A message to beer bloggers
Last month I was contacted by a marketing fella working on a new campaign for Stella Artois. I was happy to accept a link from the "blog" they've set up, but didn't reciprocate. Since then I've conferred with other writers, and it seems we've all been approached. In each case the initial email was very similar: the chap claimed to be a fan of the recipient's site, referring to the content of a few recent posts. He then offered advance viewing of a new website and a box of marketing bumf.
The object, of course, is to start a "viral campaign" on the internet. Having recognised that between us we have many thousands of readers, they're expecting beer bloggers to give free promotion to their product. The Stella Artois Blog lists and thanks those who have so far fallen into the trap. I'd ask those of my peers who have provided a link to or posted about the Stella site to reconsider. If this latest campaign to grab further market share for Stella Artois succeeds - at the expense of products we do like - let's at least be able to say we weren't part of it.
Remember what makes blogs unique, and what makes them popular. I'm not implacably against InBev or any other company (although sometimes I think I should be). Just remember that people don't visit our websites to read press releases from macrobrewers - the trade press covers that nicely. I didn't start a blog to provide a free service to InBev, and I suspect you didn't either. Don't get taken for a ride.
UPDATE: I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one who feels the same way. Canadian Alan McLeod has responded to this post on his own site A Good Beer Blog. Just to be clear - the aim here isn't to have a go at those who've written about InBev's Stella Artois campaign. Rather, we want to remind online writers of their individual and collective worth and urge them not to squander the credibility they've earned.
UPDATE 29/09/07: Here's an article someone pointed out to me about InBev's attempts to change the image of Stella Artois from "wife beater" to something more positive. Despite efforts to court American beer bloggers, I'm assuming the whole campaign is aimed squarely at the British market, where the Luton-brewed beer is a best seller.
46 comments:
I got the email(s) and promptly discarded them. I agree with your assessment, although I will drink a Stella on occasion because often here in Mississippi my only other options are B/M/C.
How masterful of you and quite right. It is odd when these things come by in the emails - people expecting that their product and your hard won bandwidth/readership have a relationship. A while ago the makers of a movie with beer in the title which likely had a multi-million dollar ad campaign fund, wanted to trade the reputation of beer bloggers for free word of mouth. Back fired.
I have nothing against Stella but I also have absolutely nothing for it as I don't drink the stuff. But the PR weenie behind this idea doesn't seem to get the idea that good beer blogs are about good beer and the drinkers that can appreciate the good stuff.
Hi Stonch, does that mean that you've answered your own question from 2 posts ago?
If you never got approached does that mean your blog sucks?
While I agree with you that their campaign is obviously viral marketing, the reason I accepted their invitation is because their idea of a cinematic website intrigued me. Stella Artois decided to take a chance by spending every cent on their obviously very expensive site, so why not give them a hand?
It turns out the new site is very entertaining and well done. Had other breweries contacted me such as Anheiser-Busch, I would have declined. However, as far as I know I can't think of any ethical concerns I have with Stella Artois. I'd call it a success if even one macro rice beer drinker became inspired and picked up a Stella instead.
I also don't think I somehow lost any credibility with my readers. Anybody who reads my blog knows what kind of beer I drink. They also know that I post news/events/etc about interesting things going on in the world of beer. I hadn't ever seen a brewery website like that before, so it was news to me.
I definitely appreciate your comment though. I think my readers will find your site interesting as well, so I'll add your site to my links section...unless you think this is an attempt at viral marketing too =)
Gee...I thought I was special...but if EVERYBODY got it.
Bob Woodshed - these comments suggest you don't know who makes Stella Artois:
"Had other breweries contacted me such as Anheiser-Busch, I would have declined"
"...as far as I know I can't think of any ethical concerns I have with Stella Artois"
"I'd call it a success if even one macro rice beer drinker became inspired and picked up a Stella instead"
InBev makes Stella. InBev are the largest brewing company in the world - bigger than A-B or indeed any of the American big three. They are the most macro of macro brewers - and Stella Artois is a typical macro lager, dreadful stuff.
If you have problems with A-B, then logically you have problems with InBev.
I don't mean to be unkind - I just think you need to be informed of the facts so you can understand the implications of giving free assistance to the world's biggest brewco. If you'd like to hear a few horror stories about what InBev has done to the brewing industry around the world, I am sure people will be happy to provide them.
Surely no beer writer worth a squat would support such a shallow and transparent campagain.
If InBev spent as much time (and money) on their brewing as their marketing the world (and my friday nights) would be a happier place.
I am part of the team undertaking the Stella Artois campaign and I would just like to correct a couple of things. Nobody is asking you to use a press release.
We invited bloggers who we believed were interested in Stella Artois, having read their blogs, to see a preview of the new website.
If you don't like it say so. If you want to say nothing, say nothing. This is not about a 'viral' campaign however you define it, this is about respecting your opinion if you wish to give it.
Well, that was quite humbling =)
I honestly didn't know that. I guess I can chalk this one up to being an ignorant American. I'm usually so busy weaning people off of Pabst Blue Ribbon and Busch Light that I never even considered where beers like Stella Artois could be coming from. Most of that is probably due to the fact that I have honestly never even seen somebody drink one before.
I thank you for the lesson on InBev. Knowing what I know now I'll be removing my posts on Stella Artois. I appreciate knowing that there are proactive beer bloggers like you out there.
Stonch - Do you think that Stella gains credibility by linking out to you from their blog?
Mike, I can't see how you're correcting anything. There is no inaccuracy in what I have written. I think it's clear that I didn't mean you're literally asking people to reproduce a press release. However, I'd argue that bloggers uncritically publicising a campaign for InBev amounts to the same thing. It's nothing personal - the interests of your employer/client simply aren't the same as those of us who enjoy writing about quality beer.
Bob Woodshed - good decision, good man. Thanks for adding my site to your links, I've done the same with yours. One of the great things about the interaction between beer bloggers is that we all learn something. For example, I knew very little about the massive US craft beer scene a year ago - now I'm finding out about it from the people on the ground.
Stan - I doubt it. In any event, I'd like to think that someone who followed the link would then have their eyes opened to better beers and never return to the land of Stella! ;-)
This is pretty weak. There was a car company that tried to pull some of this "viral marketing" trickery and it turned around and bit them in the ass. These companies have to learn that buzz in the blog world is earned, not stolen or bought.
Good for you in calling them out on this crap and maintaining the integrity of your blog.
I got the email, I got the poster adn beer mats express delivered (but no beer!). The web site is well done, but my reaction was, once again: Why do they bother to make such a fuss about such a boring beer?
What if they used their resources to make a spectre of interesting beers and promote diversity?
But I do not mind getting e-mails from people who want to market beer-related stuff. I get questions and input form journalsits and beer-drinkers from around the globe, too.
A few words of free advice: Don't waste your time trying to get the craft beer community to push standard lagers. If you have spent your money making a cinematic presentation, you should try to get bloggers focusing on design, film, advertising etc to get the buzz going.
I agree heartily with Knut Alberts point above, instead of trying to create a buzz around a mediocre product why not attempt to brew something of note. What could possibly stun the "beer world" more than Inbev producing a well crafted and interesting product, think of the buzz that would create.
This will be my only word on the matter as by talking about this product the ad men win, a negative buzz is still a buzz!
I'm getting annoyed with the snobbish view that all macro-brewed beers are terrible, and all local brews are magnificent - as if the smaller the brewery, the greater the beer, regardless of ingredients. If that were the case, the Clerkenwell Brewery would be getting swamped with Gold Awards.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like Stella Artois, but the number of people who think "large brewer = evil" reeks of beer socialism.
on the one hand, i am not surprised that this kind of approach has stoked up a bit of anger amongst some of the beer bloggers - a result of poor audience targeting on the part of the marketing team i guess.
but on the other hand, i do think talk of 'trickery' or 'traps' is a bit wide of the mark. as far as i understand, this stuff came pretty explicitly from Stella, and so there was no attempt to pull wool over anyone's eyes.
it's marketing - and you are no more forced to help Stella out (or indeed even read their missives) than you are made to pop out and buy Viagra every time an email advertising that lands in your inbox
Knut - your point about us being the wrong audience if they want to create a buzz is a very fair comment, and one that the people running the campaign might want to take note of.
Topdog Andy - I don't think anyone is suggesting that all beers from macrobrewers are bad. In fact we all know that isn't the case. However, two things to consider (a) Stella does fit the bill for a tasteless macro lager and (b) more importantly, the issue here is that bloggers shouldn't be giving free publicity to companies with massive marketing and advertising budgets - they don't need it or deserve it. No-one is saying all the beers they make are bad - but the behaviour of big multinational brewers has made them fair game for criticism.
dumbledore - you have a point - trickery is indeed a bit harsh. I would say the method of approach was a little disingenuous though. In any event, we've already seen that one blogger didn't even know Stella was an InBev product. That's what I'm asking people to consider - whether beer bloggers should be drafted in to assist the very largest of brewers, who already dominate the market and wish to do so further at the expense of smaller, local breweries.
I think some people are getting this the wrong way round, really. Your initial point was, I think Stonch, that the beer blogging community should take responsibility for its output and not simply pass on marketing efforts as legitimate content.
Whereas I think some people are seeing this as a 'big beer companies and marketing people are evil' rallying cry and a chance to boo-hoo about big business invading their brains and their blogs.
If you're not bright enough to figure out what to do with unwanted e-mails, the world can probably do without your witterings in a blog.
I think you are missing the point, dumbledore in that the whole goal of marketing is to direct you to a product you would not have otherwise considered. By focusing on the craft beer blogs, the PR guys behind Stella are suggesting that their product is comparable to a craft beer. It simply isn't. You can boo-hoo all you want but you seem to have an extremely naive understanding of what an ad is for.
Anyway, the real point of the misdirection is that there are not hordes of bloggers discussing dull macro-industrial lagers, which is where these ads might be better placed. But those blogs do not exist because no one really cares to discuss boring fluids and the RP suits need to create a sideshow to have their gack discussed on the internet.
I'll probably lose all my links on this, but I firmly disagree that Stalla is "a typical macro lager, dreadful stuff." Macro lager in the U.S. means Coors Light, Miller Lite, Bud Select, and Corona. Faced with those choices or a Stella, I'll reach for a Stella every single time. Far as that goes, the last time I had the opportunity to side-by-side a Stella and a Pilsner Urquell, both draft, the Stella was decisively better -- which shocked me as much as it should shock you.
"Typical macro lager" brings to mind light fizzy stuff, which Stella is not. Stonch, you rightly lay into American beer geeks for having style blinders on when it comes to infinite sub-dividing. I think you may be swung too far the other way, and in my experience, that's a common issue with Brits on "lager." If a beer is a "lager," most Brits I've encountered (yes, I realize I'm generalizing, but what the hell, I do it every day) slam it into a hole occupied equally by fizzy gassy crap (hey, bub, Brit-brewed mass-market lagers are truly some of the worst I've ever had) and by Heineken, Meteor, Dinkel Acker...sometimes even Budvar, depending on how rabid an ale-lover they are. And that really really steams my turnips.
So. Calming down now... I got the Stella e-mails too. I threw them into the "we're sending you a press release because we're launching a new 23 oz. bottle to replace our already popular 22 oz. bottle!!!" category, and forgot it. When they did follow-up, I told the guy that ordinarily I'd take a look, but I just had too much real beer stuff to do.
Generally I only look at and write about new ad campaigns or new packaging if they're really good (like the Budweiser "Anthem" ad last year; a significant departure for A-B and I applauded it) or really stupid (like...well, like a lot of them). I don't like to think I can be influenced by attention, or swag, or trips, but how can I know? I know by turning them down, I guess, but I really don't like to feel forced in either way.
Alan, what I am trying to say is that it is not the responsibility of the Stella marketing department to maintain the purity of beer blogs. It's their job to sell Stella. And I think, given that most beer bloggers are open to contact and approaches from sponsors, they have every right to send the emails they have.
It is the responsibility of the beer bloggers to maintain their standards.Which I think is what Stonch is saying when he says "I think it's clear that I didn't mean you're literally asking people to reproduce a press release. However, I'd argue that bloggers uncritically publicising a campaign for InBev amounts to the same thing." Who's to blame if bloggers uncritically publicise a campaign? The bloggers, of course.
If you don't like the product, ignore these emails like we all ignore all the other spam we get daily in our inboxes.
Lew - you're right, lots of British people don't understand bottom fermented beers. However, I'd like to think I'm not one of them - in fact, between us girls, I find myself drinking little else but lager right now. That's what a trip to Franconia does to you.
Maybe our dramatic difference in opinion about this particular beer is because I'm talking about the British stuff brewed in Luton (just north of London) whereas you've had the original Leuven variety? Just a thought.
You talk about what a macro lager is from a purely US perspective - but I'm looking at things from an international perspective, and from where I'm standing Stella undoubtedly fits the bill. Just because it's relatively scarce and novel in the USA, and isn't the same as Bud/Miller/Coors doesn't really matter to me.
However, moving on from all of that: even if Stella Artois was a beer I personally quite liked, I'd have written the same post. It's the principle of the thing, you see.
Dumbledore - yes, my email is directed at bloggers, hence the title of the post. It is not an attack on InBev as such (although I could happily mount one), and certainly not on the marketing guys here who are just doing their job as they see fit. Yes, people have to make their own minds up - I'm just hoping to influence them, is all.
Hi Stonch,
First let me say, I admire your passion. It is why I regularly read your site.
Second, I absolutely agree that beer bloggers (or any writers, really) need to know their audience and serve them well. The ardor in which you are pursuing this issue is certainly what your audience expects of you, but I am not sure it is what every audience expects of every beer blogger. (I mean how many Stonches can the world handle?)
I think one of the issues open for debate is this line:
“If this latest campaign to grab further market share for Stella Artois succeeds - at the expense of products we do like - let's at least be able to say we weren't part of it.” (emphasis added)
I, personally, don’t think that any marketing campaign can trick people into drinking a beer they don’t like.
Speaking only for myself and my experience (as an American), I don’t know of any beer drinkers that started out drinking craft beer. Everyone I know started out on the macro-brewed stuff in their youth because that is what they could afford. Some of these people will stick with the cheap stuff for the rest of their lives. Why? Because they like it. Because they can afford it. Because it’s all the thought they want to put into an alcoholic beverage.
Then there are the others… the growing minority of beer drinkers that discover there is much more to beer than blandish yellow lager. Some of these drinkers gravitate towards a single brand or style of craft beer. Others make it their mission to try as many types and styles as possible. Some become beer bloggers.
My point is that macro beers improving their image and that of beer can only help the case of all brewers. I may be naïve, but I don’t think the craft beer genie can be put back in the bottle. If the big brewers bring more people to beer, the craft brewers will have a bigger pool of people to convert to flavor, diversity and quality. You can’t fake quality.
It may be possible to skip the macro beer stage in the personal beer drinking arch, but I have never seen such a thing, at least not in the U.S.A. It may certainly be a plausible strategy in Europe or elsewhere. (You'll have to tell me.)
Either way, I enjoy the debate. Keep up the good work. I will continue to serve my audience in the way I think is best, and I know that you will too.
Cheers!
Captain Hops, if marketing didn't influence people's buying decisions, companies wouldn't spend money on it.
Yes, as I said in my post on Thursday, if macrobrewers help give beer a more refined image, as an unintended side effect it might help smaller brewers producing quality beers. So let those macrobrewers get on with it.
At the same time, I think the energy and enthusiasm of beer bloggers can be better utilised than giving such campaigns a free boost.
Stonch,
I too appreciate your passion and I can, in some ways, sympathize with your position. I accepted the Stella "invitation," reviewed the site, and posted a link to it on my website. I don't plan on removing the post. Along with this link, however, I made it clear that this is not a beer I'm particularly fond of or would typically drink. My readers, like others here have said, know the difference for the most part. Or, I'd hope that they do. I'm no fan of InBev, but I found this solicitation worthy of a post because I thought it to be interesting beer news - albeit not interesting GOOD beer news. Regardless of our shared disdain for Stella Artois, and the "evil empire" of InBev, the cinematic website is really quite interesting and very well-constructed. This is why it got my attention.
This may be a fundamental philosophical difference between you and I, but I don't tend to, de facto, reject commenting on happenings in the worldwide beer industry because they're from a macro beer maker. In my opinion, if they do something that's interesting enough to comment on, I'll post it ... all the while making sure I note to my readers that I in no way endorse or recommend their product.
Having said all of this, though, I do appreciate your concern and your zeal for the purity of better beer. The world needs more of you and less of stinky, fizzy light lagers!
dumbledore: I think what you have written there is entirely reasonable. What Stonch (and I) might be suggesting is that beer bloggers should have a confidence that is not always seen, the confidence to have if not "higher standards" then at least some respect for themselves as media outlets many people now read. Obviously the InBev PR people thought enough about the power of beer blogging to reach out as they did. That they chose this route rather than advertising bloggers or webtech bloggers speaks to the intention of the happening. In significant part, it was to get the product mentioned on beer blogs. In response, beer bloggers should be considering seriously what that means as that, for me, is the real event.
Alan
A Good Beer Blog
Alan,
Very well put. I was feeling nervous about my livelihood a couple years ago; why should people buy my stuff when they could get beer writing for free on the Web? Then some brewer yelled at me for what I said about his beer, and I said it was nothing more than what was being said on the rating sites. Am I to be held to a higher standard, I asked. Well, yeah, he replied, as if I were stupid. You're an established beer writer. You have a responsibility to your readers and to the brewers. I guess I'd always known that, I was just getting nervous and a bit sloppy. I shaped up, and my work's actually gotten better and I've got more of it.
Bloggers who are consistent, who write good stuff, who take this seriously, whether they are paid for it or not, fall into that same category. You become "serious" and "responsible" by virtue of being there every day, or week, or whatever, and not just writing willy-nilly, but thinking, and asking, and backing up your opinions. And just like with political bloggers getting "real" press credentials, beer bloggers get invites to press trips, samples, press releases, and...invites to website launches. Stonch obviously already has assimilated the flipside of that: the responsibility to write about that with full objective perspective. You have that responsibility to your readers, and as I just exercised, to the brewers -- got a press release from a major brewer's PR firm, and sent it back, noting a somewhat glaring error. Part of the business.
Stonch --
Anyone who's been to Franconia and doesn't get lagers...well, I don't know. I'd kick them off Planet Beer, myself.
Good point on the licensed Stella you're drinking: I've never yet had a licensed British-brewed lager that was worth a damn. And yes, we're obviously talking about two different things: you're talking about Stella as a big company beer strangling small brewery opportunity, apparently. I tend not to get that political, comes with being a libertarian. If the big brewers can make good beers, I'm drinking them. I don't think small brewers need coddled.
However, I don't think a blogger can be 'used' except unwittingly. If a blogger knows what's going on, and posts up something like this with nothing more than "Wow, this is neat!!!1!", well, I think they've made a substantial statement for their readers. And I think InBev should think about the possible consequences of that...but marketers aren't noted for thinking long-term.
There is a level of Internet logistics and marketing not being mentioned here.
First, the PR folks are reaching out to many more people than beer bloggers. Think of it like launching an independent film in theaters. Buzz is their business.
Second, there are the logistics of Search Engine Optimization (SEO). A topic I care nothing about and pay no attention to, but I do know that incoming links help move a site up the search engine ladder and get it more attention.
Third, in every study about why consumers will buy a beer (in this case substitute "visit a web site about beer") you'll see that people say a recommendation from a friend is more important than advertising.
So it's not necessarily a matter of seeking a link without paying, but that the placement within editorial copy is more valuable.
(Yes, Stosh, that supports your notion that bloggers should think before they link-TM.)
To further muddy the water, you should recall that Anheuser-Busch and InBev are marketing partners in the United States.
Finally Stosh, did you forget that InBev owns Spaten?
Stan:
The reasons why InBev's marketing people are seeking links and endorsement from beer bloggers haven't been discussed because they're taken as read. It isn't that I or others are ignorant of them, it's just that they aren't relevant to this discussion.
"To further muddy the water, you should recall that Anheuser-Busch and InBev are marketing partners in the United States."
Can you explain why that muddies the water? They'll probably end up merging, if market analysts are correct.
"...did you forget that InBev owns Spaten?"
No, I haven't forgotten that. Spaten's a beer I'm aware of, but I've never mentioned it before, so the reference is lost on me, I'm afraid.
Let's leave Spaten (does all Inbev touches turn to shite?) for later.
I think the marketing intentions are relevant. One thing marketers do is pitch interesting stories to members of the media. This makes them useful, if dangerous.
Apparently there were customs problems and bloggers that were contacted didn't get packages, so they were e-mailed the code to visit the site.
They nonetheless went ahead and wrote about how cool the movie is. This wasn't a matter of "selling out." They were impressed.
They didn't recite from a press release - in a bit of marketing brilliance there was none - but posted their own thoughts.
As far as the A-B connection goes, that was to point out that what was already a large marketing department has gotten somewhat larger.
...They nonetheless went ahead and wrote about how cool the movie is. This wasn't a matter of "selling out." They were impressed...
But isn't that as relevant to a beer blog as what is playing on the TV at a pub? It's actually less. If it was web advertising bloggers, I would see the connection. How does the ad enchance, inform, direct, challenge or otherwise affect the experience of beer? Do people seriously say "neato internet movie - gotta get me some Stella"? Maybe I'm no longer 20 so I'm not getting it.
So even if you are right, Stan, I think it still makes my point above: time for beer bloggers to give themselves some confidence...and maybe some respect, too. In the last few days I got emails from people trying to get me to yak about their magazine's Octoberfest party plans, talk about their immigrant hiring successes, discuss the beverage sponsorship of and three-day eco-responsible music festival and to pay me 75 bucks to run a story about their Christmas cracker web-based business. How is the Stella ad any different?
also Alan
AGBB
Alan, have you watched the movie?
To be honest I've only spent a few minutes. It's not something I care about.
But in those few minutes I appreciated the quality of production and that there was a message that beer is as a beverage that has been with us forever.
It was delivered in a way that will be far more engaging for most than "Beer in the Middle Ages." (I've read that book twice and obviously enjoy it but most reviews refer to reading it as a bit of torture.)
No, I haven't bothered but I don't seek out history-based advertising since Nova Scotia's Keith's "Those That Like It Like It A Lot" ads in the '80s taught me that our own Alexander Keith invented IPA and that it actually has no discernible hoppings at all. But I keep my two Ungers by the bedside along with my Hornsey.
AoAGBB
I'm afraid I've been struck dumb by the contradiction inherent in the statement "I tend not to get that political, comes with being a libertarian". Sorry, Lew!
You have to bear with libertarians, Stonch. They miss some of the funnier aspects of their beliefs. ;-)
AoAGBB
What, I was a librarian for seven years!
It's all about the business, baby. Back off and let it work.
I tried posting a comment last week, but by my usual verbosity had it running waay too long, even for me, so I gave up and posted my own three cents here:
http://www.brookstonbeerbulletin.com/the-ethical-blogging-debate/
I love this kind of debate.
Cheers,
J
J, I think you may have misrepresented my position - filling in between the lines a little, perhaps. I've commented over at your blog. Cheers.
This is a very interesting discussion and one that I think is going to get more relevant as beer blogging continues to mature. As a young trade, beer blogging is only now beginning to experience the ethical troubles (to borrow a phrase from Jay) that professional writers have endured for a while. I've always had a very particular point of view that writers need to be careful not to grow too cozy with the subjects they cover, regardless of the subject. Beer and beer writers are no different. There is a surprising lack of ethics in the beer writing trade, from the encouraged requests for free swag to more serious infractions of failing to note when you write about things that your subject has paid for without noting the arrangement. There are a dozen more issues that would trouble major media outlets but that don't even glance off "beer publications." Another that Lew touches on, and is perhaps most relevant to beer bloggers, is the freedom to state your opinion. Too many in the regular beer trade feel compelled to treat their industry with kid gloves, ignoring mistakes, gross incompetence, or bad behavior. We often hear that the beer industry, especially crafts, is one big community. And while I enjoy the community aspect and am friends with several brewers, writers need to stay a step removed from it all if they are going to do something more useful than simply write a bunch of fawning fanzines. I have high hopes for beer blogging for these reasons especially. A lot of beer blogging is very opinionated in an industry that too often fears that its gravy train will be upset if it speaks truth.
This has been a quiet but long-standing issue among professional beer writers in the trade. There have been many discussion about wine writers and those from other trades and the values they espouse and how the best writers help their industries not by coddling them, but by remaining independent and truthful. The duty the brewer spoke to Lew of is not to feed readers sugar until their teeth rot, but to occasionally mix in some things they may not like.
With that said, there is a danger that if beer bloggers look to turn their hobbies into real jobs, or seek sponsors and advertisers, or just and greater exposure and to feel the love from brewers, that this sense of independence will disappear. I believe it may be time for the formation of an organized group to regulate (to the best it can) and patrol the ethics of its writer members.
That is a good comment and ties what I meant to state with the "love the beer not the brewer" post last winter. But as to the ethics of taking money, that is triggered in most contexts including the legal one that you and I practice. In is a matter of management...unless we want to drive ourselves into the depth of the issue set out in Shaw's play "Major Barbara".
Alan
A Good Beer Blog
Broader discussions about "ethics" are interesting and welcome, but are outside of the scope of my original message to beer bloggers.
I was flagging, to those who were unaware, the details of this particular campaign and the provenance of the product in question. I then went on to give my opinion as to why I think bloggers shouldn't get involved. Nothing more than that.
I know I'm rather late on the scene on this discussion but, to be frank, I had better things to do than look at Stella advertising. Finally got round to taking a peek. Got bored after about a minute and gave up.
Just a small, and rather pedantic, point Stonch. You said way back in the chain that Stella is brewd in the UK in Luton. Actually, its brewed at Samlesbury, just outside Preston, together with Castlemaine XXXX.
Chris just beat me to it, but you make yourself look a bit daft when you keep saying Stella is made in Luton - that brewery closed in the Mid-80s (or so) and all Stella is either from Salmesbury (Preston) or maybe Magor. I used to work for Whitbread in Luton and the only brewery there is the micro testplant in the test centre whose products have been seen out in the 1990's.
However, you make a good point in that beer bloggers have a moral requirement to know -
a) what they're talking about (or else the blog is worthless), and
b) to push beers worthy of pushing.
Stella is tasteless dross - that's most beer lover's opinion, although I'd not call it a "macro" as no-one in the UK knows what this means apart from a chain of cash-and-carry shops. InBev is an insidious company which is trying it's best to show a soft, cuddly side but if you get past all this crap about family ownership you see they are a massive corporate giant showing the very worst traits of "capitalism without the handbrake" and should never, ever be supported by anyone who claims to like good beer.
So it seems UK Stella isn't brewed in Luton, then.
It says a lot about InBev that between us we can't say with certainty where the stuff actually comes from...
I agree that the term "macro" is pretty much just a US one. That's perhaps why Lew responded so strongly to my suggestion that Stella was a beer of that type: when the expression is used over there, it's understood to refer exclusively to Bud, Miller and Coors, and not the products of the multinationals elsewhere.
Post a Comment