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

Stephen Fry's Letter to Himself

I'm a big fan of Stephen Fry, and so was delighted to read this. Lovely way to start the day.

Then You Realize, Life Gets In Your Eyes . . .

With apologies to Kern and Harbach, yes, sometimes smoke, or, in my case, life, gets in your eyes. I'm not without my love, thank god, but a number of out-of-the-ordinary matters and events have drifted, smoke-like, into my face and kept me from my usual blogging routine. (Have managed to maintain my other writing routine, the one that, in theory, will produce a new book.)

All of which has nothing to do with anything earth-shattering or even particularly relevant. Now: back to life-as-usual. I hope.

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.