October 27 2009
I am no grave dancer, but as the holiday season approaches, I’ve made a small sport of watching the French Champagne portion of the international wine industry completely flounder under the weight of their ongoing missteps and hubris.
The folks from Comite Interprofessional du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the trade association that groups all the grape growers and houses of the Champagne region in France, are radically cutting their production this vintage so as to not undercut their existing luxury pricing with too much inventory, they are floundering to figure out marketing and whether Champagne is a wine for celebration or for food (they wish it was considered a food wine, when in fact they should be doubling down on the celebration aspect—small acts of celebration that occur daily and weekly) and they are continuing to reinforce their ridiculous trademark protection.
This all adds up to a continuing bloodbath in Champagne with total volume down 20% (almost 6 million cases) since 2006. And, winners are coming from, well, just about everywhere else – domestic sparklers, Cava from Spain, various Italian sparklers, Cap Classique from South Africa and even Georgian sparklers from producer Bagrationi, newly imported to the U.S.
I say bring them all on – especially if it’s at a price that is more fitting for “every day celebration” and less “the promotion of my career.”
Most U.S. consumers think about sparkling wine in one of two categories – “it tastes good,” or “it doesn’t taste good,” and this continuing assault on the sanctity of Champagne only coming from the Champagne region of France (at luxury pricing) has reached its weary nadir, at least in my book.
Frankly, I would posit, as a consumer, that precious few wine consumers actually care where their sparkling wine comes from, mostly because nobody studies it as a thinking person’s drink – it’s an aid du jour for celebrations, big and small – not much more and frequently very less than even that.
Because of this, it makes the vigilant French defense of Champagne as only coming from the Champagne region of France all the more head-scratching, you think they might see the handwriting on the wall, ease up off the dogmatism and focus on Champagne being the best and the original while inserting themselves into the “celebratory” drinking conversation with the rest of their brethren.
Consider this for a moment: what if Google went after everybody who referenced they were going to “Google” something? What if they demanded that in order to use the word “Google” it couldn’t be in the form of a “verb” it had to be used as a noun – “I am going to use the Google search engine to search for that bit of information” instead of “Google that.” And, what if Google’s reason for doing so was they didn’t want their brand to become a generic catch-all for searching the Internet?
It would be mighty curious, right? This day and age, one might ask the rightful question, “Why wouldn’t you want your company name to become the de facto standard reference point for searching the Internet?”
With the product launch of Google competitor Bing from Microsoft, the New York Times has an article that talks about the shift in thinking from legacy brand protection to the “verbing” of brand names, an article that the Champagne folks would do well to read.
As the article notes (excerpted):
“… the speed at which reputations are made and destroyed in the Internet age has changed the thinking about the danger of brand names’ becoming verbs. Better to get the market share when you can and worry later, when the brand becomes part of the popular vernacular and less distinctive in the process.
‘The risk of becoming generic is so low, and the benefits of being on the top of someone’s mind are so high,’ said Rebecca Tushnet, an expert on trademark law at Georgetown University.”
Why is this an important point to reinforce? Because everybody calls it Champagne anyway – and they go out and buy Spanish Cava.
My frustration in this regard reached its peak last week when I received a press release from the US arm of the CIVC. The release noted (excerpted):
This Halloween, don’t be “tricked” by misleading disguises pretending to be something they’re not. This includes wines at your local retailers and restaurants using the names of world class wine regions, like Champagne, even though the grapes used in the bottle do not come from those places. The tricks aren’t limited to Halloween: 50 percent of the U.S. sparkling wine market at any given moment is improperly masquerading as “Champagne.”
On Halloween, leave the masks to the goblins, ghosts, and ghouls and make sure you’re not paying for sparkling wine disguised as Champagne. For more information about the name protection issue and to take a Champagne trivia quiz so you can know what is real and what is disguising itself as Champagne, visit http://www.Champagne.us
Now, to be fair, I’m not entirely laissez-faire on this “sense of place” protection. I get that Napa wine should be from Napa wine, but what I am saying is that in this particular instance where Champagne is quite literally the catch-all equivalent of “Kleenex,” “Jello,” or “Google” (whereas Napa isn’t the catch-all for Cabernet, for example) the notion that they continue to spend pr and marketing effort on trade protection in a period of rapid decline indicates that they are so far removed from the vagaries of consumer wants and needs as to be rendered impotent.
Does the CIVC want to get the train back on the tracks; do they want to avert continued declines of 20% over the next three year period? If so, they need to focus on Champagne being the original, focus on thought-leadership with the innumerable sparkling wines from around the world that use the classic méthode champenoise technique created and perfected in France, build up the lore and history, focus on Champagne being an accompaniment to everyday celebrations and ease off of the vigilance—ease up on the consumer watchdog aspect of their marketing that “warns” me of being “tricked.” They need to do so before their bubbles go flat pounded by a $13 Spanish Cava that tastes good, which is about all most consumers care about anyway.
Posted in, Good Grape Daily: Pomace & Lees. Permalink | Comments (27) |
That press release almost sounds like the Sham Wow Guy, “Beware of Imitators.” In fact, I could only imagine the success if some of this advice were applied—branding Champagne as “the original” and shifting the perception so that even the smallest moments in life are worth celebrating with “the original.” They’re good ideas, Jeff.
I do understand your point that the CIVC should be taking a more positive approach to marketing their world leading brand and focusing on the reasons why we should buy Champagne rather than sparklers.
However, that being said, I also understand why they are protective of the Champagne brand name. Champagne is unique and can only be made in Champagne from the grapes Pinot meunier, noir and chardonnay, I have had many different sparklers from around the world and few only come close to the quality taste of champagne.
Think about it this way, if you owned a Chamagne label, would you be wanting someone from California making a sparkling wine from pinot grigio or Viognier to be calling his wine Champagne?
Michael,
In my post i suggest that people call it Champagne anyways—all sparkling wines, and then they go buy something that is less expensive than *true” Champagne and, really, most people can’t divine a lot of sparkling wine other than it’s good or it’s not good.
if you believe all of this, as I do, then why does it make sense for the CIVC to be so militant about their protection of the brand—they’re hurting themselves by not addressing market realities.
Just a thought,
Jeff
All excellently-stated points, my man.
But before we signal the death knell of Champagne, consider this: betting against Champagne as a global brand is a fool’s errand. Champagne has faced tougher times than this in the (historically distant) past and come out looking fine & dapper on the other end. The smart bet I think is on Champagne weathering this storm, and eventually changing - it just won’t be until they have to! 
This is brilliant. Extremely well done.
I’m staying out of the tired debate about place names, etc. But Jeff, you miss the real story, as I covered on my blog, vinofictions.
The Louis Vuitton empire owns that largest and most name-identified Champagne houses.
By cutting production, rather than Champagne prices, the giant is also squeezing grape growers (farmers). In the process, Champagne is now actively involved in a class war between laborers and corporates. For that alone, a boycott would be worth consideration.
As long as it’s made in the authentic method of Champagne, what’s the big deal which variey is used or location it comes from?
Until the CIVC figures out what’s important, (selling and promoting their products or holding onto stagnating “rules”), I say we lift our glass to Sparkling wines that would make the French roll over in their graves. Dry Sparkling Gewurzt anyone?
I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Is Napa or Bordeaux a good word for all still red wines? No. Is Chablis or Cloudy Bay a good word for all still white wines? No. So, sparkling wine is made all over the world and there is good stuff being made under the title Cava, Anderson Valley sparkling wine, Oregon sparkling wine, Mendoza vino espumoso, etc. Champagne is a location where they make a particular sparkling wine called “Champagne” and no wine labels with sparkling wines form other places e,g. “California Champagne” should be allowed.
If you want to write about the drop in sales or the weakening of the luxury positioning of Champagne, I think you may be on to something. You can certainly compare Cava pricing and positioning to Champagne’s particularly in this economic environment. Yet to then go and undermine the distinction between the two different wines and mock the efforts of Champagne to protect its name doesn’t make sense. Champagne comes from Champagne is a perfect title for their campaign. Then we, as consumers, can decide whether we want to buy a case of Cava or a case of Champagne.
Wow. Food for thought.
As a member of the industry - both retail and bar service - I run into this issue often. Being that I’ve had the pleasure of tasting many a bottle of fine Champagne, and then had the displeasure of having to drink a glass of a low-tier domestic sparkler, I do cringe a bit when a customer asks for Champagne as a general term for a bubbly. Here’s my fork in the road:
-I fully agree with your point that the CIVC must move to match the market. Flapping around wildly over what constitutes Champagne and brand protection is wasted energy when sales are down, especially in the luxury category. In retail, a Cava from Spain moves a hell of a lot quicker than a $57 Berthelot (and I must say, one Cava I have in mind rivals many a Perrier Jouet as well.) An approach centered on every day celebration - or just simple enjoyment, which is how I do my bubbles - would be much more beneficial to the industry. However, price points of most Champagne prohibit this from really taking off, at least in the U.S. I wish I were financially able to enjoy a glass of Dampierre with a casual dinner. Enter - Cava!
-On the flip side, being reasonably educated in Champagne I find it horrid that Korbel, for instance, calls its sparkling wine “California Champagne.” It’s insulting in a way that many low-tier U.S. producers would use the term, as it really dumbs down the reputation of France’s bubblies. Esteemed bubbly houses here in CA make some FABULOUS stuff, and I’m a fan - but I don’t call it Champagne. I make an effort to educate customers who improperly use the term, but you are right, Jeff - most do not understand Champagne or care, and it all boils down to what tastes good and what doesn’t (to them.) Frustrating.
So - I guess it might behoove the CIVC to maybe take a happy medium approach and keep both sides of the coin in mind? 
I think you’re missing the point a bit. Champagne has become the point word for all sparkling wines for exactly this reason…sparkling wines call themselves “champagne” when they know full well it can only come from the region of Champagne. What’s the problem with trying to protect the name of their unique product? Champagne has types of grapes that can only be found there. Many sparkling wines are great, but we as consumers have the right to know if what we’re drinking is what we thought we bought.
Thanks for the comments, everybody. I appreciate it.
I think Randy nails it and reinforces my point: everybody calls all bubbly and sparkling wine “Champagne” so the Champagne marketing folks can fight an unwinnable war, or they can reposition and try to make themselves relevant in a conversation that drives demand.
Thanks again for reading,
Jeff
Awesome imagery! Loved your article and the follow up comments are great! Your blog is awesome… definitely worthy of following! Keep it up!
Equating “Champagne” with “Kleenex” is a false analogy. Champagne is not a brand; it’s a place. If every other wine of quality is identified by an appellation, why make an exception for Champagne?
I reject the idea of a “bosses/workers” fight in Champagne. Growers have been in the driver’s seat for far too long, at the expense of quality.
I agree wholeheartedly that the CIVC is a ham-handed bunch, but I think they are absolutely right about protecting their identity. And while I’m on the subject, how is it to anyone’s benefit to search for “Champagne” and have results come up for products that are not Champagne? Why on earth would any Champagne house want its products lumped with Korbel?
Mule—thanks for the comment.
If we all agreed it would make for a pretty boring world.
My major point is that whether you acknowledge it or not, ‘Champagne’ is a brand in the eyes of the consumer.
Champagne the place can acknowledge that reality, or not, but in continuing to fight for the “place” they are missing the bigger picture.
Thanks for the comment and for checking out my site, I appreciate it!
Jeff
WineMule,
I didn’t know that grape growers ran Louis Vuitton. But if it’s true that growers control the Champagne industry, more power to them; they must be the only farmers remaining on earth with clout.
Thomas, you know what I mean. Leaving out, for the sake of argument, the recoltant/manipulant part of the market, the big negociant houses live on purchased fruit, which is mostly arranged over the telephone. Few big houses really have any serious quality control; the “echelle” no longer exists; there is nothing to stop growers from producing huge yields. I’m not talking about whether anyone gets paid fairly; I’m talking about fruit quality, and I’m saying again that the growers have had the upper hand for an awfully long time now.
Jeff: The “war” is not over in my shop, and if I have anything to say about it, it will never be over. As far as I’m concerned, any non-Champagne sparkling wine producer using “Champagne” on a label is not only committing fraud, but also admitting to the inferiority of the product. The world’s great sparkling wine producers don’t put “methode Champenoise” on their labels any more. In most parts of the world, it is illegal, and even where it is not, no producer who is proud of his work will want to hide it behind a false name.
Mule,
I didn’t know exactly what you meant. But this issue has nothing to do with quality (nor has much of the conglomerate Champagne, but that’s just an opinion).
The issue is a bad vintage and an intransigence on the part of corporate producers with two years of inventory to bring the price of Champagne down. They refuse to budge so that the “luxury” status of the wine is maintained, even if what they produce is far from as luxurious as many “grower” Champagnes.
The weird thing is that the luxury market is where the wine buyers are harder to find, yet Champagne producers would rather withhold the product from the rest of us—except of course during the ridiculous “Holiday Season” pricing frenzies that so often leave retailers with boxes after New Year’s Eve…
...and, in order to do their work, they need to cut grape production, which means cutting the farmer’s income.
Please! I am really not that interested in who gets what slice of the pie. The big negociants need the growers, and vice-versa. Both, as far as I’m concerned, are at fault. The negociants—as you so correctly point out—for refusing to budge on prices (in the name of “protecting the value of the brand,” which I can understand, but they’re taking it to extremes) and the growers for producing without a thought to quality. If you like, I’ll blame that one on the negociants, too. The last I heard, Louis Roederer was the only grand marque house that actually inspected 100% of its purchased fruit. If the growers are giving them crap, it’s their own fault for accepting it.
Then again, at least until two years ago, there was plenty of demand and plenty of moolah to go around, so who cared? Go out and look at all the gradoux that still litters the vineyards of Champagne. This is where the world’s greatest quality sparkling wines come from? You have to at least wonder at the disconnect between the sheen of quality the big houses project and the grubbiness of what they do and how they do it.
Well. This sounds exactly like the kind of rant I usually object to. My usual response is “And you’re going to change somebody’s opinion? Get real!”
So I’m gonna go take out the recycling and see if I can’t get real.
I don’t know, your rant seems to agree with mine, about 2/3.
Who said anything about changing opinions? If you’ve been online long enough, you should come to understand that it isn’t a place where you change opinions—it’s a place where you are forced to endure them 
True enough!
God wanted us to be happy and that’s why he made beer. I won’t be able to live on any other planet because only earth has beer.
If you’ve been online long enough, you should come to understand that it isn’t a place where you change opinions—it’s a place where you are forced to endure them
come to understand that it isn’t a place where you change opinions—it’s a place where you are forced to endure them
gradoux that still litters the vineyards of Champagne. This is where the world’s greatest quality sparkling wines come from? You have to at least wonder at the disconnect between the sheen of quality the big houses project and the grubbiness of what they do and how they do it.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License
Design by The Blog Studio
Print
As someone who loves sparkling wine above all others, I have to agree with the posit that consumers just want a good, value priced bottle of bubbly no matter the time and place they are drinking it. Most of them don’t distinguish between the terms Champagne and sparkling wine, even when you try to educate them on the difference. After a while, you just go with it. With the quality from California, Spain and many others, you have to wonder why the Champagne folks don’t get together and really leverage the power of their collective brand. Most producers are respectful of the term and don’t use it, those that do represent no direct threat and if they want to destroy it when it comes through Europe, they have the laws in place to allow it. Personally, I wish there were more bargains from the region, as I still find them to be the best producers of the style.