It REALLY depends on how you judge it. Macro lager brewers do an excellent job of producing an economical, consistent and shelf stable product. Taste is subjective. You either like it or you don't. A 50L keg of stella can be had for £90. £47.70 of this is duty. They've got to make it, package it, deliver it and still turn a profit on £43.30. You can assume there is approx 6kg of malt in that keg, hop products, process aids, yeast, chemicals, probably up to another £10, then the cost of cleaning the keg, co2 for carbonation, filling, wages, energy, plant depreciation. Clearly the model works, they've money left over for marketing, for fitting out pubs and arranging ties, running lorries, it isn't a one man band, but the margins are by design wafer thin. At the end of it the customer gets a consistent product with an acceptable profile, it is the Chorleywood bread of the brewing world. They take pride in using adjuncts and process aids because it meets their goals. They won't call it skimping. The taste is subjective. Marketing covers a multitude of sins.
Most highly commercial lagers (and macro ales tbh) are super attenuated. This is because they use glucosidase to break down as much starch as possible, you get the maximum from your grain and mash tun capacity and because heavily attenuated brews are lighter, easier to drink in volume and have lower calories. They brew at high gravity and water down on pack to get the maximum volume out of the plant. They use cheaper adjuncts for cost, but also because they are lighter and more fermentable. They use hop extracts because they are easier and more consistent with less losses. These things all sound terrible to the average drinker, but again allows an economical, consistent and shelf stable product. The taste is subjective! They are good at what they do.
Craft brewers will not have the same equipment and won't be geared up to use the same processes. They are better off using more ingredients and singing the praises of them because they don't have the plant and scale to run on such tight margins. They may produce a product which is more to your taste which is great. I wish them nothing but success. The average lager drinker though does want an economical and consistent product, they do want a light sessionable quality, they do think a little bit about calories.
Amongst all this positivity you've micro breweries having a bash at 'craft' lager and producing a pretty substandard product. This is the side that I dislike. Why is it always a different colour? Why does the flavour profile drift? Why is it murky one week, bright the next? Why is it so expensive? Why is the carbonation all over the place? Because it is craft mate don't blame us think about the evil macro brewers with their chemical swill is not an acceptable response to a beer which fails to show even basic brewing technique.
I like rice in a lager, it brings a crispness which I enjoy. I'm not putting rice in lager because it is cheap and nasty. I like glucosidase for drying out a brew where appropriate. I'm doing it because you can make things super light, to the point where every other flavour sticks out like a sore thumb for better or worse, it allows me a rare clarity in flavour profile. I'm not doing it because it is cheap and nasty. The final cost of the end result is not even on my radar, which is a flaw quite often and I've had to learn the hard way that NOBODY around here wants a £130+ craft lager. Maybe if your brand is up there with cloudwater, but otherwise .. quick, rebrand it as an IPL, a session IPA, a DDH pale, a cream ale, a steam beer and so on even if at heart it was once a lager... they sell!
however the weizens and bock saved the day, they were amazing. 
)
