Bottle Conditioned

The Associated Press is reporting today that macro-brewers Miller and Molson Coors are planning to combine U.S. operations to help compete with Anheuser-Busch.  The big just keep getting bigger.

The creativity that is so evident in their beer production is also apparent in the name of the new company:  MillerCoors.

This merger raises some interesting questions and will be intriguing to watch over the next year.  Firstly, it shows that the big beer companies may not be near as worried about competing with craft beer as they are each other, which probably makes sense for them given the amount of dollars involved.

That said, I think this is only going to widen the gap between craft beer and “big” beer more, alienating the macro-beer producers and pinning them into a more definite role/stereotype.  With (soon to be) two companies controlling the vast majority of macro beer out there, it seems evident that the variety (if you want to call it that) present in that market will become much more narrow.

In addition, this throws an interesting message to the consumer.  This hammers home the point that the big beer companies really are about mass producing the most beer for the cheapest price possible.  Although this may be lost on many beer drinkers out there, I don’t think it will go completely unnoticed.  To the craft beer producers’ credit, they remain true to the art of producing good, interesting beer, regardless of market pressures or money games.  Go them.

Let’s look more into the future.  As has been reported many times recently, hop and grain prices are on the rise, and next year, they’re going to be out the roof.  This is going to mean an across-the-board increase in beer prices, as the price to produce beer goes up.

Couple the ingredient price increases with a merger that is based largely on saving money (up to $500 million is reported saved in ops costs by this merger), and it doesn’t take much to see that next year could bring an even blander crop of macro beer.  As prices go up and MillerCoors merges to cut costs, undoubtedly some recipe and ingredient changes will probably take place, watering down an already pale product.

What else does that mean?  Well, it could mean that the “craft label” efforts that Coors is currently courting (such as Blue Moon), could become a back burner deal.  Coors has stated in the past that fostering the growth of craft brands is important to them, and in a rare move, I applaud them on that (that is, if they do it right).  However, merging to cut costs and stay competitive with AB, who doesn’t produce any worthwhile craft labels, doesn’t seem to bode well for the future of innovation at Coors.  Just my thoughts and predictions.

So…what does this mean for you, the craft beer lover?  Well, maybe not a whole heck of a lot, but it could mean a widening gap between craft and macro beer that could possibly help to shine the light on craft beer producers more.  As this merger happens, craft beer producers have the opportunity, however brief, to make it evident to consumers that there are great brewers out there whose beer doesn’t revolve around a bottom line.  This could be a big boost to the craft beer market, if it’s approached right.  Will everyone out there catch on?  No, but if a few more people leave behind the mass market machine of malted mess, then it’s all the better for craft beer lovers.

Time to pop the popcorn, grab a great craft beer and watch the show.  Looks to be an interesting one, that’s for sure.

Powered by ScribeFire.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to get automatic updates of new posts!

• Comments (0)

The nation has already seen how ridiculous Tennessee can be when crafting laws related to the purchase and consumption of beer.  The mandatory ID law that was passed earlier this year solidified this state into the hall of fame of legislative craziness.

However…they’ve one-upped themselves now.  And this time, it’s far more broad and dangerous.

First, a little background. 

Recently, in a move of state idiocy, law enforcement agents have been monitoring the borders to arrest people buying cigarettes from across state lines and bringing them back into Tennessee.  2 cartons of cigarettes brought back into the state counts as a misdemeanor, with over 25 cases being noted as a felony.  A felony?  Geez.

Now…it’s on to beer.

An article printed in today’s Knoxville News Sentinel points out that this enforcement is now reaching to cover beer as well, with beer being bought from out of state being considered a criminal act.  Wow.  As if you didn’t think it could get worse (yeah right, never think that when it comes to government).

Currently, the enforcement is only applied to beer bought concurrently with cigarettes, and the beer is confiscated at the time that the cigarettes are.  However, it appears that it’s very likely that that could change.  The law is aimed an preventing cross-border purchasing that is rampant due to insanely high taxes on beer in the state.  Hey, Tennessee…what about lowering taxes as a solution, eh? 

In Tennessee, taxes levied on beer are done in several ways.  First, two taxes are levied at the wholesale level:  a $4.29 tax per barrel(collected by the State Dept of Revenue), and then a 17% tax on value(collected by local city governments where the beer is sold).  In addition, the beer is then taxed at the retail level.  A state sales tax of 7% is added, in addition to a local sales tax that can go as far as an added 2.75%.  These sales taxes are levied on retail price which includes the barrellage tax and the wholesale tax, which means that the tax is a tax on taxes…get it?  Further past that, an $18 per barrel federal tax is applied. 

Convoluted, eh?  Welcome to bureaucracy.

So, all of this brings up an interesting discussion, and one that is exacerbated by the lack of knowledge by the legislators about how beer works in this country.

The most pressing issue is this: comparing the cigarette distribution trade with the beer distribution trade is not equal comparison - akin to apples and oranges.

The biggest example of this has to do with craft beer varieties and manufacturers.  In Tennessee, because of the ridiculous taxes, we don’t get much craft beer.  Sure, we’re getting more and more, but compared with other states around us, our selection is pretty pitiful. This is fundamentally different that the cigarette trade where almost all manufacturers are sold in every state - a much more homogeneous distribution network nationally.

So, what do we do?  We go up to Kentucky, over to South Carolina, down to Georgia, etc… to get the beer we can’t get here.  Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, to do with taxes.  This begs the question, how will the state deal with this difference?

If I drive to Bowling Green, KY to buy some beer that isn’t distributed in this state, and I am then arrested for bringing it back across state lines, I have indeed been arrested for a reason that doesn’t even fit with my motive for buying beer in another state.  There is zero logic for this scenario to play out, as it has nothing to do with taxes, which is purportedly the reason behind the enforcement of the law.  However, it’s going to happen this way, I promise.

So, what to do?  I suppose you could only arrest people buying beer that is also sold in the state, but then that would have to be broken down by region, city, municipality, etc…  For instance, if I live in Nashville and drive to Kentucky to buy anything made by Duck-Rabbit, should I be arrested because I can actually get it in Knoxville (which, incidentally is twice as far away)?

This is a major problem that represents a lack of Tennessee government’s ability to take cues from the marketplace and fix a broken system. 

How about this Tennessee - lower your damn taxes and stop wasting taxpayer money on enforcing laws that amount to nothing more than a 3 year old throwing a fit because they can’t get their way. Don’t treat the symptoms - cure the illness here - fix the damn system.

Powered by ScribeFire.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to get automatic updates of new posts!

• Comments (2)

Yet another list of great beers.  The October issue of Men’s Journal is listing the top 25 beers of the world in five distinct styles:  Pale Ales, Stouts, Belgians, Wheat Beers and Lagers/Pilsners.  Despite the fact that I find these categories somewhat arbitrary, the list isn’t all that bad. 

Check it out, and see what you think.

Powered by ScribeFire.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to get automatic updates of new posts!

• Comments (0)

This afternoon in Nashville, a tractor-trailer carrying cases of Bud Light overturned on I-65.  Local residents are complaining that this could jeopardize the quality of their water supplies and pose threats to local wildlife.  In a related story, sales of straws were up 400% in local convenience stores following the accident.

Powered by ScribeFire.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to get automatic updates of new posts!

• Comments (1)

Turns out things are too good to be true.  Such is the case with Dan Woodul, the 25 year old who auctioned off a bottle of beer on eBay for over a half a million dollars.

Last month, Woodul listed the bottle, an 1852 vintage of Allsopp’s Artic Ale, on eBay and let the requests start piling in.  He had originally bought the bottle on eBay for only $304 (only $304?!).  Upon listing it on eBay, he quick accrued what would have amounted to a world record for the most expensive bottle of beer with the auction ending at $503,300.

However, it turns out the bid wasn’t legit.

Woodul says the bidder called the night that the auction ended to let him know that it was a joke bid and wouldn’t cough up the sum of money.  He says he has no hard feelings toward the bidder, and has now placed the bottle into a safety deposit box with no plans to sell it or re-list it on eBay. 

Read the full story

What would you do with a 155 year old bottle of beer?

Powered by ScribeFire.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to get automatic updates of new posts!

• Comments (0)

You’re reading that correctly. Micheal Jackson, the beer critic/writer/educator, has died. He died yesterday morning, August 30, at his home in London.

This is a huge blow for the beer community worldwide. Not just a few weeks after the death of Sierra Nevada VP Steve Harrison, Micheal Jackson joins him in seeking out a better pub in a better place. God speed.

I hadn’t had the chance to meet Micheal yet. I was hoping that I would be able to this year at GABF, and at least shake his hand. As I am a relative newbie in the craft beer scene (just a coupleish years), I haven’t had the opportunity to read all his work. That said, I am more than familiar with it. Michael Jackson contributed so much to the worldwide beer scene, became beer’s first real celebrity, and wrote some of the definitive work regarding beer and beer styles.

Somehow, Micheal was constantly popping up in public view. I remember Mollie and I stumbling across a clip from him on Conan O’Brien. Awesome. Conan didn’t give Micheal much in the way of serious conversation (or respect for beer, for that matter), but it was simply awesome to think that someone whose life’s work was educating about beer was on such a huge show. To me, it was a sign of the times in terms of craft beer’s advancement in the world. It was a huge moment of optimism.

He will be sorely missed.

Micheal was suffering from Parkinson’s disease. I only wonder what his last beer was - I hope it was something truly spectacular. RIP Micheal.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to get automatic updates of new posts!

• Comments (2)

Well, our lovely legislature in this state has done it again. They’ve created yet another pointless and obtrusive law that will probably have zero benefit for the public.

According to this article, persons buying beer in the state of Tennessee will now be carded, regardless of age. So, whether you’re 21 or 71, it won’t matter. A few interesting points to note before I get into my rant.

• This law only applies to beer, not wine or liquor
• This law only applies to beer bought for off premises consumption, so it doesn’t apply to bars and restaurants

In a nutshell, this bill has been passed to try and curb underage drinking by requiring that all stores card all customers who buy beer, regardless. While I agree with the effort to prevent underage drinking, I certainly don’t see this as an effective method for doing so.

Let’s look at the actual implementation of the law. According to the bill, clerks selling beer must card everyone, and will be fined $1000 per infraction for underage sales.

Ask yourself this: Do you think that the passing of this bill is going to change the habits or actions of someone who is already irresponsible enough to sell beer to a minor? Already in this state, persons under the age of 27 must be carded (or 30, I can’t recall now). If a clerk that sells beer in a store now isn’t checking IDs of people who look under 27 (and most don’t), how is the passing of this law going to make any difference? Stupid people don’t change because the state capital tells them to. If anything, it irritates and inconveniences the older patrons who are clearly not underage, while making no difference in the areas where IDs already aren’t being checked.

Also, the restrictions on the bill are oddly puzzling. First, the bill doesn’t apply to wine or liquor, only beer. Aside from giving beer an unjustified bad name as the only thing that underage people drink, it also has zero base in logic. Why should a beverage that averages at 5.5% alcohol by volume be so strictly controlled, while 13% ABV wine and 40% ABV liquor are generally ignored? Don’t think that I’m suggesting that we impose restrictions on wine and liquor - I’m not. I simply want to understand the logic behind such a targeted measure.

In addition to the ‘beer only’ restriction, the restaurant and bar exclusion in the bill is even stranger. With this law, a 70 year old man will be carded every time he walks into the grocery store to buy beer, whereas a 22 year old (or perhaps worse, a 20 year old) won’t be carded in a restaurant. This is especially puzzling when you consider this fact: Under these two circumstances, which individual (the grocery store patron, or the restaurant/bar patron) is more likely to drive after they’ve consumed a beer? Rhetorical, I know, but somehow the legislators in the state missed this glaring error. If you aim to prevent underage drinking, and subsequently underage DUI deaths, then targeting the people who drink their beer at home seems to be a step in the wrong direction - just my opinion.

I know it sounds like I’m being unfairly hard on this bill, but I don’t think it’s without reason. If you’re interested in preventing underage drinking, it starts elsewhere than at the counter of a convenience store. Simply passing a measure isn’t going to deter folks who already break the law, it’s only going to irritate the ones who already comply.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to get automatic updates of new posts!

• Comments (1)