By obfuscating its brand name on products like Blue Moon, Coors is violating the consumer’s right to know who he is supporting, and where his beverage comes from.
The money quote on why it matters.
The money quote on why it matters.
I don't buy it. Consumers sophisticated enough to care about the provenance of their beer are no doubt well aware that Blue Moon isn't a microbrewery. Consumers who aren't that sophisticated probably don't care, and (gasp!) simply enjoy the way it tastes.
The "right to know who I'm supporting" is the key there. I observe that for a lot of people these days, the brands that an individual purchases are a matter of reflecting (or establishing) that individual's own brand identity. "I use Chrome on a MacBook, because that SAYS something about me that using Chrome on a PC wouldn't.", etc. I understand that this is a thing, but like many I am more of a realist by nature and cannot relate at all. The most important factor in my purchasing decisions is cost-benefit ratio, with a generous amount of wiggle-room for subjective style considerations. However, I have zero fucks to give about what a purchase tells other people about my "identity", and am somewhat baffled by people who do. In my mind, if you're pretentious enough that you can't enjoy a beer without confirming its "exclusivity" from major brewers, then it's on you to pull out your phone and spend 20 seconds looking up the brewer on Wikipedia.
If all those who cared already knew, then the manufacturers wouldn't have had to obfuscate it (as it wouldn't make a difference). So if we go with that assumption, they should just put their name on the bottles, experience no difference in sales and thus make everyone happy.
For example, they could be entirely open about this product being something new and different but from the same manufacturer. An example of this is Nya Carnegiebryggeriet, "a collaborative joint venture between Carlsberg Sweden and Brooklyn Brewery"[1]. They don't try to hide the fact that it's owned by Carlsberg[2] (4th largest brewery group in the world), but they make it very clear that it's a different category from their regular lineup.
If that seems to risky, they could sell it under a different brand without deliberately attempting to deceive customers into thinking it's from a small-scale craft brewer. Just present the product honestly under a new name without the misleading bullshit.
As for your "brand identity" rant, there are more reasons than pretentiousness to support small-time outfits- I buy from cottage industries when I can to support creative alternatives- and I personally think Blue Moon tastes fine.
Although it's mildly annoying when "domestic night" at the bar discounts Budweiser but won't mark down my glass of Blue Moon "because it's a micro". They were made in the same damn room.
http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/brands/signature%20brands/blue...
They also own Sharp's Brewery (of Doom Bar fame) which I never knew:
http://www.molsoncoors.com/en/Brands/Signature%20Brands/Doom...
In that case they simply bought the brewery which was already successful and produced a few award winning ales.
A while back, I saw mention of someone making (or considering making) a phone app that could take a picture of some product in a store and tell you if the manufacturer was associated for or against your political party. That's horrifying.
We should not make it easy to ostracize anyone you have a difference of opinion with. Boycotts and similar applications of force should not be impulse decisions. Bifurcating society along ideological lines is not conducive to everyone getting along. Stifling unpopular opinions is not good for political discourse.
I do agree that splitting everything on US party lines would be utterly ridiculous, but I don't see what would be wrong with making it that much easier to boycott corporations opposed to, say, paying their employees livable wages, or reproductive rights for women, or marriage equality.
Though I also don't see what's wrong with boycotting a company simply for spending a fortune aggressively and offensively marketing their aggressively mediocre adjunct lagers.