I’ve got problems with this article. I’m giving you a disclaimer right now: don’t bother reading the rest of this post if you haven’t checked out the link first. Otherwise, it’s going to look like a misguided rant being shouted at no one in particular. Therefore, I implore you to read said article, see what I’m responding to, and if you have any thoughts of your own, feel free to add them in the comments section. In the words of LeVar Burton, “but don’t take my word for it…”
Alright, here we go:
1. General Misconception. The title alone completely misses the point. Something entitled “Beers with more alcohol gain market share” seems to cut out a large part of what beer lovers really care about. Following this logic, 40-ounces of Hurricane should be flying off the shelves, showing the effects of this growing trend. And there would be the need for reasoned rebuttals like this to anti-alcohol groups here in the US.
Granted, the article itself goes on to express the viewpoint of those of us who are way too into beer for our own good, but it’s the assumption that these beers are being purchased because of their alcohol content that is troubling. Rather than illustrating that people’s palates are simply craving something new, as recent trends in advertising and product development amongst the big boys has indicated, there is a schizophrenic attitude from the author, or maybe just an uncertain one, as to why these kinds of beers are experiencing growth.
The article mentions that “[h]igh-alcohol brews like Black Butte XX and The Abyss, known in the trade as big or extreme beers, are among many craft beers that are grabbing a growing market share in the United States…” Why not “high-flavored” or “extreme-ly tasty”? Beer may need a PR overhaul.
2. Categorization. Why are Budweiser, Coors Light, and Miller High Life considered “premium” beers? Where the hell does this terminology come from? If someone can point to a source other than their own advertising, I’d like to know. And I’m not being facetious, I’d be interested to see how this category came about.
3. Stereotypes. Sam Calagione’s assertion that “[a]nybody can afford to buy the world’s best beers. But if you wanted to buy a bottle of the world’s best wine, you’d have to spend thousands of dollars.” The qualifier “best” is of concern here. Given, I will say that most beer has quite the egalitarian approach when it comes to pricing (and that’s a good thing!), but that’s to take the old tack that good wine must be expensive. I’ll also be the first to say that I’m not a fan of wine at all. I’ve tried several quality wines that I could enjoy, but I can’t enjoy them quite as much as I can beer. Plain and simple.
However, you’d be a fool to suggest that some of the best and reasonably available wines are out of a person’s price range. At $100 or more for a bottle of Sam Adams Utopias, and still $1000 or more for a bottle of La Vieille Bon Secours, these are rare finds that have something to offer. But they still may not be considered the “best.” If a ’75 Bordeaux, due to its rarity, demands an astronomical price, does that mean that your local wine shop is stocked with bottles of wine that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars? Does it automatically qualify that particular wine as the “best”? No.
I see the argument that Sam makes, but it only goes so far. I try not to operate on stereotypes and live in the real world. Some of my wine-drinking friends have shown me this, and have helped me to clear the notion from my head that any good wine must be expensive.
4. Nomenclature. The craft/extreme confusion. With all these terms being bandied about, much like the word “premium”, there is actual little solidified definition. Sure, some have tried, and made worthy attempts. I’m not knocking them, I’m just saying that as it stands, there are amorphous labels and categories we shoot for to describe things more easily in the beer world. If I write the phrase “craft beer”, many people reading it will more or less see what I’m driving at. But when articles like this are published, they often muddle the language, relying on a piecemeal lexicon, and this creates confusion. In my mind, craft beer is not dependent upon higher alcohol content. As it happens, many craft brewers (see, it depends on your definition of “craft”) do produce more beers of higher alcohol content than brewers of “premium” beers. But if one of the same smaller brewers comes out with a 3.5% abv Mild, is it not craft?
The focus of this article seems to shift from high-alcohol “extreme” beer, to consumers looking for more flavorful options in their beer selection, to the state of craft beer in the marketplace and in general, to comparisons with wine, to food pairings, to the price of beer. Look, I’m all for giving exposure to the breweries that issue these fantastic products and the people toiling day after day to make them special. But an article like this seems to be so off the mark in certain spots that it promotes some good qualities while spreading misconceptions at the same time. It giveth and it taketh away.
Well, enough of this. I’m off to one of my new old locals. I’ve been going there for quite some time, but now I live only a block away. And the rain has subsided for now.
Cheers!
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 27, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Keith Brainard
I saw that article in a different site, but I didn’t have quite the same reaction as you. I am usually happy to see beer get press that is mostly positive like this article was.
However, I can see you points at some of the issues here.
First, the “premium” name… I wish I knew where that came from, too. I was confused by it for a while. At first I thought it was a new brand from BMC that was going to actually be premium, but then I realized it’s just a meaningless designation that seems to mean “not light”.
The other comment I would like to contribute is my view on the beer vs. wine pricing issue. I get what Sam is saying. I don’t know enough about wine to say what’s the best. I think of it this way, though: for $10 you can get one of the best beers in the world, or you can take your chances on a bottle of wine. If you’re dropping $10 on a beer, you are sure to have a beer that those in the know would consider a great find and a treat. As far as I can tell, for $10 in the wine aisles, you get something that might be good, but might not.
July 28, 2008 at 8:36 am
E.S. Delia
Well, I’d have to agree that much of the article seemed positive, but in a scattershot way, and I think that some of the popular myths and misconceptions about beer are being perpetuated. The “high-alcohol” tag is an unwarranted one, I feel. Sure, a lot of craft brewers are making beer that’s over 5% abv, but it feeds into the wrong idea of what “extreme” or “avant-garde” beer is and what (most of) its brewers are striving for. If consumers are buying this stuff just for the alcohol content, they’d be better off sticking to spirits.
And I do get Sam’s argument, but I think it only holds so much water. Comparatively, you can actually find quality wine for 15-20 bucks a bottle. It may be a few more bucks for a bottle of wine than beer, but it’s not the same liquid, and I think it’d be somewhat unfair to expect prices to be on the level with each other, especially considering the variety in both beer and wine. Not only that, but a lot of rare beer can be $20 and up. I just recently paid that for a bottle of Cantillon Kriek, just to finally be able to give that stuff a try. Some of the hard-to-find Italian offerings that have come into Richmond are on par with that, if not more, sometimes for even less volume than a bottle of wine.
Be that as it may, I can’t automatically assume that these pricier beer options will be good, or better than many others that are cheaper. I’ve tried some $10 beers that I’ve been less than impressed with, and kicked myself for not picking up the $4 one. I’ve taken the same chances on beer that a wine-drinking novice would on their tipple, but have also relied on guideposts that have helped light the way and learned more as I went along.
When it comes to beer or wine, I like to take jabs at that whole “superiority” facade that snobs hide behind. Wine could be just as accessible as beer, and often times is, in a roundabout way. People going the pompous route assume that they’re the only ones drinking wine.
Beer doesn’t seem to have fully taken on these qualities yet, which is a good thing, but it could be headed in the complete opposite direction. I’m sure many beer lovers can agree that flavor is what should be judged, not alcohol content.
Besides, true connoisseurs drink Scotch!
July 30, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Monday Night Brewery | Bringing great craft beer to Atlanta, Georgia » Blog Archive » High gravity beers gain traction
[...] I’m the one with the blog. The article itself is grossly misrepresented by its title, as E.S. points out here. In fact, the growth numbers aren’t pulled out from the overall growth of the craft industry, [...]