Análisis de la Solidez Financiera:

The internet media realm consists of websites that promote craft beer tasting or charity events, information about beer, and lifestyle articles—for the purpose of generating a profit. Consumers here begin learning more about the beers they are drinking. The experience of ordering a “craft” beer can be a little daunting. Aside from the risk of purchasing a product that will be displeasing to the senses, there is a risk of looking foolish when trying to choose such products. A landscape of questions stands before the neophyte consumer, almost beckoning. This vast swathe of things to know creates a market for those that can offer guidance. Thus, the internet is awash in media companies willing to help consumers along—with reviews, articles, discussion forums, and resources for keeping track of beers one has tried, and whether or not they were enjoyed—in exchange for clicks, page views, and even user-generated content.

Here we may observe an interesting economic space where “philal” valuation and monetary valuation develop a method for exchange. Internet media companies generate free content for users. Users’ consumption level determines the value of that content. As users share, learn and disseminate knowledge, judgements about what information is worthy and what is not are being made. Consumers create “philal” valuation through the active, participatory

consumption that comprise this level—they click links, share stories, and write reviews. Media companies receive that “capital” from users, then exchange it for monetary capital via

defray costs, but valuation from advertising space appear vital. Further study would be needed to establish how this particular market dynamic actually operates.

The most predominant narrative at this level regards tasting beer. The market actors here attempt to construct criteria for judging which beers are “good,” and which ones are “bad.” The vast majority of content at this level concern beer reviews. With over 6000 distinct beers

produced in North Carolina, there is no lack of opportunity for demonstrating these criteria. It is recognized that taste is subjective. What one person enjoys, another may not. Hence, tasting is necessary. The narrative presumes one cannot really know what beers they enjoy or do not enjoy, until trying them. When a beer is deemed “good,” there is a clear pattern: it should fit what is expected from the beer’s style, while also doing something unexpected or original within the bounds of that style. What to expect from a style, whether a beer fits, and whether it has done something unique are all subject to dialogue. The production of this dialogue drives beer reviewers from professional and consumers alike.

To further explain this process, reviewers describe a beer in 4 categories: color, aroma, taste, and mouthfeel. Each style is expected to generally have certain characteristics, but particular breweries will “play” with the boundaries of style. For example, this review of Foothills’ Sexual Chocolate on the media site Beer Advocate demonstrates:

Body color seems classic black walnut and dark but with some little close inspection it appears to have some red in there strangely when held up to light. Nice looker of a stout. –Beeradvocate.com, accessed June 13th, 2015

While stouts are normally black, this one has some red in it. This unexpected “surprise” pleases the reviewer. If the beer had been thoroughly red, however, it would have been

considered a failure, since it was claiming to be a stout, but not really doing the stout. This uncertainty—how a particular brewery will do a particular style—drives much of the dialogue

between serious beer drinkers. The same is true of the beer’s flavor. Beers should hit the notes of the style, while also doing something a little original with that style.

A second narrative common at this level involves fantasizing how a particular beer should be consumed, and what its consumption signals about the consumer. This occurs in two ways. Once a particular beer is established as good, speculation may follow as to what kind of consumptive experience best would maximize the enjoyment of the beverage. The most common form this takes is the “seasonal” beer. For example, porters or stouts are best in the winter, while light crisp lagers are best in the summer. Many breweries only release certain beers for the corresponding season. The following exchange on a podcast called Cheers Charlotte demonstrates another form this fantasy life may take:

Host 2: “She brought out a cantaloupe saison.” Host 3: “I saw that but didn’t get to try it.”

Host 2: “It was amazing. I only got a sip but I was blown away. It was hot, and I was sweating a bit. I got a taste of that and it was so good. You could just crush those all day by the pool.”

The assumption is that a good beer has a particular role to play in a broader consumptive moment. “…You could just crush those all day by the pool,” evokes a fantasy about how best to

consume the beer. The beer’s package no longer just promises a pleasing taste and intoxication, but a lifestyle experience. Similarly, there are ubiquitous efforts to pair beer with food, a

practice borrowed from wine-drinking. For any review of beer, there is nearly always a reference as to how or where to consumer the beer. These dialogues help produce a fantasy, where consumers may symbolically anchor particular beers to particular kinds of experiences.

Secondly, the fantasy life of beer seems to indicate what kind of person chooses which kind of beer. For example, the following article, “What Your Beer Says About You,” was published on Thrillist, Feb. 1, 2014, contained this picture:

Figure 4: The Fantasy Life of Beer

For these writers, tongue-in-cheek though it may appear, the consumption of a particular beer symbolizes a type of life experience. These articles are not uncommon, and some adopt a more serious tone. To avoid sending the wrong message, writers consider what kinds of beers to bring to certain events, like a Super Bowl Party. Thus, beer has a “fantasy life,” meaning, its consumption is imagined to entail particular life experiences, of which particular beers are imagined to be part and parcel of.

Consumers in this space primarily contribute through their attention and use of the websites. Literally dozens if not hundreds of tools exist for consumers to track their beer. Ratemybeer, BeerAdvocate, and Untapped offer free accounts that allow users to describe the beers they have consumed. (These are different from the clubs described in the previous level.

The clubs cater to one establishment, while these allow consumers to track beers from any bar or brewery that one may drink.) They may add reviews. These reviews range greatly in

sophistication, from “Great beer!” to a full essay on each of the different tasting dimensions. Figure 5. Internet Media Domain

In Figure 5, the internet media field maps partially onto all four dimensions of the craft beer market system, but mostly comprising the “tasting” and “monetary” spaces. While drinking and the drinking culture are celebrated in the domains constructed by these actors, the chief engine of the discourse is tasting—spreading information and access for consumers regarding style, history, and news about breweries. Given the strong presence of internet media from the quality space—commercial clubs, apps for tracking beer, and a purpose for creating profit—the quality and media levels overlap some. The internet media realm, however, is where serious craft beer consumers are being made, and are thus pulling away from mainstream spaces where “quality” actors attempt to penetrate. Given the strong commitment to spreading knowledge and passion for learning how to taste beer—and because it is an economy of consumer’s attention on

which these organizations compete—the media space occupies some portions of the philal dimension.