Deception most foul!

The dispute over what constitutes a craft beer – as opposed to a pseudo craft – has now broken out in Australia too. While in the U.S., craft brewers complain that the “Big Brewers” put crafty-looking beers into the market thus hoping that their me-too creations can help them cash in on the growing craft beer boom, Australian consumers have long grown used to the fact that several former craft breweries are owned by the country’s major brewers. What has now caused an outcry is that one of the smaller craft brewers, Byron Bay Brewing, is having a beer brewed, packaged and marketed by Foster’s/SABMiller – without as much as telling consumers.

Why this detail should have caused such a hullabaloo is hard for us to fathom, unless you are prepared to accept that in the grand scheme of things history tends to repeat itself.

If we remember correctly, the last time craft brewers’ labels came under scrutiny was in the mid-1990s when the “Big Brewer” Anheuser-Busch, yes, launched an attack on craft brewers Boston Beer Co and Pete’s Brewing Co because their labels failed to reveal that their beers were actually brewed and packaged under contract by, you guessed right, some other big guys.

In response to the accusation Boston Beer said in 1996 this campaign by Anheuser-Busch was aimed at confusing consumers by making the location and ownership of the brewery more important than what’s inside the bottle.

Boston Beer’s founder, Jim Koch, added the reason the “host breweries” were not mentioned on the label was that they had no say in how the beer was made. Nor did they have any control over it.

Mr Koch had a point there. But if the issue is really such a minor one, why not come clean on it? Why not state on the label that the brand is owned by x and brewed by z? Unless, of course, both x and z want to make consumers believe that their craft beers are produced in small batches in tiny breweries by strapping men in dungarees – as many consumers probably still do.

Here’s the story so far.

In late January 2013, the public relations agency Liquid Ideas of CUB (the former Foster’s) issued a press release announcing that Byron Bay Brewing Co, a small brewery in New South Wales which is independently owned by a Mr Barry Schadel, had released its Pale Lager in packaged format.

This release made people prick up their ears. Why should CUB put out this sort of press release? Wouldn’t that have been Byron Bay’s job in the first place?

The bottled beer was, in fact, produced by CUB at its brewery at Warnervale under a new licensing agreement with Byron Bay Brewing Co. But, as with the packaging itself, the press release did not disclose that CUB had any involvement in the production, promotion or distribution of the new beer.

This launch of the packaged version drew criticism from sections of the industry media for the failure to note the involvement of CUB on the labels and packaging, which simply state that the beer is brewed by Byron Bay Brewing Co and its licensees.

From what media have learnt, CUB is also involved in marketing the beer which is on sale in the big liquor chain stores like Cole’s First Choice, Liquorland and Vintage Cellars outlets, as well as other venues and outlets across the country.

A First Choice press advertisement of 6 February 2013 reinforced the impression of Byron Bay as the brewing site because it read: “Who doesn’t want to try a pale lager from the Byron Bay Brewing Co, located on Skinners Shoot Road in idyllic Byron Bay, housed in an historic location, the birthplace of much of the fame and spirit of Byron Bay which has attracted musicians, artists and alternative thinkers since the 70s….’

Like in the U.S., the issue over ownership and production sites has long been one of wilful obfuscation. Australian brewing industry historian Brett Stubbs already said in 2008 when listing and categorizing smaller breweries: “As is my policy, I have included only actual operational breweries. There are in addition many of what I call quasi-breweries and pseudo-breweries, as well as dozens of brew-on-premises (BOP) shops, but these are not my concern here (except for the few BOP shops that have extended their operations to the production of commercial lines for wholesale or retail). Without mentioning any names, the term quasi (almost)-brewery might be applied, for example, to a company which employs its own brewer and designs its own beers, but does not have its own brewery so uses the facilities of another (perhaps as an interim measure). A company which contracts another to design and produce its beers, but markets them itself, might be termed a pseudo (false)-brewery, especially if, as some do, it pretends to have its own production facilities. There is a grey zone between these two categories.”

As could be expected, Australian trade publications immediately took issue with CUB. On 28 January 2013, Matt Kirkegaard, the editor of Australian Brews News, felt compelled to send an open letter to Ari Mervis, Australian CEO of SABMiller, stressing that it is likely that the company’s image could be damaged by adverse publicity surrounding CUB’s “secret” involvement in the production, marketing and distribution of Pale Lager.

In the letter, Mr Kirkegaard said: “There can be no harm in ensuring that beer drinkers can make an informed choice about what they are buying, can there? It is in the interests of both the Australian beer consumer and fair competition in the Australian beer market. You have recently loudly proclaimed a willingness to apologise and fix it when CUB has made mistakes, even at great cost to your company. I would ask you to acknowledge that there is an issue here and to fix it.”

Mr Kirkegaard has since launched a Facebook page to campaign for transparency, to which hundreds of people have already signed up.

This incident underlines that we need – and have done so for a long time – more transparency in labelling … a catchcry many have heard before but nevertheless a very important one.

In our view, all this “craft washing” or “craft comb-over” that we see by major brewers in markets as diverse as the U.S., Sweden and Australia, points to the problems faced by genuine craft brewers aka the small guys if they seek to get their fair chance in a highly competitive marketplace.

“The danger is", commented The Crafty Pint blog, “that such practices threaten the further marginalisation of smaller, genuine craft breweries who are already fighting an uphill battle to gain recognition and market share. The knowledge (and, perhaps, desire to learn) of the average Australian beer drinker remains low, with few people armed with enough knowledge to tell a “faux craft” brand produced by a multinational and boosted by a large marketing fund from something crafted with passion and integrity by people who have poured their heart, soul and – in all likelihood – life savings into their brewing dream. … Practices such as that involving the Byron Bay brand risk “misleading consumers”, “fuel[ling] the cynicism that many consumers already feel about multinational brewers” and could “unfairly hurt the brewers who make up a very small but vibrant part of the Australian beer market.”