Though
the conversations and opinions are becoming tiring regarding investments and
acquisitions of beer businesses, due to recent developments bringing them to
the fore once more, I still have a little to add regarding the disillusion of
extra choice.
This is
in response to comments I made on a poll formed by The Beer O’Clock Show for their Hopinions podcast. In response to the question "Do you think Heineken's investment in Beavertown is bad for the
independent sector?” I added:
My
thoughts were based on an assumption that people talking about “increased access to good beer” as a
positive, when large conglomerates become involved in smaller breweries, were
referring to it in a retail sense. Both Twitter users and the podcasters
themselves rebuked this as they were actually discussing the positives from a
licensed premises point. As a huge advocate of people using pubs, my response
was seen as a little hypocritical as it seemed to imply encouragement for
drinking at home. So, as usual, I thought I’d elaborate away from 280 character
restraints.
Your Local has more choice than you think.
I
realise when discussing the future of Beer in relation to large investments and
takeovers that much of the conversation is hearsay and estimation. Still, there
are many who use the contrary line about large brewery buying power leading to greater
choice on the fonts of their local pubs. People have started to really believe
this. They are buying into this illusion that the only way a pub has access to
better beer is with the "help" (read: millions) of bigger business.
This
isn't always true.
There
are many pubs tied to breweries and pubcos that have access to a much wider
selection of beers than they are revealing. Even those belonging to the huge
tied estates are allowed to order from a number of distribution companies that
your favourite craft beer bar also uses. Some will even be allowed to go to
local breweries direct. That local down the road that you don't visit because
it only sells branded macro has a couple of catalogues somewhere from distribution
companies that sell a range of beers you’ve never seen near the place,
including some of that Salty Rock you love.
There
are numerous reasons why they don't. The first does relate to the tactics
employed by the bigger brands that cannot be understated. Paying bribe money
for a certain keg line. Giving away free sports viewing deals in exchange for
selling a particular beer. For many licensees these are deals that cannot be
turned down.
But,
for the majority, it is a case of supply and demand. Macro sells. The pub
customers want it. The pub customers haven't demanded Salty Rock served from
handpump so the manager hasn't presented it. If that beer is then owned by big
money it changes nothing about this situation. There is the unusual belief
inside the bubble that licensees do not want your business or want to make
money, therefore do not stock the beers that you personally want to drink.
The
solution is to use the pub and perhaps begin the conversation. I only have this
information because I did start the chat. Running a pub is much more than
having knowledge about a niche area of artisan beer. People who exclusively
drink macro lager run some outstanding pubs. If you go in and say "hey,
myself and a group of others would come in here loads if you had some different
choices," they might just* listen and perhaps talk about the
beers available to them - usually with an endearing mumbling of "don't
drink the stuff myself, but..." I've seen this change instigated
in numerous places.
Perhaps
this is part of the sense of entitlement emanating from new beer drinkers.
Searching out good beer and taking the gamble that an establishment might have
something worth drinking used to be part of the charm.
I'm aware this is sadly not the
case for all establishments and some pubs trying to stock better beer are
blocked. There will be limitations and understandably. The point is that
investment or takeover from larger breweries is not the opportunity your local
pub has been waiting for. The concept that Inbev (or whoever) being involved
will suddenly mean your favourite IPA appears permanently on keg is
nonsense.
Beers are the Brand - not the breweries.
One thing I've learned by using
the pub a lot is the way consumer's learn the names of beers. Brewery names are
irrelevant to them but if they are the most prominent word on the clip then
that is the beer association.
Modern examples come in beers
such as Track Brewing Co's Sonoma or Squawk Brewing's Crex - both beers that are loved
by many drinkers. But they are not called Sonoma or Crex by the drinkers, they
are called Track and Squawk respectively. This then confuses things when a 7.4%
stout by these breweries appears on the bar. "Pint of Track please"
because it is a reliably good drink. Though it isn't normally this
expensive...or this dark... or this strong... wait, what?
Larger companies are not buying
smaller breweries to showcase their widened range. I keep hearing people say
things such as "Oh imagine being
able to get Black Betty (a 7.4% Black IPA) at a music festival." I am
imagining because fantasies are fun. Your big business has no interest in such
a beer. You will see one or two of the most basic styles begin to appear a
little in supermarkets with the name they want to peddle the most prominent
word on the can. It is not going to be the experimental sour or the barrel aged
range.
I am not going to be having a
third of Imperial Smoked Stout at half time in football stadiums any time
soon.
Remind me again how this has gone previously
I've heard the line "If it means I have access to better
beer in more places, then I'm fine with it" so many times I actually
hear it in Martin's (from the Beer o'Clock show podcast) voice. I've no issue
with the viewpoint; I have issue with the fact it is still being repeated years
later with hope.
It is three years since Camden Brewery sold to AB Inbev. Another reason for my above comments being associated
with the retail aspect of beer is because of breweries such as Camden. Three
years since big business apologists told us we would have access to better beer
in more places.
I am speaking only from my own
experiences in and around the north-west but I have seen Camden beer on
tap - outside of beer focused bars - once in a pub where I was attending a
family meal, and I'm not even sure that wasn't before 2015. Hells and Pale -
the two beers AB InBev have decided they wanted, see above - are not adorning
the taps of all the local pubs that previously stuck to a rigid portfolio.
Football stadiums I've attended are not suddenly swamped with London's finest
ex-Micros.
The supermarkets,
however, are and so are the smaller shops. Camden Hells comes
in a 4-pack at my local corner shop, in the fridges, next to the Kopparberg.
This is why my assumption is retail when people talk about having greater
access to beer, because that is where we see the effects.
Perhaps it is different in
other areas; that down south every back street boozer is awash with Camden,
Brixton and Wicked Weed beers. I am only speaking from experience but I do
drink in a lot of different pubs and I am yet to see a single
beer from anywhere that has been bought out or invested in by
AB Inbev - or Heineken - or Lion - or SAB Miller etc... in the last six
years.
Perhaps I am missing the point
I can recall seeing Freddie
Gibbs live in Manchester in 2014. Throughout the entire gig I was drinking
Magic Rock High Wire in bottles. It was great. A couple of years ago I saw
Xzibit and drank Thornbridge Jaipur for the entirety.
Great times and with tasty
beers from breweries not (currently) owned by big business.
So I think back to nights such
as these when people repeatedly say lines similar to: "It will be great to get a decent beer when you go to a gig."
The decent beer is already available to gig venues because I've been drinking
it for fricking years. Without large brewery investment. For years. If you've been attending live events at places that sell
a limited range of alcoholic drinks, this is similar to the pub situation
above. A larger range is available to them; they are just choosing not to stock
it.
Large swathes of drinkers seem
to have come to a worrying acceptance that the only way they will have access
to better beer is through the involvement and money of the world's largest
brewing companies. I use the rail companies in this country as an example: we
have Red Willow Brewery on Virgin Trains and Cloudwater Brew Co on Transpennine Express. These are huge companies working with independent breweries directly.
These deals can be made without big business.
These are all generalisations
and I really have no interest in individual cases, of which there will be
many. ("My local pub is the Red Lion
and is owned by such-a-pubco and the manager said in there that he's not
allowed to stock bla bla bla *person throwing up emoji.*) Routes to market
are blocked, some of which were laid out in this post by Dave Bailey or
Hardknott. I recognise that. And yes I’m aware that in some areas the
choice is limited – I am not suggesting that absolutely everywhere has access
to any beer they want, so please read properly.
I am sure that we will,
eventually, see a few beers come to prominence; that I might be able to get a
Neck Oil on tap at a few surprise venues. It doesn't change my view from what I
have seen in the beer scene today and over the last few years. We are buying
into these ideas that better beer is being denied to us and that only a few
companies in the entire world can make it available. The availability is
already there, whether it is actually on the bar or not. The demand outside of
our bubble is not always high enough.
I care not whether individual
people care about big brewery involvement, because the average beer drinker in
the street certainly doesn't. It is important that as a community (yeah,
I said it) that we don't start to believe that we have a reliance on it. You
have more choice than you think.
*Read the room of course. There are pubs that don't want a local
friendly beer evangelist telling them what to stock. Don't be a dick.
Comments