Exactly. No one is forcing you to drink their beer since last time I looked there was a multitude of microbrews available. If those two companies started exhibiting monopolistic practices then something should be done. But why is their success a bad thing?
I suppose you can argue that Coors & Bud have close to a monopoly on the light beer category, but that's very different than having a OMG CORPORATE MONOPOLY on beer.
There has been a surge in the microbrew community, which is a good good thing. Looking at the beer section of even my local "big chain" supermarket (Kroger), more than half the beers they stock are not from InBev or SAB. Hardly a monopoly at all.
There's also been a growth in the home brew community. Here in Atlanta, we have stores like Hop City with sections devoted to supplies and equipment for making your own beer (along with a great beer selection). I was up in New Hampshire visiting my parents and hit upon a little shop called Jasper's Home Brew, which is 2/3rds supplies and equipment, and 1/3rd local and regional microbrews. No big name stuff in the store at all.
The oligarchy we live in might be shocking to some, but I was quite surprised to find PBR, hipster beer of choice comes from "S&P Company, a private company currently based in California"[1].
Beer, is an interesting example because microbreweries exist despite the two corporations.
You don't need to buy their brands - you're perfectly entitled to buy any other (local) brand you want, thereby strenghtening alternative brands. If people don't do that, they don't seem to want other choices.
The big brands have done a good job producing the illusion of choice. How does your average consumer know that all of these different brands are actually the same company?
This is really the point. In the beer and other industries we are led to believe we have a multitude of competition between different brands. In actuality, we have two corporations diversifying. If you believe in healthy competition in the marketplace, then this is a bad thing.
The natural response is to bring your local brewer into the picture as counter-examples. The point isn't that there isn't any competition it's that there isn't any meaningful competition.
I think a lot of people would be surprised to find out how few companies all of their food actually comes from in the supermarket (no im not talking about _you_, HN reader, that frequents the farmers market).
Antitrust law is a farce -- Greenspan's essay on antitrust is excellent. A law is just only if it's applied evenly and if people can understand it, antitrust law fails these 2 very minimal criteria -- activities legal for some are illegal for others and it's hard to know in advance what is and isn't allowed.
But it's only natural for a handful of companies to control the beer business.
It is a very very difficult business to succeed in. The capital expenditures are tremendous if you want to get a facility going that produces large quantities of beer. Then, just distributing it is another pain all together and forces you to give up margins on your product in order to make sure it is distributed properly.
For anyone interested, there's a great book called Beer School, about the guys who started the Brooklyn Brewery, which chronicles their brewery startup. I highly recommend it.
15 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 44.6 ms ] threadhttp://www.fortcollinsbrewery.com/
http://odellbrewing.com/
3 Counter examples.... in my one town....
I suppose you can argue that Coors & Bud have close to a monopoly on the light beer category, but that's very different than having a OMG CORPORATE MONOPOLY on beer.
There's also been a growth in the home brew community. Here in Atlanta, we have stores like Hop City with sections devoted to supplies and equipment for making your own beer (along with a great beer selection). I was up in New Hampshire visiting my parents and hit upon a little shop called Jasper's Home Brew, which is 2/3rds supplies and equipment, and 1/3rd local and regional microbrews. No big name stuff in the store at all.
I think we're doing OK.
Beer, is an interesting example because microbreweries exist despite the two corporations.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pabst_Brewing_Company
The natural response is to bring your local brewer into the picture as counter-examples. The point isn't that there isn't any competition it's that there isn't any meaningful competition.
This is discussed in the documentary, Food Inc.
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
It's very sad almost every comment here is about beer brands. It is just the first example.
It is a very very difficult business to succeed in. The capital expenditures are tremendous if you want to get a facility going that produces large quantities of beer. Then, just distributing it is another pain all together and forces you to give up margins on your product in order to make sure it is distributed properly.
For anyone interested, there's a great book called Beer School, about the guys who started the Brooklyn Brewery, which chronicles their brewery startup. I highly recommend it.