Once again, it was Stan that got me thinking - this time when he wrote:
I find the idea that this survey of people who paid $95 to attend SAVOR... was conducted and that the results might have meaning so strange I can’t think of anything flip to write.
I was wondering why it is so strange given SAVOR held in in Washington, DC at the end of May should be considered a lobbying event. Certainly, the follow up reception held on 2 June - which required a 111th Congress ID to get in, co-promoted by the macro industrial brewers of America [aka "our friends at Beer Institute"] - was lobbying. The unfortunate "rock star" reference is proof enough. The Atlantic magazine even makes a cheeky observation that this particular beer pairing is very different from the narrative in "Beer Wars" but that, really, it might be the tale more to be expected in the circumstances:
Brewers from across the spectrum, but particularly lower-margin, higher-price craft beers, have been hit hard by the drop in consumer spending and a dramatic up tick in material costs. Not surprisingly, the prospect of higher taxes was Topic A at last month's SAVOR Craft Beer Festival, here in Washington. To hear brewers talk about it, the excise plan would zero out profits at even the most successful outfits and drive all but the most aggressive out of business (small brewers argue they would be hit especially hard because their beers tend to have much higher alcohol contents than those produced by the major breweries).
Do you believe that? Do you believe most profits in craft beer would disappear through this one tax? It's the same argument presented by Jeff Becker of the Beer Institute that Jay repeated then retreated from a few weeks ago. But do you care? It is, after all, lobbying and not truth telling. And, as the Former President of Romania recently learned, top craft brewers are "not f$#*ing Mother Theresa" or anything.