Interview with Jeff Becker

ANDY
CROUCH How is the
Beer Institute’s relationship with smaller brewers?
JEFF
BECKER I’d like to
say that one of the things we’ve been able to do, at least
over the last seven to eight years, is the policy stuff
where there is interest among the smaller guys at getting
involved. I think we’ve gotten them more involved and will
continue to do so. The issues are usually not big versus
small until somebody decides they want to change the
definition of what a craft beer is. We have very few
disagreements, certainly on the bigger issues. The three
tier stuff is going to be something we continue to work with
the Brewers Association on. We have the tax and labeling
issues with them as well. But on the big stuff, we do tend
to be 9O- percent in alignment. Across the smaller issues, I
think there is a challenge and an opportunity to get
together, say in keg loss or working to develop better draft
standards. There is a variety of those things that, in the
development of the relationship over the last seven or eight
years, has made conversation a whole lot easier. I think
it’s been real helpful to get their perspective as
well.

AC
Tell me about the Beer Institute and how you joined the
organization.
JB
The Beer Institute was the outgrowth of the United States
Brewers Association. It went out of business in 1985 and the
brewers felt they needed a forum to deal with public policy
issues. So the Beer Institute was formed in 1986 and at that
time the major members, some of which are no longer in
business, included Anheuser-Busch, Miller, Coors, Heileman,
and Stroh. In 1986, the craft brewers were very small. I
came in 1988 to run the Alcohol Issues Department, which
dealt with advertising and tax policy issues. I was elevated
the next year to vice-president and several years later to
president.

AC
The Beer Institute has a lot of different responsibilities
and plays many roles. Tell me about some of the group’s main
areas of focus.
JB
Right now we are very focused on the Tax and Trade Bureau’s
labeling issue because it is not only an important issue for
our industry but for others as well. For example, the liquor
industry is trying to use equalization in the labeling
debate. Whether it is TTB labeling or the equalization
stuff, it will always be something that we pay attention to.
Advertising is always something that provides fodder for the
critics or litigation. It is consistently going to be an
issue we focus on for two reasons. One, you have critic
groups that try to use misinformation to create public
policy. Our role is in the public policy vein is to be the
spokesperson for the industry. For example, [the Center
for Science in the Public Interest] came out the other
day and said that we shouldn’t be advertising in the NFL. So
we put together a statement and sent that out to the persons
who are interested. Advertising is always going to be an
interest of ours. Tax policy is another. We have a federal
government right now with quite a deficit and I think you’re
going to see some leadership changes in the next few years
and people are going to have to come to grips with the
deficit. The last time they did this, we got thrown into the
mix and it’s something we are working on right
now.

AC
The TTB’s proposed rulemaking on labeling is an important
issue for the beer industry and one that began with a push
from several consumer groups, including some that are
considered to be neo-prohibitionist. Talk about how the Beer
Institute is handling the proposed labeling issue.
JB
n the case of labeling, we actually have the liquor industry
encouraging these consumer groups based upon their agenda,
which was not about consumer information but equalization
and the normalization of liquor products versus beer and
wine products. My initial reaction to the National Consumer
League and the CSPI was that they were shilling for certain
members of the liquor industry instead of standing up for
giving consumers more information. We’ve been putting a
statement of average analysis on all light beers since light
beer was born thirty years ago. That information has long
been available for light beer, which is now about
fifty-percent of the market. If it was all about providing
information to consumers then there would have been a
logical place for the industry to start. The illogical place
to start is with the graphics that we believe are
misinformed and could mislead the public. Our concern is
that when there are issues like this or with advertising and
tax policy, we first have to determine the motivation behind
the move. Clearly with the labeling issue the motivation was
on behalf of the liquor industry trying to get the consumer
groups to promote their equalization agenda. That is why you
saw us come out pretty strong right away in making sure that
people understood the difference between providing consumers
with information that is good for them to have and simply
furthering the equalization campaign. I think you have to
balance these things. When you look at what the CSPI did in
saying that we shouldn’t be advertising in the NFL – it’s
ridiculous. Something like 88-percent of that audience is
twenty-one years of age or older so what better audience is
there for beer? We have to continue to be vigilant and I
think smaller brewers are starting to play a role at their
community level and are starting to be more concerned about
what the advocacy groups are doing. I’m very happy they are
as interested in the labeling issue. We cannot let groups
like CSPI and others feel like they have an open field to
play in where no one will rebut what they are saying. If you
just leave it out there, people will believe it is true and
we can’t do that.

AC
In the last year or two the Brewers Association has stepped
up its legislative advocacy efforts. How do you think the
Brewers Association has been doing?
JB
I think the small brewer caucus is a very good idea. It
gives both them and us a different way to talk about the
industry. In some instances, the beer industry is defined as
the large brewers and we know there are many others. It’s
been very good for all of us to have different beer styles
when we are up on the Hill. It expands for people in
Congress what they think about the beer industry. Not just
to think about the large brewers but about the small brewers
who are adding a lot of different flavor profiles,
entrepreneurship and domestic jobs that in this economy are
very important. We want to continue to work with [BA
President Charlie Papazian] and the folks at the Brewers
Association. A lot of their board members are on our ex
officio board as well. We think we’ve got a great story to
tell about the strength and diversity of our industry today.
It’s a very different story than it was even four or five
years ago. They bring a lot to the table and certainly add
some new sex appeal to the industry and that is always a
good thing.

AC
What efforts have the Beer Institute undertaken to solicit
new craft beer members?
JB
We’ve had quite a few of the smaller brewers on our ex
officio board since I’ve been president. We now have people
like Jim Koch, Steve Hindy, Gary Fish, Kim Jordan, Ken
Grossman, and Larry Bell. These people are leaders and will
continue to be leaders in that industry. Our board recently
voted at our annual meeting for the management committee to
put together a proposal to add to our voting board a small
brewer member who will have full voting rights. Our
challenge is to continue to work on the level that we do,
work with Charlie and the Brewers Association, and then to
keep the conversation going and the relationship development
between the larger and smaller companies through our
organization. In terms of soliciting membership, we did sent
out a mailing this year for the first time trying to get
small brewer members. We haven’t sent one out to every small
brewer but we will be doing that. We see the value in being
able to identify to a particular member of Congress a person
in their district who they can feel like they have a
personal relationship with. Down the road we’ll be looking
at how we can help with the Small Brewers Caucus and also
how we can get some more small members into the Beer
Institute so that they can appreciate what we are doing on a
policy and political level because it’s important for their
business as well.

AC
Has the internationalization of the beer industry in the
last few years, including the mergers between SAB and Miller
and Molson and Coors, changed the way the Beer Institute
operates or its focus?
JB
It is clear that as soon as our members became more
international and global, not only in selling their products
but also in their relationships, that it was incumbent upon
us to do more in the global policy arena. The World Health
Organization has been contemplating for about two years
whether to develop a global strategy on alcohol as it has
with tobacco. Our concern is that alcohol and tobacco are
not the same product – they are clearly different. We’ve
been trying to get the beer side of things to be more
cohesive around the globe so that we are looking at these
things from a beer perspective. Generally how we’ve dealt
with these issues is to deal with them on a beer, wine and
spirits perspective and not just from a beer perspective. As
we look at developing countries and the development of
policy of beer, wine and spirits, we think it is important
that people remain aware that beer is the most moderate of
alcohol beverages. There are preferential opportunities for
selling and marketing here and these should be considered in
other countries where they are developing policies. We
firmly believe that we need to be diligent on the
international and global levels. Clearly, our activities
will continue to expand in that regard, particularly because
the United States plays such an active role at the
WHO.

AC
In looking long term, do you think that craft beer as part
of the market is stable and something that is here to
stay?
JB
I certainly do. In the last twenty-five years, you’ve seen a
sustained growth in the craft brewing segment. You have a
lot of individuals who got into it because they thought it
was fun and interesting but have turned it in to quite a
business. It’s definitely here to stay. People are thinking
about succession planning and getting their kids involved
and that’s a wonderful thing. It is phenomenal to see the
wealth of talent we have available to us . . . and now to
see them as thriving businesses I think is terrific. The
import segment is going to continue to grow and we hope the
domestic segment will continue to grow. I think what we are
starting to see now is slowly everybody is starting to come
back and that is a very encouraging sign for everyone. I
think imports and craft beers definitely have a place to
stay and I think you see some of the larger brewers doing
those same sorts of things. I’m very encouraged about the
future and I think that anybody in the industry right now
should be.