This post was originally written as a rather lengthy comment
on James Beeson’s Beeson on Beer site. It was in response to James’s take on
Cloudwater Brewery’s decision to discontinue cask beer.
Now the matter of what some see as a pivotal moment in the
modern brewing world, but the more down to earth amongst us see as little more
than a storm in a tea cup (beer glass?), has been done to death by several noted
bloggers and beer writers. There has been much navel gazing, pontificating and
head scratching, which at times bordered on the absurd. I threw in my own four
penneth worth, which appeared to upset a few people who disagreed with me
trying to put the whole thing into perspective, so I’ve little else that I wish
to add on that particular issue.
My comment over at James’s place was primarily in response
to his suggestion; one which was also raised by Matthew Curtis at Total Ales, that cask beer
is seriously under-priced. The argument is that cask beer is a premium product
and should be treated, and priced, accordingly. A retail value of £4 + a pint
was mooted, with comparisons being made with many craft beers which hit the £5
or even £6 bracket!
Both James and Matthew, along with several others, view this as the answer to a maiden’s
prayer; whereas I see it as both unworkable and something which will price cask
beer out of many pubs. My response should also be viewed against claims that
CAMRA are partly to blame for the under-pricing of cask beer; something I will
set out to dismiss as a fallacy, even though I agree with several of the other
things being said about the Campaign in relation to this.
Before we get started, I am a CAMRA member, of over 40 years
standing, so I was around not long after the start of the Campaign, back in the
“bad old days”. This was when so-called “real ale” was hard to come by; certainly
in some parts of the country, but by no means all. Before going any further, I
prefer the industry term “cask-conditioned” beer rather than “real ale”,
especially as there are many fine beers around which, whilst not meeting
CAMRA’s rather dogmatic definition, are “real” in every other sense of the word, and
are beers I am quite happy to drink.
There is no need here to go over again how CAMRA was
successful in saving cask-ale from extinction and how the Campaign spurned what
became a tidal wave of new brewery start-ups, as well as sparking a huge and
still growing fascination with beer in all its many styles. This interest in
beer turned in to a global phenomenon, and there are now few places on the
planet where it is not possible to find decent beer.
Having largely achieved its aims, CAMRA rather lost its way.
This was despite a huge increase in membership which some would argue, was
partly down to its decision to jump into bed with major pub chain, Wetherspoon’s
and offer 50p a pint discount vouchers, as part of the membership package.
Despite a much vaunted “revitalisation project”, aimed at
establishing a new direction for CAMRA and attempting to inject new life,
nothing much has changed. The project’s findings have been published, although
they are yet to be debated and scrutinised by the membership, but at first
glance they appear to be little more than just tinkering around the edges. It
increasingly looks as though the Campaign has lost a golden opportunity to
reinvent itself, and we are left with a typical British “fudge”, but we will
have to see how things pan out –a bit like “Brexit” really!
I mentioned the JDW vouchers earlier, and many have
questioned CAMRA’s rather too cosy relationship with the pub chain. There have
been accusations of poor cellar-practices at some Wetherspoon’s outlets, but as
someone who rarely uses his Spoon’s discount vouchers, I may not be the best
person to comment on this. I do think though, it is time for CAMRA, which is a
supposedly independent consumer organisation, to cut its ties with
Wetherspoon’s, in order to leave itself totally free from accusations of bias
or, indeed, cronyism.
The subject of Spoons leads on nicely to the thorny issue of
pricing, and here it was pointed out that when CAMRA started its campaigning,
back in the 1970’s, cask-conditioned beer was normally cheaper than the heavily
promoted “keg beers” which the Big Brewers were pushing at the time. The
protagonists went on to argue that for historic reasons, CAMRA was keen for the
price of a pint of cask to remain low; forgetting, or rather not knowing, the
historical reasons why cask was cheaper than “keg” in the first place.
Back in the transition period of the late 1960’s – early
1970’s cask-ale was still pretty much the norm in most pubs. It had been the
way draught beers had been packaged, conditioned and dispensed for decades, and
the introduction of keg beers would, if anything, ensure that cask remained the
cheaper option.
Keg beer requires additional equipment, in the form of
in-line chillers, gas dispense systems (including CO2 cylinders and associated
regulators), plus fancy illuminated boxes on the bar, in order to serve it.
Someone had to pay for this; and that someone was the drinker, but it didn’t
end there. The fact that keg beers received heavy promotion, often in the form
of expensive TV advertising, meant additional costs which were also passed on
to the consumer.
At first people were often prepared to pay extra for the
consistency which keg beers brought with them; but unfortunately that
consistency came at a price, and as someone unlucky enough to have drunk the
likes of Courage Tavern, Whitbread Tankard, Watney’s Red and Younger’s Tartan,
I can vouch for the fact they were consistently AWFUL!
They weren’t flat, oxidised or even vinegary, as badly-kept
cask ale could be, and unfortunately sometimes still is; they were dull,
incredibly bland and totally devoid of character. In fact you could be forgiven
for thinking that most heavily-promoted keg beers hadn’t been anywhere near a
barley field or a hop-garden!
The major brewers loved them for their consistency and
profitability, particularly given that cheaper and often inferior ingredients
were used in their production. Also by being filtered and often pasteurised,
they were stable, with a much longer shelf-life once broached, and there was
normally very little wastage.
Fast-forward four decades and we now have keg beers which
are brewed from some of the finest quality ingredients available, by brewers
dedicated to their craft, leading to some truly excellent beers appearing in
the market. Unfortunately this is an area CAMRA has totally failed to
recognise, and this is my main bone of contention with the organisation. I am
sure many other beer lovers feel the same way.
It is also true to say, of course, that there are many
breweries turning out cask ales with the same dedication, and the same careful
selection of ingredients, and there are some equally fine cask ales out there,
but unfortunately there are also some pretty dreadful beers being turned out as
well.
Brewers of poor, or indifferent cask beer, get around this
by charging rock-bottom prices, and it seems that there are pubs fully prepared
to compromise in quality, so long as the price is right. It is equally true
there are many drinkers content to drink such swill, because it suits their
pockets, but is raising the price of cask beer, as several writers have
suggested, the answer?
My thinking is that it would require a massive sea change in
the way both the brewing industry and consumers think about beer, and in the
current financial climate that’s just not going to happen. Peoples’ disposable
incomes are usually finite, and whilst in the longer term some might be
prepared to pay a little extra, it’s unlikely to be the £4+ premium that many
commentators are demanding.
Now let’s say that some drinkers are prepared to pay more;
especially when they’re getting a beer brewed from the finest floor-malted
barely, and bittered with the finest aroma hops money can buy. If the beer is
cask, WHO will guarantee that this carefully crafted dream pint will not be
screwed up by careless handling, sloppy cellar practices, dirty lines (this
applies equally to keg beers btw), or by being left on sale when it is
obviously past its best.
The simple answer is that with cask beer you CANNOT
guarantee this, and this was, still is and always will be the Achilles heel
with so-called “real ale”. So good luck trying to tell someone that because
cask is a “premium” product, you have to pay more for it; especially when that
someone is on a limited budget, or is a pensioner or a worker on a low income,
because it just won’t wash.
By insisting on charging substantially more for cask,
because of the extra handling it receives, or because of allegedly superior
ingredients, smacks of elitism in a manner akin to wine-snobbery. I fully
accept that those brewers who do brew decent cask, and there are many of them
around, deserve to be properly financially compensated for their efforts, and
certain brewers may be able to get away with this. However, when other factors
like wholesalers and the distribution chain in general are thrown into the
equation, margins begin to get squeezed at other points, so if anything there
are pressures on brewers to reduce prices rather than raise them.
For example, I don’t know how many people noticed that
Enterprise Inns are pressing SIBA for a reduction of £3 per firkin for beers
supplied by its members to Enterprise
pubs. This come on top of a £5 a firkin reduction already “negotiated” back in
November.
When large pub companies can apply this much clout, what
chance is there of small “boutique” craft brewers getting a fair and honest
price for their products? Talk therefore of charging a “premium” price for cask
definitely remains as pie in the sky; as does talk of “educating the drinker
about the value in paying more for his carefully-crafted pint”.
I can see that suggestion going down really well at the Dog &
Pheasant. Goodnight!