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.
