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

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 6

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.

_______________________________

I had no idea it would take me so long to get to where I wanted to go with all of this. This intended short recap has morphed into a long rambling series of posts. (Yes, I know: when don’t I ramble long-windedly?) But I’m getting there. Perhaps you’ll bear with me.

Anyway, neither the film nor the panel discussion are available online, so I can’t direct you to then. So what follows is a (brief) summary of the film’s point and of the panel discussion. And of course I’m giving you MY interpretation of what I saw/heard that night.

The film’s creator, Anat Baron, argued that “big brewers” like Anheuser-Busch InBev have too much control over which beers are sold in stores. This is partly because they’re big corporations with lots of money. But it’s also because of their relationship to the equally powerful beer distributors, who are the middlemen in the three-tier system (the three tiers being brewers, distributors, retailers).

The three-tier system, which was established by state and federal laws, forces forces brewers to rely on distributors who sell the beer to the retailers who then sell it to consumers. Between them, the “big” brewers and the distributors determine which beers end up in grocery stores. They control access and leave no room for beers from small craft brewers.

(Literally no room: Anat showed scenes from grocery stores so that we could see how big beers hog most of the available shelf space.)

She also argued that big brewers spend millions on advertising, and that this advertising is so efficient and intense that most consumers never get a chance to find out about other beer options.

Next: The beer people’s argument about their industry

More on Imagining the "Book" of the Future

From Publishing Frontier, a description of precisely the kind of "reading" I imagined for works of non-fiction. In this quote, the blogger, John Warren, is imagining an e-version of Barry Cunliffe's amazing Europe Between the Oceans:

Clicking on the place-name of Tyre deploys Google Earth. Maps of migrations or empires, instead of static, depict the spread and flow over time. Instead of a single picture depicting the ancient city of Miletos, or a bronze warrior god from the 12th century, a gallery of photos is embedded in the e-text. Links lead to further scholarship or modules about topics of particular interest to the reader.

I concur, by the way, with with his praise for Cunliffe's book, both its content and its physical appearance. (And that it's  heavy as hell. Hard to curl up with it, it weighs so much!) Amazing piece of scholarship and book-making.

Filmmaking, Writing, Beer, Insularity, History, and Other Topics More-Or-Less Related to “Beer Wars,” Part 5

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.

_______________________________

Anat scheduled the panel discussion to run for 35 minutes, so with seven people on the panel (including Anat) and one person asking questions, well, the math is obvious: No one would have time to say much of anything.

Our advance instructions were clear (and I’m happy to say we all followed orders):The panel would open with each panelist responding to a film clip. We did not see the clips in advance, so we didn’t know what we would be responding to. Each person would respond in order, and none of us were to interrupt that person while he/she was speaking. 

Once we’d all spoken, Ben launched another series of questions of his choosing, directed at a panelist of his choosing. No surprise, Sam and Rhonda, as the film’s “stars,” received most of the questions, with Greg getting a chunk of them. (Again, we were not told in advance what questions would be asked.)

The half hour zoomed past at Autobahn speed. Indeed, the one thing we all agreed on as we left the stage after the event ended was that we would have loved another hour, because there was plenty to say.

Okay. So that’s what happened. (And yeah, I should have included this last bit of whys/wherefores in the previous post. What can I say?)

My response?

First the film. The film was terrific. It moved at a lively pace, nearly dizzying at moments, and it had a clear narrative structure: Anat leaves alcohol business, ponders nature of alcohol business, decides to follow two beermakers, two entrepreneurs whose stories have quite different endings. It was often hilarious and almost as often sobering. (How could anyone watch Rhonda hauling her case from bar to bar, from meeting to meeting, night after night, day after day, and not be moved by her spirit and energy?)

Was the film perfect? No. Had it been my film (and I’m definitely not cut out for film-making), I would have introduced Rhonda, Sam, and the three-tier system earlier in the proceedings. I also would have painted the conflict with more shades of grey: I don’t think the conflict is so much Big Guy v. Little Guy v. Middleman Monsters, so much as it is a conflict about broader and deeper American values. (That, by the way, is where I’m headed with all of this, so hang on a minute for that.)

More to the point, it wasn’t my film. It was Anat’s film and her perspective and she went through all this effort because she wanted to make a point of her choosing, not mine. And judged on that basis, in terms of both its technical qualities and its narrative, I thought the film was excellent: Lively, well-paced, well-directed, and thoughtful. The cinematography and editing were first-rate and as a director, Anat possesses an exquisite sense of timing. Her wit and humanity shone in equal measures. 

Someone said to me at the reception after that he didn’t even want to get up to use the john because he was afraid he’d miss something. That means the film succeeded. I was deliriously happy on Anat’s behalf. 

So I urge the beer geeks to separate the film’s topic from the film itself. Pretend it was a film about, I dunno, brain surgery or tree trimming or mountain biking.

In other words, take your off beer blinders and judge the film as a film.

Next: Oh, that panel discussion . . . 

COMMENTS:

[Please note: when I moved to a new website, this series did not survive the transfer of blog entries. I had to repost the entire thing. The only way to include the comments is to tack them on at the end of an entry.}

Useful Info From Paul Gatza, Director of the Brewers Association

Paul Gatza, the director of the Brewers Association added a comment to an earlier post about how the BA arrives at its head-count. I'm bumping that comment up to a separate post because it contains a huge amount of useful info.

I will add that my experience is that the staff at the BA is extraordinarily helpful and generous with their time. They could run seminars on how to do "public reach out."

And Paul is, like everyone else at the BA, an amazingly pleasant, lovely human being. I've only met him a couple of times, but this is a guy with quality! It's also worth noting that, as was the case 25 years ago, when the organization was just getting off the ground, the BA still relies on reports from the frontlines. Put another way, they've maintained their original mission of including the "public" in the organization.

So if you know of a new brewery, or one that's not around anymore, do let them know. They absolutely welcome the input.

Anyway, from Paul:

"Here’s some background so everyone is on the same page with the Brewers Association “brewery count.” There are two numbers you may see published by the BA. For either count we are talking about brick-and-mortar facilities where beer is made and then sold. "One number is the annual count of operating breweries at specific point in time. This is a calendar year number for the BA’s annual craft brewing industry stats that includes each facility that brewed commercial beer in a calendar year. "This number includes brewers that brewed for some or all of the year. It does not include facilities where beer has not been brewed in a calendar year, even if that is a “store” of a restaurant group that also includes brewpubs. "The “annual” count for 2008 is 1501 craft brewers out of 1545 U.S. operating breweries. BA publishes the annual statistical report in the May/June issue of the new brewer. "One tricky piece is when do we inactivate a brewery. In general if we get word a place hasn’t brewed in a month and doesn’t seem likely to in the near future, we will inactivate them. "There are many very small breweries where a batch may normally last for, say, four months. and they may only brew three times a year. A brewery like this would be considered active by the BA as that fills the company’s demand and isn’t a true shutdown. "Another model we see in specific places is a brewery that is supplied by another facility in a group of brewers (usually a restaurant group) yet brews maybe as little as once per year in order to keep a permit active or for other reasons. "Yeah, it gets grey, and we need to use our judgment sometimes. Another place our counts are imperfect is that it often takes us time to get a status change through the natural course of information–for example, brewers telling the BA that they have closed isn’t usually high on their priority list–and we have to get that information on tips, media reports or online sites and then do the research and make the call. The same applies to brewery openings, but to a lesser degree. "We love tips to research if anyone notices a listing on our online Brewery Locator that they believe to be incorrect. BA’s Membership Coordinator & Brewery Detective Erin Glass (with her trenchcoat and magnifying glass) is our crack investigator. "We pull a report of this active brewery information from our database once per month based on the data in our database on the last day of the month. This “active breweries” count would be expected to be lower than the most recent “annual” count as it would not include brewers that closed in current year, past year, but would include current year openings. "The current count is used generally for media inquiries, our mid-year stat review and our member mailings and emailings in our Craft Brewers Fact Sheet. , we could publish the current count online each month. Now that the Craft Brewers Conference has wrapped, we are redesigning the professional division site and can do some more with the craft stats if there is interest and a benefit for BA members."

Good Commentary on the Future of the "Book"

Thoughtful commentary on the Steven Johnson essay re the future of the book that I mentioned the other day. Including this notion:

There’s one thing to be pointed out here: in the history of search engine optimization (oh, that dirty phrase), content has driven the evolution of search engines as much as the other way round.