September 22, 2008
Yesterday I gave a book talk at a really nice beer bar and restaurant in Brooklyn, New York. Justin, the owner of Beer Table, used to be an importer and he has a very nice selection of regional and imported beers. Driving home we listened to the closing cermonies for Yankee Stadium. On April 18, 1923 Yankee Stadium opened. Jacob Ruppert,a brewer, owned the Yankees and had the stadium built. The Yankees won that first game and Babe Ruth hit a home run. Jacob Ruppert gave many thing to Yankee fans, baseball fans, and beer lovers. He played a major role in creating an iconic sports dynasty. In 1923 the country was in the fourth year of Prohibtion. Jacob Ruppert and a few other brewers kept the brewing industry afloat while it was illegal. I am a devoted Yankee fan and it gave me great pleasure to be able to write about Jacob Ruppert, Babe Ruth, and beer in Brewing Battles. Jacob Ruppert was a leader in both baseball and brewing.
|
 |
| Jacob Ruppert Time 1932 |
|
|
September 3, 2008
Experience
Once again life has intervened - getting two children ready to go to college took more time than I would have thought. I have also spent more hours than I should probably admit watching first the Olympics and then the political party conventions. I am really enjoying viewing both conventions on CSPAN since that television station shows what is happening without editorial comments. Other stations like MSNBC and FOX spend more time having the talking heads discuss what's going on and very little time showing what is actually happening. My other observation is that the 24 hour news stations have revived the convention since the networks stopped gavel to gavel coverage many years ago.
The issue of experience seems on the surface to be a distraction from discussing the real issues of the presidential campaign. Anybody doing anything new faces a learning curve and gets better at it once they have done it awhile. This is true if you are a teacher, a nurse, a mother, a governor, a senator, or President. The following are the presidents who were never Governor and therefore did not have "executive" experience: John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, James Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George Herbert Walker Bush. You can make up your own mind about whether it worked out well or not. However what is "executive" experience? Anyone who has to take care of themselves eventually has to manage finances and make decisions about how to proceed and what to do. Even if you never work in a management position you will at some point in your life have to tell someone else what to do. Presidents have to be leaders; running a state does not automatically make you one.
|
|
August 19, 2008
Drinking Age 2
The Alcohol and Drug History Society website has an interesting new item about lowering the minimum drinking age. As an aside, David Fahey, who I have known for at least twenty-five years, does an amazing job keeping up with news about drugs and alcohol and then posting it on the site.
I discussed the enactment of the current uniform - all fifty states - drinking age of twenty-one extensively in Brewing Battles. The topic was the subject of a paper I delivered at the 4th International Alcohol and Drug History Conference, 2007; I have posted on this subject already.
I included the issue of drinking and driving in the book because I felt that a complete and comprehensive analysis of the history of the American brewing industry required examination of the federal government, the industry, and society. Industry does not occur or operate in vacuum. Modern economies are the result of the interplay between the state and industry; when dealing with a psychoactive substance such as alcohol you also encounter society's reaction to the product.
As long as there has been drinking, there have been people who object to the practice. Whatever my personal preferences and opinions, when studying the brewing industry I feel it is my professional obligation to consider all sides. I don't understand why writers who presumably should be objective would dismiss current neo-temperance activity with disparaging and even crude language. The brewing iindustry has long tarred all such activists as "prohibitionist." The job of the writer is to unpack that and place it in historical context, not simply endorse the sentiment. As a second aside, I realize that how any individual behaves is their own business, however I want to make it clear that I consider this website and blog an extension of my professional life. I therefore try while online to behave and write in an appropriate manner.
Colleges are in a difficult position regarding drinking on campuses but it is unclear whether the pendulum of public opinion about late adolescent drinking and driving is about to swing in a more permissive direction. Perhaps the declining economy will encourage more favorable attitudes about drinking in general. However the size of the baby boomlet may increase negative outcomes from drinking which in the past has usually led to attempts to restrict access to alcohol.
|
July 28, 2008
This and That
Writing a blog is very immediate; in that way it is similar to journalism and unlike writing a book or scholarly papers. When I got back from giving a book talk at the Vermont Brewers Festival ten days ago, I planned to write in some detail about it. Life, including a tree falling on both my cars, intervened and now it feels like old news. So suffice it to say that I had a good time, met some very nice people, and drank some good beer. Long Trail Belgian White turned out to be perfect for the very hot, humid weather. My favorite was a doppelbock from Brooklyn Brewery. For pictures go to News.
On July 10th I gave a talk at The Jones Library in Amherst, Massachusetts. For pictures from that event also go to News.
I have been reading other beer blogs and one issue that has come up related to InBusch is the possible dispersal of the Anheuser-Busch archives. Both David Fahey via the Alcohol and Drugs History Society site and Maureen Ogle have mentioned this. It is my understanding that much of the nineteenth century material such as Western Brewers and German language periodicals and proceedings originally came from the United States Brewers Association library. In Brewing Battles I detailed the story of the dissolution of that venerable trade association as one consequence of heightened competition between Miller and A-B. Miller showed no regard for the historical value of the USBA's records but Anheuser-Busch did rescue some of the materials. The rest were lost.
When reflecting on how the creation of InBusch will impact craft brewery it would be worthwhile to think about the role that trade associations could play in preventing potentially destructive competition. Steve Hindy, founder of Brooklyn Breweries, recently became president of the Brewers Institute, successor organization to the USBA. This represents a synergy of the two major aspects of the brewing industry. Hopefully increased competition will not damage the cooperation that his presidency implies.
|
July 21, 2008
Post-Hegemony
I continue to be amazed by the number of people who seem upset by the creation of InBusch. As my husband, Aaron Berman, author of Nazism, Jews and American Zionism 1933-1948 , remarked, " There is a little Lou Dobbs in everyone." The declining economy, rising gas and food prices, and the threat of inflation frighten people who then are resistant to change. People who are normally not big fans of mega multinational corporations appear to be unsettled by the seemingly stable, unchanging Anheuser-Busch shifting course. Has this sale become a metaphor for America? The United States is already post-industrial; perhaps we are on our way to becoming post-hegemonic. Although Anheuser-Busch is no longer an "American" brewer, Sam Adams, Yuengling, Smutty Nose, High and Mighty, and over a thousand other breweries are. These businesses could become a new metaphor for a smaller, less aggressive and perhaps, greener America.
If neither of these scenarios are appealing to you, you can take comfort from the fact that Pabst Brewing is planning to claim the uber American turf that A-B is vacating. Apparently Pabst, which does not brew any beer and is essentially a marketing company, is surveying people asking if the fact that the company will be " the largest remaining American-owned brewery" will have an impact on purchasing decisions. Pabst has less than three percent of the country's beer market but does own many of the regional and smaller national brands of the late twentieth century. Of course MillerCoors, owned by South African Breweries, actually brews the beer. For more on this click here
|
|
July 20, 2008
They All Taste The Same
The sale of Anheuser-Busch to InBev is becoming a Rorschach test for peoples’ feelings about America and American beer. For me, Anheuser-Busch is American in the way that large corporations are part of the United States identity. However it is not necessarily the “icon” I would choose to use to describe America. Anheuser-Busch is ultimately a marketing phenomenon. It developed a product over a hundred years ago and has relentlessly marketed it ever since. Such a strategy does not imply to me that the company “knows” beer. In general it has not been open to change or innovation. When Miller Brewing, owned by Phillip Morris, introduced Miller Lite in 1975, Anheuser-Busch took over a year to respond. The intense competition between Miller and A-B ultimately reduced the number of independent breweries in the United States to 51 in 1983. The regional and smaller national companies that went under when they could not continue to compete with Miller and A-B in advertising dollars and cost-cutting sold beer that was similar in taste to Budweiser. To focus on those similarities to minimize the changes that occurred as the beer industry consolidated is to miss the point. Although large companies are a fact of American life, most people want more economic diversity and less monopoly. Even if Schaefer, Rheingold, Stroh’s and Falstaff didn’t differ much in taste, beer drinkers liked drinking their “local” brands. The desire for both better taste and a greater connection to the product encouraged the development of craft brewing. By its very nature an extremely large company like A-B was unable to respond to these market changes. Despite the fact that A-B, Miller and Coors control almost 90 percent of the beer market, today there are over 1000 breweries in the United States. That number speaks to the fact that people minded when those other brands of the 1950s and 60s disappeared even if they did taste like Bud.
|
 |
| International Brewers Day |
|
|
July 18, 2008
International Brewers Day
Today is International Brewers Day, a new holiday started by Jay Brooks, Brookston Beer Bulletin. It is "a day to raise a toast and honor all the brewers in the world." Jay has been encouraging people to write about their favorite brewers. I want to honor Will Shelton, owner of High and Mighty Brewing. Will spent twelve yeas as a part of Shelton Brothers, beer importers. He then decided to try brewing his own beer because he wanted to buck the trend in craft brewing toward extreme, high alcohol beers. Two of his excellent beers, Beer of the Gods and Sonodestitto, a stout made with coffee beans, are 4.5 percent alcohol. Will didn't want to make beers that are already being made. He hopes High and Mighty will bring sanity back to the craft brewing industry. High and Mighty has two other beers, Purity of Essence and St. Hubbens Abbey. I am a beer historian not a beer judge or critic but all of the beers taste very good to me. Will is also a great guy who I have know for a long time. His birthday is November 4, 1962. I hope at a later date to interview him for this website. He is definitely worthy of attention on this first occurrence of the holiday.
|
 |
| High and Mighty Beer |
|
|
July 14,2008
Are We Rome?
I was browsing in one of my local bookstores and came across a book entitled, Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America by Cullen Murphy. It occurred to me that this concept could be applied to Anheuser-Busch and it's sale to InBev. When I was in junior high school my history teacher showed us a chart of world civilizations which depicted their rise and fall. Looking at the chart, I had the, somewhat inevitable, realization that even America could not stay ascendant forever. This insight is even more applicable for economic institutions.
In the 1950s consensus historians, firmly believing in the uniqueness and permanence of the dominant American state, wrote business history from this perspective. If a company followed good business practices and intergrated fully both horizontally and vertically they would inevitably rise to the top and stay there. Pabst Brewing was a prime example of this for Thomas Cochran. However the subsequent course of events for Pabst as well as other companies including U.S. Steel and General Motors exposed the flaws in this approach to American history.
Anheuser-Busch is noteworthy for having survived and proposered through several waves of mergers, consolidation, and cost-cutting while retaining both its independent status and its family heritage. Yet to have expected that it could continue to maintain its position indefinitely was unrealistic. In a global market threats to a large company's stability can come from various directions. A-BInBev may very well continue its dominance in the United States but the increased cost of grains and hops as well as the flat market share which made Anheuser-Busch vulnerable in the first place has not changed.
Macro brewers have also faced increased competition from craft beers and imports. Jay Brooks, in the Brookston Beer Bulletin, makes the very interesting point that foreign ownership of A-B and MillerCoors means that Boston Beer, Yuengling, and Sierra Nevada are now the largest "American" brewers. Pabst is disqualified since it is essentially a virtual brewer and primarily a marketing company. Returning to the Roman Empire analogy, these craft brewers would then be playing the role of barbarian invaders of the late Roman Empire. Of course InBev is also playing that role. If we look at this whole issue through the lens of taste, then craft brewers are a civilizing force.
|
 |
| The Coliseum |
|
|
|
July 10, 2008
Accurate History
Patrick Orr, writing a blog for IdahoStatesman.com wonders if In-Bev’s attempt to take over Anheuser-Busch is “just history repeating itself.” To support this claim he cites Maureen Ogle, who sees InBev’s activities as similar to those of A-B and other brewers in the nineteenth century. It may be history repeating itself except the history is inaccurate. Throughout the nineteenth century brewers built their business either by brewing beer in a large urban center or shipping the beer nationally. At the turn of the nineteenth century American brewers faced consolidation through attempts by English investors to buy breweries and combine them. Notably Anheuser-Busch, Pabst, and Schlitz as well as Jacob Ruppert, owner of Ruppert Brewing and the New York Yankees did not sell out to the English syndicates and remiand independent companies.
Mergers and consolidation as a bench mark of the brewing industry is a post prohibition phenomena, spearheaded by the Philip Morris purchase of Miller brewing in 1969. Even at the height of the “beer wars” Miller gained market share by forcing out smaller brewers while Anheuser-Busch retained it top position. As competition accelerated, other breweries combined and merged all in an attempt to compete with Anheuser-Busch and Miller. MillerCoors, newly launched this month, is the latest attempt to gain market share against Anheuser-Busch. Looked at in this light, InBev’s maneuvers most resemble John N. Murphy and Miller Brewing in the 1970’s and 80’s.
As I have said before it is not really history to take the present and read it back into the past. The story of American brewing is not just the story of Anheuser-Busch, Pabst, Miller, and Coors. It involved many brewers, trade organizations, the federal government, and constitutional amendments to create and build the dominant force that is brewing in America.
|
|
July 7, 2008
What's So American About Anheuser-Busch?
I don't oppose InBev's attempt to take over Anheuser-Busch. It's not that I am for it either. I have been trying very hard to unpack what Anheuser-Busch means to America and about America. Observers often call products such as Budweiser, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Levi jeans iconic. What does that really mean? Large multi-national corporations produce all of these products; part of this economic activity is marketing the products world wide. Bud, etc. have become "iconic", because of very intensive, highly successful marketing. Yet do these products really say anything about America or what it means to be American? Not to be sappy, although July 4th has just passed, but don't the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and our longstanding democracy say more? Will a Belgian multinational corporation owning Anheuser-Busch, an American multi-national corporation, in any way threaten our national security? Has Anheuser-Busch owning fifty percent of Grupo Modelo and Corona Beer in any way damaged Mexico's national identity or security?
Because Anheuser-Busch is a very large company which has often behaved in a negative and aggressive manner- the most recent and to many observer the most egregious example being Rolling Rock- many people are not responding in a very sympathetic manner to the proposed takeover. The situation is further complicated by the fact that many people in the brewing industry as well as many consumers do not like Budweiser and feel that it is not and should not be emblematic of American beer. Obviously the people of St. Louis and maybe many across Missouri feel differently, given the role Anheuser-Busch plays in the region's economy. On the ground, however, it is hard to imagine that InBev will act very differently. United States laws and regulations will constrain how far InBev can stray from the company's current operations. The Belgian concern may make A-B more profitable which should only help the economy although it could entail losses of jobs which will be hard for the people involved.
An interesting comparison to the Anheuser-Busch story is that of Starbucks. Unlike Anheuser-Busch Starbucks, at least initially, enjoyed a large amount of public approval. However,as it grew bigger and bigger, the company began to face opposition from consumers and producers who favored smaller, independent purveyors of coffee. Recently Starbucks has announced that it will have to lay off 600 people. A sluggish economy has led consumers to question $3 or $4 cups of coffee. An article from Reuters, about the company's reversal of fortune cites an industry expert saying "Starbucks was a cool brand, and then all of a sudden it's not a cool brand.There's this new global consciousness that is out there that can suddenly shift." Starbucks turned coffee into a commodity which ironically led consumers to search for a more local and authentic version. Anheuser-Busch hasn't been a small, local, producer for over a hundred years; craft brewers who have made beer a commodity represent authenticity to many beer drinkers. In Bev owns brands of beer that are more in line with the craft and artisanal nature of micro brewers in America. Thus many beer bloggers have voiced the hope that InBev's purchase of Bud would improve that beer.
The story of Anheuser-Busch's role in the brewing industry and American society is a complicated one that can not be reduced to good versus evil. Further the implications of InBev's purchase of the company are also complicated. It feels simplistic and premature to respond in a negative and nationalistic way to this unfolding economic event.
|
 |
| The Session #17 |
|
|
July 4, 2008
The Session #17: Going Against the Grain Bill: Solstice Edition
In my book, Brewing Battles, I explored the attempts of the immediate post-Prohibition brewers to develop a marketing strategy that would cover all seasons. The centerpiece was bock beer; for the journal, Modern Brewery Age, this beer was the epitome of spring. In the years before beer marketing was national and also before wide spread air-conditioning, the summer months usually saw an up surge in beer sales. However today it is not clear if increased beer drinking is so synonymous with warm weather. Brewers vary in their focus on bock beer as a harbinger of spring. On a personal level when it is very warm I prefer a lighter beer such as a heifenweizen with a lemon. I also like a shandy or panache but I have been told that brewers dislike such combinations.
The Session is a blog carnival originated by Stan Hieronymus at Appellation Beer. For a summary of the Sessions thus far, check out Brookston's handy guide
|
|
Miller Time - Act 3?
July 1 2008
Today's New York Times has a full page ad from the newly merged MillerCoors which proclaims, "We're out to become America's best beer company . . . Our journey begins today. July 1 2008. Cheers to a new day, America!" This "new day" is in some ways Act Three for the post-prohibition Miller Brewing Company.
In 1969 when Philip Morris purchased Miller Brewing from W.R. Grace it unleashed an era of competition and consolidation in the brewing industry, all in an attempt to topple industry leader Anheuser Busch from its top perch. Although this effort did not succeed the world did get Miller Lite. Similarly, in 2002, when SAB purchased Miller from Philip Morris the new owners also attempted to advance the company's market share while once again aiming at Anheuser-Busch.
The express purpose of this new joint venture by SAB and MolsonCoors is to create a bigger company to more effectively compete with Anheuser-Busch. What differentiates this third attempt is InBev's proposal to take over Anheuser-Busch. Will the vulnerability of Anheuser-Busch which prompted InBev's offer leave enough space in the market for MillerCoors to succeed? If Anheuser-Busch is no longer an American owned company will consumers switch to MillerCoors? The New York Times ad is attempting to position the "new" company as American in way that a Belgian owned Anheuser-Busch would not be. Of course, after SAB bought Miller Anheuser-Busch attempted the same kind of advertising. Turnabout is fair play.
|
 |
| 1976 point of sale display, courtesy Miller Brewinh |
|
|
|
|
