Bubbly and the Essential Truth

Last week I wrote a post about Champagne – specifically the strident protection of the sanctity of place in regards to what is called, “Champagne.”

In good form, the comments from that post exceeded the length of the post by a measure of 3:1 with some interesting thoughts about why “Champagne” should only come from the Champagne region of France.

To be honest, it’s not a subject that I’ve spent a lot of time studying.  I don’t drink much Champagne (or sparkling wine for that matter) and I’ve never had a sparkler (Champagne or otherwise) that I’ve found revelatory.  Call me an ambivalent Champagne observer, like most of America, whose interest in the subject was piqued by a press release from The Champagne Bureau.

When I write an op-ed piece I approach it like a journalist would approach any subject – first understand concepts and then understand facts on both sides in order to get to the essential truth.  This post was no different.

The essential truth for me was the fact that the Comite Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) has their head in the sand about contemporary marketing practices and are stubbornly clinging to a sensibility that has them beating consumers over the head with negativity – “Only Champagne comes from Champagne.  Don’t be fooled by marauders” (my words not theirs).  To me, it’s a flawed way of going about communicating value.

So, it was with interest that I received two emails after I published my post – one was from a regular reader asking, with a sigh, why I opened this can of worms – the Champagne folks have protected their name for decades and it has been an issue that has been vetted ad nauseum over the years.  The second email was from a PR representative of The Champagne Bureau who said that I misrepresented the point of the protectionist nature by the CIVC folks and The Champagne Bureau, the US arm. 

In response to the first question, I have to ask rhetorically, have you ever purchased a used car and somebody says, “Hey did you get a new car?”  To this, you reply, “It’s not a new car, but it’s new to me.” Well, this Champagne silliness is new to me after I made my way onto a PR distribution list. In response to the second inquiry, the misrepresentation issue, well, I’m not so dogmatic as to have an opinion and to hold onto that opinion without doing further investigation, especially when pushed to reconsider.

So, I started doing more digging.  In particular, I happened across a fascinating and well-written 25-page paper from 2003 written for a Harvard law class that acts as a survey of the last 100 years of Champagne regulation.

In sum, the paper is about, “(the French are taking) great efforts to capitalize on the Champagne name throughout the world and aims to ensure that the French wine region receives these benefits exclusively.”  It’s a nice piece of work and something I would recommend reading to anybody who wants a breezy overview report on one hundred years of Champagne history.

At the same time, I received another press release that indicated that The Champagne Bureau was awarding Schramsberg and Beringer with the First Annual Truth-in-Labeling Award of Excellence for leadership is accurate wine labeling.

I then followed up with The Champagne Bureau in an effort to have them elaborate on their position, and the suggestion the PR person had made to me privately that said, “The U.S. currently provides (consumers) with virtually no protection when it comes to sourcing the grapes used in the wine and accurately indicating its place of origin … let me know if you have any questions concerning the extent of this problem and its impact on U.S. consumers …”

In response to my inquiry I didn’t receive statistics about the alleged deceit that dupes the U.S. consumers.  Instead, I got marketing one-pagers on protecting wine place names and Champagne as the only “true” Champagne.

Unfortunately, I’m still not getting it.

The crux of my original post was simple – if Champagne is used as the catch-all phrase for sparkling wine, like “Google” is for searching the Internet or “Jell-O” is for gelatin, then why not roll with the punches and tell a back-story about Champagne as a point of differentiation and let consumers divine the truth, while forsaking the “watchdog” aspect of their marketing which is, frankly, a bit of a turn-off.

The unfortunate reality in this examination of Champagne vs. sparkling wine is the fact that the majority (the vast majority) of U.S. consumers call all sparkling wine “Champagne.”  In addition, I would posit, most U.S. consumers don’t give it a second thought because they associate Champagne and sparkling wine with special occasions – weddings, promotions, New Year’s Eve – it’s not a part of the wine stream of consciousness.

If the CIVC and The Champagne Bureau want to truly actuate a greater acceptance of true Champagne in the U.S., protecting their market share and stemming sliding sales, unfortunately, my position remains the same:  spend your time actually marketing in new ways that create interest instead of playing campaign politics by focusing on attacking your opponents. 

Perhaps my greatest takeaway, by analogy, is the fact that if an African-American with a name that harkens to Muslim origins (in the age of global terrorism) can win a presidential election by inspirationally leading with “Hope” and “Change” while not getting dragged down in attack mud-slinging, engendering respect on the world stage leading to a Nobel Peace Prize then that might be a page from the marketing playbook that would work for the Champagne folks.

A high-road approach engenders goodwill.  And, perhaps in doing so, somebody will open a bottle of Champagne to celebrate more frequently instead of grabbing a sparkling wine like the new President enjoyed upon his win.