The fact that I’m a beer snob is beside the point

Avatar

Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

83 Responses

  1. Avatar DarrenG
    Ignored
    says:

    I agree with most of this, but there’s more to it than “stupid regulations and entrenched interests” and advertising budgets.

    Some aspects of quality craftsmanship don’t scale. Sam Adams (probably) and Dogfish Head (certainly) *can’t* produce the same amount of beer as any of InBev’s big brands due to constraints on supply and production methods.

    There’s also the matter of price. Even if Bud and Sam Adams were at complete parity on production volume and marketing budget, more people are likely to choose $3 six-packs over $8 six-packs, even if the product is markedly inferior.

    In this sense people do actually “like” Bud more than craft beers in the sense that it’s more accessible and cheaper, making relative market share a somewhat-valid indicator of consumer preference when you take all relevant variables into account.Report

    • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to DarrenG
      Ignored
      says:

      Sure…now. But without the existing regulatory structure in place post-prohibition, I doubt that the really big brewers would have gotten so big to begin with.Report

      • Avatar DarrenG in reply to E.D. Kain
        Ignored
        says:

        I think that’s only partially true.

        The massive scale of Budweiser also has a lot to do with their willingness to brew with cheap rice, minuscule quantities of cheap hops and municipal water supplies, along with the fact that a suitcase of Bud cans is dirt cheap compared to craft beer exactly because they optimize their production for volume and cost rather than quality. If Sam Adams did that they wouldn’t be Sam Adams any more.

        (Semi-relevant aside: McDonald’s and In-N-Out Burger both started around the same time with their first locations only a few miles apart. One is now a massively-profitable mega-corp with locations everywhere, but reviled by foodies and nutritionists. The other is 1% of the size, but has a large cadre of knowledgeable, loyal fans who revere their focus on quality.)Report

        • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to DarrenG
          Ignored
          says:

          Yeah, good point. I think it’s a combination of these factors. I do think that absent various historical oddities we’d have a much different picture now. Bud might still be the number one beer, but maybe not by quite so much.Report

        • Avatar Kim in reply to DarrenG
          Ignored
          says:

          DarrenG
          McD’s has one of the top 20 french fries around.

          According to Chowhound, there are a LOT of folks convinced In and Out is just hype.

          Around these parts, McD’s is a local thing. Irwin has the Big Mac Museum, after all — and there, they make that sauce right!Report

          • Avatar DarrenG in reply to Kim
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m a frequenter of Chowhound too, and the folks there who think In-N-Out is over-hyped don’t generally prefer McDonald’s 🙂

            Regardless, my only point was that different businesses in the same exact market can often take very different paths for reasons other than regulatory incentives.Report

            • Avatar Kim in reply to DarrenG
              Ignored
              says:

              your point is a fine point indeed.
              I don’t like “beefy” fries as much as some people, and most of what McD’s makes is not terribly good.Report

            • Avatar Shannon's Mouse in reply to DarrenG
              Ignored
              says:

              From my one In-N-Out experience, I’d say that they’re WAY overrated. My taste buds say Five Guys beats them handily. If only FG had shakes!Report

            • Avatar Plinko in reply to DarrenG
              Ignored
              says:

              Culver’s>In-N-Out>Five Guys, just looking at a cheeseburger. But there’s something special about Five Guys menu where someone finally is just selling a burger with whatever you want on it, instead of reading through a bunch of names and trying to figure out which combination of toppings suits your tastes.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to E.D. Kain
        Ignored
        says:

        E.D.,

        We don’t have that kind of regulatory structure in place for pizza, but we have a handful of national pizza chains–mostly with insipid pies–and large numbers of stand-alone pizza joints, many with vastly more creative dishes. Why would beer be different? Anheuser-Busch is just the Pizza Hut of beers, no?Report

        • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to James Hanley
          Ignored
          says:

          Well…think about the national highway system, subsidized roads and suburbs, etc. etc. and how this indirectly benefits large chains and economies of scale over local producers…Report

          • Avatar Kim in reply to E.D. Kain
            Ignored
            says:

            what gets me is how rich the trucking companies get, without having to pay a dime for roads that they get the most benefit out of.Report

            • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Kim
              Ignored
              says:

              Kim,

              Trucking companies pay gas taxes and license fees; in each case more than passenger cars. So it’s not correct to say they “don’t pay a dime.” One can certainly argue, though, that they’re not paying the full cost; there certainly is a degree of subsidization going on.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to James Hanley
                Ignored
                says:

                *nods* and they pay higher turnpike fees. I still think they got the steal of the century from ike’s interstate highway system (which was built for public Defense)Report

              • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to James Hanley
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s arguably not a subsidy to trucking companies at all, but rather a subsidy to consumers of goods shipped by truck. In a competitive (yes, even imperfectly) industry, when a subsidy is made available to all firms on a more-or-less equal basis, there is a one-time subsidy to the firms which move quickly to take advantage of it, but once competitors jump in, profits normalize and the subsidy is passed through to consumers.Report

              • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                I’d like to add, also, that the Interstate Highway System is one of the top ten examples libertarians and federalists are given of why we’re wrong, wrong, wrong, and we can’t live without an activist federal government.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                I’d rather give you the determined “push the south out of the third world” as a reason why federal government (…possibly activist?) is a good thing in modern times.

                IHS is easily countered with the number of rails we already had for transportation. I don’t think IHS did much for defense, either…Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, when the Russkies nuke all your airbases, it’s nice to have a lot of long straight stretches of wide paved roadway scattered around the countryside.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                obviously you don’t go around PA much. long and straight, let alone without potholes! rofl.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                Man, I’m from Pennsylvania. Now I live in California. California’s major highways are in worse condition than the typical Pennsylvania back road.Report

        • Avatar DarrenG in reply to James Hanley
          Ignored
          says:

          This analogy plays into Erik’s point that without the distortions imposed by decades of post-Prohibition industry regulation Bud (et al) wouldn’t be quite as dominant.

          The most recent numbers a quick Google turns up say that Pizza Hut has less than 20% of the U.S. pizza market, and all national chains combined account for only a slight majority share of the market, with nearly half still being local, independent pizza makers.

          On the other hand, Anheuser-Busch accounts for over 40% of the U.S. market and all combined craft breweries are somewhere around 7% of the market.Report

          • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to DarrenG
            Ignored
            says:

            Thanks for those numbers DarrenG. That’s pretty interesting, and yes, I think it does play into my point. Huh.Report

          • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to DarrenG
            Ignored
            says:

            Though arguably this has a lot to do with the fact that pizza has a shelf life of about half an hour and thus has to be made locally and can’t benefit from economies of scale nearly as well as canned and bottled beverages can. If you look at the market for soft drinks, the picture looks very similar to beer, with three big-name brands (Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper-Snapple) with almot 90% market share and a bunch of bit players dividing up the rest.Report

            • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              Plus there’s a lot of crappy, but local, pizza out there.

              (less so, crappy, but local, restaurants in general. The Applebees-Olive Garden Continuum has seem to put a floor in the quality of casual restaurants)Report

            • Avatar Alan Scott in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              Yeah, but I’d argue that Coke and Pepsi are a lot further up in the quality scale than Bud and Coors. Sure they use corn syrup in some of their products, but Coca Cola still imports coca leaves from south america, for example.

              Consider this: Coke has a huge market share everywhere in the world. But almost nobody drinks Budweiser outside the US and Canada.Report

  2. Avatar DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    True, but people who like anything more expensive than Two Buck Chuck are called “wine snobs”, and there’s not really any legislation that makes smaller boutique producers unable to compete or get the same market penetration as larger ones.

    I’m not saying that you’re a “beer snob”, I’m saying that mostly people buy Bud over something else because it’s cheaper than anything else. (Although, as you point out, there’s familiarity; when you get Bud you know what you’re getting, whereas some of these craft brews taste like earwax.)Report

  3. Avatar James Hanley
    Ignored
    says:

    E.D.,

    Not that I disagree with any criticisms of the current alcohol market regulations (section two of the 21st Amendment practically invites rent-seeking), but it’s also true that many people prefer the more simple taste of Bud or Miller to the more complex and robust taste of many craft beers. It’s also true that if what you really want to do is pound down a bunch of them, you’re better off drinking PBR than Guinness.

    So I think both things are going on, and it’s hard to disentangle just how much effect is caused by each. Culture plays a big role, too–the Pacific Northwest, for example, was ahead of the curve on the craft beer market and it was distinctly a cultural trait (brought on, I believe, by incessant rain and gloom, weather much better suited to appreciating a craft beer’s subtlety than is a hot humid day). But now that culture is slowly spreading throughout the U.S. Of course part of the non-craft culture in much of the country is brought on by the factors you mentioned, but perhaps not all of it–cultural willingness to try new things, to be willing to indulge in something viewed as somewhat elitist also play a role.

    I will criticize you when you say “if Sam Adams had Budweiser’s advertising budget and national brand awareness…” but in so doing you take a static view of the market. Budweiser did not always have national brand awareness; they created it. Sam Adams 20 years ago did not have national brand awareness, but now they are developing it–I would even argue they have developed it, they just haven’t reached Bud’s level of name recognition. So when you look at the market dynamically you realize brands can over time move beyond just craft status. It’s not necessarily easy, though, and part of the difficulty is indeed the regulations you are criticizing.

    As a final comment, I would argue that your preference for craft beers does demonstrate that you have superior taste, and that many Americans do have bad taste in beer. I know people who prefer Coors to Leinenkugels, Miller Light to Sierra Nevada, or PBR to Anchor Steam. Hell, I know people who love Jack Daniels but don’t understand a good craft bourbon. And some people actually like listening to Miley Cyrus more than Lucinda Williams. You can’t put all the blame on the regulations and the corporations–the mass taste is usually an unimpressive one.Report

  4. Avatar Jason Kuznicki
    Ignored
    says:

    So, it’s interesting to me that so many libertarian-minded people, when they look at beer sales in America, say “People drink Budweiser because people like Budweiser!” and fail to take into account the laws and barriers to entry that have helped create the illusion that the vast majority of beer drinkers in America like Budweiser because it’s so tasty.

    I don’t accept that this preference is an illusion. Perhaps it is created by advertising. Perhaps the big breweries really can offer an appealing price-and-product combo thanks to rent seeking alone. Given those conditions, however, consumer preferences still aren’t inauthentic.

    What’s your data saying that this preference is an illusion? And what’s your True Rejection? (I’ve inflicted craft brews on unwilling drinkers. Have you? That’s my True Rejection of the premise at hand, and unfortunately, it doesn’t work too well in my experience.)Report

    • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to Jason Kuznicki
      Ignored
      says:

      As I’ve conceded above, I think it’s both these things going on at once.Report

      • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to E.D. Kain
        Ignored
        says:

        If that’s the case, we have no way of knowing what consumers’ preferences would be in the absence of the regulation. We can only assume that — barring deregulatory failure — they would be happier in the long term without the corporate subsidies.Report

        • Avatar bluntobject in reply to Jason Kuznicki
          Ignored
          says:

          Since this all came up in the context of German beer regulations, and the fellow E.D. quoted claiming that they “protected” the public from “truly bad beer”, one way to investigate consumer preference is to look at the German beer market.

          Which, according to Wikipedia, is dominated by pretty abysmal beer, with Oettinger at the top. Money quote from the article: “Oettinger Beer is cheap. Nobody wants it – ‘It’s dishwater!’ But everybody drinks it. (Our) success proves us right.”

          Absent Prohibition and subsequent legislation, the American beer market might not be dominated by a small number of megabreweries making sex-in-a-canoe beer, but I bet it’d be dominated by sex-in-a-canoe beer. Even above the 49th, in the sweet spot for craft beer on the West coast, our local microbreweries are starting to market watery yellow beer as “Dortmunder-style pilsner”.Report

    • Avatar Plinko in reply to Jason Kuznicki
      Ignored
      says:

      Even if the American main preference was for a fairly watered down Pilsner or Lager-type, absent a long period of regulatory enforcement that concentrated commercial brewing to a few companies, I just don’t find it persuasive that we’d find ourselves in a situation with as much market dominance as the big 3 American brewers do. It might be that those types dominate, but probably less likely that just a few brews would make up ~90% of the market.
      I think it’s a good question why wine doesn’t turn out this way. After all, I am guessing Merlot and Chardonnay dominate but no one’s out there with 20% of the market, either.Report

  5. Avatar James Hanley
    Ignored
    says:

    Quick followup: Kudos to DarrenG’s points. When deciding what we “like,” cost does matter. I might prefer to drive a Ferrari, but my price point is only a Chrysler (a use minivan, that is). And some companies, like In-n-Out (thanks for making me drool, Darren!), prefer to remain smaller and more elite (although they are now expanding too rapidly, I fear).

    And in line with what Density Duck said, it’s long been a standard economic line that McDonald’s didn’t build a better burger, just a predictably consistent one. If I go to another state, I know what I’m getting at MickyD’s. The SuperLocalBurger shop next door might have a superior burger, but it also might give me something resembling dog vomit. As much as I prefer craft beers, I’ve had some over the years that I think are astoundingly wretched. I’ve never been surprised, either pleasantly or unpleasantly, by a Bud. And some people prefer that comfort and familiarity to the ucnertain adventure of trying new craft brews.

    Again, all your criticisms of the regulations is right on, and they clearly do play a significant role in the distribution of the beer market. But I do think you’re not allowing a large enough role to mass tastes.

    You’re resisting the allure of true snobbery–go ahead, sneer at the ignorant masses. It’s ever so self-gratifying!Report

  6. Avatar E.D. Kain
    Ignored
    says:

    Well this is my *sentiment* it’s just not my *point*….Report

  7. Avatar Tod Kelly
    Ignored
    says:

    OK, I’ll go out on this limb and get slammed by everyone as an effete liberal elitist:

    I know people who love – and I mean love – a particular IPA, or dark amber ale, or porter or seasonal fruit ale from any number of local microbreweries. (Hey, I live in Oregon, where many restaurants have their own micro. You can’t swing a cat here without in subsequently needing to be enrolled in a 12 step substance abuse program.)

    I don’t know anyone – I mean anyone – that loves Coors, or Budweiser, or Miller. I have known many, on the other hand, that love getting a buzz, or seriously drunk.

    I am not buying this “people love the great taste of Coors” argument at all.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Tod Kelly
      Ignored
      says:

      Indeed, I’d say that people who claim to prefer Coors or Bud are, really, saying that they don’t like the taste of strongly-flavored beer.

      Which, then, brings up the question of why they’re drinking beer at all…Report

      • Avatar Will Truman in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        Mention this within earshot of Mormons and they will look at you like an alien, but…

        I used to hate the taste of beer. I had to teach myself to like it. The same way I taught myself to like Diet Coke: Keeping it in the fridge, drinking it in 100 degree weather, and letting my mind associate it with refreshment. I still don’t like beer all that much, but I drink it.

        Why? It’s cheaper than the alternatives in a social setting. Going out to bars, I used to spend obscene amounts on Goldschlager. Beer was less expensive and took longer. It’s also acceptable in more social settings.

        I can’t stand Guiness. I do have a very mild preference for some regional craft brewery product. But price brings me back to Budweiser, as often as not.Report

      • Avatar Alan Scott in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        Density Duck, I can tell you exactly why they’re drinking beer instead of something else: More bad regulations.

        Sure, our cumbersome alcohol regulations make it harder for customers to buy craft beers, but they also make it harder for customers to buy cheap liquor. Once the store I worked for got a hard liquor license, we started selling less of our cheap beer–but getting that license was a real pain.

        Wanna kill Budweiser? don’t do it with craft beers–do it with cocktails. A half and a mixer costs about as much as a 30 pack, and has one and a half times the alcoholic content.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Tod Kelly
      Ignored
      says:

      Sometimes you’ve got to start drinking at 9AM.

      You can’t drink Guinness starting at 9! You’ll be schnockered by noon! Nope, you’ve got to drink Coors. Preferably in the yellow can. You can start drinking that at 9 and ride out the whole day.Report

    • Avatar Steven Donegal in reply to Tod Kelly
      Ignored
      says:

      I have a good friend who lives in your neck of the woods. Well educated guy, Harvard law, works for a big firm in Portland. He won’t drink anything but Bud Light despite all the grief I’ve given him through the years. He’s a Beaver so maybe that explains it, but there is simply no accounting for taste.Report

  8. Avatar b-psycho
    Ignored
    says:

    Just in an effort to further confuse people, I will disclose that while I love good quality craft brew I sometimes still drink Steel Reserve.Report

  9. Avatar Michael Drew
    Ignored
    says:

    “Bad” beers are not all equal. PBR > High Life > MGD > Coors > Bud, etc. And there are times all I want is a PBR, not anything “better,” even though I think “better” beer is, yes, actually better.Report

  10. Avatar Annelid Gustator
    Ignored
    says:

    “Nor does it matter that the playing field is so uneven that the big brewers like InBev have truly massive advertising budgets, as if splashing Budweiser commercials all over the television, during sporting events, the Superbowl, etc. has no influence whatsoever on the choices people make over which beer to buy. These vast advertising treasure chests are just incidental I guess.”

    I love this point. If “the market” decides, and players in the market spend hugely on advertising, it should follow that firms have reason to believe that advertising has a net benefit to them. Therefore consumers don’t just adopt perfectly informed, utility maximizing (satisficing, rather) tastes–we know this also from a ton of research (Kahneman, many others).Report

  11. Avatar Rob in CT
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t have anything to add re: policy. I will say this: we live in a golden age of American brewing. I agree that the MOAR HOPS! craze is annoying at the moment (though I’ve come to appreciate a reasonably-hopped brew, whereas in the past I was strictly a brown ale guy), but overall things are great.

    So many tasty brews available in the store now… it’s beautiful.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *