Offline Brews and Online Views: Exploring the Geography of Beer Tweets



This chapter analyzes the distribution of geocoded social media data (also referred to as a cyberscape) that references “beer” and related terms. Drawing upon an ongoing research project that archives every geocoded tweet in the world, this chapter explores differences in the frequency and geographic distribution of the everyday commentary made by Twitter users about beer. While the sheer volume of activity, close to a million geocoded beer tweets in 2012, is notable in its own right, it is only when comparisons between subsets of the data are made that the most intriguing spatial patterns emerge. In order to showcase these patterns of differences within online social media, this chapter compares beer tweets to twitter commentary on other topics, i.e., contrasting the geography of wine and beer tweets as well as examining differences within the online conversations about beer, i.e., how do references to light beers or regional “cheap” beers vary over space. These geographical differences (e.g., where are the hot spots for “beer” vs. “wine” or “Bud Light” versus “Coors Light”) illuminates how the commentary and views expressed online, reflect offline practices and preferences. In short, the visualization of “beer space” produced by mapping tweets represents the complex intertwining of offline preferences for specific brews which are expressed via an online practice of presenting ones views.


Social Medium Point Pattern Volunteer Geographic Information Social Media Data Geographic Position System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ball GH, Hall DJ (1965) Isodata: a method of data analysis andpattern classification. Office of Naval Research. Information Sciences Branch.Stanford Research Institute, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  2. Crutcher M, Zook M (2009) Placemarks and waterlines: racializedcyberscapes in post-Katrina Google Earth. Geoforum40(4):523–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DBJ Staff (2013) Top 20 selling beers of 2012. January 11. Dayton Business Journal. Accessed August 28, 2013
  4. Diggle PJ (1985) A kernel method for smoothing point process data.Appl Stat (Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C)34:138–147Google Scholar
  5. Diggle PJ (2003) Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns,2nd edn. ArnoldGoogle Scholar
  6. FloatingSheep Blog (2010) The beer belly of America. February 1. Accessed August 28, 2013
  7. FloatingSheep Blog (2012) Church or beer? Americans on Twitter.July 4. Accessed August 28, 2013
  8. Gibson W (1984) Neuromancer. AceGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodchild M (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteeredgeography. Geo J 69(4):211–221Google Scholar
  10. Graham M, Zook M (2013) Augmented realities and uneven geographies:exploring the geolinguistic contours of the web. Environ Plann A45(1):77—99Google Scholar
  11. Graham M, Zook M, Boulton A (2013) Augmented reality in urbanplaces: contested content and the duplicity of code. T I Brit Geogr38(3):464–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham M (2010) Neogeography and the palimpsests of place: web 2.0and the construction of a virtual earth. Tijdschr Econ Soc Ge101:422–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham S, Marvin S (1996) Telecommunications and the city:electronic spaces. Urban places. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Haklay M (2013) Neogeography and the delusion of democratisation.Environ Plann A 45(1):55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kitchin R, Dodge M (2011) Code/space: software and everyday life.The MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lamy J (2012) Where are America’s leading wine markets? Accessed August 28, 2013
  17. O’Donnell B (2013) Wine challenging beer as America’sdrink of choice. The Wine Spectator. August 5. Accessed August 28, 2013
  18. Pickles J (1995) Ground truth. The Guilford Press, NewYork.Google Scholar
  19. Salon Staff (2011) The United States of cheap beer. Salon. August11. Accessed August 28, 2013
  20. Shelton T, Zook M, Graham M (2012) The technology of religion:mapping religious cyberscapes. Prof Geogr 64(4):602–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thrift N, French S (2002) The automatic production of space. T IBrit Geogr 27(3):309–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zook M, Graham M (2007) The creative reconstruction of theInternet: google and the privatization of cyberspace and DigiPlace. Geoforum38(6):1322–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations