AP: "State creates beer commission to market microbrews"
In Washington state, where the brewpub craze was launched two decades ago, craft brewers have created a new state-sanctioned commission to better market their ales to consumers.I enjoy beer, but isn't this the sort of thing that brewers should be organizing on their own time and nickel? Can anybody explain why the legislature thought this would be worth spending its valuable time on? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 15, 2006 05:56 PM | Email This
How many trips so far this year?????
How many thousands of Wa state tax payer dollars??????
Ding$ Ding$ Ding$ Ding$
And of what return to the citizens of this state???????????
The state has an interest in promoting local small businesses. The state makes money off of the taxes generated from these businesses. I see nothing wrong with this so long as it is not costing the state a whole boatload of money. I believe a report I saw on this today stated that each barrell of beer would get an extra 10 cent tax on it to fund this.
Stefan --- relax, have a Washington microbrew!
Around here I choose the Elliot Bay Brewing Co. and it's No Doubt Stout. Oops, didn't need any commission for that.
I would guess being a political hack is how to get on the commission??? If not, where do I apply?
Posted by: fRed on November 15, 2006 09:20 PMThese commissions are problematic in that regard- especially when you have a product that is by no means "generic" to the consumer. A Washington apple is a Washington apple, but is the microbrew consumer uncaring as to WHICH Washington microbrew he or she may order?
Just another way the connected use the government to help themselves and make someone else pay for it.
Posted by: Captain Wierd on November 15, 2006 10:20 PMI'd look it up, but I have a cold and am going back to bed.
Posted by: me on November 15, 2006 10:29 PM"The Washington commission will collect a 10-cent per barrel assessment on a maximum of 10,000 barrels per brewer, as well as revenue from commission-sponsored festivals, to pay for promotional activities."
There you go, it doesn't cost you a dime and it drives up sales of Washington products. So, you're against having a commission that creates jobs? Nice!
Now I really am going to bed.
Posted by: me on November 15, 2006 10:35 PMThe difference between everything else and tabacco is that the tabacco industry had evidence that their product was bad, hid that research and lied about it. That is (should be) the issue. If the tabacco industry said this product is bad for you, and people chose to smoke anyway, they can't (shouldn't) be held responsible.
Posted by: Right said Fred on November 16, 2006 08:02 AMHopefully, this commission can establish a similar brand for Washington beer. I have been to areas of this country where they don't know what an IPA is. They wouldn't know an ale from a lager, or a porter from a stout. Beer like Bud light, Coors and Miller lite make up the vast majority of beer sold in this country and it's a damn shame.
Posted by: Palouse on November 16, 2006 08:07 AMThe great thing about the Washington microbrew industry is that it is a great group of people who are all working for towards the same goal: that is to promote better beer vs. the Buds and Coors of the world. It is in their own interest to promote each other - and most brewers I know are all about community and cooperation.
Also, 10 cents per barrel will not raise the price of a pint as I believe the wholesale price of a half barrel is around $110.
Posted by: Eric on November 16, 2006 08:41 AMMicrobrew consumers will always have preferences, even within Washington offerings. However, in most OTHER states there is not even one offering to choose from. I don't know about others, but when I visit family and friends in other states, I will look for a Washington wine in the grocery store or at a restaurant. In most cases, there's not a Washington beer offering.
Oregon has done a good job of promoting their home state brewers, and Oregonians have a sense of pride in their beers. Same thing can be done here with a little marketing. Beer can be an profitable export for this state, and this commission has an opportunity to make it happen.
Posted by: Palouse on November 16, 2006 08:57 AMagree with your posts & have done same. We should promote our WA products. I'd prefer to have industries or industry groups do/pay for it--more efficient and better at marketing. Governments are not efficient and know little of how businesses really work from the inside. ("say wa," right?)
as for promotion--yep--we all know that green Perrier bottle or other sparkling water from Italy--and Idaho potatoes--why not our WA micros?! it can only help us.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 16, 2006 10:21 AMPerhaps it's because, like the Fish brewing, they believe they will be subsidizing the smaller brewers. That is true, however, there is a state economic interest in promoting the industry, which is why this commission is a good idea. Consumers will hardly notice the tax, as most people who currently drink microbrews are already willing to pay more for quality. The 50 cents or dollar more I pay in a restaurant for a pint of quality brew is not even an afterthought because I would rather drink water than Bud Light.
Posted by: Palouse on November 16, 2006 10:47 AMReally, Stephan, I think this is a no-brainer. Lots of Washington wines are being sold in Japan now because the Washington Wine Commission made lots of trips to Japan and paid for advertising to convince consumers and distributors there that Washington wine was an acceptable alternative to French or California wine. The Washington Micro-brewers should do the same.
If you don't do it in a form of a "commission" where the industry can "tax" itself, then some of the brewers would chip in for the advertising, and others would not, preferring to reap the benefits of the advertising paid by others without incurring the cost.
Posted by: Rick on November 17, 2006 05:24 PM