Jason and Todd Alstrom put an editorial in the latest issue of
Beeradvocate magazine titled "
The Problem with Session Beers in the US." They've had a passive-aggressive stance toward session beers from the early days, and this piece fits neatly into that. Because they have such a large bully-pulpit with the magazine, I felt I should at least respond. Because I only see ONE problem the way that they do; the rest of their problems are manufactured, questionable, or just plain wrong.
Pricing. This is a horse they've beaten
well past expiration: if session beers are lower alcohol, they should be less expensive. Other people say it too. But we've
had that discussion, and the truth is, lower alcohol beers don't really cost
that much less to make or sell. Materials -- hops, malt, spices -- are only part of a beer's cost; there's energy, labor, transport,
taxes, promotion, facility costs, debt service... If a pint of 4.5% pilsner is a
good pint, a good-tasting beer, why should it be
cheaper than a 6.5% IPA? Because it cost a
nickel less to make? Or because it has
less alcohol? I thought craft beer was
all about flavor. If it's about the alcohol, well...
why are you drinking it, again? Maybe you ought to think about that. In any case, I'd certainly encourage any brewpub operator or bar manager to think about dropping pints a buck just to encourage the multiple sales sessions are about, but it's not about session being a somehow "lesser" beer. We don't buy that, no matter what the price.
USA! Americans don't understand what session beer is, they say; we're not the UK (this ignores the session beers in Belgium and the Czech Republic, of course, but we'll let that go). Our drinking culture is
different. Well...the biggest selling beer in America is Bud Light.
It's 4.2% ABV. We
get lower alcohol beer; the session beers we're supporting are lower alcohol too, only they have a lot more flavor.
What's so hard to understand? We don't need to be told a
story, as the Alstroms suggest. Judging from the success of beers like Founders All Day IPA, all we have to do is get a
choice. And boys?
Seven bucks for a "faux-pint" of ANY "beer that might be good" is more about the problem with
craft beer, not session beer.
A Session What? There's
no definition of a session beer, they say. Well, we're
working on it. I think that the
BeerAdvocate 5% definition isn't definitive
enough; I like 4.5% better, and 4.0% is good too. But look at how long it took to
define "craft beer." Oops...the Brewers Association is apparently still working on that one. Doesn't seem to be hurting sales, though. Yeah. Another
non-problem.
Boring! I'll quote them here, because I agree with a
little bit of this...but not much. "There's a serious
lack of creativity when it comes to session beers. It's either an
attempt at an old beer style, or a weak,
watery failure. Even worse, some
fool (or genius) created the 'Session IPA,' and it's taking over the session beer category thanks to bandwagoning brewers releasing hop water into the market in order to capture twice the hype."
This really is a
'Wow, where to begin' moment. "An attempt at an old beer style?" What, like
much of "craft brewing?" Pale ale, porter, Pilsner, imperial stout, milk stout, Baltic porter, and yes, even IPA: all attempts at 'old beer styles.' What's so bad about that? We're adding mild, bitter, grisette, and Berliner Weisse to the list,
oh horrors! If there are weak, watery failures, well, honey, there are overhopped,
unbalanced monsters out there too (and they'll cost you a lot more, despite your
fear of overpriced session beer).
Then there's the one spot where I
agree with them: "Session IPA." It is taking over session beer, and it's about making money, and it's about a
lack of real creativity and the worst kind of monkey-see monkey-do brewing. But...in a time where we have IPA, DIPA, TIPA, Black IPA, Red IPA, White IPA, Wheat IPA, Rye IPA, Blue and Green IPAs, and perhaps IPAs
as yet undreamt of just waiting to be born...why
single out Session IPA? Again,
this is a failure of craft beer, not session beer. If the Alstroms really want to be
muckrakers, and call for a better brighter world of beer, they need to step up and tackle the
real problems.
Snobs. And this is the one that baffles me. "...we find that many proponents of session beer are
snobs." Really? Where on earth do you find that? The people I know who are proponents of session beer are mostly just trying to get a couple taps, a few more choices. Complain about people who don't get session beer? Well,
yeah, if those are the people who are keeping session beers off the taps! That's not snobbery, that's the same kind of
frustration we felt back in the late 1980s when no one wanted to sell craft beer. Just put some on, we'll drink it! Sure enough...Founders makes a lower alcohol beer; it's now their flagship. Odell makes a session seasonal; sells so much they take it year-round. Brewers are finding that if they make a good session beer, it's going to sell well. Of course it is: it's a
good beer.
They conclude by saying that these problems have to change for session beers to be truly accepted in the US. Well...okay. I mean, it's not like it's happening already, without the Alstroms' permission or anything. Heh. Ha. Ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha!
Sorry. In the meantime, tell me: what's it going to take for
sour beers to be "truly accepted" in the US? Because while I love 'em, I think there's a much longer list of why they ain't going mainstream anytime soon. Gonna write that editorial
next issue, guys?
