I know that I am in minority. I might be a little biased because I work for a beer distributor. But there are 2 sides to every story and I think it is important to realize that. Craft brewers don't like laws like Illinois has. I heard Alan Newman (founder of Magic Hat brewing and not available in Illinois) say that franchise laws were the bane of his existence. I understand that, who wants to be forced to stay with one company forever just because you signed a piece of paper. On the other hand, distributors put a lot of time, money, and manpower behind the brands they carry and is it right for them to be just ripped away from them for no reason. If a distributor takes a brand that is tiny and works it, they get it to the accounts, they get the signage for it out there, they do promotions for the brand and it becomes a small and growing brand and then the brewer wants someone else to sell it, shouldn't they get some kind of compensation for the work they did? The franchise laws in Illinois try to balance things out. They don't work perfectly and they do make it hard for brands to move. Since this thread is about Bell's I will try and bring them into the conversation. There is a link towards the beginning of this thread to beerdorks.com and their article about the Bell's situation. Here is a quote from that article:

But, Bill Olson, an executive vice president with the Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois, said that NWS’ plans to sell the rights to Bell’s would be sufficient cause for Bell to look for another distributor that would be to his liking.
“If he’s already got an agreement with a distributor, he can cancel that for-cause, and I think he has a for-cause action here,” Olsen said.

That is a quote from a guy whose job it is to look out for beer distributor saying in this case Bell's should be able to move distributors.

I am not saying the laws in Illinois are perfect, but I do not think that they are absolutely horrendous. Likewise I don't think every "major distributor" is evil. I wish Stone (and Magic Hat) would come to Illinois, but they choose not to and that is their business decision. If brands could move more freely between distributors would that mean that crafts and micros would have it better in Illinois? Or does it mean that some distributors wouldn't want to try and grow smaller brands because at any given moment they could be SOL and someone else would be selling those brands? I don't know the answer but I don't think the whole situation is as cut and dry as it has been made out to be.

(I'm sorry I turned this whole thread into a political debate, I will keep my mouth shut in the future)

louisdog wrote:(I'm sorry I turned this whole thread into a political debate, I will keep my mouth shut in the future)

Please don't. You've provided a valuable perspective. I didn't know squat about beer distribution. Now I know a little more.

If you were ranting about general politics, it would be one thing, but I'd say you're on topic here.

louisdog wrote:
But, Bill Olson, an executive vice president with the Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois, said that NWS’ plans to sell the rights to Bell’s would be sufficient cause for Bell to look for another distributor that would be to his liking.
“If he’s already got an agreement with a distributor, he can cancel that for-cause, and I think he has a for-cause action here,” Olsen said.

That is a quote from a guy whose job it is to look out for beer distributor saying in this case Bell's should be able to move distributors.

Right, but him saying that is exactly what one would expect a Distributor rep to say. He's trying to quell the fire and protect the current laws by making them seem more reasonable. Olsen has clear motive to say that, whether its true or not. What that quote fails to specify is that "for-cause action" means that he could attempt to drag NWS through an expensive and drawn out court battle. All Olsens comment means is that he thinks Bells would win that court batte. But that's not really a sensible option in the first place. Plus when you actually read the details of the law, the brand rights quite fully entail the right to sell a brand to another company. The law is written in such a way that the burden is fully upon Bells to prove in court that NWS is acting in bad faith, and that the new distributor NWS is selling Bells to are not acting in good faith when they claim they will honor Bells pre-existing agreements with Union.
That's a pretty high legal bar.

I wish Stone (and Magic Hat) would come to Illinois, but they choose not to and that is their business decision.

But that's the crux of the problem. The law strips Producers of the free-market rights to construct a bussiness arrangment that protects them.
The law requires that numerous components that all give greater power to the distributor be a component of every contract. Also, the law prevents them from doing bussiness with any retailers or consumers in the state unless the agree to do bussiness with a distributor under a contract over which they very limited negotiating power. What the law does is remove the need for distributors to negotiate a mutually fair agreement and one that would protect them and the producer from abuse, and force producers to either sign an unfair agreement with a massive imbalance of power, or not do bussiness at all.

The only decision producers are allowed to make is what distributor they will choose to give away all their rights over their own product to, which means very little since that distributor can give those rights away or be consumed by a different distributor to next day. Even this initial decision is massively constrained due to the limited options available as a result of the law making it next to impossible for new, startup distributors to arise.

(I'm sorry I turned this whole thread into a political debate, I will keep my mouth shut in the future)

No need to be sorry. Bells leaving Illinois is an inherently policital issue, because it is the law that is largely responsible for it. I'm being careful not to personally attack you for your position. I just think your factually wrong regarding what the law entails and its consequences, and disagree in opinion as to whether the force of government should be used in place of free-market negotiations, even to force "fair arrangements", let alone force inherently unfair ones as the law currently does.
It is plausible that the initial intent of the law 24 years ago was to protect distrubutors from the more powerful massive brewerys. However, that doesn't mean it was a sensible law even back then, because if the distributors were actually providing a useful service for producers, there is no good reason why competent distributors couldn't negotiate protective contracts in a free-market.
But regardles, and as Dvd3 pointed out, the current realities of the beer market where the major producers and major distributors are one in the same and its the small producers that are most likely to be abused, its ludicrous to have anti-free market laws that further weakens the small producers negotiating and market power and seriously damages the product choices available to consumers.

I don't think every "major distributor" is evil.

Nothing I've said presumes that major distributors are "evil". One need only presume they are concerned with bottom line profits and little else in their bussiness decisions. Heck they would be sued by their share-holders if they wasn't true. This simple and rather undeniable presumption combined with the facts about the law leads to the conclusion that distributors can and therefore will profit without recourse via abuse to producers and limiting consumer choice.

Louisdog, you and I had a go-around about these same issues in the Sam's thread and this rehash probably hasn't been productive for us (though maybe to observers unaware of the issue).
I have no hard feelings. I just couldn't let some of your comments go, because I too have a vested interest in the issue. Quality craft beer is a strong passion and source of much pleasure in my life, and my two concerns here are 1) having access to as many varieties of craft beer as people are willing to produce, and 2) empathy for the interests of those producers who share my passion for the craft of beer and for whom the bussiness end of things is largely a means to the end of creating craft beer for folks like me and not an end in itself. My reaction to these laws is solely based upon the fact that all of my knowledge about the law (I have read it), and about how that law has been used to affect the craft beer market leads me to the conclusion that the law is a threat to both those concerns.

I had occasion to visit the Bell's brewery a couple of weeks ago (Lengthy post W/pictures to come) and they told me that they have decided to expand into 3 other markets to take the place of their Chicago distribution. When the 1 year "moratorium" ends, they have no plans to re-enter the Chicago market at all, on general principles. Tom Bell is not a happy camper about this and has decided to just ignore the Chicago market because there are a lot of other places out there that will welcome his product without him having to jump through hoops.

Griffin said: "this rehash probably hasn't been productive for us (though maybe to observers unaware of the issue)."

I for one found the exchange to very thoughtful and enlightening. Thanks to both. My only observations are that we have other laws (much less restrictive) that police bullies in the market and that a law designed to protect the humble from the mighty apparently is being used to the opposite effect here. Wouldn't be the first time. Lastly, I'd note that consumer sentiment seems to favor the Bell's point of view.

The cover story of this week's Reader:

[url=http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/bells/]Bye-Bye Bell's: How Illinois beer distribution laws, fiercely protected by a powerful industry, drove away one of Chicago's favorite small brewers.
[/url]

Excellent Reader article; thanks for posting that. Of course, I would like to see Chicago's more mainstream media take on this issue to bring additional attention and eyeballs to the issue, but this is a good start.

HI,

I thought it was great how Bell's was going support advertising in Chicago of merchant locations just over the Indiana border. From downtown Chicago, it's less than 15 miles. You can get your brew, fill your gas tank and still have time left in your day.

Regards,

Sometime in Mid-October I was passing through Kalamazoo on the way home from my mother-in-law's house and, remembering this thread, I made a stop at Bell's Brewery to stock up for the impending demise of Bell's in Chicago.

Bell's Mothership in Kalamazoo


The factory store, which is open 7 days/week, is in the warehouse located out back of the main building.

Bell's Retail Outlet


Besides selling a full line of beer by the bottle, six-pack (in some cases it's a 4-pack) or case, they also have quite a selection of barley, hops and yeast for the home enthusiast.

Beer Making Supplies



Even though I'm not much of a drinking man myself, I couldn't resist a visit to the beautifully restored pub.

Bell's Pub


The pub has a small menu of sandwiches as well as a large selection of beers that changes seasonally.

Beer Menu


They also serve up some off the menu experimental beers, like this single hop/single barley beer they had been playing around with.

Bell's Beer


The Bell's Brewery is an interesting stop along the way if you happen to be passing through the Kalamazoo area. Right now there are no factory tours because they are expanding the brewery. I think they will be moving in the fairly near future. I'm not sure I'd make a special trip, but then again, I'm not a beer guy. You may feel a pilgrimage is in order.

My brother lives in Michigan and last month he told me he would be visiting the Bell's brewpub, so I asked him to pick up some beer for me and I'd just get it from him whenever we next saw each other. That turned out to be this past weekend.

So I'm now the proud owner of a case of Best Brown Ale and a case of Winter White Ale. I've had a few bottles of each now, and they are both great brews. However, 48 beers seems a bit excessive for my needs, so if anyone is interested in either of those two varieties and would like to take a 6-pack off my hands, I'd gladly let you at a price of $9 (my total cost including taxes & deposit for the 2 cases was $70.30, which comes out to $8.79 per 6-pack). I'm willing to part with a 6-pack of each, and a 3/3 pack. So...send me a PM if you'd like some Bell's.

Edit: The Best Brown 6-pack is taken. The Winter White and 3/3 pack are still available.


(Mods- if postings of this sort are not allowed on LTH, then you may certainly delete. I can't recall seeing anything similar before, but I'm also not seeing anything in the guidelines against it...)

If anyone makes the trip from Illinois to visit the Bell's brewery store, I've read they'll give a 15% discount to anyone with a valid Illinois ID.

Tim

pancake wrote:If anyone makes the trip from Illinois to visit the Bell's brewery store, I've read they'll give a 15% discount to anyone with a valid Illinois ID.

Tim

That's true. I spent a couple hundred bucks and the discount came as a pleasant surprise.