost at the end. This is part ten of thirteen. And no, I never intended to string this out so long, which has resulted, I’m afraid in a more disjointed rumination than I originally intended. (Nor did I realize Life was gonna get in my face the way it has the past week.)

During the panel discussion, Anat showed a clip of Todd criticizing Rhonda for not making “real” beer. The general drift was that she doesn’t make “real” beer, so she’s not a “real” beer person or a “real” entrepreneur. She’s not “authentic.”

The exchange floored me. If the craft people want to exclude someone like Rhonda from, say, their trade organization, fine. But it strikes me as disingenuous to believe that they, and they alone, have the power to decide what is “real” beer and what is not.

And that gets at the heart of the matter (or one of the hearts, for this is a creature of many hearts): If the craft people want real beer, great. But their passion and desire for real beer does not grant them the power to deny other kinds of beer to other people.

Why? Because this is, after all, the United States, where we all believe in the “religion” of choice. It’s a big world out there. I’m willing to allow the craft brewers their corner of the world, but they in turn ought, I think, be generous enough to accept and acknowledge that not everyone agrees with them and their view of beer, real or otherwise. Nor should they render moral judgment upon those who prefer one kind of beer over another.

This is the essence of why battling over religion itself is pointless: If five people believe in five different gods, it’s clear that the “ real god” is whatever one each believes in. If so, then by definition, there can’t be “one” god. So why insist that your view of god is the correct one?

(And of course if I had the answer to that question, I would in one swoop solve most of the world’s problems.)

But the subtext of that discussion was, of course, the Big Brewers. No one came right out and said it, but in effect, they’re regard Rhonda as a patsy for Big Brewers, and, like them, foisting “non-real beer” off on consumers.

I have another view: I think Rhonda, and the Big Brewers are simply giving Americans what they want, and to understand why, we need to turn to the other villain in this piece: the 3-tier system.

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 9

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

Then there’s this notion that somehow Americans have only recently “discovered” the virtues of individualism and of supporting entrepreneurs.

Sorry to disappoint, but individualism and entrepreneurship are not particularly new, nor have Americans only recently learned to value them. Indeed, they are two of our most overt expressions of “freedom” and are two of the factors that make Americans and the U.S. unique. If that were not the case, millions of people would not have emigrated here. In the 19th century, for example, German emigres came here and opened breweries because entrepreneurship was valued in American society in a way that it was not in northern Europe.

Greg, Sam, Todd, Rhonda? They’re following in a fine American tradition: using the relatively unconstrained American legal and financial system — both of which are reflection of our American obsession with nurturing opportunity and individual liberty — to build businesses.

(I know that it seems like our governmental and legal systems are burdened with too many laws and regulations, but compared to other nations in the world, we live in a near-nirvana of tax-and-legal freedom.)

It’s also worth noting that during the panel discussion, someone noted that 120 years ago, the U.S. boasted about 2,000 brewers, individual entrepreneurs brewing beer for local markets. Just like, ya know, the much-touted 1,500 or so “local” brewers today.

Put another way: there’s not much new under the sun. I love what the craft brewers do. I admire and respect their passion and dedication. But they’re not unique. They’re not inventing the wheel. Which is why I said to Sam and Greg, check back with me in ten years: Because I doubt that they are so unique that they will buck the norms of human, and American, behavior. (*1)

Indeed, they might want to check with their colleagues the Widmer brothers. Back in the 1980s, Kurt Widmer and his brother, passionate brewers both, founded a microbrewery so they could make “real” beer. At the time, they criticized Jim Koch (maker of Sam Adams beer) for not being a “real” brewer and for daring to sell his beer on contract. (Contract brewers hire vat space from another brewery.)

Guess which beermaker, a few years later, shifted to contract brewing and then sold a significiant chunk of his business to a Big Brewer?

That’s not a criticism of the Widmer brothers, by the way. It’s an illustration of ways in which success, hardship, ambition, and so forth change the way people define their lives and their idea of what’s “good.”

__________

*1: But again, as I’ve asked before: Are we living in a new age? Perhaps there is something new under the sun? I dunno. Check back with me in, oh, fifty, sixty years. (Oh. Wait. It’s unlikely I’ll be alive then, sad to say.) (Unless of course this is a truly new age and we conquer the process of aging.)

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 8

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

Let’s start with the notion that craft brewers are entrepreneurs. They’ve created something from nothing, and they did so because they believe in their work and its value. Charlie Papazian has devoted his adult life to building an organization, and to spreading the gospel of good beer. Todd and Jason Alstrom started with an idea — a website devoted to beer — and they’ve worked their butts off to build that idea into a viable business. Ditto Sam, Greg, and Rhonda. Every single day they’re putting themselves and their families on the line because they want to pursue their passion.

But it’s not clear to me how or why that makes any of them different from any other entrpreneur — or artist or artisan — or, for that matter, any different than someone who works for a for-profit or non-profit company in which they believe.

I say that as an entrepreneur. I’m a self-employed, one-woman operation. Like Sam, Greg, Todd, and Rhonda, I’m out there every day trying to persuade people to consume what I have to offer. (In my case, words rather than beer.) Like them, everyday, I work to create something from nothing, the “something” in my case being, again, a book.

And because I am an entrepreneur, I understand that the world is full of other human beings with goals. Do I agree with all of them? No. Nor do I think some entrepreneurs are more “pure” and “real” than others. That’s not a criticism of the others on the panel. I respect and admire them for their work and their passion. But I don’t think they’re any different from other passionate pursuers of dreams.

But the larger point is this. As a historian, I’ve spent years studying patterns of human behavior from a historical perspective, and here’s one thing I know about humans, success, and money: The more they make, the more they want. Entrepreneurs seek constant challenge, success piled on success.

Think Donald Trump or Bill Gates: They never stopped wanting more. (Gates has stepped down from Microsoft, but only because he’d decided to pursue a new and different set of challenges.)

Yes, I know what you’re thinking: Donald Trump and Bill Gates are nothing like the Sam and Greg. Sam and Greg are good guys. Trump and Gates are Corporate Fat Cats.

Maybe, maybe not. They are all, however, ambitious, smart, talented, hard-driving people who enjoy a challenge and who want more. And historically, human beings who fit that description have demonstrated that they’ll never be satisfied. That’s the nature of the beast. That’s not a value judgment: Donald Trump isn’t a bad guy. Greg Koch isn’t a bad guy. They’re simply motivated, driven, ambitious creatures.

Think about it: During the film, both Greg and Sam talked at length about their plans for expansion: bigger vats, larger bottling lines. Both are constantly expanding their distribution territories. Put bluntly: they’re constantly on the prowl looking for their Next Move, which is always to the larger end of the spectrum. We didn’t see or hear them talking about downsizing. We saw and heard them talking about growing bigger.

In short, they’re behaving in a completely human way, which is to strive, strive, and strive some more. That’s why I said to them “Check back with me in ten years.” I meant “Let’s see in ten years how you feel about “success” and about your desire to satisfy your creative ambitions.”

Next: Historical perspective on “individualism,” and consumer choice

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 7

Part 1 --- Part 2 --- Part 3 --- Part 4 --- Part 5 --- Part 6 --- Part 7 Part 8 --- Part 9 --- Part 10 --- Part 11 --- Part 12 --- Part 13

NOTE: When I moved to a new site, this "Beer Wars" series was mangled/destroyed during the move. I've reconstructed it by copying/pasting another copy of the original posts. I also lost the comments in their original form. I've copied/pasted the comments, but had to do so under my own name. So although it looks as though I'm the only commenter, I'm not. In each case, I've identified the original commenter.

_______________________________

During the post-film panel discussion, Ben Stein asked the beer folks (Charlie, Todd, Sam, Greg, Rhonda) about big-beer power and the three-tier system. They agreed with Anat’s basic premise: That companies like A-B InBev make their work more difficult; make it difficult for small entrepreneurs to survive.

Then Ben asked the craft contingent what makes craft beer and craft brewing so special. They responded that craft brewers are special/unique because they care about their product, they have passion for their work, they’re pursuing the American dream, they making an “authentic” product, ie “real” beer. Or, as Charlie put it, for the craft brewers, the beer comes first. For the “big brewers,” image and marketing matter more than the beer.

Sam and Greg insisted that, for them, the beer would always come first. They also argued that in recent years Americans have begun demanding products that are “local” and “authentic”; demanding products from “individuals” rather than “big corporations.” (And if it weren’t for those pesky big brewers, the small brewers would be more successful.) Finally, they said that making money isn’t their main goal; making a pure, authentic product is, and that it doesn’t matter to them if their companies grow any larger

Then Ben asked me: What’s wrong with big companies wanting to sell their product. Isn’t that what capitalism is all about? I replied by saying, in effect, nothing is wrong with it, and yes, That’s what capitalism is about.

Individuals like Sam, Greg, and Rhonda launch companies because they want to make a product they believe in; they want to make money so they can support their families; they want to be successful. They enjoy and thrive on the challenge. And yes, they have to believe in what they do, because entrepreneurship is not for the faint of heart. Some entrepreneurs (in this case brewers) become successful.

Anheuser-Busch, for example, started out as a tiny brewing company (as did Sam’s and Greg’s). Its owners succeeded, and did so, I would argue, because they met a tough challenge and worked their asses off to make their companies grow.

And then I said something like Greg and Sam should check back with me in ten years to see how their plan to remain small, pure, and real was working out. Which, I gather, made them and others unhappy. They think that I don’t “understand” what they’re trying to do; that I don’t understand their passion.

Next: Entrepreneurship, historical perspective, and other matters