Our neoprohibitionist friends at The Marin Institute are at it again. I mentioned these anti-alcohol crusaders last week, after they freaked out about funny whiskey ads on buses. Now, they’re carrying the battle to social media (and the young people who hang out there). The latest is what they call “the country’s first anti-beer ad contest.” Marin Institute is calling for “youth from 13 to 20” to create “original anti-beer ads of 30 to 60 seconds…”. The campaign is dubbed Free the Bowl, as in Super Bowl. Seems the beer ads on America’s favorite televised sporting event of the year are offensive to the Institute’s Board of Directors, and they’re out there recruiting impressionable young people to their cause. First prize for the lucky young videographer: “a brand new 13” Apple Macbook with Final Cut Express 4.0 software.”
Heck, if I was 18 years old and into making videos, I’d enter the damn contest myself, and if I won, I’d celebrate by drinking a bottle of Champagne.
Crushpad is a very cool place in San Francisco where, for money, you can produce your own wine, under your own label, made from grapes grown in some very good California vineyards. Now, they have a cool thing they’re calling The Wine Bailout, AKA Dude, where’s my 401K?
Before I sound off on it, I need to get this off my chest: I HATE to give free publicity to businesses that are shamelessly angling for it. Which Crushpad is: I got a personal email from them. The gist is, you pay $39 as futures on a 2007 Napa Cabernet that will be bottled next August. Then, “If the Dow goes down, you get an economic stimulus check of $2 per bottle for every 100 point drop. If it goes up, then your 401K is looking good and the maximum of $39 is a steal for similar wines we produce that command $75+ at retail.” It’s hard to know, under these circumstances, whether to root for the Dow to go up, or down. If it falls 2,000 points, you get your wine for free (actually, Crushpad would have to pay you a dollar). If it goes up, you’re still guaranteed the 39 bucks.
It’s a cute scheme and maybe worth looking into. We’re all a little meschuggina with the markets tanking; maybe The Wine Bailout is a way to laugh through the tears.
Another interesting post from WineDiverGirl, who continues to explore the ways wineries and bloggers can work together. As readers of this space know, I was critical last month with some suggestions WDG had made, although I allowed as to how she was asking some interesting questions. Read her new post. The money line isn’t from her, but from the blogger 1WineDude [Joe Roberts], whom she quotes: Heaven knows I’ve got no problem whatsoever being courted by winemakers, PR contacts, or the wine media in general (in fact, my view is that it’s about time this has happened). The trick is maintaining the willpower to keep a unique, individual, and (hopefully) credibly opinionated voice as a blogger while the “courting” ramps up. As one who’s long used to being “courted,” I couldn’t agree more.
Appellation America’s Ailment
I was surprised by the news that Appellation America’s founders resigned, but it was no surprise to learn that their reasons concerned “differences with the lender” and “the constriction of working capital.” These are obvious references to the nation’s credit crunch, and, after all, you can’t run a business without capital. AA’s new head, Tom Welch, said he will focus on developing “advertising and content sales,” among other revenue-generating tactics.
Appellation America has some of the smartest wine writers around, including my old friends Dan Berger and Alan Goldfarb, and I wish the online publication well. It just shows to go how the economic crisis is touching the local California wine industry, which until lately has seemed largely immune. AA’s problems also highlight the traditional challenge to an Internet-based business: how to make money. It’s the same issue that bloggers are confronting. Monetizing the web isn’t as easy as it seems.
Social Media Redux
It happened again. I got slammed for my post last week, “Bloggers and wineries: strange bedfellows,” with some comments saying that I just don’t get the value and impact social media will have on the wine industry. Now, we have a new and thoughtful analysis of the situation from a blog called Wine Life Today, in which the writer introduced me to the concept of BPIs — Buying Pattern Influencers, or people who can influence large numbers of other people in their buying choices. The writer argues that social media are the BPIs of the future. The “two-way communication” that social media (unlike magazines) offers creates “a bond” between writer and reader, and this in turn creates “a fantastic new frontier” for the wine industry. Well, this is all true in theory, and there’s no denying that younger people spend all their time online, text-messaging and Twittering and what not. What I haven’t seen yet is how individual wineries factor into the equation, and how they’re supposed to take advantage of social media to boost sales. But there’s no question that they’re curious. One of the comments to the Wine Life Today post was from Mia Malm, a heavyweight wine P.R. professional whose New York company, Cornerstone Communications, represents top wineries around the world. If Mia’s paying attention to something, it’s important.
Picnicking in in San Leandro? Skip the wine
San Leandro is a city just south of Oakland, where I live. It’s a pleasant bedroom community that’s put a lot of money and effort into sprucing up its parklands along San Francisco Bay, just south of Oakland International Airport. In warm weather, the area lures picnickers by the dozens, who watch the marsh hawks and black-shouldered kites fly through blue skies, with San Francisco’s towers soaring in the distance.
The picnickers will still come, but they won’t be able to enjoy wine, thanks to San Leandro’s City Council, which yesterday approved a proposed law that would ban bringing or consuming liquor, wine or beer in city parks or open-space areas. First violation will cost you $100. Third could set you back $1,000. Expensive picnic.
It was gratifying to read in Decanter that “Wine may protect against dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease,” but I don’t know how to square that with the news, widely reported over the last two weeks, that scientists say wine, even in moderate amounts, can lead to brain shrinkage. (Click here for one report.)
How can wine cause the brain to shrink and then turn around and protect it against dementia?
Then there’s this study that “people with higher education levels exhibit more severe brain shrinkage with age than people with fewer years of education.” Which is bad news for me, since I have a ton of education.
But wait, there’s more! According to this study, exercise may help to prevent brain shrinkage, which is good news for me, since I’m a gym rat.
Then I came across this study claiming that “Scientists have found that consuming [a] vegetarian, meat-free diet leads to brain shrinkage.” Since I’m a protein freak, that doesn’t bother me.
Honestly, sometimes I don’t know what to think, what with all this information pouring in. Gee whiz, I wish someone would explain it to me in real America English, you betcha! But I guess even if I don’t know what to think, it’s a good thing to think anyway, because according to this study, “Mental activity slows brain shrink.” Seems that “people who have been more mentally active over their lives have a larger hippocampus,” and a big hippocampus is better than a little one.
So I think I’ll spend a few hours in the gym, thinking a lot, and then I’ll come home and eat a pound or two of meat and drink a bunch of wine and think some more. It’s nice to know that the things that make me happy are good for me, too.
Was “Sideways” alone responsible for Pinot’s triumph?
That’s been the conventional wisdom for years. Now, Decanter is reporting on a research paper out of Sonoma State University that crunched the numbers and determined that, yes, “The longstanding belief that the film Sideways sent Pinot Noir sales through the roof was confirmed today.”
Far be it from me to disagree with a team of academicians. But I’ve always been of the opinion that Pinot Noir was going to happen in America anyway, and all that Sideways did was to push the date up. Look at it in perspective. In the 1990s, California Pinot Noir already was looked upon by experts (writers, critics, some sommeliers, restaurateurs and collectors) with interest, even if the results were more often than not disappointing. By the early 2000s, Pinot had fully erupted in the consciousness of millions of wine lovers, as regions like Santa Ynez Valley (now Santa Rita Hills), Santa Lucia Highlands, Sonoma Coast and Anderson Valley joined the ranks of proven Pinot areas like Carneros and Russian River Valley. I wrote my first book, A Wine Journey along the Russian River, prior to Sideways, but in it I had an entire chapter on Pinot Noir and its glories. Pinot was on a sharp growth curve well before Sideways, and it was inevitable it would emerge as a serious rival to Cabernet Sauvignon as California’s top red wine.
Les French Sont Crazee
Earlier this week I wrote about those wacky French neoprohibitionists over at my Wine Enthusiast blog. I thought then that they couldn’t have come up with anything crazier than no more free wine tasting in France, but this morning comes news that they’ve outdone themselves. Decanter is reporting that “A court ruled that print stories on wine must contain health warnings—not wine ads, but journalism about wine.” Yes, you heard it right: print stories about wine must contain health warnings.
WE INTERRUPT THIS BLOG ON WINE TO ADVISE YOU OF THE FOLLOWING: IF YOU DRINK WINE, DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY FARM EQUIPMENT. DO NOT BUNGEE JUMP. RUNNING WITH SCISSORS IS NOT ADVISABLE AFTER CONSUMPTION OF MORE THAN ONE BOTTLE.
This just in:
FOR SALE: 1,000 cases of Palin Syrah, some smoke damage and water stains on labels. Motivated seller. Name your price. Shipping included.
California wine country is hoping Proposition 8 is defeated next month, not out of the kindness of their hearts, but due to the tightness of their budgets. Wine country has become a mecca for gay and Lesbian couples to get married. (Prop 8 would add an amendment to the State Constitution banning gay marriage.) So lucrative are the potential profits that counties have started aggressive ad campaigns to attract same-sex weddings.
Yesterday, Sonoma State University, in Santa Rosa, released a study forecasting that 430 to 865 new jobs would be created between 2009 and 2011 from same-sex weddings in Sonoma County, while new wages for new and existing workers will total $13.7-$27.6 million. And Sonoma County’s Tourism Bureau has this link, headlined Sonoma Wine Country for Gay Marriage and Honeymoons. According to Sonoma County Vintners, at least 13 Sonoma wineries offer their facilities for weddings, although the number seems obviously greater than that.
Over in Napa, according to the San Francisco Sentinel newspaper (which broke the Sonoma State story), Napa County officials also will likely react to the defeat of Proposition 8 and position their county to compete for same-sex wedding revenue. There’s already an online gay wedding site for Napa listing “Gay/Lesbian-friendly wedding sites” (Tra Vigne, V. Sattui). One-stop shoppers can go to Undiscovered Napa/Sonoma for gay marriage help; the site claims to have “relationships with over fifty accommodations and unique locations that include private homes, elegant inns, ranches, B and Bs, spectacular hotels or a simple wine cottage.”
In near-bankrupt California, all the major wine counties (especially in the North Coast) want their share of the lucrative gay wedding industry. A study from the UCLA School of Law predicts that 120,000 gay couples will be married in California over the next 3 years (assuming Prop 8 loses), spending an estimated $700 million annually. Regardless of their personal politics (and wine country can be a pretty conservative place), that’s hard cash for schools, firefighters, cops and roads.
I went to a tasting today at Epic Roadhouse, the newish Kuleto restaurant with the stunning view of San Francisco Bay and the Bay Bridge. The tasting was of some current releases and barrel samples of various wines from a very well known Napa Valley Cabernet house, which I’m not going to identify no matter how much you hope I will.
I’ve given very high scores to this winery’s Cabs and have a great deal of respect for them. I’ve walked their vineyard in the hills above Napa Valley and witnessed how perfectly tended it is. The wines are extraordinarily fine and, by Napa standards, not very expensive. So it’s not like I have an axe to grind here. Just a point to make.
At one point the head of the winery explained how they used to vineyard-designate their top Cab made from their estate vineyard, but no more, because (and I paraphrase) “We want to make the best wine we can every year, and sometimes that requires blending out the estate vineyard with grapes from other vineyards.” Fine; I get that; I agree. Then we moved on to another wine, a barrel sample of a new proprietary blend. That wine, he said, will be exclusively from the estate vineyard, and will be the top wine it can produce, capturing the essence of the vineyard’s terroir. They all were very excited about it, he added.
Well, whenever I hear about a block or barrel selection from a vineyard that’s exciting and will capture essence, etc., my reporter’s skepticism is aroused. Sounds like language to justify a super-high price. So I asked, “How much will this new wine cost?” The guy hesitated, then said, “We haven’t set the price yet.” But if it doesn’t cost more than the regular Cab, I’ll buy you a bottle at full retail.
Think about the contradiction the guy made. First, he said they reserve the right to blend out the estate vineyard to make the best wine. Then, in the next breath, he said a wine that’s likely to be their most expensive is going to be exclusively from the estate vineyard, in order to capture its terroir.
Hello? Is it just me, or are these two statements mutually exclusive?
Well, actually, yes, if you’re talking about sheer quality. But no, if you’re coming from a marketing and sales point of view. Because the truth is that a gullible public is happily willing to pay more for a block or barrel selection, or something else that suggests exclusivity, than they are for a wine that was blended for balance, which may have a more general appellation. Which gets us back to the title of this post.
In medieval times a Danse macabre was a morality play to demonstrate the allegorical idea that we all must die, even the most virtuous among us. I use the term here to suggest that you might have the greatest vineyard, the best-tended grapes, the most talented winemaker, the best state-of-the-art winery; but Death, now in the figure of a marketing manager, is going to lead you to the same place as everyone else: the afterlife known as The Market, where everything — truth, contradictions, lies, terroir — is the same.