Good Grape Wine Company

December 12 2009

Wine Public Policy and the Assault on Reason

It’s stock in trade for practitioners of polemic rhetoric to appeal to the basest instincts of their audience.  Why resort to reason when half-truths and pretzel logic will work just fine? 

You just hope that your audience is either dumb enough or lazy enough to not call B.S. on what you’re spoon feeding them.

So it goes with the Marin Institute and their latest assault on reason.  Only this time, their spin defies the suspension of disbelief that can occur with a carefully constructed story.  They have significantly undermined their credibility now and into the future.

Caricature has officially turned into a cartoon with a chorus of dissent raining down that sounds (if not smells) curiously close to the cacophony of people yelling, “B.S.”

The Marin Institute is a watchdog organization that advocates for social responsibility from alcohol organizations.  They run several annual campaigns designed to raise awareness about the business practices of beer, wine and spirits businesses with a specific focus on the societal implications wrought by alcohol abuse.

It’s certainly a noble mission and one that any pragmatic person can see as valuable advocacy work for the greater good.  In fact, one of their notable organizational campaigns is called, “Charge for Harm” supporting efforts to dedicate some percentage of alcohol taxes to alcohol-related support services. 

My first question, however, is:  do we really believe that wine, a beverage of inherent moderation, should be a target of the Marin Institute?  Forget the poor judgment in decision-making for those that decide to drive after having one too many cocktails; I wonder who at the Marin Institute had a BAC above .08 and thought it was a good idea to pick on the California wine industry and the Wine Institute?
Besides wine being the least likely alcoholic beverage to be abused, the fact is that the allocation of tax dollars is a state decision, and while the Charge for Harm program is noble, it is a business obligation to protect your interest from further taxation.  That’s America.

The latest Marin Institute effort takes an unoriginal page directly from the September news cycle in which a soda tax was bandied about to help pay for the healthcare related costs of obesity and diabetes.  This caused the likes of Coca-Cola and Pepsico to foment their own consumer movement. In their incarnation, the Marin Institute has set their sights on the Wine Institute as a bogeyman for harboring corporate wine and spirits businesses (“Big Alcohol” they call it) who supposedly lobby against new taxes that can also support alcohol-related social programs.

The report, written by Sarah Mart, focuses on the rubric of, “The Myth of the Family Winery.”  Mart, who stayed on message in her email communications with me while being evasive in answering questions directly, is a career policy advocate and not a marketer – that much is clear by reviewing her poorly conceived report replete with more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.

Their press release indicates:

The report details how global alcohol giants promote the California winery storyline while steadily working to deregulate alcohol nationwide.  Big Alcohol exploits California wine imagery by exerting undue influence on the political process, including massive lobbying against federal and state alcohol taxes and fee increases to balance budgets and reduce over-consumption.

Okay.

In actuality, the report (if you can call a 10 page PowerPoint using bad logic and Internet research a report) is absent any thought more considered than what an underclassman in high school debate would do while also lacking any meaningful persuasion by presentation of fact or narrative. Mart and the Marin Institute allege that the Wine Institute and “Big Alcohol” perpetuate the myth of California wine as:

• Local
• Small
• Family-owned
• Exclusive
• Healthy
• Integral to California lifestyle

In doing so, Mart focuses on the seven wine companies that represent over 80% of the domestic wine market by market share.  She elaborates on the global nature of these companies who (in many cases) have other lines of business that include beer and spirits.

She supports her premise by elaborating on the leadership of the Wine Institute as being from “Big Alcohol” and then enumerating the various lobbying efforts directed by these large wine companies to various California politicians and ballot measures.

Yet, when I posed the question to Mart about stratifying her focus based on what people are drinking that causes societal ill i.e. beer and liquor, she gave a non-sequitar before subsequently following up and acknowledging that beer represents 80-85% of California and national alcohol sales.

There you go. 

Why pick on wine and the lifestyle when the fact of the matter is that California’s contributions to California and the country include all of the things that Mart represents as a myth – wine IS local, small, family-owned, and occasionally exclusive, offers health benefits and is a significant part of the California lifestyle.  In addition, very significantly, wine is a beverage of moderation, a companion to food on the table.

Those are facts and while it is true that the wine industry does have an 80/20 rule in effect related to large wine company sales volume relative to small wineries, that’s the case in any industry and a virtue of distribution, not intent.

Mart’s attempt at Karl Rove-like spin of taking a strength and turning it into a weakness is certainly poorly conceived.

Why?

Because for all of this focus on the large wine companies the whole argument comes crumbling down when you look at the supposedly “massive” amounts of money these large wine companies contribute to politicians.

Let’s see.  California wine does the following:

• Produces $58.9 billion dollars for the California economy
• Pays $12.3 billion in wages to California employees
• Pays 14.7 billion in state and federal taxes
• Has thousands of small, family-owned wineries
• Generates $2.1 billion in tourism dollars from over 21 million visitors
• Gives over $101 million dollars to charitable organizations.

So, if you take the supposedly “massive” contributions that “Big Alcohol” makes to politicians (approximately $1M as calculated by the Marin Institute) and juxtapose it against the value California wine has on just the state economy it comes out to an infinitesimal percentage – tenths of one percent.  I mean, it borders on the ridiculous it’s so small relative to the revenue generated.  Relative my personal income, it’s like me giving a homeless person a dollar on the street—which is an apt analogy given the wine industry gives over $100 million dollars in goods, services and cash to charitable organizations!

The good news is that outside of a glancing mention in the San Francisco Chronicle it appears that this story hasn’t garnered any sympathetic coverage.  I strive to be fair and balanced and I want to be careful not to make this a referendum on the author of the Marin Institute report, but the results of this campaign will surely equal its quality and that’s a lesson learned for everybody involved, particularly those that make ill-conceived assaults on reason.

October 13 2009

Can Wine Enthusiast Magazine Woo the ‘Silent Majority?’  Pt. II of II

Picking up from part one of this two-part series, Wine Enthusiast magazine has an opportunity to capitalize on the confluence of circumstance that exists in the world of wine, an opportunity that requires the resources, leadership and wherewithal of a professional publishing organization, an opportunity that is currently lying fallow.

At no point in time has there ever been more growth, confusion, special interest and turmoil around the world of wine.  And, while online wine media would like to think that the future of wine content is in consumer generated bytes, the reality is that wine is the only consumer packaged good that desperately needs its mainstream media arm to act as a guiding voice, an arbiter of reason and a leader in divining order out of chaos, as the online wine world sub-divides into niche interest areas.

Unfortunately, the mainstream wine media approaches their work as an elite lifestyle choice (Spectator, Wine News, QRW), a vehicle for ratings (Parker), or a smart vehicle that skews towards trade interest (Wine & Spirits, Sommelier Journal).

While Wine Enthusiast probably likes to believe that they cover the wide swath of ground in between the “wine interested” and Wine Spectator and Wine & Spirits, the reality is that the magazine, editorially speaking, addresses the “wine interested” more so than the “wine enthusiast.” It’s exactly this “silent majority” of wine enthusiasts encompassed in the name of the magazine that I would like to see Wine Enthusiast focus on, as opposed to the current common denominator.

The impetus behind this review is two-fold – a recent quote from a wine writer for Wine Enthusiast lamenting the fact that Wine Enthusiast is infrequently (ever?) included in the same conversation as Robert Parker, Jr. and Wine Spectator, describing that dominance of influence as “hegemony.” This is coupled with the current Editor’s Letter in the November issue of Wine Enthusiast in which Publisher Adam Strum says, “Our goal at Wine Enthusiast Magazine is to encourage America’s wine culture, which has been thriving for the last decade, to continue to flourish.”

The problem is that the lament of the wine writer compared against the stated goal of Wine Enthusiast Magazine encapsulates the disconnect and frustration that is felt in the market.  Parker, Spectator and Enthusiast are subject to significant vitriol by segments of the wine audience who feel vastly underserved by their media.  In regards to the “hegemony,” the notion that there is an unfair regime in charge of influence is an astute point, but misguided.  Enthusiast wants to be considered elite, but appeal to the masses at the same time.  As Jack Welch (former CEO of GE) always noted, if you can’t be #1 or #2 in your market, then you should choose another market.  It’s exactly that notion of finding another market, the true wine enthusiast, that I think Wine Enthusiast the magazine needs to focus on.  In doing so, they’ll be asking their “wine interested” audience to ratchet up their engagement, which is far less egregious than asking a core audience who has long felt ignored to suffer a ratcheting down.  As any teacher knows, the bright kids in class suffer the most when you build your lesson plans for the weakest link.

Here are 10 suggestions for Wine Enthusiast to carve out their own market and create a category of one addressing the “silent majority.”

10) Redesign the magazine to appeal to the future of wine, those under the age of 40, with a contemporary, worldly sensibility.  The current design says, “Suburban Soccer Mom and Old Navy Dad.”  Look at Imbibe, Fast Company, and others that get “accessible and urbane.”

9)  Represent a lifestyle that actually exists – people that are passionate about wine, but more in line with the Trader Joe’s demographic of, “over-educated and underpaid.”  This isn’t to say “poor,” just household incomes that look more like a Toyota and less like a Lexus.

8) Ramp up a cultural aspect that resonates – music, food, a life well-lived, not necessarily a clichéd affluent wine lifestyle.  Three of the biggest bands in the world – U2, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews have lead singers that are really into wine.  Why are these mentions relegated to a surface-level one-pager at the back of the magazine, if that?

7) Ditch the wide net that includes beer and spirits.  You can’t be all things to all people.  If I want reviews for Tequila, I’ll buy a Tequila affinity magazine, or look online.

6) Expand the “Enth degree” with more general interest tidbits and factoids.  People like “fast food” content that is interesting and conversational fodder.

5) Expand the number of op-ed pieces and incorporate more opinion journalism.  Simply, include more columns from a wider array of voices.  There’s a reason both Newsweek and Time have redesigned this year to incorporate more op-ed—it’s because it’s interesting and it sells.  Take stands on the issues of the day in the wine world and help shape thought.

4) Lose the puff pieces on Ripasso and Cava.  Nobody cares.  Make these stories about people and personalities with Ripasso and Cava as the tableau.

3) Dramatically cut down on the number of pages dedicated to ratings.  These are fine for online, for the iPhone app., and other areas, but having 1/3 of the magazine as tasting notes leads me to skim, at best, when I actually want to be reading something interesting (see people, personalities, stories).

2) Reinvent the genre of ratings.  If you can’t be #1 or #2 in the influence sphere, it’s because you haven’t differentiated enough with authority.  Everyone acknowledges that points aren’t going away, so how can Wine Enthusiast reinvent the ratings genre to something unique, a category of one?  Consider aligning with CellarTracker or something that is crowdsourced and acknowledge that people are valued contributors to the wine scene, now and in the future.  Own this by complementing the crowdsourcing with the experienced palate/critic in a way that fosters collaboration and not empirical correctness.

1) Migrate the Wine Star awards to something that popular opinion values more than as a stroke fest for wine companies to advertise with the magazine.  I’ll eat my hat if Gary Vaynerchuk doesn’t win the “Innovator of the Year” award and the public perception will be that it’s a naked grab at his daily 80,000 strong audience.  Just saying …

Bonus 1A)  Demystify, debunk, and create thought-leadership around the culture of wine – the way it exists, quite imperfectly, not the way the industry would like it represented in their minds eye.

In summary, it shouldn’t be too much to ask that wine media provide content for wine enthusiasts, in a manner that they find valuable.  Too often these days, the most ardent, interested and active audience in wine isn’t being reliably serviced with content that matters.  It’s a disservice, and one that can be fixed.  By addressing this “silent majority” not only does Wine Enthusiast create their own category, but they also create consumers that advocate for them creating a vehicle in Strum’s words, that “encourage(s) America’s wine culture, which has been thriving for the last decade, to continue to flourish.”

October 12 2009

Can Wine Enthusiast Magazine Woo the ‘Silent Majority?’  Pt. I of II

The demise of Gourmet magazine has likely caused other lifestyle-oriented magazine editors across the industry to look under the proverbial table to make sure there isn’t another shoe ready to drop in a copycat bloodletting.

As far as wine magazines go, all seems normal, even if health is relative and despite there being significant room for improvement. 

No, there aren’t any wine magazines that deserve to die, but there are a couple that deserve to improve.

By way of background, a few interesting things have occurred over the last two weeks.  As mentioned, Gourmet magazine, the grand old dame of genteel food coverage, closed in an untimely death that wasn’t so much blunt force trauma (978K subscribers) as much as it was asphyxiation by pillow smother in the dark of night. 

I was saddened by Gourmet, as I always considered it to be a magazine that I had a relationship with—I enjoyed the magazine, I looked forward to every issue and I respected its combination of smart literary sensibility with food world refinement.  This is in contrast to several wine magazines for which I subscribe but hold a deep ambivalence towards.

In addition to my Gourmet sadness, I recently read some eyebrow arching comments from a mainstream wine writer (who doubles as a wine blogger) regarding the landscape of influence in wine magazine publishing.  And, finally, I spent a recent afternoon reading Wine Spectator, Sommelier Journal, Wine & Spirits and Wine Enthusiast magazine with an eye towards critical analysis in comparison and contrast to each other.

Each of the mentioned magazines fills a slightly different niche for the wine world at-large.  Spectator is lifestyle and collector oriented, Sommelier Journal, the newest entrant, is trade-oriented, Wine & Spirits forsakes the lifestyle aspect for a straighter-edge focus on knowledge, assuming a baseline of competency from its readers, and Wine Enthusiast is populist-oriented.

Make no mistake, the stakes are high for wine magazines today and there has never been a better time for reinvention – wine consumption is increasing and getting younger by demographic, current mainstream critics are graying, the 100-point system is being assailed, and wine advertising and marketing is morphing as free content via the Internet puts downward pressure on business models.

Now is not the time for anybody to stand pat with their poker hand.

Regarding the aforementioned comments from the mainstream wine writer, the context isn’t as important as the actual message.  The writer, a critic for Wine Enthusiast, said:

Hell yes I am defensive about Parker and Spectator hegemony. Hell yes I want Enthusiast to be mentioned in the same context. I have fought against the hegemony for years now, because it’s wrong for those 2 to be so dominant and because I want to promote Enthusiast right up there beside them.

Let’s dispense with the facts first.  Wine Enthusiast has 100,000 subscribers while Wine Spectator has over 350,000. Robert Parker is the most influential critic in the world, bar none, and it’s an influence that far transcends the number of subscribers to Wine Advocate. If there is any “hegemony” with Parker and Spectator, it has been achieved through a meritocracy in the court of public opinion.

In fact, according to a New York Times wine article from 1994, much of the current wine publishing landscape (at least in between Enthusiast and Spectator) was foreshadowed years ago.

In the article written by Howard Goldberg some 15 years ago, the following excerpts could have just as easily been written last month:

(Referring to Wine Enthusiast Editor and Publisher Adam Strum) Mr. Strum … is gambling partly on readers’ disaffection about the Spectator’s new identity. Some wine purists complain that the Spectator, in redefining itself as a life-style magazine, has shed its old wine-and-food emphasis.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Shanken said that “the Enthusiast is not a serious contender or threat.”

What has changed in the intervening years since the article was published?  Not much. 

In fact, in the Editor’s editorial in the current issue of Enthusiast (November 2009), Strum reiterates his magazines positioning when he says:

“Our goal at Wine Enthusiast Magazine is to encourage America’s wine culture, which has been flourishing for the last decade, to continue to flourish.”

Despite Strum’s consistency in messaging, Wine Spectator has grown to become the dominant force, making Shanken look positively Orwellian.

Unfortunately, Wine Enthusiast is persona non grata to most avid wine enthusiasts for a number of reasons that are self-inflicted, not to say that it has to be that way, though.

In my opinion, Wine Enthusiast magazine has the greatest opportunity, bar none, to transcend the current climate of wine magazine publishing to fulfill the vision of being a magazine that woos the silent majority, while truly competing with the so-called hegemony of other wine periodicals.

In part II of this post I’ll make specific recommendations for Enthusiast doing just that.

Photo credit #1
Photo Credit #2

September 15 2009

Vin de Napkin - Champagne

Alice Feiring had a nice article in the Wall Street Journal magazine over the weekend. This isn’t a surprise as just about everything she writes is nicely wrought, researched and presented in her unmistakable voice.

The article paints a grim picture for Champagne in the short-term, certainly.

However, as Alice points out, the problem with Champagne sales in the U.S. isn’t necessarily an economic issue, it’s a marketing issue.  Champagne is burned into the retina of U.S. consumers minds eye as an infrequent special occasion wine and an uber-luxury.  Not a good combination, particularly when an off-dry Prosecco can be had for $15.  Marketing isn’t an issue that will be solved in more flush economic times.

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >