Bar of the Resistance
| Case Study |
Bar of the Resistance is a suite of postcolonial designed objects informed entirely from user research and advocacy. Using pre-existing media within bar and brewery settings, these prototypes serve as both information exchange and speculative commentary set within an activist art context.
-
CATEGORIES
+ UX Research
+ Ethnography
+ Postcolonial
+ Human Centered Design
+ Behavioral Design
+ Speculative Design
+ Activism Art -
METHODS
+ Qualitative Research
+ Guerilla Testing
+ Scenarios & Personas
+ Usability Testing
+ Contextual Inquiry
+ Field Studies
+ Mixed Methods -
TIMELINE
2016 – 2017
Research Framework + Project Scope
COLONIALISM & CRAFT BEER
This case study uses the historical contexts of colonialism, cultural hegemony, postcolonial and neolocalism as a lens to view and interpret the power dynamics between the U.S. Corporate Beer Culture and U.S. Craft Beer Culture.
BRANDS AS MODERN DAY COLONIZERS OF CULTURE
This form of colonialism however takes on a new face. Rather than a mere individual as the colonizer, it’s the branding and identity of products in the world’s commercial and capitalist spheres that have replaced colonizing humans.
Research > Concept > Execution
COLONIZERS VS. CRAFTIVISTS
Common tactics of European colonizers were to relentlessly observe, meticulously codify, and ultimately control Non-Europeans cultures (i.e. Knowledge as Power). Flipping this notion on its head, members of the craft beer community I identified as Craftivist use knowledge as a means of enhancing consumer consciousness and activating cultural resilience within their communities.
ART AS ACTIVISM & SPECULATIVE DESIGN
Driving the postcolonial approach even further through speculative design, Craftivists distribute repositioned media within bar and brewery settings as tools of art activism and neolocalism.
Stakeholder + Cultural Personas
This case study focuses on two different cultures and one subculture that are all interconnected by beer brewing and consumption.
I primarily focused my research on a subculture group within Craft Beer community that I coined “Craftivists.” Due to the detrimental impact of Corporate Brewery’s acquisitions of Craft Breweries and Brands, Craftitvist have experienced various ramifications of cultural hegemony within their communities.
They’ve witnessed the quality of craft brewery and its products shift exponentially by the increase in scale and production. Additionally, their breweries cultures once unique and full of character become unrecognizable due to commercialization and expansion.
Craftivists are extremely devout craft beer consumers, who express staunch neolocalism and reverence for protecting and upholding their communities ethos. This belief system is rooted in a postcolonial mindset toward Corporate Beer colonizers.
-
Heterogeneous Culture
Ethos:
+ Community Cultivators
+ Local Connoisseur
+ Hand Crafted vs. Mass Produced
+ Connection to Brewery/BrandMotivations:
+ Seeks out Authentic Experience/Brands
+ Connectivity + Sociality
+ Consuming Unique products
+ Sense of Place AdvocatesPain Points:
+ Doesn’t want local breweries to sell out
+ Anti-Establishment/Prefers Underground Brands
+ Potential lacks awareness of Corporate Acquisitions
-
Heterogeneous Subculture
Ethos:
+ Convicted & Reverent Beer Drinkers
+ Impassioned Advocates for Locality
+ Cultivators of Unique Craft Beer Identity
+ Celebrates Individuality & AuthenticityMotivations:
+ Desire to evangelize to their community
+ Views acquisition Knowledge as Power
+ Upholds locality/sense of place
+ Feels Personally indebted to local breweriesPain Points:
+ Takes Corporate Acquisitions Personally
+ Vendetta toward Corporate Beer Culture
+ Witnesses Product/Culture change Post-Acquisition
-
Homogeneous Culture
Ethos:
+ Commercial
+ Global
+ Subversive
+ Revenue & ProfitabilityMotivations:
+ Money & Profit
+ Brand Exposure & Expansion
+ Mass Production = Larger Reach
+ Market ControlPain Points:
+ Can’t replicate Craft Beer Culture
+ Stakeholder acceptance post-acquisition
+ Product quality could decline from Mass Production
Craftivist Against Cultural Hegemony
Prior to developing this case study, I had been involved for multiple years within the craft beer community. In deciding to put on a researcher cap versus being merely a participating member, I soon realized that there was far more to my initial hypothesis of the corporate colonization of craft beer than I was expecting – both on a domestic and global level.
After extensive primary research, I transitioned to exploring various forms of secondary research one of which being Twitter. It became abundantly clear that devout members of the craft beer community were immensely opposed to corporate acquisitions of craft breweries.
They took to social media using the platform as a catalyst for activism within their communities. They rallied behind their cause, campaigned for calls-to-action and encouraged others to be culturally conscious.
User + Context
Craftivist [Facilitator]
&
Craft Beer Community Members [User]
As a result of corporate acquisitions and production grows exponentially, the quality of beer shifts and often times declines, access becomes national if not global, the overall character, essence, and authenticity of local craft breweries evaporates and becomes commercialized.
In response to corporate colonialism, Craftivists have taken a postcolonial approach using game play as information exchange to empower and enable others in their community to remain culturally conscious about what they consume and who they support.
Scenario
Craftivist enters a beer bar to foster cultural consciousness in their community. While at the bar, they approach and begin conversing with fellow craft beer community members about their culture's core values, ethos, consuming artisan products, and supporting local.
This spurs the opportunity to use game play (i.e. Local Brewery Bracket) to further explore and discover motives in supporting locally owned craft breweries versus corporate owned craft breweries.
Information Exchange Prototypes
[Knowledge is Power]
Craftivists use game play to empower and enable others in their community by remaining culturally conscious about what they consume and who they support. These gamified prototypes were tested within multiple contexts: breweries, beer bars, beer conferences, beer festivals, beer shares and social events.
Various research methodologies including Field Studies, User Interviews, Mixed Methods, Participatory Action Research, Contextual Inquiry and Usability Testing were implemented to gain a deeper, authentic and holistic understanding of the craft beer community.
Who Owns Who
Card Game exploring Ownership and Allegiance
This card game interrogates themes of ownership, convolution and the notion of true authenticity vs. manufactured authenticity within both corporate beer cultures.
Rules of the Game:
Each card features a craft brewery on one side and the other reveals the truth owner of the brewery.
Users were asked to draw a card and flip it to discovering the brewery’s owner.
Users were asked to place their drawn card into one of two envelopes that reflected either their Support or Non-Support after learning the true ownership.
Various users were in complete shock over the true ownership of craft breweries. Users who has supported that brewery after discovering who owned them vowed to never drink or buy their products again.
Several users began evangelizing the ownership discovery to friends and social circles that were nearby who hadn’t been playing the game.
This organically grew the data set as more and more users expressed a desire in wanting to play to learn who actually owned who.
Findings
Brewnopoly
Board Game as a metaphor for navigating the Beer Industry
This subversive spin on a classic board game critically explores craft brewers that sell out, corporate brewers that buy out, and pay to play and the illusion of choice tactics. The game postulates that corporate brewers aren't perhaps the only sinister players in the game (i.e. industry).
Rules of the Game:
Rolling the six-sided at the start of the game determines whether game players (i.e users) are either a corporate brewer or craft brewer.
The game’s street properties reflect existing brewery and beer pub locations of both Corporate Brewers and Craft Brewers.
The Chance and Community Chest cards oppose the notion that the only Corporate Brewers will inherently win the game.
The cards allow for players to reflect on how easy or natural it can be to compromise within the industry.
Users became aware of the how effortless and quickly it can be to comprise attributes such as locality, staying small and not expanding due to the games objectives.
User discovered the more breweries and expansion on the board – the higher your chances will be at winning the game.
The subversive underpinnings within the game’s overall design enticed dialogue among users around the convoluted nature of the beer industry.
For several users, it became quite natural to mirror the colonizing motives and characteristics that are very much in opposition to their own craft communities values.
Ultimately, the goal of the game is to win, which reflects the same motives of many corporate breweries to obtain mass acquisitions and control over the industry.
Findings
Local Brewery Bracket
Tournament Bracket meets Neolocalism
This game bracket repositions choosing locality through the lens of competition. Featuring a ‘Reasons for Elimination’ component that enables users to choose from either provided reasons (i.e. data) via former users/players or they have the option to contribute their own reasons.
Rules of the Game:
The bracket contains a combination of 16 corporate breweries, local breweries and corporate owned craft breweries.
Alongside each brewery are stats about their ownership, barrels produced per year, and location.
Users advance the breweries that connect with or prefer to the next stage of the bracket. This process repeats until a winner is achieved.
As Users advance their chosen brewery and eliminate a brewery, they are asked to select from existing ‘Reason for Elimination’ OR have the option to contribute their own reason.
Choice 1: Users can crowd source from data provided by previous users/players (i.e. craft beer community members).
Choice 2: Submitting their own ‘Reason for Elimination’ provides an outlet to express user agency on the topic.
Users contribution in submitting ‘Reasons for Elimination’ served as a great first hand source of data.
User Submitted Reasons (Sample):
“Too Corporate”
“Owned by Someone Else”
“Too Big,”
“Proximity”
“Beer Preference”
“Gentrified”
“Dishonest”
“Seasonality”Users engaged in rich dialogue that transpired from game play about what they each defined as “local” and why it’s important to them therein influencing spending behaviors.
Findings
