If the rumours I have been hearing the past few weeks are true the BC beer market may resemble the Wild West by the middle of January.
I have been informed from two completely different sources that the BC Liberals will finally be making an announcement in regards to what course of action they will take two years after the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch.put out a consultation paper requesting industry input in regards to proposed changes to the laws regulating tied house and trade practices.
If the information I am getting is correct, and I do believe it to be so, the changes are to be announced by mid-January and will completely deregulate tied houses and trade practices, leaving the BC market wide open, reminiscent of the Wild West, for the highest bidders to lock down pubs, restaurants and liquor stores by either buying these outlets or offering large amounts of cash, or other inducements, for exclusivity rights (bars/restaurants) and preferential shelf placement (liquor stores).
The original call for input outlined three options for tied house law changes, those being to eliminate tied house prohibitions altogether, permit tied houses between the same corporate entity, but limit the number of tied houses a person can hold to limit risk of market consolidation or to permit tied houses with public interest restrictions.
They also laid out three options in regards to trade practice regulations, those being to eliminate trade practice restrictions altogether, reduce or eliminate most trade practice restrictions or to streamline some trade practice policies and procedures
For better explanations as to what those options mean, click on the consultation link above.
There has been a great divide among the players in the craft beer industry as to whether deregulating tied house and trade practice restrictions will have a negative impact on the industry or not. You can read in more detail what this is all about here and here.
The biggest fear is that the larger, deep-pocketed, national and multinational breweries will simply buy pubs and restaurants, or pay licensees to favor their products, to stop the growth of the local craft beer industry which has managed to claw their way from 7% to about 15% of the domestic beer market in BC over the past five years. That growth may not sound much, but when you consider that each percentage point represents over $8 million dollars in sales, you can see why the bigger, national macro-breweries do not want the smaller breweries get any stronger. There are also some concerns that the more aggressive and growth-oriented local breweries, willing to incur short-term losses for long term gains, might just try to buy a larger share of the market by stepping on their competition who are more focused on sustainability and producing great beers.
There is also the fear that licensees will begin to demand cash, free product and kickbacks for the right to sell beer in their establishments which will prohibit smaller breweries from being able to sell their beers in those types of establishments.
Many others say that the deregulation of the tied house laws will not impact the major craft beer markets like Greater Vancouver and Victoria and will give craft breweries in smaller markets, where marco-beers dominate, another outlet to sell their beer if they have the means to invest in a pub, restaurant or liquor store. There is also the argument that the practices of bribery by breweries and demanding payment of some type by licensees are alive and well in the beer industry because the laws are impossible to enforce and that deregulating will have little impact.
If the laws are wiped from the books, it will be interesting to see what happens. As a consumer, I would like to see a middle ground approach, where their are some safeguards in place to stop the larger, richer breweries from simply buying tap, fridge and shelf space to the point of restricting their competition similar to what happened in the UK in the 1990's. But I think, at least here in Vancouver, there are too many licensees who are committed to craft beer because it is simply a better product, because selling craft beer is profitable and because there is a great thirst among local beer drinkers for superior craft beer products.
In the end, as a consumer, I can only hope that if there is deregulation, it does not result in restricted access to locally brewed craft beers or higher prices. If so, it will have to be the consumers who rally and demand a further review by which ever political party gains power in the upcoming election as the industry is too divided on these issues.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Cascadia-gate - Is This Really a Consumer Issue?
I don't think I have ever seen a reaction as fierce and as widespread to any issue related to the local craft beer scene as I saw this past week in regards to what I like to now call Cascadia-gate.
It seemed, with some of the posts and comments I read on Facebook, reddit, etc., that some craft beer consumers took it personally that the term Cascadia had been trademarked in regards to "brewed alcoholic beverages namely ale and lager...beer, malt liquor, stout, porter and lambic".
But, to tell you the truth, I don't really understand some of the venom and, quite frankly, the mob mentality that ensued after Barley Mowat posted the story. It was great to see those passionate about craft beer in BC finally band together and get vocal, and the force of their actions did prompt Steamworks to respond, even if that response was perceived by many to be inadequate and insincere, but really, how does this issue impact the consumer? Why all the anger, rage and name calling? If you read many of the comments and posts, when they were available to be read, it was obvious that some of those writing them really had no grasp on what this whole issue was about.
Yes, this story did warrant a response from those of us who are involved in the local craft beer community and/or passionate about their craft beer. And I applaud those who offered their opinions in intelligent and constructive ways, letting Eli Gershkovitch, owner of Steamworks, and his "Steam Team" know they were upset with Eli quietly telling local breweries, for reasons only he really understands, to stop using the term "Cascadian" Dark Ale (CDA). But, let's face it, he was not telling them to stop brewing that particular style of beer or impeding consumer access to CDAs. No, just last night I drank some North Shore Black IPA, brewed by North Vancouver nano-brewery Bridge Brewing Co. Black IPA is another term used to describe CDA. A few weeks back I enjoyed Parallel 49's Black Christmas , described, a little tongue in cheek, by P49 as a Christmas Dark Ale (CDA) due to the trademark hubbub which was common knowledge among the local craft industry even before Chuck posted his original "The Grinch Who Stole Cascadia" story.
The Black Christmas and North Shore Black IPA ales may have been described in different terms, omitting the term Cascadian, but, at least in my humble opinion, they are in fact CDAs. And it shows that local breweries are already finding ways around the trademark issue. Just labeling a beer as a CDA, without spelling it out, will alert consumers that the beer is a Cascadian Dark Ale. Those looking for that style of beer will know what CDA means and those who don't probably will not know what a Cascadian Dark Ale is and would have to ask for an explanation anyway.
It is one of the reasons I, as CAMRA Vancouver President, have not come out with an official stance on the whole issue because I do not see this as a consumer advocacy issue. As president, I can say CAMRA Vancouver would like to see craft breweries working together to increase their share of the market place so that we, the consumers, have greater access to more craft beers, but whether that beer is called CDA, Black IPA, or something different, is a battle for others to fight. This is an industry-related conflict, one that, brewer's associations representing the breweries and homebrewing groups may want to tackle as they are the ones brewing and naming their beers CDAs.
No, I personally don't agree with Eli that he should be able to protect his trademark in relation to other breweries using the term Cascadian Dark Ale and I voiced that opinion to Walter Cosman, President of Steamworks Brewing Company, last summer. As pointed out by Chad on his blog Hoplog, used in that way, Cascadian is a descriptor for a style of beer. If breweries were calling their beers Cascadia Lager, or Cascadia IPA, I could see Eli's point, but when they are using Cascadia in reference to describing the CDA style, I think the trademark infringement has no traction. Cascadia Dark Ale in that sense is like using lager, stout or India Pale Ale. Many breweries are now trademarking the names of their beers to protect their branding. But protecting a brand and protecting a term that describes something, in my opinion, are two different things.
But what do I know about the law and my opinion obviously is not one Eli Gershkovitch agrees with.
And no, I personally don't buy "Team Steam's" assertion that Eli's actions were, "the best course of action so as to preserve the integrity of the name 'Cascadia' for true craft breweries not for large multinational breweries." And no, I did not buy the spin put out in the response from Steamworks painting the picture that Eli and Steamworks are David fighting the evil Goliath, in the form of Molson Canadian, or that Eli is the benevolent but misunderstood defender of the craft beer community who, out of the goodness of his heart, would allow other craft breweries to buy the license to use his trademarked term Cascadia.
I do hope Eli finds a way to save face and back down on this whole issue and I think opposition from other craft breweries and consumers in general is essential, but I would ask that if you are voicing dissent you do it in a constructive and respectful way. Calling Eli names and making statements like "Steamworks suck" on-line is only going to anger him and make him dig in his heels. But if enough people send him well written and well-thought out, intelligent communications about why what he is doing is wrong, maybe, just maybe he will see the light and truly act in good faith as a stand-up member of the BC craft beer community.
In the meantime, we as consumers can continue, unimpeded, to enjoy our CDAs even if the breweries do not use the term Cascadian Dark Ale until this whole issue gets cleared up.
It seemed, with some of the posts and comments I read on Facebook, reddit, etc., that some craft beer consumers took it personally that the term Cascadia had been trademarked in regards to "brewed alcoholic beverages namely ale and lager...beer, malt liquor, stout, porter and lambic".
But, to tell you the truth, I don't really understand some of the venom and, quite frankly, the mob mentality that ensued after Barley Mowat posted the story. It was great to see those passionate about craft beer in BC finally band together and get vocal, and the force of their actions did prompt Steamworks to respond, even if that response was perceived by many to be inadequate and insincere, but really, how does this issue impact the consumer? Why all the anger, rage and name calling? If you read many of the comments and posts, when they were available to be read, it was obvious that some of those writing them really had no grasp on what this whole issue was about.
Yes, this story did warrant a response from those of us who are involved in the local craft beer community and/or passionate about their craft beer. And I applaud those who offered their opinions in intelligent and constructive ways, letting Eli Gershkovitch, owner of Steamworks, and his "Steam Team" know they were upset with Eli quietly telling local breweries, for reasons only he really understands, to stop using the term "Cascadian" Dark Ale (CDA). But, let's face it, he was not telling them to stop brewing that particular style of beer or impeding consumer access to CDAs. No, just last night I drank some North Shore Black IPA, brewed by North Vancouver nano-brewery Bridge Brewing Co. Black IPA is another term used to describe CDA. A few weeks back I enjoyed Parallel 49's Black Christmas , described, a little tongue in cheek, by P49 as a Christmas Dark Ale (CDA) due to the trademark hubbub which was common knowledge among the local craft industry even before Chuck posted his original "The Grinch Who Stole Cascadia" story.
The Black Christmas and North Shore Black IPA ales may have been described in different terms, omitting the term Cascadian, but, at least in my humble opinion, they are in fact CDAs. And it shows that local breweries are already finding ways around the trademark issue. Just labeling a beer as a CDA, without spelling it out, will alert consumers that the beer is a Cascadian Dark Ale. Those looking for that style of beer will know what CDA means and those who don't probably will not know what a Cascadian Dark Ale is and would have to ask for an explanation anyway.
It is one of the reasons I, as CAMRA Vancouver President, have not come out with an official stance on the whole issue because I do not see this as a consumer advocacy issue. As president, I can say CAMRA Vancouver would like to see craft breweries working together to increase their share of the market place so that we, the consumers, have greater access to more craft beers, but whether that beer is called CDA, Black IPA, or something different, is a battle for others to fight. This is an industry-related conflict, one that, brewer's associations representing the breweries and homebrewing groups may want to tackle as they are the ones brewing and naming their beers CDAs.
No, I personally don't agree with Eli that he should be able to protect his trademark in relation to other breweries using the term Cascadian Dark Ale and I voiced that opinion to Walter Cosman, President of Steamworks Brewing Company, last summer. As pointed out by Chad on his blog Hoplog, used in that way, Cascadian is a descriptor for a style of beer. If breweries were calling their beers Cascadia Lager, or Cascadia IPA, I could see Eli's point, but when they are using Cascadia in reference to describing the CDA style, I think the trademark infringement has no traction. Cascadia Dark Ale in that sense is like using lager, stout or India Pale Ale. Many breweries are now trademarking the names of their beers to protect their branding. But protecting a brand and protecting a term that describes something, in my opinion, are two different things.
But what do I know about the law and my opinion obviously is not one Eli Gershkovitch agrees with.
And no, I personally don't buy "Team Steam's" assertion that Eli's actions were, "the best course of action so as to preserve the integrity of the name 'Cascadia' for true craft breweries not for large multinational breweries." And no, I did not buy the spin put out in the response from Steamworks painting the picture that Eli and Steamworks are David fighting the evil Goliath, in the form of Molson Canadian, or that Eli is the benevolent but misunderstood defender of the craft beer community who, out of the goodness of his heart, would allow other craft breweries to buy the license to use his trademarked term Cascadia.
I do hope Eli finds a way to save face and back down on this whole issue and I think opposition from other craft breweries and consumers in general is essential, but I would ask that if you are voicing dissent you do it in a constructive and respectful way. Calling Eli names and making statements like "Steamworks suck" on-line is only going to anger him and make him dig in his heels. But if enough people send him well written and well-thought out, intelligent communications about why what he is doing is wrong, maybe, just maybe he will see the light and truly act in good faith as a stand-up member of the BC craft beer community.
In the meantime, we as consumers can continue, unimpeded, to enjoy our CDAs even if the breweries do not use the term Cascadian Dark Ale until this whole issue gets cleared up.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
That's How it is Done - Paying Attention CAMRA Members?
If you have any interest in the BC craft beer scene and have any sort of connection to social media, you will know that there has been a bit of controversy stirred up by a recent post by Barley Mowat involving who Steamworks Brewery owner Eli Gershkovitch and the trademarking of Cascadia in regards to brewed alcoholic beverages.
The post caused a huge backlash against Eli and Steamworks from the local craft beer community who took to social media in droves to voice their displeasure regarding the whole situation. The reaction to Barley Mowat's post was swift and fierce and, even though it was not always on point, or in complete understanding of what was going on, prompted a quick response, which you can read here, from "The Steam Team", who were forced into damage-control mode as the good reputation of Steamworks was being unmercifully bashed.
Every action has a reaction.
Action: Eli requests local brewers not use "Cascadian" when naming, labeling, marketing Cascadian Dark Ales.
Reaction: Local craft beer breweries start renaming their Cascadian Dark Ales weird names which peaks Barley Mowat's curiosity and prompts his post.
Action: Local craft beer enthusiasts are outraged after reading the post and take to social media to voice their displeasure with Eli and Steamworks creating a whirlwind of bad PR for Steamworks.
Reaction: The Steam Team respond, explaining their position, a touch late I might add, and implement some damage control measures by offering up a resolution in an attempt to save face and pacify the angry mob.
This is how it is done folks. That is how you support a cause to effect change.
I hope craft beer consumers, particularly CAMRA BC, CAMRA Vancouver and other CAMRA branch members took notice. If craft beer consumers want to effect change to the laws and get the same governmental considerations wine consumers do, they need to be just as vocal, angry and active, targeting the LCLB and Rich Coleman, as they were yesterday in regards to Barley Mowat's post. A focused campaign with huge support will be more likely to prompt a positive reaction from government than not.
Think about it, who is more reactionary than the government?
The is absolutely no value in CAMRA BC having over a 1,000 members if 950 of them are passive and do not support their organization's actions past paying $25 a year for a membership. If CAMRA Vancouver had received the same type of vocal and passionate social media support for their FUSS and BYOCB Campaigns, Coleman, LCLB General Manager Karen Ayers and licensees may have taken CAMRA's positions more seriously.
Just saying....
The post caused a huge backlash against Eli and Steamworks from the local craft beer community who took to social media in droves to voice their displeasure regarding the whole situation. The reaction to Barley Mowat's post was swift and fierce and, even though it was not always on point, or in complete understanding of what was going on, prompted a quick response, which you can read here, from "The Steam Team", who were forced into damage-control mode as the good reputation of Steamworks was being unmercifully bashed.
Every action has a reaction.
Action: Eli requests local brewers not use "Cascadian" when naming, labeling, marketing Cascadian Dark Ales.
Reaction: Local craft beer breweries start renaming their Cascadian Dark Ales weird names which peaks Barley Mowat's curiosity and prompts his post.
Action: Local craft beer enthusiasts are outraged after reading the post and take to social media to voice their displeasure with Eli and Steamworks creating a whirlwind of bad PR for Steamworks.
Reaction: The Steam Team respond, explaining their position, a touch late I might add, and implement some damage control measures by offering up a resolution in an attempt to save face and pacify the angry mob.
This is how it is done folks. That is how you support a cause to effect change.
I hope craft beer consumers, particularly CAMRA BC, CAMRA Vancouver and other CAMRA branch members took notice. If craft beer consumers want to effect change to the laws and get the same governmental considerations wine consumers do, they need to be just as vocal, angry and active, targeting the LCLB and Rich Coleman, as they were yesterday in regards to Barley Mowat's post. A focused campaign with huge support will be more likely to prompt a positive reaction from government than not.
Think about it, who is more reactionary than the government?
The is absolutely no value in CAMRA BC having over a 1,000 members if 950 of them are passive and do not support their organization's actions past paying $25 a year for a membership. If CAMRA Vancouver had received the same type of vocal and passionate social media support for their FUSS and BYOCB Campaigns, Coleman, LCLB General Manager Karen Ayers and licensees may have taken CAMRA's positions more seriously.
Just saying....
Friday, November 23, 2012
Prospect of Bigger Bucks Changing BC Craft Beer Community
Yesterday, Vancouver beer blogger, Barley Mowat, exposed one of the worst kept secrets in the local craft beer community when he wrote his post "The Grinch Who Stole Cascadia" outlining how Steamworks owner, Eli Gershkovitch, has been flexing his legal muscles in regards to a trademark involving the word Cascadia.
I am not going to write more on the subject as Barley has it more than covered. I will say that the whole situation has been bothering me since I found out about it early last summer when a sales manager for a local craft brewery mentioned they had been contacted by Eli about not using "Cascadian" Dark Ale due to the Cascadia trademark. It has also bothered most others in the know, including some associated with Steamworks, because actions like this are historically not representative of the local craft beer industry.
But I believe times, they are changing and this situation shows just how much the local craft beer scene has transformed and how the once tight "craft beer community" is slowly being attacked and splintered as the financial rewards get bigger due to the growing craft beer market and increased competition for those dollars.
According to the latest Liquor Distribution Branch Quarterly Market Review, BC's domestic beer sales, from Sept/11 to Sept/12, were in excess of $900 million dollars, making each percentage point in the market worth $9 million dollars. Breweries, especially those with a business plan to grow, will fight hard for those dollars and some, not all, will fight dirty if they get the chance and think they can get away with it.
With these types of dollars at stake and with the increasing market share being claimed by smaller craft breweries, this American-style of legal action is going to become more of the norm than the exception as the competition gets more heated with more breweries, both local and outside BC entering the local craft beer market.
In recent weeks I have come across information about a few other local craft breweries that have been threatened with legal action for reasons that can be viewed as suspect, at best. In one case, an Ontario-based brewery, who are currently expanding into the BC market, hit a local craft brewery with a Cease and Desist order. For various reasons, I cannot comment more, but I see this as a sign of the fierce battles being waged over limited shelf and tap space for craft beer. I have also heard that one of the major craft breweries in BC is under attack from the major national breweries regarding possible trademark "infringements". I reached out to the local brewery representative to try to verify if this was true and was told that he "couldn't really comment on that stuff right now," which tells me that there is probably truth to these rumours.
These are not American breweries protecting their turf south of the 49th as was the case with the ridiculous Red Racer-Racer 5-Red Rocket legal battle which somehow Central City Brewery lost. These are Canadian breweries attacking each other over what I see as trivial matters that are motivated by trying to impede the competition, to gain an upper hand in the market and not by actual issues that are damaging those taking action or by wrong-doing by those being hit by these legal actions. I can see, but don't agree with, the motivation for the bigger breweries to try to squash the once-insignificant-now-annoying bug that is the craft beer industry, but I find it very disturbing to see small Canadian breweries attacking one another and even more disturbing see one local craft brewery go after several other local craft breweries for questionable reasons.
When I started working in the local craft beer industry 12 years ago, there were very few breweries in BC producing craft beer and we, for the most part,helped each other out as much as possible. I can remember one incident where I went to an establishment to hook up a tap for Storm Brewing but stopped because the licensee wanted me to disconnect a Russell Brother's tap. I actually refused to do it until we contacted Mark Russell, then owner of the brewery and informed him. As it turned out, he had been asked to cut a Storm tap somewhere else, so we "traded" taps, so to speak and had a good laugh over a pint of beer about the whole situation. But this was the norm, not the exception. Back in "the olden days" we helped each other find accounts, spread the wealth and let the beers fight it out in the market place with the consumer deciding which beer was tastier.
Today, the industry is completely different animal. Craft breweries are now, except for a few hold-outs who only keg their beers, concentrating on bottled and packaged products. Flashy packaging and marketing are often just as important for some breweries than the product. Brewers are not always the owners and not always making the decisions as to what to brew and as to whether the product is ready to go to market or not. Craft breweries now have sales representatives, marketing personnel and PR folks where as in the past, many craft breweries were basically one-man shows with the owners acting as brewers, delivery drivers, and general brewery gophers. On more than one occasion, brewery owners were known to live in their breweries to save money and they were the face of their breweries as far as marketing went. The craft brewing industry was a lifestyle as much as a business. The idea of taking legal action against another craft brewery was unthinkable.
To survive, the industry has evolved and as the industry has grown and the fight for the lucrative consumer dollars in a tough market has intensified, accountants and lawyers have become just as important as the brewers in some cases. I, for one, am not surprised by stories like the one Barley Mowat posted. I think it is only going to get nastier as trade practice and tied house laws get relaxed and the larger breweries move in with wads of cash and attempt to buy up smaller, successful craft breweries and point-of-sale distribution.
Long gone are the days I remember when one craft brewery refused to cut the line of another and being involved in industry was based on pure passion for great beer, not bottom-line profits at the end of the year. Let's hope as consumers, the focus remains on producing the best craft beer possible and not just on the bottom line.
I am not going to write more on the subject as Barley has it more than covered. I will say that the whole situation has been bothering me since I found out about it early last summer when a sales manager for a local craft brewery mentioned they had been contacted by Eli about not using "Cascadian" Dark Ale due to the Cascadia trademark. It has also bothered most others in the know, including some associated with Steamworks, because actions like this are historically not representative of the local craft beer industry.
But I believe times, they are changing and this situation shows just how much the local craft beer scene has transformed and how the once tight "craft beer community" is slowly being attacked and splintered as the financial rewards get bigger due to the growing craft beer market and increased competition for those dollars.
According to the latest Liquor Distribution Branch Quarterly Market Review, BC's domestic beer sales, from Sept/11 to Sept/12, were in excess of $900 million dollars, making each percentage point in the market worth $9 million dollars. Breweries, especially those with a business plan to grow, will fight hard for those dollars and some, not all, will fight dirty if they get the chance and think they can get away with it.
With these types of dollars at stake and with the increasing market share being claimed by smaller craft breweries, this American-style of legal action is going to become more of the norm than the exception as the competition gets more heated with more breweries, both local and outside BC entering the local craft beer market.
In recent weeks I have come across information about a few other local craft breweries that have been threatened with legal action for reasons that can be viewed as suspect, at best. In one case, an Ontario-based brewery, who are currently expanding into the BC market, hit a local craft brewery with a Cease and Desist order. For various reasons, I cannot comment more, but I see this as a sign of the fierce battles being waged over limited shelf and tap space for craft beer. I have also heard that one of the major craft breweries in BC is under attack from the major national breweries regarding possible trademark "infringements". I reached out to the local brewery representative to try to verify if this was true and was told that he "couldn't really comment on that stuff right now," which tells me that there is probably truth to these rumours.
These are not American breweries protecting their turf south of the 49th as was the case with the ridiculous Red Racer-Racer 5-Red Rocket legal battle which somehow Central City Brewery lost. These are Canadian breweries attacking each other over what I see as trivial matters that are motivated by trying to impede the competition, to gain an upper hand in the market and not by actual issues that are damaging those taking action or by wrong-doing by those being hit by these legal actions. I can see, but don't agree with, the motivation for the bigger breweries to try to squash the once-insignificant-now-annoying bug that is the craft beer industry, but I find it very disturbing to see small Canadian breweries attacking one another and even more disturbing see one local craft brewery go after several other local craft breweries for questionable reasons.
When I started working in the local craft beer industry 12 years ago, there were very few breweries in BC producing craft beer and we, for the most part,helped each other out as much as possible. I can remember one incident where I went to an establishment to hook up a tap for Storm Brewing but stopped because the licensee wanted me to disconnect a Russell Brother's tap. I actually refused to do it until we contacted Mark Russell, then owner of the brewery and informed him. As it turned out, he had been asked to cut a Storm tap somewhere else, so we "traded" taps, so to speak and had a good laugh over a pint of beer about the whole situation. But this was the norm, not the exception. Back in "the olden days" we helped each other find accounts, spread the wealth and let the beers fight it out in the market place with the consumer deciding which beer was tastier.
Today, the industry is completely different animal. Craft breweries are now, except for a few hold-outs who only keg their beers, concentrating on bottled and packaged products. Flashy packaging and marketing are often just as important for some breweries than the product. Brewers are not always the owners and not always making the decisions as to what to brew and as to whether the product is ready to go to market or not. Craft breweries now have sales representatives, marketing personnel and PR folks where as in the past, many craft breweries were basically one-man shows with the owners acting as brewers, delivery drivers, and general brewery gophers. On more than one occasion, brewery owners were known to live in their breweries to save money and they were the face of their breweries as far as marketing went. The craft brewing industry was a lifestyle as much as a business. The idea of taking legal action against another craft brewery was unthinkable.
To survive, the industry has evolved and as the industry has grown and the fight for the lucrative consumer dollars in a tough market has intensified, accountants and lawyers have become just as important as the brewers in some cases. I, for one, am not surprised by stories like the one Barley Mowat posted. I think it is only going to get nastier as trade practice and tied house laws get relaxed and the larger breweries move in with wads of cash and attempt to buy up smaller, successful craft breweries and point-of-sale distribution.
Long gone are the days I remember when one craft brewery refused to cut the line of another and being involved in industry was based on pure passion for great beer, not bottom-line profits at the end of the year. Let's hope as consumers, the focus remains on producing the best craft beer possible and not just on the bottom line.
LCLB Protecting You From Gang Violence While Your Are Being Robbed by Licensees
Next time you are sitting in a bar or restaurant quietly enjoying your 12-ounce "pint", be sure to say a quiet thank you to the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch for allowing you to sip your short-poured brew without fear of being caught in the cross-fire of some violent gang shoot-up.
Yes, apparently LCLB General Manager, Karen Ayers and her crack-force of inspectors are, "focusing on keeping gangs, gang related activities and violence out of licensed establishments" as one of their priorities and therefore they have no time to stop you from being robbed blind by some licensees who see fit to serve you about 60% of what they are promising you as a serving size, this according to an email she sent me October 10, 2012.
Whew, that is relief! Here I thought only fully trained and appropriately armed police officers were protecting us from the bad guys. Now I can again safely venture out and have a beer of unknown quantity knowing liquor inspectors, armed with business cards and a LCLB Licensing Policy Manual, are keeping me safe in this province's local watering holes.
I had emailed Ayers, on behalf of CAMRA Vancouver, asking her, yet again, to direct LCLB liquor inspectors to enforce the law requiring licensees to provide serving size lists for alcoholic beverages in order to protect BC beer consumers who are routinely mislead and often lied to about the volume of beer they are being served. CAMRA Vancouver has been pressing this serving size issue since launching their "Fess Up to Serving Sizes" (FUSS) Campaign a year ago but have been consistently told by Ayers and Rich Coleman, the Liberal Minister responsible for the liquor portfolio, that protecting consumers from being cheated deceived and over-charged is not something they feel they need to address.
Ayers and Coleman have consistently stated that the LCLB has had four key public safety priorities: over-serving, serving to minors, over-crowding and the sale of illegal alcohol. Now you can add keeping gangs, gang activity and violence out of licensed establishments to that list. As a result of focusing on these priorities they have advised me, because of limited resources, they cannot address less important issues, such as protecting alcohol consumers' rights even though to do so is apart of their licensing policies. But somehow, in between sending 18-year-old kids who look 25 into bars, restaurants and liquor stores in order to trap licensees into serving minors and focusing on keeping gangs out of licensed establishments, the LCLB has had time to ensure public safety is maintained by tackling such important issues such as prohibiting a restaurant from allowing patrons to enjoy a burger and a beer while playing video games.
The LCLB are so arbitrary in what laws they enforce and liquor inspectors so prone to interpreting the laws to suit their needs, that it is laughable at times. I sat down with one liquor inspector last Spring to talk about holding a cask festival and it was quite obvious that the inspector had no idea about the laws he was supposed to be enforcing. The directives he was giving, to comply with the law, had absolutely nothing to do with the LCLB licensing policies that applied to the situation and myself and others at the meeting had to correct the liquor inspector several times. This same inspector has been known to tell restaurant employees that when their establishment is showing a televised Canuck's game, they are not to cheer when the Canucks score a goal as this may incite patrons to over-consume alcohol in their excitement.
And this is the type of person who is out there preventing gang related activities and violence in licensed establishments? He has time time throw a wet blanket on bartender-server hockey enthusiasts but no time to make sure you are getting what you ordered and paid for.
I understand the LCLB's focus on important issues like over-serving, but even here Ayers confused me with her explanation that, "(i)t is the duty of all licensees and their staff to provide safe and responsible liquor service. They are responsible for ensuring patrons are not over-served during a visit to their establishment, regardless of serving sizes."
Okay, the LCLB cannot deal with such trivial issues such as blatant robbery and deception because they have to concentrate on ensuring licensees are not over-serving, yet licensees are responsible for policing themselves in regards to liquor service and ensuring patrons are not over-served.
Things that make you go hmmmmm....
Ayers did say in her email that, "if someone is upset with serving sizes at their local restaurant or bar they can make a formal complaint to this (LCLB) branch and the area inspector will follow up with that establishment."
With the added responsibility of curbing gang violence, it sounds to me like the liquor inspectors will be too busy to deal with our complaints...maybe this is a job for the Pint Police.
If you want change, get vocal, get involved. If the LCLB gets continuous complaints about licensees who are misrepresenting their serving sizes, or not telling you how much they are serving, the LCLB will be forced to do what they should be doing as a regular part of their duties, that being protecting the alcohol consumers of BC.
Yes, apparently LCLB General Manager, Karen Ayers and her crack-force of inspectors are, "focusing on keeping gangs, gang related activities and violence out of licensed establishments" as one of their priorities and therefore they have no time to stop you from being robbed blind by some licensees who see fit to serve you about 60% of what they are promising you as a serving size, this according to an email she sent me October 10, 2012.
Whew, that is relief! Here I thought only fully trained and appropriately armed police officers were protecting us from the bad guys. Now I can again safely venture out and have a beer of unknown quantity knowing liquor inspectors, armed with business cards and a LCLB Licensing Policy Manual, are keeping me safe in this province's local watering holes.
I had emailed Ayers, on behalf of CAMRA Vancouver, asking her, yet again, to direct LCLB liquor inspectors to enforce the law requiring licensees to provide serving size lists for alcoholic beverages in order to protect BC beer consumers who are routinely mislead and often lied to about the volume of beer they are being served. CAMRA Vancouver has been pressing this serving size issue since launching their "Fess Up to Serving Sizes" (FUSS) Campaign a year ago but have been consistently told by Ayers and Rich Coleman, the Liberal Minister responsible for the liquor portfolio, that protecting consumers from being cheated deceived and over-charged is not something they feel they need to address.
Ayers and Coleman have consistently stated that the LCLB has had four key public safety priorities: over-serving, serving to minors, over-crowding and the sale of illegal alcohol. Now you can add keeping gangs, gang activity and violence out of licensed establishments to that list. As a result of focusing on these priorities they have advised me, because of limited resources, they cannot address less important issues, such as protecting alcohol consumers' rights even though to do so is apart of their licensing policies. But somehow, in between sending 18-year-old kids who look 25 into bars, restaurants and liquor stores in order to trap licensees into serving minors and focusing on keeping gangs out of licensed establishments, the LCLB has had time to ensure public safety is maintained by tackling such important issues such as prohibiting a restaurant from allowing patrons to enjoy a burger and a beer while playing video games.
The LCLB are so arbitrary in what laws they enforce and liquor inspectors so prone to interpreting the laws to suit their needs, that it is laughable at times. I sat down with one liquor inspector last Spring to talk about holding a cask festival and it was quite obvious that the inspector had no idea about the laws he was supposed to be enforcing. The directives he was giving, to comply with the law, had absolutely nothing to do with the LCLB licensing policies that applied to the situation and myself and others at the meeting had to correct the liquor inspector several times. This same inspector has been known to tell restaurant employees that when their establishment is showing a televised Canuck's game, they are not to cheer when the Canucks score a goal as this may incite patrons to over-consume alcohol in their excitement.
And this is the type of person who is out there preventing gang related activities and violence in licensed establishments? He has time time throw a wet blanket on bartender-server hockey enthusiasts but no time to make sure you are getting what you ordered and paid for.
I understand the LCLB's focus on important issues like over-serving, but even here Ayers confused me with her explanation that, "(i)t is the duty of all licensees and their staff to provide safe and responsible liquor service. They are responsible for ensuring patrons are not over-served during a visit to their establishment, regardless of serving sizes."
Okay, the LCLB cannot deal with such trivial issues such as blatant robbery and deception because they have to concentrate on ensuring licensees are not over-serving, yet licensees are responsible for policing themselves in regards to liquor service and ensuring patrons are not over-served.
Things that make you go hmmmmm....
Ayers did say in her email that, "if someone is upset with serving sizes at their local restaurant or bar they can make a formal complaint to this (LCLB) branch and the area inspector will follow up with that establishment."
With the added responsibility of curbing gang violence, it sounds to me like the liquor inspectors will be too busy to deal with our complaints...maybe this is a job for the Pint Police.
If you want change, get vocal, get involved. If the LCLB gets continuous complaints about licensees who are misrepresenting their serving sizes, or not telling you how much they are serving, the LCLB will be forced to do what they should be doing as a regular part of their duties, that being protecting the alcohol consumers of BC.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Difficulty of Judging Beer & How a Pilsner Has Won Best in BC Two Years Running
The 2012 BC Beer Awards have come and gone and by all accounts, the awards ceremony and the CAMRA BC Harvest Fest event was a huge success and worthy of being the signature event for the BC Craft Beer Month.
Congrats to all of this year's winners, well done and well deserved.
But as with seemingly every type of awards ceremony where voting takes place, from selecting the Oscar winners to selecting a Homecoming Queen at a high school prom, some are in disagreement with the announced winners and at least one member of the local craft beer community has publicly, via Facebook, come out to state that he believes a "lot of pedestrian beers" took home top prizes in this year's BC Beer Awards, which he finds "embarrassing" and believes is evidence that the BC craft beer scene has "a long ways to go".
The main bone of contention seemed to be the naming of Steamworks Pilsner as this year's "Best in Show", an honour it was awarded last year as well, with the originator of the Facebook discussion questioning how a beer that he compared to "mainstream" beers, and which he felt did not accurately represent the best beer in BC, could win top billing in the awards. He did state he found the Steamworks Pilsner a decent beer but that it harmed the reputation and credibility of the BC craft beer scene by being given this lofty award.
The post drew harsh criticism and those defending Steamworks Pilsner and the BC Beer Awards quickly pointed out that the beers are judged on how well the meet the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) style guidelines. This also drew criticism from the original poster who pointed out that judging beer on how it meets predefined style guidelines does not reward those brewers who are creative, innovative and whose beers "transcends boundaries" and rewards those brewers who recreate what has done before.
I think some valid points were raised in the Facebook discussion and I thought it might be interesting to see just exactly a beer gets voted "Best in Show" in a competition like the BC Beer Awards. I contacted Matt Anderson, who helped organize this year's event. Matt is a CAMRA Vancouver executive member, BJCP certified judge, homebrewer extraordinaire and knows his stuff when it comes to the technical side of making and judging beers. I might add he knows a little about drinking them as well!!
According to Matt:
As mentioned, this is the second straight year that Steamworks Pilsner has been found to be the best example of a beer meeting that beer's category style guidelines For the record, this year's beer was not brewed by the recipe developer, Conrad Gmoser, over even at Steamworks and was brewed by Tony Dewalt, formerly of the legendary Dix, and Timmy Brown, late of Mission Springs, at Dead Frog Brewery in Aldergrove where Steamworks bottled beers are currently being brewed until their Burnaby brewery opens.
Is this the best way to judge a beer? Well, it is not a perfect system because, as pointed out in the Facebook discussion, this system does not really give freedom to those brewers who are thinking outside the box and pushing the limits of style guidelines and creating new ones. It is a good system though to keep things fair, objective, keep personal biases out of the judging and for comparing apples to apples, so to speak. Even if a judge is a dedicated IPA-hop freak, he has the style guidelines to use to rate the beer, not his/her personal preference.
Judging beer in the BJCP format is difficult. I sat in on one judging session last year before a CAMRA Vancouver event and was blown away by how serious and complicated it was. I did find that the beers I judged as the top were mostly the same as the ones the judges picked, although I ranked them much higher than the judges did score-wise. I can tell you if you have never sat in on one of these judging sessions, it is more than just swilling samples of brew and picking the one you like the best. It is a very controlled and focused activity.
Although the BJCP style guideline format may not be perfect, it is way more preferable to other formats that just turn into a popularity contest, like the year-end, CAMRA Vancouver Awards and the Best of Vancouver Awards handed out bu the Georgia Straight. Using the format the BC Beer Award uses is the best I have seen for neutralizing a judge's bias towards one style of beer over another. If you just had an open blind tasting with only lager-loving judges, for example, other beer styles would not have a chance of winning because they simply would not fit the judges' palates. It also eliminates any biases or preferences for certain breweries because of their reputations as the tastings are blind.
I have always steered away from rating beers on this blog as I feel it is such a subjective topic and my opinion is just that, my opinion. There are many highly rated and famous beers I can't stand to tell you the truth. And I have not taken it upon myself to become a certified beer judge just because I have no interest in having to taste many styles and examples of beers I don't like. I also do not want to have my experience of enjoying beers ruined by me constantly judging them for faults and weaknesses. I took a few script writing courses at the Vancouver Film School years ago and to this day, I tear story lines apart and recognize where many scripts are going based on what I learned about the art of writing good scripts. I find it hard just to watch and enjoy a movie.
I want to keep that joy in tasting and drinking beer!!
Maybe next year, it might be fun to have two competitions, one the controlled, objective format like this year's format and one an open competition, judged by the same judges, in the same blind manner, where they just vote which beer is the best one entered based on their preferences and opinions. Maybe call it the "Judge's Choice Open Category".
Is the Steamworks worthy of the "Best in Show" award? Who am I to judge as I am not a ranked-certified beer judge and do not have the experience or education to dispute what those who are qualified that have.
Is it my favourite BC beer? No, it is not, but I can appreciate it is a well designed and well-brewed pilsner.
Not that it really matters. These are beer awards folks, nothing more, nothing less. They are beers judged on how they taste that day. I don't know about others, but I will continue to drink the beers I find pleasing no matter who brews them or what awards they have or haven't won.
Congrats to all of this year's winners, well done and well deserved.
But as with seemingly every type of awards ceremony where voting takes place, from selecting the Oscar winners to selecting a Homecoming Queen at a high school prom, some are in disagreement with the announced winners and at least one member of the local craft beer community has publicly, via Facebook, come out to state that he believes a "lot of pedestrian beers" took home top prizes in this year's BC Beer Awards, which he finds "embarrassing" and believes is evidence that the BC craft beer scene has "a long ways to go".
The main bone of contention seemed to be the naming of Steamworks Pilsner as this year's "Best in Show", an honour it was awarded last year as well, with the originator of the Facebook discussion questioning how a beer that he compared to "mainstream" beers, and which he felt did not accurately represent the best beer in BC, could win top billing in the awards. He did state he found the Steamworks Pilsner a decent beer but that it harmed the reputation and credibility of the BC craft beer scene by being given this lofty award.
I think some valid points were raised in the Facebook discussion and I thought it might be interesting to see just exactly a beer gets voted "Best in Show" in a competition like the BC Beer Awards. I contacted Matt Anderson, who helped organize this year's event. Matt is a CAMRA Vancouver executive member, BJCP certified judge, homebrewer extraordinaire and knows his stuff when it comes to the technical side of making and judging beers. I might add he knows a little about drinking them as well!!
According to Matt:
- All judging was conducted completely blind, with the judges not knowing whose beers they were being served or which breweries had even entered the competition. The only info given was the style of beer.
- Six groups of three judges were used. Each group had two BJCP ranked judges joined by a third judge who could be a cicerone, sommelier, beer writer, bar owner, etc.
- A group of judges would be assigned a category and would go through it beer by beer and score each out 50, pausing for discussion after each tasting in order to come to some sort of general consensus. If necessary, upon completion of each flight, they would re-taste certain beers and come up with a final decision on first, second and third place for the category.
- Categories with more than 12-15 entries were tackled by two or more groups, with each group selecting up to three beers from their flight to be entered into a "mini best of show", where judges from each table would come to an agreement on which beers would finish first, second and third.
- The first place beers in each category qualify for the best of show round, for which we had a group of nine judges at one table. The first five beers were brought out, the judges would knock out two, then two more would be brought out. This would continue until there were only the top three beers left, then the judges would argue for and against beers until finally deciding the eventual winner.
The beers are scored according to how they meet the predefined style guidelines, in this case the BJCP style guidelines. If you have never had a look at these, you can download them from the website linked above and see how precise and comprehensive these guidelines are and how specific some of the categories are. This format tries to make the judging as objective as possible and pits entries only against those in the same category until the Best in Show round. Then it is the beer that best exemplifies what a beer of its category should be that wins.
As mentioned, this is the second straight year that Steamworks Pilsner has been found to be the best example of a beer meeting that beer's category style guidelines For the record, this year's beer was not brewed by the recipe developer, Conrad Gmoser, over even at Steamworks and was brewed by Tony Dewalt, formerly of the legendary Dix, and Timmy Brown, late of Mission Springs, at Dead Frog Brewery in Aldergrove where Steamworks bottled beers are currently being brewed until their Burnaby brewery opens.
Is this the best way to judge a beer? Well, it is not a perfect system because, as pointed out in the Facebook discussion, this system does not really give freedom to those brewers who are thinking outside the box and pushing the limits of style guidelines and creating new ones. It is a good system though to keep things fair, objective, keep personal biases out of the judging and for comparing apples to apples, so to speak. Even if a judge is a dedicated IPA-hop freak, he has the style guidelines to use to rate the beer, not his/her personal preference.
Judging beer in the BJCP format is difficult. I sat in on one judging session last year before a CAMRA Vancouver event and was blown away by how serious and complicated it was. I did find that the beers I judged as the top were mostly the same as the ones the judges picked, although I ranked them much higher than the judges did score-wise. I can tell you if you have never sat in on one of these judging sessions, it is more than just swilling samples of brew and picking the one you like the best. It is a very controlled and focused activity.
Although the BJCP style guideline format may not be perfect, it is way more preferable to other formats that just turn into a popularity contest, like the year-end, CAMRA Vancouver Awards and the Best of Vancouver Awards handed out bu the Georgia Straight. Using the format the BC Beer Award uses is the best I have seen for neutralizing a judge's bias towards one style of beer over another. If you just had an open blind tasting with only lager-loving judges, for example, other beer styles would not have a chance of winning because they simply would not fit the judges' palates. It also eliminates any biases or preferences for certain breweries because of their reputations as the tastings are blind.
I have always steered away from rating beers on this blog as I feel it is such a subjective topic and my opinion is just that, my opinion. There are many highly rated and famous beers I can't stand to tell you the truth. And I have not taken it upon myself to become a certified beer judge just because I have no interest in having to taste many styles and examples of beers I don't like. I also do not want to have my experience of enjoying beers ruined by me constantly judging them for faults and weaknesses. I took a few script writing courses at the Vancouver Film School years ago and to this day, I tear story lines apart and recognize where many scripts are going based on what I learned about the art of writing good scripts. I find it hard just to watch and enjoy a movie.
I want to keep that joy in tasting and drinking beer!!
Maybe next year, it might be fun to have two competitions, one the controlled, objective format like this year's format and one an open competition, judged by the same judges, in the same blind manner, where they just vote which beer is the best one entered based on their preferences and opinions. Maybe call it the "Judge's Choice Open Category".
Is the Steamworks worthy of the "Best in Show" award? Who am I to judge as I am not a ranked-certified beer judge and do not have the experience or education to dispute what those who are qualified that have.
Is it my favourite BC beer? No, it is not, but I can appreciate it is a well designed and well-brewed pilsner.
Not that it really matters. These are beer awards folks, nothing more, nothing less. They are beers judged on how they taste that day. I don't know about others, but I will continue to drink the beers I find pleasing no matter who brews them or what awards they have or haven't won.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Vancouver Licensees Beware the Pint Police
 |
| A sleeve is not a pint, or even close to one, so don't call it one!!! In Canada, 20oz = pint, nothing more, nothing less |
Twice in the last few weeks I have seen restaurants on Commercial Drive advertising "pint" specials when they were serving sleeves, which are between 20-40% less in volume depending on which version of the hated glassware is being employed.
This pisses me off to no end as it is misleading at best and downright dishonest if the misrepresentation is advertised knowingly.
A few Mondays ago I notice Falconetti's tweeting about an all-day "pint" special. I tweeted back a few times asking if they were in fact serving 20oz pours and was met with silence. Later in the day, I walked past the restaurant, on my way to the park with my kid, and noticed a "pint" special advertised on their sidewalk chalkboard outside the restaurant. Curious, I stuck my head it the door and there was not a pint glass to be seen. Just to be sure, I called to enquire, and was told "pints" were apart of the Monday special and when I asked if it was actually a 20oz pour or a sleeve, the response was, "technically, I guess you are right, we serve 16oz sleeves."
Technically, really?
I wonder if I offered them $3.60, which is 20% of the $4.50 they were advertising their "pints" of lager for on Twitter, if I would have been told I was technically right as well?
I don't think that would have been acceptable to them as it should not be acceptable for consumers to be mislead. I would have been very pissed off if I had seen their tweet, traveled specifically to Falconetti's for this great pint deal only to receive a sleeve.
Eventually, after yet another tweet, where I pointed out that their tweet and sidewalk chalkboard board were inaccurate, whoever is in charge of Falc's Twitter account corrected their mistake and tweeted to clarified that they did, in fact, serve sleeves.
A few days later, while walking down Commercial, I noticed Timbre advertising "all draft pints $4" on their sidewalk chalkboard out front of their establishment.
'Wow, what a great deal," I said to my wife, better check this out." I stuck my head and was not too surprised to see that this too-good-to-be-true offer was in fact too good to be true.
Later, when I got home, I queried on Timbre's Facebook page if they did serve pints and immediately they answered back that they did serve sleeves. When I mentioned the chalkboard advertising, they responded it must have been an "oops" and that they would correct the problem.
I don't know if these mistakes, which are not isolated to Commercial Drive or these two places, are a result of some generational information gap for those raised on the metric system, failure to pay attention to detail or intentional misrepresentations. The Imperial System is as foreign to some as hops are to Alexander Keith's IPA, but that should be no excuse for attracting patrons into their establishments with what is basically false advertising, whether intentional or not.
I come from an age when a pint was a pint, sleeves did not exist and millilitres and litres were weird European concepts, but the majority of today's generation of servers and bartenders are from a different era, the era of the metric system and the non-standardized sleeve glass. But they need to learn that "pint" is not just a generic term for a serving of draft beer, no matter the size. The term pint has the official and legal volume in Canada of 20oz (1 gallon is 160oz, pint is 1/8 gallon), as per the Federal Weights and Measures Act, or in today's money, 568ml.
The term sleeve has no legal or standard volume attached to it in Canada and is a term invented by the pub and restaurant industry to decrease serving sizes and increase profits.
I am not stating that either Falconetti's or Timbre were intentionally misrepresenting their serving sizes because frankly I don't know, and I commend them both for publicly admitting and fixing their mistakes, but obviously someone at both locations did not know that a pint is an actual measure, at least I hope that was the case. I am quite sure these same folks would not advertise a dozen chicken wings knowing full-well that a dozen is defined by the number 12 and knowing that their serving sizes were much less than 12 wings.
So why is it okay to do this with beer?
CAMRA Vancouver, with the Fess Up to Serving Sizes Campaign (FUSS), have tried to address the misrepresentation of serving sizes here in Vancouver and even had the cause brought forth in the BC Legislature by NDP MLA Shane Simpson, but the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch have done little to ensure licensees do not mislead consumers and Rich Coleman, the Cabinet Minister responsible for alcohol, basically stated it did not matter.
But it matters to this consumer and as a result of being fed up with this problem, I am going to start waging a one-man war against this misrepresentation of draft beer serving sizes. It is us, the consumers, that must put pressure on licensees to change if we want to see change. I know others out there are frustrated and even angry about this issue. I, for one, intend to start trying to apply some pressure.
Stay tuned for future posts related to the Pint Police...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)