Beer by Committee

In May 2008 I was invited along with several other beer writers to Anheuser-Busch's headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri to taste the new Budweiser American Ale set for release in October. I tried to go in with an open mind but the beer geek in me had very low expectations. You can check out my tasting notes for Budweiser American Ale to see what I thought.

Our hosts were very gracious and it was roundly acknowledged that we were not Anheuser-Busch's target market for the new ale. Indeed. I sat next to Alan Moen, Editor of Northwest Brewing News, and he commented that this ale seemed more like an Oktoberfest made with a very clean ale yeast. That was best description that I heard and better than any I came up with to describe this subtle, inoffensive beer.

Most of the conversation in that room, however, focused on product positioning and marketing rather than the quality of the beer itself. A-B's new ale was generally praised as a nice "cross-over" beer meaning that good beer lovers are unlikely to make it their go-to beer but it might serve as a beer that could wean American lager exclusive drinkers off of the watery stuff. It's really kind of a left-handed compliment. There was also some criticism of a claim on the prototype label. It declared that this beer would define American ale.

This could very well happen. As thin, watery mega-brewed lagers have widely become known as "American lager" this new beer may come to define the heretofore unknown category "American ale."

Are International Corporations and Exciting Beer Mutually Exclusive?

But why does it have to be that way? Anheuser-Busch certainly has the resources to produce some incredible beers. And I'm not talking about just money though it does have plenty of that. I'm also talking about the people at A-B. As I've gotten to know some of them I've found them to be sincere people who truly are passionate about beer. So why does virtually every A-B beer that I've come across lack that certain something that I love about American craft beers and imports?

I've written in the past that there is no reason that a big company couldn't make a good beer arguing that there's nothing inherent in the idea of a big, rich company that precludes the ability to produce singularly exciting beers. Was I wrong? I've also said privately that every mega-brewed beer that I've come across seems to be designed by a committee. What I mean is that every potentially offensive aspect of the beer such as distinctive flavors and colors seem to have been whittled away. In saying this I pictured board meetings where the beers are discussed and over-analyzed and every criticism taken too much to heart. For instance, imagine a nice hoppy ale being presented to a panel for evaluation. Every member on the panel might actually enjoy the hoppiness of it but could also agree that the public might not take to it. They would then suggest to the brewer that he shave off just a bit of the hops. This could go on until the beer was pared down to an insipid, slightly sweet beer that would be completely inoffensive to any imaginable drinker.

Case in Point

When Budweiser American Ale was being developed A-B staff brewmaster Eric Beck was given the assignment to come up with a new ale that would appeal to the beer drinkers who enjoy more robust beers. But it also needed to have that "Budweiser signature" defined by the folks at A-B as balance. So, though the beer should have marked hoppiness and maltiness it shouldn't be "over the top" with any of those things. That's quite an assignment!

Beck worked on the ale for about a year. He said that when they started he focused on the final product and worked back from there. This led to a focus on three key aspects of this final picture. First they wanted to define "all American ale" and so, besides trying to define a style, they used all domestic ingredients. Second they had to identify which yeast to use and third they wanted to produce a beer with broad appeal. "We didn't want to polarize anybody," Beck explained at our tasting.

So they started with a grain bill of pale and caramel malt. Then they developed a hop bill with four different varieties: Palisades for bittering, Willamette, Saaz and Cascade for aroma and finishing. Then they brewed four identical beers but used different yeast in each one. These four beers were brought into the tasting room where the new products panel tasted them and decided which strain to use. Once the choice of yeast was settled they then brewed six versions of the beer and dry-hopped with six different hops. They decided on Cascade in the same way as they did the yeast strain. After that it was a matter of fine tuning the beer and establishing things like alcohol content. Beck said that he relied on the panel during this stage. He added that they were still making adjustments and was eager to get our input.

Can Anheuser-Busch Make Exciting Beer?

So, the question remains can a big, publicly held company with shareholders, boards and committees to answer to develop truly exciting beer? Or do the demands of the investment of such a project require too many approvals and therefore too many cooks in the kitchen?

After hearing how development of Budweiser American Ale went I think the answer to the second question is yes, at least under Anheuser-Busch's current practice. A panel of a dozen or more people, talented and well intentioned as they might be, involved in the development of a new beer can never produce the exciting results of the singular vision of a solitary brewmaster. Admittedly these exciting results can turn off many beer drinkers but this is where the leading edge of beer is and in many other industries that is where the big companies live. Research and development works to find the latest and greatest, not to produce the product best positioned to least offend. As we watch A-B scramble to catch up with the craft beer movement imagine where they would be if they'd led the charge. But could they have if they had wanted to?

What do you think? Let's talk about this.