Why does he need a new plan? His brewery is obviously a massive success. He isn’t trying to grow and be a big brewery. He wants to just be a Vermont brewery. It seems to be others who can not handle this idea and keep trying to say he NEEDS to sell his beer elsewhere simply because they want it. All 3 of the people you listed also had their breweries going long before the current area of shithead beer enthusiast. |
Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty
People keep saying "brewers should just not care about the beer once it is sold" then those same people will come on RB and complain about no dates on bottles. There is no brewer worth his salt that does not care about the quality of his beer when it leaves his place. I try my beer anytime I see it in the market and if I was in a bar and the beer tasted bad I would ask it to be taken off and comp them the money for it. That is simply taking pride in your product and wanting the best. I am not sure I would want to drink beer from a brewer who’s care for the beer stopped as soon as he had the money for it.
Again, if this was Shaun’s concern, he could have offered to replace it with other HF for the event. That would be more akin to what you do (since HF doesn’t distribute to the bar and the event had already been set). But he didn’t do that; he just asked them not to serve his beer. The article made no mention of him offering to replace it. If I was a D.C. bar owner and went through extra trouble (and paid extra money on top of the cost of the beer) to acquire and serve HF beers in what seems by D.C. standards to be completely legal, and Shaun called me to ask me not to serve them without offering me anything to make it right, I’d laugh at him. He’s the one acting entitled. They don’t owe him shit. End of story. |
Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty
Why does he need a new plan? His brewery is obviously a massive success. He isn’t trying to grow and be a big brewery. He wants to just be a Vermont brewery. It seems to be others who can not handle this idea and keep trying to say he NEEDS to sell his beer elsewhere simply because they want it. All 3 of the people you listed also had their breweries going long before the current area of shithead beer enthusiast.
He can get a new plan, or if not, at least quit whining.
If I was him, I’d be looking hard at what others have done successfully to handle a surge in popularity. This hasn’t been easy for any of them I assure you. But they figured it out, and their precedent is valid. |
|
|
This is getting really frustrating because there seems to be a lack of understanding with how quality control works in the beer industry, which is what this whole story is about.
The used car analogy is completely false in this case, as this is night and day from a consumer buying beer and doing as they please with it. This was a licensed retailer buying a product meant for a consumer and then reselling it under sub-optimal conditions outside of the control and wishes of the brewer. This is illegal in most states and even in DC it seems like this is stretching the definition of the law. In this situation, it’s the spirit of the prevailing legal statute that is what brewers want protected.
You sell beers to specific retailers and distributors so that you have a chain of accountability for ensuring that your beer gets into consumers hands in an acceptable state of quality. A retailer coming to your brewery and buying a product that is strictly meant for the end consumer in a short time period, and without declaring themselves or their intentions, then reselling the product in poor condition (yes, I know that part is subjective but that’s the brewery’s prerogative), circumvents the system of quality control that the brewer has built to ensure their product and reputation do not suffer.
This freaks out brewers and is bad for the industry on the whole. This bar needs to know that what they did is unacceptable. That Shaun Hill is receiving personal attacks because he is standing up for the quality of his beer when he is clearly taking the sensible path in this case is pretty disappointing. |
Originally posted by miketd
He’s an artist, man...
The Christian Bale of brewing. |
I for one cannot fathom that audacity that a brewer believes in the right to have an opinion. |
Originally posted by SamGamgee
This is getting really frustrating because there seems to be a lack of understanding with how quality control works in the beer industry, which is what this whole story is about.
The used car analogy is completely false in this case, as this is night and day from a consumer buying beer and doing as they please with it. This was a licensed retailer buying a product meant for a consumer and then reselling it under sub-optimal conditions outside of the control and wishes of the brewer. This is illegal in most states and even in DC it seems like this is stretching the definition of the law. In this situation, it’s the spirit of the prevailing legal statute that is what brewers want protected.
You sell beers to specific retailers and distributors so that you have a chain of accountability for ensuring that your beer gets into consumers hands in an acceptable state of quality. A retailer coming to your brewery and buying a product that is strictly meant for the end consumer in a short time period, and without declaring themselves or their intentions, then reselling the product in poor condition (yes, I know that part is subjective but that’s the brewery’s prerogative), circumvents the system of quality control that the brewer has built to ensure their product and reputation to do suffer.
This freaks out brewers and is bad for the industry on the whole. This bar needs to know that what they did is unacceptable. That Shaun Hill is receiving personal attacks because he is standing up for the quality of his beer when he is clearly taking the sensible path in this case is pretty disappointing.
Exactly. |
|
|
Originally posted by b3shine
Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty
People keep saying "brewers should just not care about the beer once it is sold" then those same people will come on RB and complain about no dates on bottles. There is no brewer worth his salt that does not care about the quality of his beer when it leaves his place. I try my beer anytime I see it in the market and if I was in a bar and the beer tasted bad I would ask it to be taken off and comp them the money for it. That is simply taking pride in your product and wanting the best. I am not sure I would want to drink beer from a brewer who’s care for the beer stopped as soon as he had the money for it.
Again, if this was Shaun’s concern, he could have offered to replace it with other HF for the event. That would be more akin to what you do (since HF doesn’t distribute to the bar and the event had already been set).
But he didn’t do that; he just asked them not to serve his beer. The article made no mention of him offering to replace it.
If I was a D.C. bar owner and went through extra trouble (and paid extra money on top of the cost of the beer) to acquire and serve HF beers in what seems by D.C. standards to be completely legal, and Shaun called me to ask me not to serve them without offering me anything to make it right, I’d laugh at him.
He’s the one acting entitled. They don’t owe him shit. End of story.
Are you thick? Why should Shaun be offering to replace it? As Sam just pointed out this guy bought growlers meant for short timeframe consumption drove them down and wanted to serve them at his bar. He didn’t tell Shaun this was his plan. It is not like Shaun set up this event with him. When I say I try my beer in the market place it is because I put it in the marketplace. Shaun did not do that. If you were a consumer and had a bad experience and emailed Shaun I am sure you would find him very willing to work with you to help replace the bad beer. If you were a bar and bought a keg from Shaun you would find the same. Neither of those are the scenario here. I can not understand why you are putting the blame at the brewers feet instead of the guy who is obviously trying to make a buck off the reputation of the brewery and is more then willing to serve subpar beer to do so. |
I feel half the people here didn’t even read the story and just read the thread title and started assuming things. Didn’t this bar sell tickets just to get into the tasting? Trying to make money off of somebody else’s name and giving out subpar beer, I’m sure would piss anyone off if it was your name on the line. Maybe I didn’t catch it but people seem to be talking about rating of the beers that night, I didn’t see where SH said anything about the ratings. Either way haters gon’ hate and I’ll continue to support my locals. |
Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty
People keep saying "brewers should just not care about the beer once it is sold" then those same people will come on RB and complain about no dates on bottles. There is no brewer worth his salt that does not care about the quality of his beer when it leaves his place. I try my beer anytime I see it in the market and if I was in a bar and the beer tasted bad I would ask it to be taken off and comp them the money for it. That is simply taking pride in your product and wanting the best. I am not sure I would want to drink beer from a brewer who’s care for the beer stopped as soon as he had the money for it.
Amen.
Shaun Hill asked the bar not to serve the beer. He didn’t go on a campaign. He’s not arguing they legally can’t sell the beer, only that they shouldn’t and he wish they wouldn’t.
If he had stayed silent, I wouldn’t have been shocked to see different backlash: "Shaun Hill doesn’t care what happens to his beer as long as he gets paid. He’s sold out. That quality control stuff was all poseur crap once he got his money." |
