Why beer’s social conscience is not without consumer risk – comment

As the saying goes, opinions are like earlobes, everybody’s got ‘em. (Or, at least, I think it’s something like that; I may have misheard.) A useful coda to that sentiment, however, would be that the key is knowing when they’re best kept to oneself. It’s a lesson that would have served well Josh Stylman, co-founder & now-former chief executive of Brooklyn’s Threes Brewing. Stylman’s opinion was that vaccine mandates were bad, or more specifically, a “crime against humanity” equivalent to actions taken in Nazi Germany, and he saw fit to broadcast this view on Twitter in mid-February. Vaccine mandates are a crime against humanity. If you are not speaking out against them, you are a conspirator.— Josh Stylman (@jstylman) February 14, 2022 Repercussions quickly followed. First came consumer blow-back, which included such high-profile actions as a Brooklyn City councillor cancelling an event booked at the brewer’s taproom, then the now-standard apology/non-apology, followed quickly by a statement from brewery employees repudiating their boss’ views. By 1 March, Stylman was out, the brewer releasing a statement saying he had resigned out of concern that “his fiduciary responsibilities as CEO of Threes Brewing are in conflict with his duties as a parent and a citizen”. In other words, he tweeted himself out of a job. The Stylman-Threes Brewing affair is, of course, not unique in our modern, Social Media-obsessed world. Neither is it limited to the brewing - or even the drinks - business. There have been plenty of examples lately of what some people would call ‘cancel culture’ and others would characterise as simply suffering the consequences of ill-advised actions, crossing all sorts of professions and industries. Still, perhaps owing to the ubiquity of brewers these days, or the enthusiasm with which the beer industry as a whole has embraced Social Media, there seems to be an overabundance of such gaffes in beer. From the rogue Pabst Blue Ribbon media manager who exhorted 'Dry January' participants to try “eating ass” in a now-infamous tweet to countless craft brewery owners and operators who, like Stylman, have been held accountable for their words by their consumer base, there does often appear to be no shortage of beer folk willing to say or do the wrong thing. This could be easily viewed as a cautionary tale, the moral of which is to keep your damn mouth shut. In today’s uber-connected beer world, however, the reality is more nuanced than that. At the heart of the issue is the fact that consumers relate to beer in a way they don't with other FMCGs. Think of how many brewery shirts or hats or jackets you’ll see on a typical day’s walk around an average western city, compared to the clothing you’ll spy promoting a computer company, for example, or a hotel chain, or even a wine or spirits brand. (Apparel emblazoned with the Jack Daniel’s logo being the notable exception that proves the rule!) People like their beer brands enough that they'll pay money to be able to promote them in merchandise terms. In many instances, that sort of dedication carries with it a set of expectations. Among the more simple of the beer consumer's expectations, especially in craft, is that brewers commit to supporting their community and engaging with their customer base. Among the more complex is that they will be socially responsible. With respect to the latter, many beer drinkers want their favourite brands to - at the very least - publicly respond to societal issues, be they localised or more broadly based. And, with questions of simple morality, say, opposition to the war in Ukraine or support for the local women’s shelter, the right and wrong choices are usually fairly apparent. Where problems arise is when a brewery owner decides to embrace the ‘wrong’ side of an issue fraught with controversy. While it's tempting to suggest that such ill-advised positioning is often the product of someone high up at a brewer wishing to assume a leadership role, it's just as likely that these situations are born of simple frustration, as Stylman’s appears to have been. Equally, it's possible that a form of echo chamber might be at play, in which an individual surrounded by people with the same opinion fails to consider whether a more broadly-based consensus might be quite different. The key to catastrophe avoidance, then, is not simply to be quiet, but rather to be studious in the opinions you choose to air publicly. Speak with people outside of your normal sphere to gauge what others think, and even after that be diplomatic with your words when you write. (Comparisons to Nazi Germany, for instance, are almost never a good idea.) Recognise, too, that whatever your position, there will be some who disagree with you, and prepare to receive sometimes vitriolic responses from them. Finally, if you feel strongly about an issue and are supported by management and employees, don’t be afraid to speak out: Even many of those who disagree will admire your strength of conviction. If it's a minor issue with good points being made on both sides, though, consider that it might not be worth involving yourself, your company, and possibly your future in the debate.