Why You Might Miss Anheuser-Busch When It's Gone.

/

In the current issue of Beer Advocate magazine (volume II, issue X) a reader chides the magazine's publishers/editors for running ads from the "big" brewers.

". . . I don't think BA should be a forum for the advertisers at BudMillerCoors. In the same way, I don't want to see a Wal-Mart ad in my sub-culture, indie-rock magazine, even if Wal-Mart's music department claims to bring in 'the latest alternative music.'"

He goes on to say:

"BA has a history of representing a subculture of small-batch brewers. If you open the doors to every size of beer, BA loses some of its identity as a billboard for the little guy."

I understand the writer's irritation with what he interprets as an invasion into "his" sub-culture.

But here's another perspective on the situation: Take away the three full-page ads for A-B products found in the same issue of Beer Advocate, and that issue of Beer Advocate might not have appeared at all. Ditto for All About Beer and Draft magazines.

Yes, there are plenty of other beer ads in the beer magazines, but the majority of them are mostly quarter-page ads. That's all that most small brewers can afford, but that's probably not enough to keep the magazines going. Put another way, the "big" brewers (or, as the letter-writer calls them, "BudMillerCoors") help subsidize beer journalism.

If you enjoy reading Beer Advocate, thank A-B (and MillerCoors and some of the bigger importers) for helping make the magazine possible. Sometime in the next few weeks, InBev will likely complete its acquisition of Anheuser-Busch. Expect a fair amount of fist-pumping and "take thats" from beer bloggers and participants in the on-line forums as they celebrate A-B's "demise But here's another thought -- and now I'm quoting myself from a piece I wrote for the October issue of Modern Brewery Age:

The gloating may be premature. It’s hard to imagine Carlos Brito funding an endowed chair at the nation’s most prestigious brewing school, as A-B did at University of California-Davis some years ago. Flip through one of the beer-consumer magazines and look at the expensive glossy ads that A-B buys each month. Will the penny-pinching Brito continue the practice? Can the magazines survive if he does not?

And what about the “Here’s To Beer" campaign?

A few years ago, A-B suggested that brewers mount a collective, industry-wide campaign to promote beer as a sophisticated beverage for discerning consumers, something brewing needed as aging consumers turned to wine and spirits.

Brewers said no thanks, and beer geeks mocked the suggestion. (Would they have done the same if the idea had come from, say, Jim Koch?) A-B went ahead anyway -- and left no fingerprints. As far as the average consumer knows, this was just beer’s version of the milk industry’s “Got Milk?" campaign. Craft brewers in particular would have benefited from the project, but the opportunity is likely gone for good.

And so, apparently, is the Busch family. But as American brewers witness the end of an extraordinary saga, I hope they’ll take a moment to ponder the Long View and the Big Picture: For more than 140 years, the Busch fathers and sons waged war, created enemies, and broke hearts. But their warrior stance also inspired competitors to aim higher and work harder; inspired them to imagine a better beer. As the door closes, take a moment to say thanks.

 

___________________

My thanks to Pete Reid, editor and publisher of Modern Brewery Age ,for allowing me to quote from my essay "Farewell and Thanks: Why The Busch Family Mattered," which appeared in the October 2008 issue. You can read the entire piece (and the entire issue) here.

A Bigger Bucket, Please

/

Heh heh. Only thing wrong with it is that the guy in the Carhart needs a bigger bucket.

For you non-Iowans, the cartoon is hilarious because here in Iowa, the first-in-the-nation-caucus state (which, ahem, this year brought you Barack Obama....), the politicking literally never stops. As soon as an election ends, candidates start wooing the state's political activists. If you're an Iowa Republican, your phone will start ringing soon, and it will be ringing in earnest in another year or so. (Had McCain won the election, it would be Democrats' phones ringing).

The two people in the cartoon are Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal, who will both be in Iowa in the next week. Their ostensible reason is to give invited talks -- but the reality is that they're testing the waters for 2012. Seriously.

To which I say: BIGGER BUCKET, PLEASE!

Brian Duffy is the political cartoonist at the Des Moines Register. The cartoon ran this morning, with the first panel on the front page (where Duffy's 'toons always run), but the second panel inside on the editorial page. (Which was pretty cool. I don't remember Duffy ever doing that before.)

NOTE: Brian Duffy lost his job a day or two after the cartoon ran, another victim of the collapse of print journalism.

Historical Significance And The Election Of 2008. Part 2.

/

Part One --- Part Two

As was true a century ago, so, too, in the past thirty years, we Americans have lived through a period of exceptionally intense social, cultural, and economic upheaval.

Our "manufacturing" sector now rests more on ideas than on machines, but our educational system has not kept pace. Immigration, legal and otherwise, continues to change the face of America. Computers, regarded as an egghead novelty in the 1980s, are fundamental to daily life in 2008. So, too, are internet-based communications. Globalization isn't just a word, and the "flat world" not just a concept. Those are the realities of daily life. Economic turmoil in Iceland, pollution in China, African drought and famine: they affect our economy; our levels of smog; our foreign policy (for which we pay taxes).

The pace of this tumult can rattle the most focused and open-minded among us, and make us long for some imagined or real "good old days," when everyone looked like us and we knew where we would work for the next thirty years. When our neighbors all spoke English, and our home lives were distinct from our work lives. When no one pondered the cost of oil, and blackberries and computers were the stuff of science fiction.

It's normal to want things to stay the same. It's normal to feel anxious when change forces itself into every crevice of our lives. It's normal, too, to react to upheaval with fear and loathing. Whether he intended it or not, Senator McCain exploited these undercurrents of nostalgic fear and anxiety.

His running mate, Governor Palin, touted the virtues of "real" Americans (translation: white, Christian, middle-class) as more valuable that an apparently "unreal" America (apparently non-white, non-Christian, and some undefined "class.") She pitched her appeal to a culture that would look inward; to fear, hostility and division. In her America, citizens would ignore the realities of globalization and global politics (except, presumably, to launch attacks on "terrorists," which she defined as anyone who isn't white, small-town, and American.)

Barack Obama, on the other hand, urged voters to recognize the realities of global politics; to acknowledge that "Americans" are white, black, Asian, and "other"; are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Bahai and, god forbid (no pun intended), even atheist. He recognized that the "future" is already here, and it's our job to figure out how to live in and with it. He reminded us that that the United States is the shining city on the hill and that it's our moral obligation to engage with the rest of the planet.

In short, during the election campaign of 2008, we faced two clear paths. Not between two different tax policies, or between different versions of national health care. Not between those who do and do not wear lapel pins. Not between those who use blackberries and those who barely understand "the google."

Rather, we faced two different visions about how we see ourselves, our nation, our nation's relations with the rest of the planet, and the future. And on election day, we chose.

The historical significance of Obama's election is this: At a moment when the entire planet faces multiple crises -- environmental, political, economic -- millions of Americans voted to explore, rather than ignore, uncertainty. Rather than ignore globalization, millions chose to acknowledge it so we can figure out how to live with it. Chose engagement rather than isolation. Chose unity rather than division. We chose to embrace the realities of the present so that we could plan a better future. We chose courage -- and, yes, hope -- over fear. That is the significance of the election of 2008.

_____________

Sidenote: Last week, I read a terrific op-ed piece about the historical implications of this election, one that echoed what I was already thinking about. So here's a short essay by Samuel Freedman, who is far more eloquent than I am.