I retired from Miller Brewing Co. in the nineties after 22 years with them. (Now it's SABMiller..!)
In the 1970's we became the agent for Lowenbrau, importing and distributing it with our own brands. Of course, it was a great beer. Some time later, someone had the idea that we could brew it in the U.S. and save the shipping costs. An agreement was worked out, and we did so. It was NOT the same beer, but was a very good one nonetheless.
After a few years the accountants got into the act and cost cutting was applied to the brand. I never saw the recipes in those days so I don't know what exactly was changed, but I can tell you that the "liquid" that came out of the bottle was not comparable to either of the previous versions. For one thing, the hop add was downsized and, from what I remember of the flavor profile, so was the hop quality. Suddenly I didn't even like this beer which had been one of the best we had produced.
The big companies (Busch, Miller, Molson, etc.) can brew excellent beers, don't ever doubt that. They have some of the best brewers in the world on staff and can produce any style they wish to brew. But it's the marketing and accounting groups buzzing in the ear of the CEO that determine which will be produced and sold.
The pale lagers which defined "American" beers for decades prior to the surge in craft brews were made less and less unique and distinct by design, as they are less costly to produce than the originals from the 1950's through the 1970's. Schlitz and Pabst, for instance - very good popular beers from that era - are brewed in Milwaukee by Miller "to the same recipe" according to them. Well, they're not the same beers. I doubt that Miller has incorporated the original yeast strains from either company as that is expensive and problematic for the brewers, and this makes a huge difference. So does the use of syrups instead (dextrose, etc.) instead of some of the grains originally used.
So I don't blame Expidia for being upset.
