In fact, they’re talking about “a new wine world order,” which should get the conspiratorialists roiling. This is the headline over at South African wine.co.az:
Industry leaders gather at LIWF to debate a new wine world order
It announces a gathering next month of “major figures of the global wine industry” in London to consider everything from emerging markets and obtaining credit to the future of corks. The conference is being sponsored by Wine Intelligence, a London-based market research company.
Some of the breakout sessions sound really cool. “What do consumers really think of wine producing regions” is based on the premise that “where a wine comes from heavily influences a consumers’ perception of that wine.” The session on Emerging Markets will look at the question of whether the paradigm that Russia, India, China and Brazil are the wine wave of the future is really true, given the worldwide economic meltdown. I’d like to be there for that one. A session on “Positive retail strategies for today’s economic climate” will examine “How and why do consumers behave as they do?” Do they act merely on price? On packaging? On other information? Market researchers have spent millions trying to figure that out. And then, of course, there’s the inevitable session on “New ways of engaging the next generation wine drinkers.” You can bet the following terms will be widely uttered: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube. I just hope they have someone under 20 as their expert.
Two of these issues — emerging markets and the next generation — were indirectly dealt with in this morning’s Times (New York, of course; there is no other) in a fascinating article headlined “In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit.” It seems that social media companies that were once so enamored of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe are losing interest. Why? “[T]hese people are so hungry for this content. They sit and they watch and watch and watch. The problem is they are eating up bandwidth, and it’s very difficult to derive revenue from it.” That’s from Dmitry Shapiro, CEO of Veoh.
Oy vey. YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Joost and Veoh all are running into the same problem our bloggers have confronted: Everybody wants to read and watch the Internet but nobody wants to pay for it! Thats what the Times’ headline meant: “Web Grows Without Profit.” Now here we are in the most serious recession since the Great Depression, and wineries are expecting their angels to be in China, India, Russia and Brazil, where Google (YouTube) and News Corp. (MySpace) are struggling to make money from that infamous “next generation” that was supposed to supply the cash to keep the world running.
Hmm. And now we have swine flu. Interesting, challenging times for wine, and us all.
Yesterday I wrote about gender. Today, it’s generations. (Why am I thinking in such weighty terms lately?) It happened when I read this Q&A in the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, by one of their writers, Peg Melnik. It started out with her profiling a real, 23-year old Millennial and asking the question, “How can wine country court them [Millennials]?”
Good enough question to draw me in. Usually, if the first sentence of an article or blog don’t grab me, I move on.
A couple things struck me about the Millennial, whose name is Matt. First, he doesn’t want to be condescended to by writers, critics, merchants, tasting room personnel, or anybody else. Here’s a great quote from him: “If a winery wants to target Millennials, it should be accepting of how we demand quality, image, and history, but we like to think for ourselves.” All Matt asks is for industry folks to be respectful of where he’s coming from, not treat him like an idiot because he may not know as much as a Boomer. And “The winery should know that we network and market through each other and a warm smile and a memorable experience in a tasting room can go a very long way.”
That’s great stuff. Then Melnik concludes the Q&A by asking Matt “about the generational sniping from the Baby Boomers who think some of the Millennials drink wine with too much gusto. What’s the best way to bridge this generation gap?” That’s when my jaw dropped.
snipe [verb] to shoot from a hidden position, as at individuals of an enemy force; to direct an attack [at someone] in a sly or underhanded way
Have I missed something? I haven’t heard anything about sniping Boomers throwing underhanded stink bombs at Millennials. If anything (speaking on behalf of Boomers), we think it’s fantastic that people Matt’s age are getting interested in wine. When Melnik asks her readers, “Is there any more generational sniping going on?” I hope they tell her, loud and clear, “No! There isn’t. And stop trying to stir up trouble.”
I don’t know, was last summer’s Rockaway dustup an example of “sniping”? To the extent any criticism was expressed from my direction, it was concerning questions about journalism, P.R. ethics and full disclosure. I don’t think it was a generation gap thing. And it sure had nothing to do with anyone enjoying wine too much.
I did think that, when the magazine WineX came out about 10 years ago (could have been longer), I was discountful of it, as were most other people I knew, because I thought it condescended to young people, as if they had to throw in sexual or cultural terms of reference instead of just being smart. But that wasn’t a snipe at young people, it was my disgust with a magazine that pandered to some bizarre perception of them.
One of the best things that’s happened to America is that we’ve become a wine-drinking country. My generation led the way, simply because we were born earlier than Gen Y and Millennials. Now, people over 21 are turning to wine in droves (and we have a wine-loving couple in the White House, Yay!). I’ll lift a glass to that, and welcome Matt and his Millennial friends to the club.
FREEZING MY ASSETS OFF
If you live in California and along the West Coast and you think it’s been cold lately, you’re right. Here in Northern California we had a gorgeous Autumn all the way until Dec. 11, when the high temperature in Oakland was 61. The next morning, a Friday, my local T.V. station, KGO, forecast “dramatic changes arrive this weekend as we instantly jump from fall to winter.” Man, did they get that right. Since then, we’ve struggled to get out of the high 40s and low 50s, and of the last 24 days, 19 have been below normal in average temperature. I brought this to the attention of my friend Steve Paulson, the meteorologist on KTVU-TV, channel 2 here in Oakland. He sent me some temperature readings for last night: 19 in Pope Valley, 21 in the Oak Knoll District, 22 at Napa Airport, 24 in Santa Rosa. That’s cold! But, as Steve reminded me, “the next 10 to 15 days, especially by the weekend, look way above normal on temps. Possible record highs along the coast and around the Bay. That’s how we get Average.” Anyway, the vines are dormant this time of year, so they don’t care about the cold — but if it gets too warm for too long, they could wake up prematurely. I don’t want that to happen — but I’m tired of the cold!
ARE EXPERTS MORE EASILY FOOLED?
Han van Meegeren was a mediocre painter and forger who once sold a fake Vermeer, through an intermediary, to Hermann Göring, for today’s equivalent of $7 million. The story was told in last summer’s book, The Forger’s Spell, whose author, Edward Dolnick, was quoted on the South African Wine page as saying, “Experts make the best victims of fraud because they jump to unwarranted conclusions … We prefer wine with a pedigree even if it’s a phoney one … Expectations are everything.”
the fake Vermeer
van Meegeren apparently wasn’t a very good artist, but it didn’t really matter. The dupes who paid big bucks (reichsmarks?) wanted to believe his paintings were real.
Reading that made me think of last summer’s Wine Spectator fake restaurant award. It also brought back memories of allegedly fraudulent bottles of major-league wines (19th century Bordeaux) that were being sold, about 20 years ago, to an international community of rich wine collectors who were, shall we say, less than diligent. Then my mind recalled the suggestion, which has been floating around the blogosphere for a couple months, that somebody should try and “pull a Spectator” on some unsuspecting wine critic (no doubt an older, more famous, paper-based one) by sending her/him a fake bottle of wine. It might be Two Buck Chuck disguised as Harlan, or Harlan disguised as Two Buck Chuck. Either way, if the critic took the bait, what a sensation that could be for the prankster! Days, maybe even weeks worth of publicity! The national press would gobble it up, same way they did with the Spectator hoax. Certain bloggers’ visit stats would soar, while the poor critic’s face would be dripping with egg. And you know what? It could happen, easily — to me, to Parker, to anyone. If you think you’re immune, I hope you’re the one who gets the faux bottle.
BUT WE NEED EXPERTS, DON’T WE?
Yes, if Cassie Mogilner is right. The Dec. 20 issue of The Economist explains the Stanford professor’s theory that “consumers like unfamiliar products to be categorised — even if the categories are meaningless.” (The story was on how consumers’ brains make shopping choices.) Mogilner looked specifically at how we buy coffee, but her findings could just as easily be applied to wine. Shelf-talkers may be nothing more than the idle scribbling of marketing agents; rating systems may break down under close scrutiny; but they work, which is why stores continue to depend on them to sell wine.
And happy new year to you!