Appellation, shmappellation

I reviewed 2 wines yesterday from a winery, Terremoto, a 2008 Pinot Gris and a 2005 Syrah. Both bore the designation “Windsor Oaks Vineyard,” but the former’s AVA was Russian River Valley, while the latter’s was Chalk Hill. I emailed the winery to ask about this and received the following reply:

“The vineyard is located in both AVA’s (and actually Sonoma Coast) but the bold aspect of the Syrah seemed more befitting to a Chalk Hill AVA.”

Whenever I write that appellations aren’t all that important, I get jumped on. Well, this should provide further proof that they’re not. Maybe AOCs count for something in France, but in California, they’re fungible. If a wine can bear either Sonoma Coast, Russian River Valley or Chalk Hill — and the decision is made by marketing concerns — then you tell me why we should care. (Both wines, by the way, were pretty good.)

Job alert!

Jackson Family-owned Murphy-Goode Estate Winery is looking for a social media geek to explore the possibilities of the Internet. Here’s from the press release, which was issued yesterday:

The Murphy-Goode Winery has a “Really Goode Job” for the right person.  The Sonoma County winery is looking for an outgoing, web-savvy, articulate communicator to tell the story of the great mountain vines and artisan winemakers of California, tasting the ‘goode’ stuff and experiencing the unique Sonoma wine country.

“A Really Goode Job” will pay $10,000 a month for a six-month contract that includes private housing in the heart of wine country: Healdsburg, California.

Throughout the course of the job the successful applicant will learn about viticulture, winemaking, Sonoma County and Murphy-Goode wines.  He or she will prepare and post dispatches on their experiences though social media tools such as Facebook, blogs, internet videos and Twitter as well as traditional media.

[This is Steve again] If you’re interested, you can apply in person in San Francisco at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 28, at 120 Market Street near the Hyatt Regency Hotel.  The press release says that, if you come between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., you’ll “meet the boss” — Jess Jackson himself? — “receive job tips and get a 24-hour head start in the application process by being provided with a code that will give [you] immediate access to the www.areallygoodejob.com web site. On April 29, the website for job applicants will open to the public at large.”

My take: This Murphy-Goode gig may be the tip of the spear for all of Jess Jackson’s winery empire. The organization is known to want to be leading-edge in the online area; whoever gets the M-G job could be sitting pretty.

How ’bout that!

Hats off to the West Lafayette (Indiana) parks board, which just voted to allow winetasting at their local Farmer’s Market. “It’s going to be a great addition,” Chandler Poole, the West Lafayette development director, told the local Journal & Courier newspaper.  “As people are looking for new ways to make the farmers market experience a good one … this (will just be) a natural fit.”

I’m of two minds when it comes to California raising taxes on wine, beer and spirits. (Yes, that issue is still on the table, and was the subject yesterday of a hearing by the Assembly Committee on Health.)

California, like other states, is in the toilet financially, and Schwarzenegger and the (mostly Democratic) legislators are looking for every dime they can raise. (Republicans are calling for spending cuts.) Schwarzenegger is a Republican, of course, but at least he has the cojones to admit he’s raising taxes after promising not to because California is on the verge of fiscal Armageddon and he has no choice. Ronald Reagan did the same thing when he was Governor; he raised taxes after saying he wouldn’t. Reagan and Schwarzenegger, like most Governors, are political pragmatists in the long run.

I don’t mind an honest discussion over taxes vs. spending cuts. But the discussion turns dishonest when the likes of Assemblyman Jim Beall (who introduced the alcohol tax hike bill) and the Marin Institute step in to spread their skein of lies and half-truths. The Democrat from San Jose and the fiercely anti-alcohol Marin Institute insist their support for the alcohol tax hike isn’t because the money is needed, it’s because the alcoholic beverage industry “causes” fetal alcohol syndrome and DUI fatalities and must “pay” for its sins.

“The industry must start paying its fair share for the problems their products cause,” Beall insists. On his government website, he goes even further:

“The alcohol industry creates devastating problems – traffic accidents, alcoholism – and walks away with money stuffed in its pockets while the public — including non-drinkers — are left to pay billions for the mess.’’

His friend Bruce Livingston, the Marin Institute’s executive director, backs up these incendiary falsehoods. “Now is the time to charge Big Alcohol for the $38.4 billion … in harm their products cause every year in California.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the alcohol industry doesn’t “cause” anything. It’s stupid people who cause problems: the idiot mother who gets loaded while pregnant, the moron who drinks and drives. Blaming a winery because someone who drinks their wine got into a traffic accident is just plain stupid-headed and unfair. It reminds me of the burglar who tried to break into a store at night through a rooftop window and fell through, hurting himself. He sued the store he was trying to rob! “It wasn’t my fault I got hurt, it’s because they put a dangerous window there and they should have known better.”

I DON’T THINK SO, KNUCKLEHEAD!

I can do no better than to quote this statement from a professor at Trinity College in Connecticut:

“Mr. Beall and Marin’s whole strategy of taxing people sober (with the long-term goal of eventually going back to prohibition) is fatally flawed…Research indicates that the heaviest drinkers do not curb their drinking in response to higher prices, unlike light-to-moderate drinkers, for whom there can be positive health benefits…If alcohol abusers are truly addicted, will an extra ‘dime a drink’ stop them? Will a career criminal decide to not get drunk before his next crime spree because of a 10-cent-per-drink tax? Of course not.”

I don’t know much about lunar cycles. Hell, here in Oakland you can barely see the moon, even when it’s full. But this article from scotsman.com states that “wine changes its taste with the lunar cycle.” Seems that when the moon is in a “Root period,” wine will taste yucky, whereas a “Fruit” or “Flower” period is more favorable to the tasting experience. Think that’s whack? Pierpaolo Petrassi doesn’t. He’s an MW and Senior Product Development Manager at Tesco.com, one of England’s biggest wine retailers. “Our first choice [to taste wines] is a fruit day. We seek to avoid root and leaf days,” he told the publication. Another British MW, Jo Aherne, who’s the winemaker for the big online retailer, Marks & Spencer, told scotsman.com that he, too, has become convinced moon cycles affect tasting. “I was really unconvinced, but the difference between the days was so obvious I was blown away.” As a result, says the article, “Tesco and Marks & Spencer, it emerged yesterday, now only invite critics to taste their ranges when the moon-related biodynamic calendar dictates that wines will be at their best.”

Well, if the moon can affect the tides, I guess it can impact our bodies. But there are lots of things that influence how wine tastes, which is something that the hardest-working critics well know. If you’ve eaten a lot of salt (smoked salmon, anyone?) within the previous day, wines may taste salty. On some days, you may be more sensitive to residual sugar than on others. Sometimes, the palate may just be fatigued or dulled, for whatever reason. Allergies that clog sinuses can certainly throw you off, but if you’re a working reviewer, you can’t just wait for allergy season to end. In a bad mood because of a fight with your significant other? That may not be helpful to your ability to taste wine. Lost a ton of money in your retirement account? Get over it. And let’s not even talk about brushing your teeth or sucking on a breath mint before tasting.

I could go on. Tasters are only human, not machines. My computer is a machine, but even it breaks down on occasion. (Calling technical support…) This is why, as I’ve said before many times, it’s important for a professional taster to establish a tasting routine, and stick to it. Taste at the same time, every day, under the same circumstances, from the same glasses, and with the same procedures. It won’t eliminate all the wobbly factors completely, but it’s the best you can do. Even when the moon is Root.

Let’s get this clear: I’m not a marketing man or a P.R. expert. But from my perspective — that of a wine writer/reporter/reviewer — I’ve watched winery marketing and P.R. for years, and have developed a sense of what works, and what doesn’t. Call it Monday morning quarterbacking; a lot of the pitching is aimed at me, and a lot of it is pretty dismal.

So when I read this interesting analytical piece, over at Meininger’s Wine Business International, it piqued my brain, because it made so many cogent points.

The writer, Felicity Carter, begins by quoting experts as saying that, in a downturn, the wineries who continue funding advertising, and even increase it, have an advantage over those who slash their budgets, which “could be the worst mistake a wine company could make in the current environment.” “[C]ompanies shouldn’t back off, just because the going is tough,” Carter writes. I think that’s true. A winery that doesn’t remain visible sinks into the darkness. As one of her experts notes, “if you hunker down and do nothing, then what’s going to happen is you’ll sever your connection to your core customers. If you let the cost cutters say ‘let’s cut back these ads’ you’ll float off the pier.”

If you’re a winery, you do not want to be adrift in a sea of nothingness in this dismal economy.

As I read Carter’s article, it reminded me that, since the major effects of the Recession began, in the fourth quarter of 2008, the quantity of wine samples I get has increased exponentially. It made me wonder why. I might have thought that, with all those wineries hurting financially, their owners would have thought, “Gee, maybe I should save some money by not sending out free bottles and paying for shipping.” But then I had a conversation with someone in the marketing business whose judgment I trust, and she told me that in this downturn, wineries who formerly had been coasting along, dependant on automatic sales, suddenly realize they have to expend more energy making themselves visible. Ergo, send bottles out to the critics.

Another point Carter makes, citing experts, concerns advertising. One professional she quotes warns wineries away from “boring…clichés,” such as “a picture of a bottle with a glass of wine, or…an obsession with heritage and how the vines have grown on the sunny side of the hill for 200 years.”

Hello! Can we talk? This is where I have something to say. P.R. is the first draft of advertising, and 90% of the P.R. pitches I get consists of just this stale, boring form of cliché. It shows how unimaginative many P.R. people have gotten. They demonstrate an inability to think outside the box, to come up with creative solutions that work, not only for their clients, but for the person/periodical to whom they’re pitching.

“[F]ocus on the personality of the wine instead, to connect directly to the consumers you want to reach,” Carter writes. I think she’s on to something. P.R. experts are taught to develop and then sell a “story.” Usually the story involves a husband and wife who migrated into the wine industry from another profession. Frequently there are plot lines involving pets, or caves, or philosophies, or children, or grandparents, or hobbies. Almost always there are platitudes about “hillsides” or “mountains” or “fog” or “terroir” that invariably are connected with the word “unique.” Frequently, there is the name-dropping of famous winemaking and/or grapegrowing consultants whose brands (for that is what they are) are meant to reassure and comfort.

These things mean little or nothing to me nor do they to the general public, I suspect. Now, Carter recommends focusing on the personality of the wine, to connect with consumers, but how exactly should that work? I think a marketer needs to understand her target audience’s demographics, and craft the message accordingly. Are you reaching out to value-conscious Millennials or to Baby Boomers who still are able to afford a pricy bottle of wine? Are you speaking to Asians, Latinos, gays, African-Americans, health-conscious Americans, foodies, techies, athletes, seniors, greens, conservatives, religiously devout? Each group needs a different message.

Sure, that’s a lot harder than just pitching the same-old same-old. But the days of lazy P.R. are over. Public relations and marketing experts have to work much harder for their money now — just like the rest of us.

The 2008 California Grape Acreage Report is hot off the presses from the Dept. of Food and Agriculture, and as usual it makes for fascinating reading for statistically-minded geeks.

Highlights:

Overall acreage of all wine grape types remained virtually unchanged from the last 2 years. Both red and white wine bearing acreage was down slightly in 2008 compared to 2007, but non-bearing acreage increased slightly. Bottom line: statewide grapevine acreage is in a period of static activity.

The devil, as usual, is in the details.

Among major varieties, the following were all slightly reduced in bearing acreage in 2008, compared to 2007: Cabernet Sauvignon, Grenache, Syrah, Zinfandel and Sauvignon Blanc. The following varietals were all slightly up: Merlot, Petite Sirah, Pinot Noir, Chardonnay and Pinot Gris. The actual percentages, both of increased and decreased acreage, were very small (on the order of a few percentage points), but it’s interesting that the “hottest” varieties — Petite Sirah, Pinot Noir and Pinot Gris — all saw increases. What growers plant, of course, is what they believe will be selling down the line.

Digging deeper, of all wine grape types, red and white, guess which one has by far the greatest number of non-bearing acres: Pinot Noir. In 2008, there  were 7,573 acres of the grape which had not yet yielded fruit. That is half of all the red non-bearing acres in California, and 5 times as much as the acreage of the #1 white non-bearing variety, Pinot Gris. This provides further testimony that growers are putting their chips on the two Pinots.

Where is all the new non-bearing Pinot Noir acreage planted? The county with the most new plantings of the great grape of Burgundy is — ta da! — Monterey. The Report doesn’t state where in Monterey the 2,558 non-bearing acres are, but my hunch would be a combination of the Santa Lucia Highlands, Arroyo Seco, and the Pinnacles area in the eastern Gavlian Mountains. After Monterey, the county with the second-highest acreage of non-bearing Pinot Noir is San Luis Obispo, most likely in the Edna Valley, with some Arroyo Grande Valley. Taken together, Monterey and SLO account for 3,650 non-bearing acres of Pinot Noir, nearly 50% of the non-bearing total for the variety in California, and exactly ten times the non-bearing Pinot Noir acreage in Sonoma County (although Sonoma has by far the highest bearing acreage of Pinot Noir in the state). If you add Santa Barbara, with its 830 non-bearing Pinot Noir acres, the Central Coast boasts nearly 60% of all the non-bearing Pinot in California.  This should convince anyone that these 3 Central California counties are making a serious play to become the Pinot Noir capital of the state.

Cabernet Sauvignon is striking in its contrast to Pinot Noir. Altogether, there’s only 1,578 non-bearing acres of it in California. That’s 1/5 the number of non-bearing Pinot Noir. Of course, there’s a lot more bearing acres of Cabernet (73,420) than bearing acres of Pinot Noir (25,737) in California. But Pinot Noir has been increasing in acreage literally twice as fast as Cabernet Sauvignon since 2000, and even faster post-Sideways. If that pace continues, Pinot’s acreage will equal Cabernet’s one of these days. (If I were handier with mathematics, I could tell you exactly when; maybe someone out there can figure it out.)

Anyway, the bottom line is that Pinot Noir is on a roll. It has become the most exciting wine type in California, red or white, and growers are betting the house on it.