Opinion: AB InBev Is Doing a Disservice to the Beer Industry With Its Treatment of RateBeer

In its golden era, RateBeer saw more than 1 million new users per month and had over 100 users with more than 5,000 reviews apiece. A 2013 article cites user Jan Bolvig of Denmark, who had logged more than 30,000 reviews on the site. In 2024, he’s still going strong, approaching 75,000 beers reviewed. That’s about 12 a day for nearly two decades, and a perfect example of the depth of data and loyalty RateBeer has achieved.

Bolvig never faltered, but many others did when in 2017 it was announced that ZX Ventures, Anheuser-Busch’s venture capital arm, had taken a minority stake in the company, later revealed to be 20 percent. Users, admins and industry professionals alike were shocked. Many voiced discontent, including outspoken Dogfish Head founder Sam Calagione, who stated:

“We were troubled by the announcement last week that ZX Ventures, which is fully owned by the global conglomerate Anheuser-Busch InBev, has purchased a portion of RateBeer. We believe this is a direct violation of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics and a blatant conflict of interest.” Calagione goes on to list the SPJ’s Code of Ethics in full, emphasizing the section titled “Act Independently.”

His post made waves, and at first blush, seemed perfectly justified. However, despite its position as a craft beer data hub, RateBeer never claimed to be a source of beer journalism.

Was this truly an ethical dilemma?

*Login and post your opinion in the comments.

Ethyl Ethics

Calagione then requested that all mentions of Dogfish Head be removed from RateBeer. “It just doesn’t seem right,” he said, “for a brewer of any kind to be in a position to potentially manipulate what consumers are hearing and saying about beers, how they are rated and which ones are receiving extra publicity on what might appear to be a legitimate, 100 percent user-generated platform. It is our opinion that this initiative and others are ethically dubious and that the lack of transparency is troubling.”

Transparency was a point of contention – the initial investment was not reported until 8 months after the process began, and even then, the news came by way of a LinkedIn post from a developer who mentioned working on a “RateBeer merger.” Many of the site’s 100-plus-strong force of dedicated admins felt duped, as if they had been working for free for a multi-billion dollar corporation, which represented the antithesis of what RateBeer stood for.

After all, RateBeer’s original mission statement was “to serve the craft beer community as the premier resource for unbiased, consumer-driven information about beer.” Would it remain unbiased and consumer-driven? Or would its fate mirror The Beer Necessities and October, two AB-owned craft beer publications that were shuttered unceremoniously after short lifespans in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

Pros and Cons of AB Ownership

Corporate buyouts are a polarizing issue in craft, signaling the end for some, new beginnings for others. Ideally, what is lost in autonomy is made up for through enhanced access to resources, financial or otherwise, which help to grow and sustain the business in question. In the case of RateBeer, the truth is somewhere in between. Fast-forward to February 2019, and ZX Ventures would fully acquire RateBeer with assurances that day-to-day operations would remain unchanged.

On paper, the deal was sensible, a natural evolution for an owner who had worked hard to build something of value to the craft beer community. Founder Joe Tucker ensured a reasonable payout for years of hard work while retaining management of day-to-day operations. AB gained access to deep, rich beer data sets and a direct line to RateBeer users.

In the short term, things seemed to be improving. Developers were hired to recode parts of the site, and marketing pushes were made to boost usership. Yet, in the years since AB’s acquisition, the site has languished, suffering drops in engagement from its longtime core user base and fighting to generate revenue from subscriptions and ads. Much of the site is still “legacy code,” which is sorely in need of an overhaul.

Many users chose to leave on ideological grounds, while others simply lamented the lack of site upkeep. Unable to afford hiring dedicated staff despite its multi-billion-dollar parent company, RateBeer relies heavily on volunteers to maintain the site. Whatever the reason, AB’s pockets seem not to extend towards a full RateBeer renovation, though it seems content to cover the still-substantial monthly web hosting fees.

Once a thriving craft beer site, RateBeer is now treading water at cost to AB, a “zombie asset” with minimal quantifiable return. In fact, it is unclear if anyone is really benefiting from the site’s current setup.

Per an anonymous source, AB has expressed interest in divesting itself of RateBeer, but only on AB’s terms, which seem to involve quiet, instantaneous transfer of all assets and costs to a third party. The pool of candidates who could replace AB’s deep pockets and keep the site running while overhauling it is not wide and will require, at bare minimum, one who understands and values the role RateBeer plays in the craft beer community.

Why Does AB InBev Bother With RateBeer? 

AB beers don’t see much appreciation on RateBeer, providing a possible, albeit tenuous explanation for why the conglomerate is content to let RateBeer languish – a stagnant hub for craft enthusiasts means less eyes on 100+ AB brews unfavorably reviewed on the site. Plus, stagnation is less likely to encourage craft beer sales than a thriving online community.

If nothing else, the move could certainly be labeled “disruptive,” and perhaps that was good enough for ZX Ventures founder and former AB Chief Disruptive Growth Officer Pedro Earp, who has since left the organization. Surely, ZX’s investment had to be motivated by more than the desire to be a stick in the mud.

“It’s really insight,” said Samantha Roth, ZX spokesperson, in a release. “It’s insights into consumer trends. It’s a better understanding of the beer consumer, and the beer markets globally. That’s really going to help us kind of keep our finger on the pulse.”

This makes more sense. RateBeer has rich data from all around the world, AB is a global brand, seeking ways to go from “Big to Bigger,” in Earp’s words. This was the motivation for ZX Ventures’ formation and seems to provide a valid reason for acquiring the site. 

“Underpinning everything we do is data,” Roth continued. “In order to create the future, we need to understand what has (and hasn’t worked) in the past. We are hopelessly dedicated to mining insights and innovation using the latest technology and trends available. The more we know about our consumers and products, the better chance we have of anticipating their needs in the future.”

“Hopelessly dedicated” is an interesting phrase. The plot thickens with this comment from Founder Joe Tucker regarding the site, shortly after the 2019 buyout announcement.

“For the record, data has not at all been the key ingredient fueling the continued investment in RateBeer since 2016. Instead, the focus has been on using RateBeer to raise awareness of and passion for ‘the category’ (beer) among those of drinking ages. Any and all new and happy beer drinkers are a benefit to the company, as it competes for your attention with wine, spirits and other things.”

Users didn’t buy this clarification, and in 2024, the lack of transparency is still troubling to those passionate about the craft beer ideal. It’s still difficult to find any consensus on why RateBeer is fully owned by AB InBev.

For one, RateBeer users are not convinced, and have never been overly happy about AB InBev’s ownership of a community-driven craft beer site. A poll of 81 RateBeer users taken shortly after the buyout announcement showed only eight percent of users thought the site had seen any improvement, while 43 percent felt it had gotten worse, and another 12 percent felt RateBeer had “gone to the dogs.” 

These pollees overlap heavily with the “super reviewers” and admins who passionately contributed to the site, building it from the ground up. They truly cared about RateBeer and its community, which resulted in many real meetups, beer trades and friendships. It seems that many power-users were never consulted by AB for the deep insight they could have provided, and many do not feel the craft spirit is represented in AB InBev’s ownership. They would prefer to see an owner who appreciates the site for what it meant to the craft beer community, one that sees RateBeer as more than just the sum of its parts. 

Lines Blurred, Interests Conflicted

Conflicts of interest immediately disqualify potential jurors from selection, because their motives for decision-making are no longer objective. The David vs. Goliath narrative has grown tired and the lines between craft and “other” have been very successfully blurred, but there are still conflicts of interest for AB and RateBeer in principle.

AB produces beer and RateBeer rates its beer. The site was founded to serve the craft beer community as an unbiased source. The definition of craft, in its simplest, most idealistic form, is essentially “Not produced by AB InBev”.

Both AB and the craft community have made antagonistic choices in word and deed towards the opposing party. It would be naive to not recognize that AB InBev saw the craft beer category as a threat to its market dominance and sought to take steps towards mitigating that threat.

The same conflict of interest would apply for even the most beloved craft brewer, were they to be RateBeer’s owners. 

Years have passed and ZX Ventures, itself now bringing in billions in revenue, has continued building its catalog of beverage-adjacent businesses. Still, RateBeer sees no sweeping enhancement. If AB is not actively interested in improving the site and contributing to the craft beer community, perhaps it’s time to sell to an entity that is ready and willing to do it for the love of the game.

Per the anonymous source, the ideal outcome would be to “find a new home in terms of someone who cares about the website, and just do a complete redesign and code from scratch.” Having fixed these functionality issues, costs will come down and the site can focus on bringing in revenue.

Were such a move to happen, craft wins, and AB InBev wins, saving significant cash and perhaps even generating a little goodwill for itself that was never found among the site’s users.