Archive for the ‘Ramblings and Rants’ Category

An Open Letter to Warren Buffett, Wine and Spirits Distributor

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Dear Mr. Buffett,

Congratulations on your purchase of Empire Distributing, and roughly 25% of the wine and spirits distribution business in Georgia and North Carolina that came with it. And welcome to the wine and spirits world — we need more enlightened business people in this industry.

I can’t say that I’ve followed your career with precision, but I’ve read a decent amount about you, and try to read the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report every year. After all, I’m one of your shareholders, and I learn a lot from you and Charlie Munger.

In everything I’ve read, you strike me as someone who appreciates fairness, competition, and above all, the power of the marketplace to improve everyone’s situation if it is left alone to work well. Given the choice between heavy handed regulation and deregulation, you strike me as a deregulation kind of guy, especially when it frees consumers to vote with their dollars.

I’m sure it hasn’t escaped you that the wine and spirits distribution marketplace that you just bought into is seriously screwed up. For instance, we can start with the fact that you can’t get any more than 25% of the market share in Georgia because of their particular state liquor franchise laws — regardless of whether you offer better products, better service, and better prices to your customers.

Likewise you′ll find yourself hobbled as you move into other states, and completely prevented from moving into others, thanks to state-run monopolies on liquor distribution, sweetheart deals that are designed to keep out competition, and all manner of regulations that will keep you from being able to serve wine and spirits drinkers that would certainly like to broaden their horizons and have access to different kinds of products that you might offer.

Of course, those facts can’t have escaped you any more than the fact that in the past 20 years we’ve gone from roughly 7000 different wine and spirits distributors in this country to only 700. I′m not sure whether that was part of the growth potential you saw in Empire when you picked it up this week, but I imagine it factors in somewhere.

So let me get to the point. I think you now have the opportunity, and the obligation, to get on board with those of us who think the time has come to throw out the prohibition-era, antiquated laws we’ve got on the books and put something rational in place that benefits both consumers and business owners like yourself.

In short, I urge you to renounce membership to the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, and instead support the efforts of those like Free the Grapes and the SWRA who are trying to turn this country into a real wine and spirits marketplace. We need a marketplace where companies can compete to meet consumer demands without meddling by state bureaucracies and cronyism. We need businesses more interested in growing the overall market, than using scare tactics and BS to protect their little slices of it.

All the analysts say that with this purchase you’re betting on the Millennials as the largest wine drinking generation in decades. That seems like a pretty good bet to me. And since these young wine drinkers are more interested in a diverse, wide range of products and services, I hope you’ll join those of us who want to expand choice and buying opportunities in the market.

Raising my glass to you,

Alder Yarrow

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

Wine, Health, Science and Journalism: A Study in Headlines

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

I consume a lot of wine news. When I say a lot, I mean literally almost everything that’s published for free on the Internet about wine “passes by my desk” courtesy of Google Alerts, Technorati, a massive collection of RSS feeds, and more. Increasingly I get the opportunity to see how wine stories develop and spread through the Web’s news outlets, and it’s quite amazing to watch.

Recently I’ve been watching with fascination as the mainstream press does its usual unraveling of some recently released research results focused on wine drinking in women and weight gain. Specifically, I’ve been giggling at the complete lack of understanding we seem to have of the difference between correlation and causation, combined with the creative liberties of headline writing:

Moderate Drinking 'Can Keep Women Slim': The Chosun Ilbo

Glass of wine may keep women from gaining weight: New York Daily News

Bottoms up for skinnier bottoms: Independent

Women Who Consume Alcohol Gain Less Weight: Study: Huffington Post (blog)

A drink a day could help keep the pounds away: Globe and Mail

Cheers, Ladies! A Drink A Day May Keep the Pounds Away: ABC News

Moderate Drinking Linked to Weight Control: WebMD

Red Wine Lessens Obesity Risks In Females: Oneindia

Moderate drinking may curb pounds on women: Boston Herald

Women who drink moderately less likely to gain weight: USA Today

Glass Of Red Wine A Day May Keep Pounds At Bay: NPR (blog)

Study: Women who drink are less likely to gain weight: CNN

Study: Women who drink moderately tend to gain less weight in midlife: Los Angeles Times

Study: Women Who Drink Tend to Be Thinner: TIME

Why a glass a day WILL keep the doctor away…: Daily Mail

Women who drink more gain less weight: Washington Post (blog)

Alcohol 'can help women stay slim': The Press Association

Women who drink wine gain less weight?: Toronto Sun

Light Drinking Might Help Keep Women Slim: BusinessWeek

Wine may help women keep weight in check: Reuters

Moderate drinkers gained less weight than abstainers: Boston Globe (blog)

A tipple a day keeps obesity at bay: study: AFP

Women who drink wine 'less likely to gain weight': BBC News

Women who drink gain less weight than teetotallers: CTV.ca

Cheers! Wine refines the waist: Herald Sun

Wine isn't fattening, ladies!: Hindustan Times

Red wine drinkers 'gain less weight': Ireland Online

Wine doesn't make women fat, report claims: Telegraph.co.uk

Female wine drinkers at lower obesity risk: Times of India

Drink up girls: wine isn't fattening: Times Online

Wine: The new weight-loss miracle?: The Week Magazine

Wine Doesn't Make You Fat: That's Fit

Cocktails ward off the bulge: Science News

Light-to-Moderate Drinking Keeps Women Slim?: ShortNews.com

Alcohol &amp Weight Gain In Women: NewsChannel 9 WSYR

Regular and Sensible Alcohol Intake can Curb Obesity: Recent Study: eYugoslavia.com

Red alert: A few glasses of wine are good for your hips: CultureMap

Study shows women can control weight with alcohol: Examiner.com

Drink wine for slim waistline: ABH News

Women Drinkers Less Likely To Gain Weight: Visit Bulgaria

Another addition to Moderate Drinking Benefits: Weight Control: NY Breaking News.com

Moderate Drinking Could Control Weight: Tech Jackal

Daily Buzz: Want to Stay Thin? Have a Drink.: Woman's Day (blog)

Occasional drinking may help women keep weight down: 6abc.com

Study: Some Drinking Women Less Likely To Gain Weight: Ozarks First

How could boozing help you lose weight?: New Scientist (blog)

Female Drinkers Less Likely To Gain Weight: WBAL Baltimore

Females Who Drink Moderately, Gain Less Weight: Study: TopNews United States

Study: Women who drink some may weigh less: WHDH-TV

Study Shows Women Who Drink Wine Lose Weight: Portfolio.com (blog)

Drinking alcohol prevents overweight/obesity?: Food Consumer

Moderate drinking keeps women slim–study: The Money Times

Wine isn't fattening for women, study finds: decanter.com

Female Moderate Drinkers Gain Less Weight Over the Years: TestCountry.com (blog)

Drinking Alcohol May Keep You Slim: dBTechno

Alcohol Keeps the Weight Away: ToTheCenter.com (blog)

Light To Moderate Drinking Linked To Less Weight Gain In Middle Aged Women: Medical News Today

Womens' obesity risks lowered with daily drinks, study finds: McClatchy Washington Bureau

Alcohol May Help With Weight Control: FitSugar.com (blog)

Women Who Drink Moderately Gain Less Weight Than Abstainers, Study Shows: AHN | All Headline News

Wine Does Not Lead To Obesity, Research Reported: TopNews United States

Lose Weight…By Drinking Wine?: CNM News Network

Moderate alcohol link to less weight gain: Irish Health

Wine consumption reduces fat accumulation in females: TopNews

Female wine drinkers have lower obesity risk: Celebrities With Diseases

Drinking Alcohol Can Slow Weight Gain In Women: Best Syndication

Wine Keeps Women Slim, Study - Red or White Diet?: National Ledger

Moderate Drinkers Gain Less Weight, but Not Advised for Diet Plan: eMaxHealth

To your health! Women who drink red wine less likely to get fat: Examiner.com

Women who drink: Investor's Business Daily

Women Who Drink Gain Less Weight: Bru Direct

Drinking Alcohol May Help Women Stay Thin: AOL News

Women Who Are Moderate Drinkers May Gain Less Weight Than Those That Are Sober: BETTER Health Research

Study Finds Women Who Drink Wine Gain Less Weight: WDIV Detroit

Red wine may help women shed pounds: 14WFIE.com

Drinking Wine May Help Women Keep Their Figure: eFitnessNow

Alcohol can affect woman's ability to lose weight: ABC7Chicago.com

Alcohol May Help Fight Weight Gain In Women: Wine Spectator

Women Who Drink Gain Less Weight: PsychCentral.com

How to Lose Weight While Drinking: Tonic

Wine and women's weight: NHS Choices

Study Finds Wine Won't Make Women Fat: RedOrbit

Women Who Drink Moderately Seem to Gain Less Weight: CalorieLab Calorie Counter News

Women Who Drink Moderately May Gain Less Weight than Non-Drinkers: The Ledger (blog)

Moderate Drinking in Women Linked to Less Weight Gain: Medscape

Study: Red Wine Keeps Pounds Off: myGLOSS

Women Who Drink Gain Less Weight: New York Times (blog)

Wine 'unlikely to make women gain weight': Netdoctor

More good news for wine drinkers: The Economic Voice

Less weight gain by moderate-drinking women: CBC.ca

Laughable. Strange. Scary. I don’t know who said it, but it’s true that a little bit of information can be dangerous.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

If Your Wine is Organic, Don’t Tell Consumers

Sunday, March 7th, 2010

Apparently, organic wines taste better but consumers don’t think they’re worth as much money as conventionally produced wines. At least, that’s a plausible interpretation of a study conducted by a UCLA professor and her graduate student that was recently published in Business and Society, the official journal of the International Association for Business and Society.

Professor Magali Delmas and PhD candidate Laura E. Grant conducted an analysis of 13,426 wines from 1,495 California wineries for eight consecutive vintages from 1998 to 2005. The two tracked correlations between the scores of the wines, their prices, whether they were made from certified organically grown grapes, and whether the wineries broadcast their organic certification on the label.

An overview of the study published last week in Science Daily suggests they found some very interesting results. Wines made with organic grapes during the time period they studied scored higher in the Wine Spectator by a point, on average, than wines made with conventional grapes. Whether this means, in fact, that organic wines taste better is open to some debate, but the statistics seem quite clear.

Perhaps the more interesting finding, however arose when the researchers looked at the price of those wines that were “eco labeled” and those that were not. The wines that chose to prominently display their certified organic status sold for 7% less than those that didn’t. The prices used to define this gap were the suggested retail prices published alongside the scores in Wine Spectator magazine.

Assuming you believe in the economic principle that prices are set in the marketplace and reflect supply and demand, the conclusion you might draw here is that there is a significant negative value to labeling your wines as organic. Meaning, in short, that consumers don’t want to pay as much for wines labeled as such.

Economists are often let of the hook, understandably, for explaining exactly why things are the way they are. Exactly why an eco-label is a penalty rather than a plus hasn’t been determined, but I think some of it may have to do with the residual damage that early organic wines did to consumer perceptions when they hit the market in the 1980s. Many of these wines were very poorly made, and then their quality was further compromised by the lack of added sulfur dioxide, which meant that many consumers opened their bottles to find the wine fermenting for a third time. A rash of lousy wines prominently labeled as organic created a sweeping set of negative connotations that apparently the wine industry nor the American consumer has yet to leave behind.

For now, the right approach as an organic winemaker seems clear. Farm your grapes organically to make better wines, but for heaven’s sake, don′t tell your customers.

The study summarized in Science Daily was originally published about two years ago as a working paper by the American Association of Wine Economists.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

Vinography in the Saveur Blog Awards

Saturday, March 6th, 2010

blog_awards_logo_sm.pngI found out earlier this week that Saveur Magazine had quietly launched a set of awards to bring attention to the universe of food blogs. The happen to have a wine blog category and Vinography is one of the nominees. The others are Wine Camp, Lenndevours, Good Wine Under $20, and Enobytes — all friends, and familiar company.

None of us makes a living tapping away in our respective little corners of the internet, so, apart from the enthusiasm of our individual readers, such awards are among the few bits of official validation we receive for our efforts.

If you enjoy Vinography, I’d be pleased to receive your vote — as would any of the other nominees you feel inclined to support. Unfortunately in order to vote you need to register with your e-mail address, but thankfully I believe the registration includes the option to opt out of further e-mails from Saveur.

The voting is open until April 2nd and the winners will be announced on April 5th. Please be sure to check out the food blogs that are also up for awards, as the list contains some of the best out there.

Thanks for your support.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

Wine Writers and Social Media: The Panel Video

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

As some of you know, I spent the week before last at the Symposium for Professional Wine Writers in Napa. I published a recap of some of the highlights last week, but as some attendees pointed out, there was a glaring omission: the panel that I moderated that dealt with wine writing and social media. I left it out with the hopes that I would be able to get the video I made of (most of) the panel up online. It took me a while to get the 5 gigabytes of HD video online for your viewing pleasure, but I finally got it, and offer it here for those of you who are geeky enough to want to sit through the whole thing. I won′t blame you if you don′t.

Unfortunately my camera ran out of batteries about an hour into the session (it ran about 15 minutes longer) so apologies for the abrupt ending.

TIPS FOR VIEWING:

When you click the frame below you’ll be taken to a streaming media site that hosts the video (sorry, no embedding capabilities ).

The site gives you the option to watch in HD or SD (standard definition). If you have a DSL or slower connection, I recommend switching to SD to watch.

screengrab_WWS_panel.jpg

Feel free to add your comments or questions below !

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

Glass Wine Bottles Strike Back. In the Wrong Direction.

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

It’s not every day I get the opportunity to display my inner cynic. But I’m still cackling a little at the little bit of fear mixed with preemptive aggression that manifested today in the form of a web site called Wine Loves Glass.

Those who spend time in wine circles know a lot about the “threat″ to posed to natural cork producers by the proliferation of alternative closures. In the face of shrinking market share and demand for their product (read: threat to their income streams) they’ve been striking back with a multi-pronged offensive, covering every base from carbon footprints to endangered species protection to the sheer lack of romance in a screwcap.

Who knew that the glass bottle industry was under such an equally imminent and pernicious threat? But of course, if you think about it, the reality is quite dire. Glass bottles are at least indirectly responsible for the biggest component of wine’s carbon footprint: heavy glass bottles require a lot of fossil fuel to move around the planet.

Everyone in the wine business that has half a brain has been looking to reduce their carbon footprint, if only to be able to tell their prospective customers that they are, and for many that means moving to lighter glass bottles that contain less…. glass.

That, combined with mainstream wine consumers’ resurgence in interest in more environmentally friendly and convenient packaging like bag-in-box and Tetra-Pak (think: kids juice cartons) must have the glass industry a little rattled. Or would that be “shattered?”

Enter WineLovesGlass.Com, where you can subject yourself to the desperate marketing pleas of an industry scrambling to regain some market share. Or perhaps less cynically, an industry trying to convince people that glass isn’t all that environmentally problematic. Witness the fabulously named “Truth in Packaging″ or “Benefits of Glass” sections of the site, where in neatly composed prose you can learn that glass is superior in every way to every packaging method ever invented, or ever to be invented.

Now I’m no carbon footprint, environmental, or materials scientist, so I can’t critique the claims they′re making on the web site on those fronts, but I have to chortle at how glass bottles are compared with bag-in-box packaging: “Boxed wine is also not hermetically sealed, drastically limiting its shelf life. Wine in glass on the other can be preserved for any amount of time - allowing you to drink the wine of your choice days, months or even years after it’s been purchased.”

Uh, where to begin? How about with the definition of hermetically, which means airtight, and which doesn’t describe a single bottle of wine ever made, considering they all come with a big hole in the top that is normally sealed (and almost never hermetically) with something that the glass industry doesn’t produce at all. Not to mention the fact that no one ever attempts to do anything but immediately drink wines sold in boxes, and that for the average wine consumer, the wine in a bag-in-box will last them much longer than wine in a bottle, once it’s been opened.

I don’t doubt that many of the facts and figures leveled in service of defending the glass bottle on this web site are true, from glass’ ability to be recycled completely, to the amount of energy required to produce a bottle. But couched in ridiculously patronizing language like “Glass vs. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET/Plastic): It’s a Matter of Safety” or “Glass vs. Multi-Layer Cartons: It’s a Matter of Responsibility”? Excuse me while I throw up a little in my mouth.

This web site is a complete waste of money in my opinion, no matter how much fun some PR firm and design agency had making it. A huge swath of wine consumers would never buy wine in alternative packaging because none of the wines they want to drink come in such containers. A whole other segment of the population have tried wines in alternative packaging and come to the justified conclusion that 99% of the wines that come in such packaging are positively awful. And then there are the rest of the folks that are content to buy wine in boxes and bags and cans, half of whose minds can’t be changed and the other half of whom Fred Franzia’s Two Buck Chuck convinced to switch to wine in glass bottles anyway because they feel all “upscale” while doing it.

How about pouring this money into research to reduce the environmental impact of glass manufacture and recycling even further? How about funding some hot-shit materials scientists to come up with lighter, stronger glass that can weigh less but still look solid enough to be used by the classiest wines who want to maintain their image but reduce their carbon footprint? Or best yet, start lobbying the wine industry to use those nifty glass stoppers that I think are the best thing to happen to the wine industry in a long time, and the potential long-term replacement to cork (if there ever will be such a thing).

Like the campaign against the use of Champagne on American wine labels I lambasted last week, this is yet another example of an industry thinking defensively instead of creatively.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

Highlights from the 2010 Symposium for Professional Wine Writers

Sunday, February 21st, 2010

I spent most of the week playing hooky from my day job and pretending that the only thing that mattered to me was writing about wine. It was a lot of fun. Every one of the five years that I’ve attended the Symposium for Professional Wine Writers has been uniquely interesting, largely due to the group of attendees that joins us every time.

In past years I’ve been able to blog a bit more in the course of the event, but this year I found myself using spare time to catch up on other things, so here are some of the highlights from this year’s event.

What Wine Writers Need to Know about Winemaking
We were joined by Jeff Morgan, winemaker for, among other things, the kosher red wine Covenant. Jeff also has “done time” as a wine writer for the Wine Spectator and other outlets, so he seemed quite appropriate as a speaker. Unfortunately given only 45 minutes to cover a lot of ground, Jeff took us through the mechanics and chemistry of winemaking until several somewhat controversial statements resulted in a flurry of questions and debate that ate up the rest of his time.

The first thing Jeff maintained was that approximately 80% of California winemakers “water back” a practice that involves adding water to the juice prior to fermentation as a means of lowering the alcohol of the final wine. This practice was so common, he maintained, that journalists needn′t even bother to ask winemakers whether they did it or not.

Jeff also suggested that acidulation (the addition of tartaric acid) was nearly as common in all but a few of the coolest growing regions of California. He also went on to make points about the use of sulfur dioxide in winemaking or at least in bottling (important, he said for keeping wines from being “naturally awful″), and the current dance of yields, hang-time, and brix levels for the ripening of fruit.

Several members of the crowd brought up the question of alcohol levels and whether watering back was really just treating the symptom of a larger malaise and that’s where the debate got lively. Unfortunately we ran out of time before clear arguments could be made on either side.

The Evolution of the Tasting Note
Eric Asimov, chief wine critic for the New York Times, and Karen MacNeil, author of The Wine Bible, presided over another interesting session focused on both the theory and practice of writing tasting notes. Eric introduced the session as a continuation of his talk last year which he entitled The Tyranny of the Tasting Note.

Here’s a summary transcript of his opening remarks.

“My point last year was that tasting notes were not merely comical, they are pernicious. They are the dominant mode of talking about wine in our culture. People read and hear tasting notes as they get into wine and think that they are the way they should talk about wine. But by focusing on enumerating every last flavor and aroma, tasting notes reduce wine to something certain, definable, and clinical. And wine is not so easily defined.

The more we know about wine, the more we find out it is highly subjective, contextual, and mysterious. Tasting notes tend to rip out mystery that is at the heart of a wine and replaces it with unambiguous solidity.

The tasting note way of talking or thinking about wine produces the kind of anxiety that pervades the culture of wine in America. People who drink wine casually and read tasting notes that include esoteric and definite flavors and aromas they don’t themselves experience think that there is something wrong with them. They chalk it up to their lack of experience, but not without a great deal of anxiety that ultimately prevents them from appreciating wine as it is meant to be appreciated.

Those few who manage to get past this anxiety and move on to real excitement about wine assume that tasting notes are the way to talk about wine, because that’s the dominant paradigm.

We absolutely need to describe wine to our readers. But I want to contrast the absolute definite specificity that you see in typical kinds of tasting notes, with the kind of note that I think is much more effective. Yesterday Frances [author Frances Mayes, the keynote speaker for the conference] called a wine “fruit basket fresh” yesterday. That communicates so much. You don′t have to know the specific flavor involved, yet you have a sense of the wine.

My thought in talking about wine and describing wines, is not to come up with a litany of flavors and aromas. But come up with characteristics that you say directly or to which you make allusions. Convey style, convey intent and convey achievement. People need to know what they’re going to get themselves into when they open a bottle, they don’t need an effort to pin down every last flavor in the wine. List characteristics rather than ingredients.

Before we start tasting wine, I want to distinguish between public tasting notes and private tasting notes. I’m talking about the notes we publish. As writers or wine lovers we also write notes to ourselves to remind us what we’re tasting, and to remember wines later on. For the purpose of a mnemonic device it doesn’t matter what you’re writing — whatever works for you is fine. But the private modes of communication that help you relive or remember the wine don’t work for public consumption. This is an effort to think again about how we describe wine and what it is we are going to communicate to readers.”

Karen MacNeil reminded us of the history of wine writing, and then treated us to a reading of one of the most amusingly convoluted and erudite tasting notes I′ve ever heard in my life, which was so complex I was not able to follow it enough to write it down.

The rest of the session was spent actually tasting wine blind and writing tasting notes which were shared and discussed. Some people took Eric’s suggestion of metaphor quite literally. The session got amusing as silk thongs and velvet condoms made appearances as descriptors. I’m not sure, however, if that is what Eric was getting at.

The Recession and What it Means for Wine
One of the most interesting presentations at the conference was given by Vic Motto, CEO of Global Wine Partners. He offered an extremely articulate argument for the notion that the sky is not, in fact, falling.

I’m sure I can’t do full justice to the many detailed points of his argument, but I can try to boil it down. He essentially wanted to convey that while these are certainly tough times at the moment, the wine industry in the United States is poised for significant growth in the future thanks to the inexorable and unchangeable nature of demographics. The single greatest guarantee of the successful future of the industry is the Millennial generation, a generation characterized by its size (70 million of them, 50% of which are just entering their 20s) and the cultural desire to drink differently than the parent generation (which means wine, not beer and spirits, at a rate twice any generation in modern history).

Combine this unavoidable train full of wine drinkers hurtling down the tracks with the increasing availability of channels to purchase wine and the ever widening selection of what is available as well as the increasing interest in lifestyle in general (with wine a big part of defining one’s lifestyle) and you’ve got a recipe for a big wine boom.

And that is just in the united states. According to Motto, 1.2 billion people have been added to the global middle class in the last 20 years, and in another 20 years, a full 50% of the globe will be considered middle class in terms of their consumption habits and wealth levels. If the evidence from China is any indication, this middle class will have a very strong interest in wine.

In short, there’s light at the end of the tunnel for sure, we’re just not sure how long the tunnel is.

Ethics and Income Streams for Wine Writers
Steve Heimoff of the Wine Enthusiast led a very interesting panel discussion that devolved into a larger group discussion on ethics for wine writers. The conversation was wide-ranging, and covered samples, transparency, relationships to PR and industry, junkets/press trips, advertising, and reputation, among other things.

His panelists were Michael Bauer, executive Food and Wine editor for the San Francisco, Chronicle; Heather John, Sr. Editor at Bon Appetit Magazine and blogger at The Foodinista; and Thomas Ulrich, a contributing writer for Wines & Vines Magazine and professor of Journalism at San Jose State University.

Ethics seem to be an endless source of lively conversations among wine writers, for reasons I can’t entirely fathom, and this panel did not prove otherwise. The most interesting aspects of the discussion for me came from Heather John, who, after suggesting she might need to go into the Witness Protection Program, served up the following bomb:

Wine writers have some of the worst reputations for bad ethics in the business.

She went on to explain that she knows a lot of people in the PR industry, and they constantly complain (or salaciously dish) about wine writers and their bad behavior. The kinds of things involved included requesting multiple bottles of samples asking for free meals or free wine in restaurants attending a free dinner and ordering the most expensive wine on the list; asking for the keys to winery guest houses or for free lodging; hitting on publicists bad mouthing wineries to publicists and in one particular case, threatening to write negative stories about a PR person’s clients unless they footed the bill for a trip the writer wanted to go on.

When asked whether the main offenders were print journalists or bloggers, she said print journalists without hesitation (I cheered). She went on to say, however, that in her experience and in the experience of her friends in PR, the two areas that bloggers seem to abuse are samples and what she called “seat warming.” — the practice of attending every press luncheon, dinner, or other free food function possible.

Michael Bauer offered an interesting point relative to the respective ethics of traditional and new media writers as the session closed. He suggested that print journalists borrow the reputation of their masthead, while bloggers have to earn their reputations as they go. I thought this was quite elegantly phrased as well as profoundly accurate.

Sadly the session ran out of time before we could have a discussion of the recent FTC rulings on the ethics of free samples, which I would have liked to hear the group discuss. Many of the “traditional″ media wine writers I talked with at the conference were really appalled at the double standard in the ruling.

* * *

And there you have it. You can find additional coverage of the Symposium, including some of the sessions I did not attend at Steve Heimoff’s blog, OneWineDude.Com, AWineStory.Com, and at On The Wine Trail in Italy.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

What Wine Writers Talk About

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

Those of you who also follow my twitter feed (see the little tab on the left hand side of my home page) will know that I’m spending the week at the Symposium for Professional Wine Writers. This is my fifth year attending the Symposium, and my fourth year as a speaker.

Tomorrow I lead a panel discussion featuring Steve Heimoff, Patrick Comiskey, Doug Cook, and Joe Roberts about the role of New Media in wine writing. But for the past two days I’ve been experiencing the symposium as a participant, which means hanging out with a lot of people who are actually good enough at writing about wine to get paid for it.

You can take a look at the Symposium web site if you’re curious as to the agenda for the conference. And I’ll be writing about it more here on Vinography (and tweeting live).

Get a bunch of wine writers together in one place (doesn’t happen hardly ever), lubricate them up with some wine, and you get all sorts of conversations. The finer points of pizza dough. Which berries are relevant to describing wine and which ones are just pretentious. Martial arts. Who do wine writers serve — readers, consumers, the wine industry? Are wine writers part of the wine industry or not? Are there things you shouldn’t ask winemakers about? Is the wine industry going to ever recover? The perception of acidity versus the actual acidity, and what happens to wine over time. The bad eggs in the blogging world that PR folks love to hate. Which Napa Cabernets have the best aging potential. Whether or not it has been proven definitively that high alcohol wines don’t age. Do the wine magazines have any integrity? What is SEO and why the hell should wine writers care? Is there a revolution going on here? Where are we all going and why are we in this handbasket?

More to come in cogent form when I can steal a few moments away to collect my thoughts. And when this wine glass in my hand is finally empty.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

Champagne, Advertising, and the Problem with Principles

Friday, February 12th, 2010

They follow me everywhere I go. On the commute to work, in my favorite magazines, even on the web sites that I frequent. Everywhere I turn I’m being exhorted, admonished, and educated to umask the truth.

For whatever reason, I’m clearly the target demographic for what is obviously a massive advertising campaign by the Champagne Bureau, a U.S.-based organization whose charter is to “educate American consumers about the uniqueness of the wines of Champagne and expand their understanding of the need to protect the Champagne name in the United States.”

These ads have become so prevalent in my daily life as to be annoying. Every time I visit Ad_champagne_unmask.pngthe New York Times website, every time I open my New Yorker magazine, and every day on my commute home, I see the same image.

But in the midst of my annoyance I got to thinking: what exactly is the problem they’re trying to solve here, and why do they think that me and my fellow liberal, upper-income, San Francisco and New York citizens need educating? Sure, there are probably some producers in the United States who are still using the word Champagne on their labels, but how big a problem is that really, when the U.S. Government and a number of our wine regions have had a signed agreement since 2006 making it illegal to use the word Champagne (among others) on any new label?

The Champagne Bureau claims that 50% of the sparkling wine made in the U.S. is mis-labeled as Champagne. This is a statistic based on something called the Gomberg Report, which is a set of market data collected by Gomberg, Fredrickson, and Associates. Unfortunately both Gomberg and the Champagne Bureau refused to share any of that data with me, or sell me a version of their report (Gomberg told me they screen all purchase requests to make sure the report isn′t bought by journalists) so apparently we have to take them at their word. Which is not something I’m particularly excited about.

My first stop in trying to validate or even get some perspective on this number was the government’s COLA database of approved wine labels. Between when records start in 1981 and 2004 when the last such label was approved, there were only 104 sparkling wine labels ever approved in the United States with the word “Champagne” in them. Unfortunately, the government’s database does not tell us which labels are still in use commercially, but it is clearly a tiny fraction of that overall number.

To get a sense of how many wines really do still use the word Champagne on the label, I did some trolling around the Internet’s largest sellers of wine. Sadly, I have no visibility into the country’s largest wine retailers, Costco and Wal-Mart, but Beverages and More carries 16 sparkling wines made in America that have the word Champagne on their label, with the majority from Korbel, Andre, J. Roget, and Cook’s brands. Wine Library carries 11 American Sparkling wines from the same suspects. Wine.Com carries none, and practically every other specialty wine retailer that I know of carries none as well.

The reason that most major wine shops don’t carry these wines? The average price point for a bottle of American sparkling wine with the word “Champagne” on the label is $8.21. The most expensive is $18.99, and the least expensive is $1.99. The majority cost between $4 and $7.

Certainly Korbel, and J. Roget (which is owned by Constellation Brands) crank out a lot of wine each year, but could they and the few others that were grandfathered in under the 2006 agreement (no new labels were permitted, but already approved labels were allowed to keep the word Champagne on them) really make up 50% of all the sparkling wine sales in America?

I suppose it’s plausible, but the more I looked into the American wines that actually carried the word Champagne on the label, the more I began to think to myself how little it mattered what the volume of these wines actually were. Not a single one of these wines would ever compete with real Champagne in the marketplace. The cheapest Champagne I could find for sale anywhere in the United States is $20.78, and the average price (not actually calculated) among the 1601 different Champagnes that Wine Searcher shows as being sold in the United States seems to hover around $40.

When I asked the folks at the Champagne Bureau whether their campaign to unmask the truth was based on a concern over market-share or purely based on principles, their quote generator cranked out this official statement for me:

“The issue of misleading wine labeling is first and foremost a consumer right’s issue. Especially in this tough economy, consumers have a right to know that when they spend money on a bottle labeled “Champagne″ they are getting what they pay for. More than 50 percent of the U.S. sparkling wine market is mislabeled as “Champagne,” even though the grapes used in those wines do not originate in the Champagne region of France.”

Which is a really boring way of trying to sound like consumer advocates while essentially saying, it’s not a question of competition, it’s a question of principle.

So let me just say this: I agree with the principle. Place names are important, and should be both respected and protected.

But given that the people who happen to be buying $5 bottles of sparkling wine made in America with the word “Champagne″ on the label are most likely never, ever, going to be buying a bottle of true Champagne, what, exactly is the point of (what looks to be) a million dollar ad campaign that is ostensibly about educating these same consumers?

And isn’t it a complete waste of money to be pushing this message to the people like me who are actually LEAST likely to buy one of those $5 bottles?

Half of me wonders whether the whole thing isn’t aimed at consumers at all, but instead at the executives of the companies who still produce these wines, as those folks are pretty likely to live in San Francisco and read the New York Times like me. I’m sure it doesn’t escape the notice of the folks at Korbel that it happens to be one of their bottles of wine behind that mask.

I suppose this whole thing wouldn′t have gotten my knickers in quite so much of a knot were it not for one additional salient fact: Champagne, especially the good stuff, is really fucking expensive. The cynical, bitter side of me (that is forcing me to stay up late finishing this post) wonders how much cheaper Champagne might be if the region didn′t spend millions on such ad campaigns. In a recession where I’m seeing wine discounts starting at 30% off and rapidly driving down to 50% and 60% off, most Champagne houses haven′t come anywhere near that level of discounting.

If the folks in Champagne really wanted people to understand and appreciate how special their product is (and I really do believe it is special, and think everyone should drink a lot more of it) they might think about some ways of getting real Champagne into the hands of more consumers, instead of throwing millions of dollars away on advertising campaigns that I believe ultimately aren’t going to produce any more Champagne drinkers.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

Video of the Social Media Panel from Vino2010

Monday, February 8th, 2010

My real reason for attending the Vino2010 conference in New York this week was that I was asked (and paid) to be on a panel discussion about the impact and meaning of social media for the wine industry.

A number of you have asked about it, and I’m happy to offer the (somewhat low quality) video that captures our session. Unfortunately you can’t see (or hear at various points) some of the questions that were asked, but you can certainly get the idea of what we discussed.

Please note that it takes a few minutes for the session to get started, so skip ahead until it looks like stuff is happening.

Watch live streaming video from vin⭦ at livestream.com

What do you think?

Original post by Alfonso Cevola