OK so I don’t think we need to pretend the image of collaborating is in any way negative. However, we as consumers are all too quick to judge a collaboration in the only way we can really, but I’ll get to that.
How do collaborations come about? Usually there’s a link between two breweries, or actually these days its as likely to be a linked collective/business/society as it is a brewery, the boundaries for collaboration have long since been removed. The essence of collaboration is that new ideas are brought to the table and those ideas can come from any quarter.
There’s the logistics to consider. For example if two breweries collaborate on a beer, who owns that beer? Who sells it? Well in many cases we’re talking about one beer having been produced. Produced from one brew day. That means that whilst staff from both breweries were present when that was produced, once brewed the beer ferments in the vessels of whoever’s premises it was brewed on ie one of the collaborators. So that brewery usually takes responsibility for the beer and effectively owns the beer. I’m sure there are a myriad of little trade negotiations within that sphere but generally that’s how it works.
Why do breweries collaborate?
One of the most significant things is that bringing of new ideas. Every brewery has its own identity and its own characters driving it forward. Those personalities put in the mix together will bounce ideas off each other and trade experiences with all aspects of brewing. The aim is to try and gain knowledge from each other and further their own knowledge through speaking and working alongside someone from a different background.
All good so far.
But the one thing consumers expect is an end product. We are all guilty of judging the validity of two breweries collaborating squarely on the quality of the one batch of beer that they produce. Granted we as consumers judge everything about a brewery on the quality of the beer that they produce, but there’s an extra element here which I often feel gets lost with the punters.
It’s that learning element. One brewer may see another brewer doing something slightly different to the way they do it. That could lead to a conversation where knowledge is pooled and which enriches the experiences of both parties. The brewer who learned that something may well take that bit of knowledge and start applying it to future brews. So that collab could actually influence a great many beers beyond the beer that was brewed on the day. And yet we judge it on the one beer that was produced. I’ve heard so many people talking about collaborations being abit underwhelming. And I think quite rightly we judge each beer on its own merits, but I feel that sometimes we project that onto the validity of the collaborative process.
Many times we expect collabs to push boundaries and naturally when boundaries of pushed, some stray over the cliff and don’t ultimately work as well as expected. The consumer deems it a failure and writes the whole thing off, not realising that the next time they have something from either of those breweries, the beer could well be benefitting from the experiences they shared in collaborating.
I guess the most significant thing I can point to in that respect is the reaction to the rainbow project. If you talk to the UK breweries who have been involved in that they’d tell you they learned a hell of a lot from collaborating with the other brewers. And the value of that process is far greater to them in the long run than the public reaction to the one off special beers that they produced. I would say that given the significance of the breweries who have been involved in that project, the whole UK scene has probably had a fair smattering of influence from the experiences gained within that project.
That’s why breweries collaborate. That’s why we should embrace the efforts. Granted we don’t always have to be positive about the immediate results, but don’t be too quick to judge its validity based on just one beer.