I'm still very new to wine. I only started drinking it this last year. I'm in my forties, so I have a late start. And I have found that what I love about wine is exactly what you have expressed in this post. I love that it isn't McDonald's. I love that there are times the wine makes your mouth pucker. And there are times when it is a revelation. I still haven't had something like the port you describe, but I cannot wait until I do.
My daughters are in their twenties, and I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of people, and a lot of young people, want something tangible, slow, real, inefficient...Sublime.
Limitations, complexity, meaning... so many great perspectives and insights in this. Thank you for getting these ideas out there. We could extrapolate this to much more than wine...
The problem is not the wine business it is part of a natural selection process. Depending on your perspective it may not even be a problem because it is self correcting. Capitalism socialism feudalism all have slightly different means but in the end the reach a point where natural selection weeds out the less capable . Some times it the subtle gentler forces that survive other times it is the overt brutal. It is cyclical, being aware of where you are in the cycle is key to proper positioning .
You're not wrong at all. In the macro this is precisely what's happening. There's a coming return (as in say, the 1960s) to a bifurcation of wineries - the extremely large, and the very small. I would have expected even more mid/large wineries would have been traded to PE firms (et al) by now, but the macro-economic policies of the current regime are probably creating too much uncertainty - a reprieve in a way.
"Modern business is very good at moving quickly, at smoothing edges, at creating clarity where there was once uncertainty. Wine, historically, has depended on essentially the opposite."
When I was reading your article, I couldn't help but think about when Chalone or Mondavi went public, only to end. Or Vintage or Duckhorn to be delisted in the last year. Wine only businesses are not in perpetual growth and acquisition cycles, at least not in a public equity framework. There are more lessons from the past to back that up.
It seems the best wineries are privately held over the long-term, the calculus a private one. The ability to withstand pain, while remaining stoic, not giving up anything to the doomsayers. Looking at the long-term play, never playing for quarterly earnings calls.
There is no disruption for a new wine paradigm, only some version of chaos and order based upon a system forged out of Prohibition. This won't change in this latest downturn either. With the passage of time, the biggest wineries have the greatest advantages: scale, distribution, resources, leverage, technology - the smaller players have less or none of those, except a lotto pick (100 point scores, social media virality) 10,000 cases is small-fry.
A wine renaissance won't be based on scores or clever email strategies. It will be based on the personal connections you refer to. Something analog, slow, deliberate. But that market is likely smaller than it was. Analogies to luxury goods, micro-watch brands, handbags, are helpful but only tell part of the new story for wine.
"A wine renaissance won't be based on scores or clever email strategies. It will be based on the personal connections you refer to. Something analog, slow, deliberate. But that market is likely smaller than it was." - I agree, and think this is where we are, and where we are going, longer term.
I may be out of line, but... What does the future hold for diversification? Why can't the business of the vineyard also include a fall-back? Cheese, Chocolate, Kombucha, instead of downsizing.
Well, since neither cheese nor chocolate can be produced in or by a vineyard, you are talking about starting an all new business unrelated to wine. If you're talking about retail of chocolate and cheese made by others it's also a completely unrelated business and quite small compared to the core enterprise. Moreover there may be a lot of new regulations and hygiene standards to be met. Kombucha I know nothing about but it might make sense on some level, but inviting vinegar producing bacteria into an area meant for clean wine production is dangerous and ill advised! The premise of your question is a good one though. Diversity is ideal but oftentimes not permitted where alcohol is the product. Historically the laws won't allow for much else.
There is a happy medium to be had in terms of the *reach* of our connecting to peoople, that wine is historically resistant to. Big brands do, those solely focused on the business side, but they aren't the figureheads for slower, authentic connections. So then slow wine shrugs, points, and says "See? Let's not do that at all." And so the total dedicated wine drinking base remains overly small, and wine suffers more than other categories during economic downturns and/or disruption.
We need to find way to communicate and connect with more than those living in wine countries, the ultra-niche, those who want to obsess about terroir and EU regulations and outdo each other on tasting notes. There's a lack of will in most of wine that's difficult to ignore on this front. We talk inwardly so often, to each other, crafting a whole subuniverse of jargon and this specific communiation style, we lack the social graces to talk outwardly to those not coming to the table already convinced, already willing to join us there.
There's a happy medium between algorithmic smoothening of information and an inablitity to connect outside our niche circles of industry technicality. Most modern wine writers, makers, and marketers aim at an overly narrow slice of the population, and focus on support and acknowledgment amongst each other, rather than the actual public. At some point, all this talk of "connection" and "conversation" has to mean we're experts at this beyond our established social circles. Wine needs to broaden its overall base, with said "connections". It has the innate attributes to achieve this, but we havee to stop using big brands and big business as the excuse to retreat from this reality.
I don't want to sound disagreeable, since you're making good points, and I enjoy the discussion, but I find myself asking "why" a lot. Like, "And so the total dedicated wine drinking base remains overly small, and wine suffers more than other categories during economic downturns and/or disruption..." What's "overly" mean? Who cares if it's small, and why is it important to be big, or bigger? I would think sustainable and profitable are much better.
"We need to find way to communicate and connect with more than those living in wine countries..." Again, I ask, why? Why does wine need to impose itself on cultures not interested in wine? Because they *might* be interested and they just don't know it?
"we lack the social graces to talk outwardly to those not coming to the table already convinced, already willing to join us there..." I say this is simply not true and stereotypes wine enthusiasts in an unfair way. It's getting old. I'm tired of reaching out for the last 30 years only to be called a snob all the time. I don't lack any social graces (well, maybe some...)
"Most modern wine writers, makers, and marketers aim at an overly narrow slice of the population..." Yes, the ones who buy the product or could buy it. Focusing on the "actual public" wastes resources and is possibly unethical. (Just as unethical as making cigarettes attractive and aspirational to all ages and genders was at one time.)
Outreach to the broader public, especially those not interested in or tuned into wine like the collective "we" are, has been a mostly futile effort. You can't compel a non-drinker to drink. You might convince a beer drinker to switch. If wine is to broaden its overall base as you suggest, it will be from a base of the potentially interested or curious, which is a far smaller cohort than a scattershot approach to the wider population - and certainly not at populations that have never historically recognized wine's cultural significance (China, India, similar...) Are there exceptions? Of course.
Again, not to be disagreeable, just enjoying the conversation.
"What's 'overly' mean? Who cares if it's small, and why is it important to be big, or bigger? I would think sustainable and profitable are much better."
*Is* it sustainable and profitable? For how many? "Overly" means suffering more than any other beverage category during the current downturn and fading of the boomer generation. The data on wine is pretty clear on this point: it's hitting us harder than anyone else, and not just "big business" bulk brands, though they were the first to feel it. The numbers paint a clear picture that our base of actual drinkers is too small (aka "overly") for us to weather the current climate as well as others are.
"Why does wine need to impose itself on cultures not interested in wine?"
Sorry, I meant "wine countries" in the colloquial sense, Napa, Sonoma, Paso, etc. Places where locals have easy access to winemakers, vineyards, and wine industry culture. Once upon a time, these were places many could visit affordably, but that's no longer the case. Anything that isn't a day trip is out of most people's possibility. Winery culture will forever play a big part, but if we're ever going to grow from here, going forward, wine needs to reach more people outside of the winery.
"I'm tired of reaching out for the last 30 years only to be called a snob all the time."
It's not being a snob, it's being complacent and/or defeatist. We let people find US and rarely the other way around, when it can (and I believe should) be both. Believing that wine will always survive whatever the current calamities, that may be accurate, but so is believing that humanity will survive the climate crisis, or the anti-vaxx era. Things (and people) will survive in some form or fashion, but that isn't optimism, it's defeatism in the face of challenges that need overcoming to minimize total harm.
"Yes, the ones who buy the product or could buy it. Focusing on the "actual public" wastes resources and is possibly unethical. (Just as unethical as making cigarettes attractive and aspirational to all ages and genders was at one time.)"
Are you saying you believe marketing to / engaging people about alcohol of any kind is unethical? Or are you suggesting that the only people not currently drinking wine are those who shouldn't be?
"Outreach to the broader public, especially those not interested in or tuned into wine like the collective "we" are, has been a mostly futile effort. You can't compel a non-drinker to drink."
Sure, but that's a straw man argument. No one is suggesting non-drinkers, only non-wine drinkers. Though there is de-alc wine which still supports the industry and vineyards as part of the whole.
There are plenty of actual drinkers all across the USA that aren't exposed much to wine. Even in the EU wine drinking is surprisingly down compared to other categories, so this isn't an issue of mere non-exposure locally. And certainly there are some making valiant efforts to reach beyond what's worked in the past. But the consensus in this most recent challenging environment seems to be that no one ever lifted a finger in the past (which isn't accurate), so not lifting a finger now will work just as well (which is therefore equally not as accurate.)
The answers aren't binary. Wine is not separated in an absolute binary of big business vs. slow agriculture. No one is helped in the long run by feeding into this conforting narrative that there's little to be done, just make your wine, drink your wine, and everything will work itself out. As though that's how it's happened in the past and on one innovated, fought, struggled, and persevered.
Actually, we're not that far off of each other here. Just two quick things for clarity: I know you are relatively new to the space, and I've been here since the dinosaurs, so I'm comfortable with my own levels of positivity and negativity in these different scenarios, and I recognize yours, too. The EU's wine drinking decline started long before ours, by a LOT, so it's not surprising - that premise is off a bit. I don't share the 'consensus' that no one lifted a finger - I was there - we did, really. Also, don't dive too deep into the ethics of wine advertising - I was only suggesting that reaching out to the 'mass market' was a futile effort for the individual winery, not the industry as a whole - for what that's worth, I should have been clearer. Lastly, you say something here: "wine is not separated by...binary...big business vs. slow ag..." But actually that is my very thinking. Looking ahead, my real feeling is that we are indeed bifurcating the business into "quite big" and "quite small," with very little in the middle. And that is because the successful (read: profitable, sustainable) wineries tend very much to succeed with scale, or with boutique-level premiumization. The middle is the very hardest to exist in for a myriad reasons. (The middle being 10,000 to 100,000 cases, give or take.)
In my view the problem in the wine industry is twofold.
First, prices of really good wines have gone too high. Napa epitomized this.
And next, people are afraid of alcohol, for good reason. The science tells us the facts. I’ve cut down on my drinking of all alcohol, in my advanced years. My kids and their friends, in their 20’s and 30’s, say they are cutting down, for health reasons as well.
I have an off site storage facility with expensive wines in it, in addition to a large wine fridge in the garage, that aren’t getting consumed.
This sounds like awakening, watch out before you know it you will be critical of capitalism .
Edward Abby famously proclaimed “the growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell “
I agree with Abby on many things. Wine business is a game of stealing market share and brand will grow. Boring and not a long term strategy.
I grew up with Josh Abby and Rita. FYI I read Edward’s books but never met. Smart author.
This was the exact quote that came to my mind, too.
A bit long as noted, but beautifully written.
Loved the article.
I'm still very new to wine. I only started drinking it this last year. I'm in my forties, so I have a late start. And I have found that what I love about wine is exactly what you have expressed in this post. I love that it isn't McDonald's. I love that there are times the wine makes your mouth pucker. And there are times when it is a revelation. I still haven't had something like the port you describe, but I cannot wait until I do.
My daughters are in their twenties, and I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of people, and a lot of young people, want something tangible, slow, real, inefficient...Sublime.
Limitations, complexity, meaning... so many great perspectives and insights in this. Thank you for getting these ideas out there. We could extrapolate this to much more than wine...
The problem is not the wine business it is part of a natural selection process. Depending on your perspective it may not even be a problem because it is self correcting. Capitalism socialism feudalism all have slightly different means but in the end the reach a point where natural selection weeds out the less capable . Some times it the subtle gentler forces that survive other times it is the overt brutal. It is cyclical, being aware of where you are in the cycle is key to proper positioning .
You're not wrong at all. In the macro this is precisely what's happening. There's a coming return (as in say, the 1960s) to a bifurcation of wineries - the extremely large, and the very small. I would have expected even more mid/large wineries would have been traded to PE firms (et al) by now, but the macro-economic policies of the current regime are probably creating too much uncertainty - a reprieve in a way.
"Modern business is very good at moving quickly, at smoothing edges, at creating clarity where there was once uncertainty. Wine, historically, has depended on essentially the opposite."
When I was reading your article, I couldn't help but think about when Chalone or Mondavi went public, only to end. Or Vintage or Duckhorn to be delisted in the last year. Wine only businesses are not in perpetual growth and acquisition cycles, at least not in a public equity framework. There are more lessons from the past to back that up.
It seems the best wineries are privately held over the long-term, the calculus a private one. The ability to withstand pain, while remaining stoic, not giving up anything to the doomsayers. Looking at the long-term play, never playing for quarterly earnings calls.
There is no disruption for a new wine paradigm, only some version of chaos and order based upon a system forged out of Prohibition. This won't change in this latest downturn either. With the passage of time, the biggest wineries have the greatest advantages: scale, distribution, resources, leverage, technology - the smaller players have less or none of those, except a lotto pick (100 point scores, social media virality) 10,000 cases is small-fry.
A wine renaissance won't be based on scores or clever email strategies. It will be based on the personal connections you refer to. Something analog, slow, deliberate. But that market is likely smaller than it was. Analogies to luxury goods, micro-watch brands, handbags, are helpful but only tell part of the new story for wine.
"A wine renaissance won't be based on scores or clever email strategies. It will be based on the personal connections you refer to. Something analog, slow, deliberate. But that market is likely smaller than it was." - I agree, and think this is where we are, and where we are going, longer term.
100 per cent agreed
I may be out of line, but... What does the future hold for diversification? Why can't the business of the vineyard also include a fall-back? Cheese, Chocolate, Kombucha, instead of downsizing.
Well, since neither cheese nor chocolate can be produced in or by a vineyard, you are talking about starting an all new business unrelated to wine. If you're talking about retail of chocolate and cheese made by others it's also a completely unrelated business and quite small compared to the core enterprise. Moreover there may be a lot of new regulations and hygiene standards to be met. Kombucha I know nothing about but it might make sense on some level, but inviting vinegar producing bacteria into an area meant for clean wine production is dangerous and ill advised! The premise of your question is a good one though. Diversity is ideal but oftentimes not permitted where alcohol is the product. Historically the laws won't allow for much else.
There is a happy medium to be had in terms of the *reach* of our connecting to peoople, that wine is historically resistant to. Big brands do, those solely focused on the business side, but they aren't the figureheads for slower, authentic connections. So then slow wine shrugs, points, and says "See? Let's not do that at all." And so the total dedicated wine drinking base remains overly small, and wine suffers more than other categories during economic downturns and/or disruption.
We need to find way to communicate and connect with more than those living in wine countries, the ultra-niche, those who want to obsess about terroir and EU regulations and outdo each other on tasting notes. There's a lack of will in most of wine that's difficult to ignore on this front. We talk inwardly so often, to each other, crafting a whole subuniverse of jargon and this specific communiation style, we lack the social graces to talk outwardly to those not coming to the table already convinced, already willing to join us there.
There's a happy medium between algorithmic smoothening of information and an inablitity to connect outside our niche circles of industry technicality. Most modern wine writers, makers, and marketers aim at an overly narrow slice of the population, and focus on support and acknowledgment amongst each other, rather than the actual public. At some point, all this talk of "connection" and "conversation" has to mean we're experts at this beyond our established social circles. Wine needs to broaden its overall base, with said "connections". It has the innate attributes to achieve this, but we havee to stop using big brands and big business as the excuse to retreat from this reality.
I don't want to sound disagreeable, since you're making good points, and I enjoy the discussion, but I find myself asking "why" a lot. Like, "And so the total dedicated wine drinking base remains overly small, and wine suffers more than other categories during economic downturns and/or disruption..." What's "overly" mean? Who cares if it's small, and why is it important to be big, or bigger? I would think sustainable and profitable are much better.
"We need to find way to communicate and connect with more than those living in wine countries..." Again, I ask, why? Why does wine need to impose itself on cultures not interested in wine? Because they *might* be interested and they just don't know it?
"we lack the social graces to talk outwardly to those not coming to the table already convinced, already willing to join us there..." I say this is simply not true and stereotypes wine enthusiasts in an unfair way. It's getting old. I'm tired of reaching out for the last 30 years only to be called a snob all the time. I don't lack any social graces (well, maybe some...)
"Most modern wine writers, makers, and marketers aim at an overly narrow slice of the population..." Yes, the ones who buy the product or could buy it. Focusing on the "actual public" wastes resources and is possibly unethical. (Just as unethical as making cigarettes attractive and aspirational to all ages and genders was at one time.)
Outreach to the broader public, especially those not interested in or tuned into wine like the collective "we" are, has been a mostly futile effort. You can't compel a non-drinker to drink. You might convince a beer drinker to switch. If wine is to broaden its overall base as you suggest, it will be from a base of the potentially interested or curious, which is a far smaller cohort than a scattershot approach to the wider population - and certainly not at populations that have never historically recognized wine's cultural significance (China, India, similar...) Are there exceptions? Of course.
Again, not to be disagreeable, just enjoying the conversation.
Appreciate the response, Jim!
"What's 'overly' mean? Who cares if it's small, and why is it important to be big, or bigger? I would think sustainable and profitable are much better."
*Is* it sustainable and profitable? For how many? "Overly" means suffering more than any other beverage category during the current downturn and fading of the boomer generation. The data on wine is pretty clear on this point: it's hitting us harder than anyone else, and not just "big business" bulk brands, though they were the first to feel it. The numbers paint a clear picture that our base of actual drinkers is too small (aka "overly") for us to weather the current climate as well as others are.
"Why does wine need to impose itself on cultures not interested in wine?"
Sorry, I meant "wine countries" in the colloquial sense, Napa, Sonoma, Paso, etc. Places where locals have easy access to winemakers, vineyards, and wine industry culture. Once upon a time, these were places many could visit affordably, but that's no longer the case. Anything that isn't a day trip is out of most people's possibility. Winery culture will forever play a big part, but if we're ever going to grow from here, going forward, wine needs to reach more people outside of the winery.
"I'm tired of reaching out for the last 30 years only to be called a snob all the time."
It's not being a snob, it's being complacent and/or defeatist. We let people find US and rarely the other way around, when it can (and I believe should) be both. Believing that wine will always survive whatever the current calamities, that may be accurate, but so is believing that humanity will survive the climate crisis, or the anti-vaxx era. Things (and people) will survive in some form or fashion, but that isn't optimism, it's defeatism in the face of challenges that need overcoming to minimize total harm.
"Yes, the ones who buy the product or could buy it. Focusing on the "actual public" wastes resources and is possibly unethical. (Just as unethical as making cigarettes attractive and aspirational to all ages and genders was at one time.)"
Are you saying you believe marketing to / engaging people about alcohol of any kind is unethical? Or are you suggesting that the only people not currently drinking wine are those who shouldn't be?
"Outreach to the broader public, especially those not interested in or tuned into wine like the collective "we" are, has been a mostly futile effort. You can't compel a non-drinker to drink."
Sure, but that's a straw man argument. No one is suggesting non-drinkers, only non-wine drinkers. Though there is de-alc wine which still supports the industry and vineyards as part of the whole.
There are plenty of actual drinkers all across the USA that aren't exposed much to wine. Even in the EU wine drinking is surprisingly down compared to other categories, so this isn't an issue of mere non-exposure locally. And certainly there are some making valiant efforts to reach beyond what's worked in the past. But the consensus in this most recent challenging environment seems to be that no one ever lifted a finger in the past (which isn't accurate), so not lifting a finger now will work just as well (which is therefore equally not as accurate.)
The answers aren't binary. Wine is not separated in an absolute binary of big business vs. slow agriculture. No one is helped in the long run by feeding into this conforting narrative that there's little to be done, just make your wine, drink your wine, and everything will work itself out. As though that's how it's happened in the past and on one innovated, fought, struggled, and persevered.
Actually, we're not that far off of each other here. Just two quick things for clarity: I know you are relatively new to the space, and I've been here since the dinosaurs, so I'm comfortable with my own levels of positivity and negativity in these different scenarios, and I recognize yours, too. The EU's wine drinking decline started long before ours, by a LOT, so it's not surprising - that premise is off a bit. I don't share the 'consensus' that no one lifted a finger - I was there - we did, really. Also, don't dive too deep into the ethics of wine advertising - I was only suggesting that reaching out to the 'mass market' was a futile effort for the individual winery, not the industry as a whole - for what that's worth, I should have been clearer. Lastly, you say something here: "wine is not separated by...binary...big business vs. slow ag..." But actually that is my very thinking. Looking ahead, my real feeling is that we are indeed bifurcating the business into "quite big" and "quite small," with very little in the middle. And that is because the successful (read: profitable, sustainable) wineries tend very much to succeed with scale, or with boutique-level premiumization. The middle is the very hardest to exist in for a myriad reasons. (The middle being 10,000 to 100,000 cases, give or take.)
In my view the problem in the wine industry is twofold.
First, prices of really good wines have gone too high. Napa epitomized this.
And next, people are afraid of alcohol, for good reason. The science tells us the facts. I’ve cut down on my drinking of all alcohol, in my advanced years. My kids and their friends, in their 20’s and 30’s, say they are cutting down, for health reasons as well.
I have an off site storage facility with expensive wines in it, in addition to a large wine fridge in the garage, that aren’t getting consumed.
I can't argue with that, Steven. There are more than just two reasons, I'm sure you agree, but a lot points to what you are saying here.
Like minds… sounds dangerous