I blogged last April that Gourmet magazine, which Condé Nast shut down in Oct., 2009, might spring back to life, not just as an online publication but even in some newsstand format.

Now, it’s actually happened. “Condé Nast has announced that it will indeed bring back Gourmet in print form,” says this article in the online zine, FishbowlNY.

It’s worth reading between the lines to see if we can infer any lessons to be learned in (a) why print publications die, (b) how they can continue online and (c) if they can actually pull a Lazarus and return to print form after they’re dead.

In my April blog, I wrote that, if Gourmet did return to print, it might do so as an advertiser-driven publication, one that straddled the tenuous border between “straight” journalism and what’s called, in the trade, an “advertorial.” So, I wrote, the new Gourmet “would be ‘Gourmet by Kraft.’ Could we expect to see recipes based on Oscar Mayer bologna, Oreo cookies and Philadelphia Cream Cheese?”

Such information as is available on the new Gourmet is scant, to say the least. What we know from the early reports is that the first issue is called Gourmet Quick Kitchen,

it will be 128 pages long, contain 81 “fast and easy recipes,” and will hit newsstands Sept. 7, at a cost of $11 — which seems pricey for a magazine.

But that’s about all Condé Nast has told the world. What we don’t know is whether the magazine really will be advertiser-driven, or whether it will be pure.

We also know, via the New York Times, that all of the recipes in Gourmet Quick Kitchen “were published in Gourmet before its demise,” and the first issue “has no paid advertisements…”. That’s pretty interesting, but before you come to any conclusions, the Times article also said that “future editions might” contain advertisers. You can only conclude that, when the Times reporter was given access to the Condé Nast P.R. person who broke the news, the P.R. person wouldn’t rule out the possibility of future advertising.

Knowing how advertising works, I suspect that potential advertisers are holding off for now, waiting to see if the new magazine actually sells.

What else is part of Condé Nast’s plans for Gourmet? The magazine “will see another iteration on the iPad and other tablets later this year with the launch of Gourmet Live,” reports min online. What is Gourmet Live? Condé Nast’s president and CEO announced it in an online press release last June 22. He called Gourmet Live “an entirely new digital content product” that will offer readers “articles, menus, photos, videos and more,” while bringing “monetization structures new to Condé Nast.” It’s not clear whether Gourmet Live will carry advertising. The company made a YouTube promo for it, but there’s no clue about advertising, or what those new “monetization structures” will be.

So it looks like Condé Nast is taking a multi-platform approach that incorporates print, newsstands, online, social media in all its aspects (there are also a Facebook and Twitter pages), and creating buzz through giving “insider” access to selected media, like the Times. Which is pretty much about all any publisher can do in these uncertain times.

Reaction, by the way, to the new Gourmet by old Gourmet Magazine fans has been less than enthusiastic. Here are some typical reader comments to the Times article:

Eleven dollars (plus tax) for a magazine? I would hope they wouldn’t have advertising at that price. You could almost buy a book for that.

Gourmet Quick! sounds like they’ve taken all of the quality out and left us with a Rachel Ray look alike.

I miss the old Gourmet…I’m not looking for quick recipes from Gourmet. I can find a 100 of the same thing on the shelf already.

Seems like cashing in on a well-loved name…Rerunning old recipes with new photos? I can go to Epicurious if I want to find old recipes.

It’s so sad to see a repackaging of old content and dare to say they are “bringing Gourmet back”.

Anyway (this is Steve again), it seems to me that Gourmet has a long, hard road ahead, and believe me, I wish them well. They’re one of the more conspicuous victims of the recession and the online revolution, but they’re hardly alone. It will be educational to watch Gourmet and see how they navigate the treacherous waters ahead.

Former Wine Spectator critic James Suckling, who’s been all over Facebook lately (Twitter, too; what’s up with that?), was tasting in Napa, and wrote that he wasn’t sure that 2007 is the “vintage of the century” for Napa Cabernet Sauvignon. That stirred up a bit of a hornet’s nest on his FB page! Even I felt compelled to write in, and while I didn’t declare ‘07 the vintage of the century (we still have, what? 90 years to go) I did say it has yielded some pretty sensational Napa Cabs and Bordeaux blends. And that was before I reviewed this week’s top ten wines. The list is heavy on ‘07 Napa Cabs. Special shoutout to Rodney Strong for their ‘07 Symmetry Meritage, from “just over the hill” in good old Alexander Valley.

1. Vine Cliff 2007 Cabernet Sauvignon, Oakville. 956 cases, 14.5%, $75

also Vine Cliff 2007 16 Rows Cabernet Sauvignon, $150 and Vine Cliff 2007 Pickett Road Vineyard Cabernet, $150

2. Paul Hobbs 2007 Stagecoach Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa Valley (actually, Atlas Peak). 498 cases, 15.1%, $150

also Paul Hobbs 2007 Beckstoffer To Kalon Cabernet Sauvignon, $235

3. Hall 2007 Kathryn Hall Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa Valley. 2,763 cases, 14.8%, $80

also Hall 2007 Ellie’s Cabernet Sauvignon, $55

4. Paul Hobbs 2008 Ulises Valdez Vineyard Chardonnay, Russian River Valley. 423 cases, 14.5%, $70

5. Gloria Ferrer 1999 Carneros Cuvée Sparkling Blend, Carneros. 2,000 cases, 12%, $50

6. Vine Cliff 2008 Proprietress Reserve Chardonnay, Carneros. 349 cases, 14.7%, $60

7. Brogan 2007 Buena Prierra Vineyard Helio Doro Block Pinot Noir, Russian River Valley. 220 cases, 13.5%, $90

also Brogan 2006 Michaela’s Reserve Pinot Noir, $110

8. Rodney Strong 2007 Symmetry Red Meritage, Alexander Valley. 5,583 cases, 15.1%, $55

9. Iron Horse 2005 Ultra Brut, Green Valley. 500 cases, 13.5%, $50

10. Knights Bridge 2008 West Block Chardonnay, Knights Valley. 200 cases, 14.5%, $65

More on the weird 2010 vintage: As I reported here, many vintners have been pulling leaves off from the canopies, in order to hasten ripening due to the cold summer and to let the clusters dry out from the overnight dampness. Then came this week’s heat wave, with temps approaching 110 degrees. You can guess what happened. All those naked grapes, under the broiling sun: raisins! That’s why they call it “farming.” Mother Nature always has the last word.

Most wineries these days are doing their best to increase direct sales to consumers. With the recession, they’re seeing a much more sluggish market than usual. Stores and restaurants aren’t selling as much, there are fewer visitors to the tasting room, and such as there are do not want to spend any more than they have to.

What’s a vintner to do?

We know they’re turning to the Internet and to social media to build brands, make new friends and keep old ones, and attract more members to their wine clubs. And in those clubs, they’re offering special things that are not available through the usual channels. That makes the members feel like they’re getting in on something — sort of like an initial public offering, only it’s wine, not a stock.

Winemakers also are getting increasingly ingenious when it comes to P.R. Well, that’s probably not the winemakers themselves, but their public relations people. Everybody’s pitching, pitching, pitching these days. They realize it doesn’t work anymore to pitch this tired old kind of story: “Don and Janet were bored with their old life. He made a fortune in [fill in the blank], while she was a stay-at-home mom raising their kids in [fill in the city]. So they decided to return to nature by buying 30 acres in [fill in the wine region] and grow [fill in the grape variety]. They hired [fill in famous winemaking consultant] and have now released their first wine,” blah blah blah.

That is so Nineties! No, today the pitch needs an angle, a twist. Something connected to a charity often works — whales are a perennial favorite. Biodynamic is on the wane, but it still works. Ethnic and cross cultural is coming on strong. Wine and food pairing always works. Who doesn’t like to eat? And spirits are big. Get yourself a hot mixologist, and you’re golden.

Vintners are also going to more and more wine fairs, symposia, big public tastings and the like. They’ve always done that, but I think they’re having to do it more nowadays. Anything to catch another customer, get the brand name out there, nail down some loyalty.

It used to be that the winemaker would drive [or fly] to the fair, do their thing, then drive [or fly] back. Big waste of time, all that travel. Could be doing something more productive. In France, they are. A new for-profit business provides the service of telling traveling winemakers where along their route a group of wine lovers has invited them into their homes for a little tasting. Says Decanter: “It has become imperative that, while [winemakers] are at wine fairs, or on their way back home after a sales trip, they can maximise their time away. Meeting wine lovers directly in their homes is an effective way to do this.” Let’s say Bob Cabral drove down to Shell Beach for World of Pinot Noir. On his way back to Healdburg, he’d get a text message: “The Wisenheimers have invited you to their home in Los Altos Hills for a tasting. They’ve invited their neighbors. The address is….”. And: “On your way to the Golden Gate Bridge, make a detour at Geary and go up to Seacliff. The Lotsabucks will host you.”

A winemaker’s day is never done!

* * *

And then there’s the Commonwealth of Virginia, which has been drifting to the right for years. The state’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission recently banned college newspapers from accepting alcohol advertising.

That prompted several Virginia colleges to challenge the ban, but it [the ban] was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals. On Monday, the ACLU stepped in, asking for a reversal. I know that conservatives often complain about “the nanny state” — government that is overweening and intrusive. They always say people should be left alone to make their own decisions. Well, shouldn’t college newspapers be allowed to accept advertising from perfectly legal alcohol companies, including bars that sponsor happy hours (the ban even outlaws use of that phrase!)? Come on, Virginia. Your most famous native son, Thomas Jefferson, loved wine. He must be rolling in his grave.

Bill Smart is the head PR guy at Dry Creek Vineyard, a talented communicator and a nice guy, to boot. He was at the Bloggers Conference back in June, and has now written a thoughtful piece about his impressions over at Palate Press.

I agree with lots that he wrote — but not all. So let me respectfully set out a few of my differences, while emphasizing that, overall, Bill’s article is an accurate representation of where winery P.R. stands in relation to social media.

Bill sets up something of a straw dog when he posits a fundamental difference between bloggers (the implication is that they’re younger, although there were plenty of older bloggers in Walla Walla) and “traditional media.” “For starters,” says Bill, “bloggers do not want to be talked ‘at.’ They want to have a conversation.”

Okay, deconstruction time! First of all, I’m going to start pulling out what few hairs I have left, next time I hear the dreaded “TM” phrase: “traditional media.” This has become a form of invective and an expletive that displays some kind of bias — whether along age or other grounds, I couldn’t say; but when it’s used in a pro-blogging article, it’s usually freighted with negative implications toward print journalists. Why?

Since when is it true that “traditional media” wants to be “talked ‘at’”? I don’t. Anybody who’s ever known me in this business knows that’s not true. You can’t talk ‘at’ me because if you try to, I’ll interrupt and engage you in a conversation — yes, the same type of conversation Bill Smart says bloggers want.

And I’m not the only “trad media” guy who doesn’t want to be “talked ‘at.’” I know a lot of Baby Boomer wine writers and none of them wants a lecture, diatribe or sound bite from anybody. So let’s dispense with this notion that bloggers are somehow fundamentally different in the form of human interaction they like. We’re all the same.

Bill also celebrates the speed with which communication between a P.R. guy like himself and a blogger occurs. “I can pitch a blogger a story or idea in the morning and before lunch that idea may have turned into a blog topic, posted and available for comment.” Yes, this is true. But it’s a double-edged sword, or maybe a triple-edged one. First, such immediate publication basically rules out any form of research or investigation by the blogger. Maybe that’s what P.R. people want: Just take what I say and throw it up there on the Internet, without bothering to find out if it’s true, or put it in context. That’s a huge problem with instant publication.

Then too, because of “the sheer volume of information that is published and made available for consumption” (Bill’s words), today’s blog post has a life span of 24 hours, at most. The next day, there’s another blog post, and yesterday’s content is as fresh as an expired carton of milk. So, yes, blogging can give a P.R. guy 15 minutes of fame. But with a thousand wine blogs out there, all competing for content, everybody else is going to get the same 15 minutes, sooner or later — and nobody is going to get repeated exposure (unless his name is Randall Grahm). That doesn’t give an individual winery an advantage. It just means everybody’s profile is raised a little higher.

Bill’s final point about the advantages of blogging is that “Wine blogs have allowed, for the first time, the consumer to enter into the dialogue about a particular wine topic. Traditionally, media never allowed their consumers to have a voice.” I would phrase this a little differently: “Wine blogs have expanded the opportunity for the consumer to enter into dialog with the wine press.” I mean, when he says traditional media “never allowed…consumers to have a voice,” Bill makes it sound like this was a deliberate, calculated elitist intolerance by “traditional media” to shut the public up. It’s like trad media were Marie Antoinette: “Let them eat cake.”

Traditional media never took that approach — at least, I didn’t. We made use of the technology as it became available. I’ve always had telephone calls from readers who demanded answers and explanations, which I was happy to give. When email became available, the number of people who talked — and complained — to me increased exponentially. Now we have blogs and other forms of social media that have pushed that envelope even further. I welcome that. So I don’t know if Bill meant to imply that we trad media people knowingly shut ourselves into ivory towers, pulled up the drawbridge and stocked the moat with piranhas. I hope not. I’ve always made myself accessible, and in all honesty, I don’t think that bloggers are any more personally accessible than I ever was. Someday, technology will bring us much further into hyper-interactivity and inter-connectedness than we are even today, but the fundamentals will still apply, especially in terms of P.R. A good pitch will still be a good pitch, and a lousy one won’t be made any better by being instantaneous.

I happily and heartily subscribe to Bill’s closing: “Ultimately, knowing your audience and creating lasting relationships built on trust and confidence will be the basis of success for any well integrated communications and marketing plan.” Amen, brother!

P.S. I told the Mondavi and Morton’s people I’d provide this link to the big event they’re planning for Oct. 7 to benefit the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Consider buying a ticket for a worthy cause.

Courtney Cochran, whom I’ve mentioned before in this blog, here and here, runs an outfit, Hip Tastes Communications, whose website says can help wine businesses “refresh, reposition and reinvigorate” themselves (not to mention learn the gentle art of alliterative writing).

Last week, she wrote an Op-Ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle that makes the case for wineries to “turn to social media and other viral digital tools to remain relevant,” but I think the overstates her case, mainly by relying almost exclusively on the anecdotal experience of a single winery, St. Supery.

St. Supery, as we all know, hired a social media director, Rick Bakas, a year ago; Bakas had been a contestant in the Murphy-Goode “A Really Goode Job” contest that Hardy Wallace won. In her article, Courtney says St. Supery reports that its wine club attrition rate has dropped, and she attributes that fact (assuming its true) to St. Supery’s “dramatically increased…participation on social sites like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Ustream and Foursquare.”

I have my doubts. First of all, a declining attrition rate doesn’t sound like a great measure of success, although I suppose it’s preferable to a rising attrition rate. Nor does Courtney offer any further tangible evidence that St. Supery is experiencing more robust sales than, say, any other winery along Highway 29 in Napa Valley. St. Supery may or may not be healthy, but it’s not good journalism to take a minor factoid issued by the winery, tie it to increased participation in social media, and then make the gigantic leap to claiming that “The wineries that understand this [i.e., social media] will be the winners in this recessionary moment.”

There’s simply no evidence for that. I could go along with Courtney if she had said, “Social media is one element for a winery to survive in this recessionary moment, but it’s not the only element. Other elements include old-fashioned marketing, sales and promotion, good reviews by reputable critics, tasting room strategies, sound distributor relationships,” etc. etc. In other words, social media is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for success. To put the entire burden of success on the back of social media is asking too much of a strategy that, so far, has failed to achieve much of anything for any winery.

That’s the problem when you ask someone who’s running a social media advisory company about social media. Of course they’re going to tout it! Crest toothpaste is not going to say, “Brushing your teeth is not an important part of dental hygiene.” I respect Courtney, and if I had a winery, I might well ask her to come on over and advise me about online marketing. But I would also keep things in perspective, and I wouldn’t bet the farm that Twitter, Facebook et al. would be my salvation.