Week 2 of the [Edited to reflect the point of order Stonch makes below: U.S. operations] merger between Molson Coors and SABMiller — both themselves the results of mergers and acquisitions — and you probably just want to know if this is going to make it harder or easier to buy your favorite beer.
Which, by the way, is no brewed by either.
Yes. Do a Google news search and you’ll find a thousand stories (really a few stories repeated hundreds of times), but they’ll explain the importance of this to wholesalers, stock holders and a variety of other interested parties. Some predictions will be right and others wrong.
But here’s something else from the press release:
Capturing Synergies and Improving Productivity
The combination of the businesses is expected to result in identified annual cost synergies of $500 million, to come from optimization of production over the existing brewery network, reduced shipping distances, economies of scale in brewery operations and the elimination of duplication in corporate and marketing services.
Does that sound to you like some Miller might be brewed in a Coors brewery and Coors’ products (Blue Moon even?) in Miller plants?
This is not a matter if they can do it well — Miller has brewed Samuel Adams products, for instance. It’s a matter of brewing a beer that comes from a particular place.
And that’s not a part of the the MillerCoors business plan.
Added later in the day: A great suggestion from Maureen Ogle.
Added 10.19.07: Garrett Oliver contributes to the New York Times Op-Ed page. “MillerCoors is not a threat to craft brewers but a warning: we should not walk the road of overexpansion or be tempted by the lowest common denominator of the mass market.”
Added 10.19.17: Boomberg.com reports the deal will lift sales of Miller Chill. I don’t know about you, but this gets me pretty excited.