>Start using the term "midibrew"
>produced by independent brewers with large-scale facilities

Why? Because they're successful? I understand that big beer "craft" brews are shit, but being successful shouldn't put your beer in the same category.

>>7414910
On the scale of Samuel Adams, for instance.

If your production is big enough that you have to bring in contract brewers, your beer shouldn't be considered a craft product.

>>7414890
Why bother? If a major brand can create a "craft-style" beer (whatever the criteria for that are), why shouldn't they get the benefit of the labeling?

>>7414890
Too much time on your hands if you're worried about this. Drink what you like and leave all this anti-corporate Portlandia nonsense alone

>>7414930
I'm pretty sure Sam Adams is exponentially larger than any other independent, they're kind of on their own up there.

>>7414936
Major brands use powdered, cheap malt/hops to make their beer. The difference in taste is pretty big.

>>7414952
Doesn't it fail the "craft-style" test in that instance by virtue of ingredients rather than size of producer? Conceivably a large producer could use the best ingredients. It's better to distinguish on that basis.

>>7414890
why not just call beer, beer

hey that's a good idea

>>7414960
>Doesn't it fail the "craft-style" test in that instance by virtue of ingredients rather than size of producer?

That's exactly what I thought, so I posted
>>7414910

I'm not OP