TOPIC:

Hi All,

Long time since I posted but was interested in getting the community's viewpoint on something that appears (to me, anyway) to be a new approach from a macro dipping its toe in the micro market.

As you know Mahou-San Miguel acquired 30% of Founders in late 2014. They were then rumoured to be planning an investment in Anchor in late 2015. A couple of weeks back they bought 40% of a Catalan gypsy brewer called Nómada that does a lot of experimental brews and had won some prizes.

I had expected to see an influx of Founders here in Spain but they've been very cautious - aside from a permanent tap at the last Barcelona Beer Festival their presence has been very limited for a company that supposedly partnered with MSM for distribution purposes. From what I gather there's no sign of Founders being brewed in Madrid either (thank God).

I'm interested to see what happens with Nómada, which will now be brewed at MSM's facility near Madrid (from what I hear they built a small-batch set-up not too long ago and dabbled with own-brand niche beer before shelving the idea).

It may be wishful thinking on my part, but do you think that a distribution partnership with minority investment from a macro would be a good thing?

It will definitely affect shelf-space for local craft, but I'd love to see an affordable quality day-to-day option on supermarket shelves.

We have something a bit similar here with C&C being the majority shareholder in 5 Lamps. The micro still gets to do what it wants, and makes very good beer, in general. The only downside I can see is transparency: 5 Lamps Lager is brewed at C&C's industrial brewery in Clonmel, but you'll still see it touted as being from a Dublin-based microbrewery, even in craft beer bars that should know better.

If there's good beer and no lies, I don't see the problem with a microbrewery being propped up by money from Big Beer.

Ah, interesting that about 5 Lamps, in particular the fact that they're still making good beer post-takeover.

Provided a minority shareholding is not just an entry point before increasing their ownership, I'm intrigued as to whether this approach will deliver what it promises (essentially more availability with no change to the product).

Most Macro takeovers seem to break their promises quite quickly, and the first to go is usually production site as you've mentioned.

Will have to wait and see.

"Hombre Lúpulo":2r0fd42l wrote: Ah, interesting that about 5 Lamps, in particular the fact that they're still making good beer post-takeove.
[/quote:2r0fd42l]

I maybe be wrong but I don't think there where operational that long before they where bought out.

And it wasn't made public until accounts where checked

"Hombre Lúpulo":1d3ui0wp wrote:
Provided a minority shareholding is not just an entry point before increasing their ownership, I'm intrigued as to whether this approach will deliver what it promises (essentially more availability with no change to the product).

Most Macro takeovers seem to break their promises quite quickly, and the first to go is usually production site as you've mentioned .[/quote:1d3ui0wp]

It's just macro in sheep's clothing, promises are worthless. They own the company's and do what they see fit

Let me temporary take the devil's advocate role: isn't this exactly what "independent" brewers do? They own the brewery, they do what they think it's the right thing to do.
We could argue that macros tends to be more interested on money (return) than on quality, but I do have similar examples from the independent beer industry too, so not really a difference...

I think that in everyone's mind there's the picture of Goose Island sinking at the bottom of an ocean of mediocrity, but would it still be sensible for macros to proceed in the same way nowadays? The clearly realized that they will NOT manage to destroy the movement (because it keeps expanding disregarding their actions, further segmenting a market that it's already way too segmented), so they must be looking at something else...?