James Spencer On "Content Production," Money, and Morality

James Spencer is one of the best people I know (so, for that matter, is his partner-in-beer Andy Sparks) -- and he's good at what he does: Producing "content" for his website, dvds, podcasts, etc. (Among other things, he's responsible for what I regard as the single best interview I've ever had, and I've had a lot of 'em.) (*1) So when he speaks, people oughta listen. Taking a bit of a liberty here (hey! It's my website . . . ) to "bump up" a comment he made on an earlier blog entry of mine because it relates (and I hope adds credibility) to my   "ain't no free lunch" rant.

As another independent content producer, I have to make one point. If you don't want to pay $15 to see the movie (and live discussion afterwards), I hope you're not waiting to download a pirated version of the movie somewhere else. I'm not going to see the theater showing, because the nearest theater is about two hours away from me. However, I will put it on my Netflix list when it's available. Just as I am willing to pay a higher price for great beers from independent brewers, I'm willing to go through the proper and legitimate channels to support content from independent producers.

As a fellow "independent content producer," I say: Amen. (And the "Beer Wars" dvd comes out in August.)

____________ *1: You can hear that two-part interview by visiting the basicbrewing website. Click on radiocasts and then the archives for 2006.

Why Things Cost Money; Or, Ain't No Free Lunches, or Free Movies

The whole "Beer Wars" flap (such as it is; again, the realm of beer geekdom is small and insular) is interesting to me for another reason (for my earlier comments see this.)

Namely the money issue. There are a lotta people out there who don't wanna pay no fifteen stinkin' bucks for a film. Ridiculous price! say some. "I'll wait for YouTube" say others. "Prolly be free on the internet somewhere" say others.

Damn, I hope not. And I hope not for the same reason that I hope people buy new, rather than used, copies of my books: it's the ONLY way I make money from them. And the only way Anat Baron will recoup any of her investment is if people see the film.

'Cause you know -- not everything in life is free. It can't be, or, well, you're gonna have a lot of homeless, hungry writers, plumbers, doctors, computer programmers, and filmmakers. Or, alternatively, you won't have ANY writers, plumbers, doctors, computer programmers, or filmmakers.

Moreover, that fifteen dollar admission fee is being divvied up among a lot of people: Anat will, I hope, get some of it. That would be nice, because she's already shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars for her camerawoman, her crew, the film's editor, the lighting and camera equipment, to say nothing of travel expenses (the film took months and months to make and much of it was filmed on the road).

The theater owners will get some of the fifteen dollars in the form of rental fees for the theaters themselves. And some of the moeny goes to pay for the people who work at the theaters, the people running the satellite equipment, and the people who  printed the posters, and created the press releases (of which, yes, I know, you're all sick).

So: Free? Not free? Fifteen bucks? Not fifteen bucks? You be the judge.

This Week's Update On Condition of Jack McAuliffe (More Good News!)

Yesterday's update on Jack McAuliffe's condition (I was remiss in not posting yesterday!) From Jack's sister Cathy:

Jack sat in a chair today! [I told the nurses] "that's just Jack." (He wants to cut the bandage off his left hand, etc.) [He insists] he was not in any accident..and, of course, people rarely remember the accident itself, but he doesn't seem to believe them! He's in "step down status," which means he would go to an intermediate room (between ICU and a regular room), but they don't have many of those, so he's still in ICU.

First Draft Follies: Early History of the American Homebrewers Association and the Brewers Assocation, Part 9 of 9

Part One --- Part Two --- Part Three --- Part Four Part Five --- Part Six --- Part Seven --- Part Eight --- Part Nine

Welcome to this edition of First Draft Follies, an ongoing series here at the blog. The material is presented “as is” from the first draft of the manuscript that became the book Ambitious Brew. In a few places I added one or two words in brackets — [like this] — for clarification. As always, when the excerpt is lengthy, and this one is, I break it into manageable bits and post those bits over the course of several days.

This edition of FDF concerns the early years of the American Homebrewers Association and what is now the Brewers Association, the craft brewing trade group. Much of my research into this topic fell into “insider baseball” information: interesting to those who were involved, and to people with a serious interest in brewing history, but dull as rocks to a more general audience. As a result, almost none of what follows ended up in the book, which was intended for a general audience.

On the other hand, the groups' early histories provide fascinating insight into the creation of a organization from the ground up, particularly the conflicts that ensued between and among the participants. As a result, I think it’s worth posting this (long) series in full.

For more about the founding of the AHA, see my earlier string of First Draft Follies entries on that topic. (The link takes you to part six of the six-part series; it contains links to parts one through five.)

_____________

A Seattle journalist, Vince Cottone, fanned the flames by treating as fact the wholly unsubstantiated rumor that Jim Koch had won the event because he bribed festival-goers with free tickets. It was not true, but Cottone treated it as fact and used the occasion as an excuse to bash the GABF, the AOB, and anyone involved. The preference poll, he complained, “more resembled a cross between a wet T-shirt contest and a corrupt banana republic election than a rational judging of America’s beers.”

The GABF, he concluded, “has lost credibility, at least in the eyes of honest brewers . . . .” (*1) “Besides the winners, who profits from the festival?” Cottone asked. “There seems to be little benefit for most of the bona fide microbrewers whose beers are exhibited.” The only “real bounty,” he complained was “reaped by the Association of Brewers/AHA, for whom it is a money-maker besides being their biggest publicity generator.” (*2)

That was not true either --- years would pass before the GABF turned a profit --- but it was hard to convince outsiders of that. But Cottone missed a larger point: The Consumer Preference Poll was precisely that, a consumer poll. By no stretch of anyone’s imagination could it be regarded as a “rational judging” of new beers.

Professional blind tasting finally arrived at the GABF in 1987, but the damage had been done. Again, poor communication. There was a certain inevitability about the clash between the brewers and the staff at the AOB. No one doubted Papazian’s will, energy, and desire. But he had fallen almost by accident into his role as voice of the brewers, and there were times when he operated as if he were still teaching a homebrew class at the Boulder Free Community School and the microbrewers were his students.

They were not. Grossman, and Maytag, and others had invested everything --- both financially and emotionally --- in a risky venture. Like [nineteenth-century German-American brewers] Jacob Best and Valentine Blatz before them, the new generation of brewers could not afford to relax their vigilance; could not afford to sit back and let matters flow untended. Brewing was a tough world whose denizens arrived at profit only by hacking their way through a thicket of city, state, and federal laws; who struggled with suppliers more sued to filling orders for ten million bottles rather than ten gross.

Still, the AOB provided a home for brewers who otherwise had no place to go. Like many others, Larry Bell, who founded his Kalamazoo Brewing Company in 1985, attended a meeting [of the Brewers Association of America, the old-line brewing trade group for small and regional brewers] but found it “intimidating.”

Worse yet, no one there talked about things that mattered to him. The BAA held its meetings at a “fancy hotel” and the agenda focused on “political stuff, the tax differential, relations with BATF, relations with the wholesalers’ association.” (*3) Bell and others who were just getting off the ground didn’t “have time to deal with” those things. They needed and wanted information about “real life issues,” things like the names of suppliers willing to sell small quantities and how to “troubleshoot [their] cobbled engineering.” (*4)

_______________

SOURCES:

*1: Vince Cottone, “Beer & Loathing In Denver: The Great American Beer Festival 1986,” American Brewer (Summer 1987): 15.

*2: Ibid., 16.

*3: Larry Bell, interview with Maureen Ogle, May 2005.

*4: Ibid.

And In This Corner: The Anti-Beer Wars Contingent

Rant from frustrated beer person, worth reading, if only to get a handle on the misperceptions about the film "Beer Wars" (because, among other things, the film isn't aimed at the small percentage of people who are into craft beer/homebrewing). (Just as my book Ambitious Brew wasn't "aimed" at beer people; it was written for a general audience.)

As I've said here before, if you view yourself as being on the side of the "little guy," then support Anat's work by seeing her film. (And since it is an indie film, without any studio backing, it's incredibly hard to get the word out. Some may be sick of the press releases, but my guess is that the vast majority of non-beer-geek Americans still, alas, don't know about the film.)

And if you want to see an interesting documentary, then, hey!, here's your chance. Meantime, I think I'll ponder the nature of insularity/blinders that prevent "groups" from seeing the big picture. (No pun intended.)