My latest Vue Weekly column (which you will find here) reprises my visit with Big Rock CEO Bob Sartor and Brewmaster Paul Gautreau (which I posted about here). The article examines the ways in which Alberta’s oldest craft brewery is trying to re-make itself going forward. Their main emphasis is in rebuilding their craft credentials. After years of chasing what proved to be an illusive lager market, they are trying to repair their damaged reputation among craft drinkers. Changes have included changes to packaging and labeling and two new seasonal series, Brewmaster’s Edition and Alchemist Series. It is safe to say they have been inundating the Alberta market with a whopping 27 releases a year.

As I have written about the transformation before, I thought I would use this post to consider two issues. First, why is Big Rock’s renewed commitment to craft important? Well, it is a pioneer of craft brewing in Canada and, in spite of its sliding reputation among beer aficionados, it remains one of Canada’s largest independently owned breweries. There are very few operations in this country that can claim nationwide distribution. In short, there are a heck of a lot of people who drink Big Rock. And, I suspect, most of them perceived themselves as craft beer drinkers. That is why they have switched from the big boys to this medium-sized boy. Big Rock is better placed than most to nudge beer drinkers’ palates along. A loyal Trad drinker might hesitate at trying the latest seasonal from one of the smaller, younger craft brewers. They don’t know the name as well, or might be unsure of the product inside. In contrast, Big Rock is a known entity, a reliable beer they have been drinking for decades potentially.

If Big Rock finds a way to use this positioning to move their customers along the beer flavour path, then they are doing everyone a favour. I think by working both with traditional styles and experimenting with ingredients, they are showing the average Big Rock drinker that the beer world is much bigger than brown ales and wheat beer. Which should have a positive effect for everyone.

Sure, many experienced craft beer drinkers have reacted to the spate of releases with a stifled yawn. Fair enough. But I am not sure you are the primary target here. Yes, they want to rebuild trust among the geek crowd, but I think their main focus is on those clustered closer to the fat part of the bell curve (believe me, you and I are on the far end of the tail).

The second issue I want to raise is the skepticism I have heard from many people in the beer community about Big Rock’s motivations. Beer geeks have understandably been slow to warm up to the beer itself – it takes time to rebuild trust. But since I started talking about Big Rock, I have been surprised at how many people have responded with doubt about their intentions. More than a couple of times I have heard the theory that Sartor is simply setting the brewery up as a target for takeover.

People seem to point to three things. First, Sartor has in the past performed the turn-it-around-then-sell-it-off trick. They opine he has been brought in to replicate that feat with Big Rock. They point to the aging shareholders and pontificate that a sell-off is what they are looking for. Second, the more business-aware types have observed Big Rock’s rising stock price since Sartor began the remake – and at a time when production levels have dropped. Third, recent takeovers have been of sizeable breweries with regional reach, substantial brand recognition, and, importantly, fairly strong craft credentials. It is suggested the effort to re-build craft credibility is designed to increase the brewery’s perceived attractiveness to a potential suitor.

To be clear, I have no idea whether there is something to this or not. The argument has surface validity. But we cannot know what goes on in the minds of others – especially the shadowy Calgary oilmen who own Big Rock.

Rumours of takeovers run rampant in the craft beer industry. I am always hearing talk of this brewery being courted or that brewery actively seeking suitors. Often these rumours are used to raise questions about the integrity of the brewery owner – “they just want one of the big boys to buy them out”, as if in some way this disparages their claim to being a craft brewery.

My response to this is, does it matter? What if the owner who started and grew their brewery have decided they want to sell? Does that make the beer taste worse? Are they expected to be a small independent forever, even against their will? I know most of you will acknowledge it is both perfectly reasonable and a fundamental truth about capitalism that business people try to make money. They make money by selling their product at a profit, but they also make money by taking advantage of growing assets.

Recent takeovers by Molson of Granville and Creemore (the latter not so recent anymore) and by AB-INBEV of Goose Island in the States have not substantially harmed quality or inventiveness. All three breweries continue to produce interesting beer. Sure, I am no fan of buying beer that pads the pockets of huge multi-nationals, but to be frank, I am not a big fan of buying beer that hands profits to Ralph Klein acolytes, either (google: Kleineken). But for me the beer and the ownership/politics of the brewery are separate. Both are important, but the latter should not cloud judgement on the former. Good beer is good beer.

Who owns it, how the profits are used and who benefits are important questions deserving of long debates, preferably over beer. There are many reasons to drink local, independent beer – and the short, localized profit chains are one. However, judge a brewery first by its beer, and by other measures after.

Even if Big Rock is being prepped for sale, that changes not one whit my evaluation of their ongoing tranformation.