Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog

An Object Lesson

If you ever wanted an object lesson in the "Blinders On" mentality that results when a state controls and restricts consumers' access to wine, all you have to do is read THIS STORY in the Salt Lake City Tribune on ordering wine direct through the state run system that turned into a 5 month odyssey of frustration and surrealism.

The report begins by noting that Utahans often order one of the tens of thousands of wines the Utah state system doesn't list in inventory from on-line sources then have it shipped to Wyoming, where they go pick it up and drive it back home. Yes, this is illegal, but it turns out it's really the Utahans only choice is they want to access wine that the good Utah government regulators don't choose to bring into the state.

But no worries. This illegal activity isn't necessary: "Under Utah law, consumers may special order wine, liquor or heavy beer that isn't one of the 4,000-plus offerings on the state's listing, says John Freeman, DABC operations director."

The reporter did just this. He wanted to get his hands on two bottles of Quivera Zinfandel from Dry Creek Valley.

He ordered it through the state in November 2007. He got it in May 2008. You've got to read this story.

The really ugly part is that were rational wine shipping laws in place in Utah, the reporter could have ordered his wine from any of more than 20 different on-line wine merchants and had it shipped to him within 3 or 4 days of ordering it.

I'm not one of those Small Government, Conservative kind a guys. But when you read this sort of thing you  really start to understand where those folks are coming from when they claim that if you want something screwed up and as inefficient as possible, just give it over to the government to do.

Fixing Stupid Laws

The somewhat recent revelation that it is technically illegal for home winemakers in California to hold public tastings and even competitions of their wines is one of those instances where a truly out-dated law of little or no value, previously unnoticed, comes to light and makes folks chuckle, shake their heads and get on with getting rid of it for the sake bringing laws and rules into line with reality and good sense.

The move to change the law licketty split is under way. Family Winemakers of California and State Senator Pat Wiggins have joined forces to introduce SB 607, a law that would allow winemaking competition among amateur winemakers.

It's an easy fix to a pretty stupid law and both FWC and Senator Wiggins should be commended for moving it forward.

Changing stupid laws like this is not always so easy, however, Take for example the CA law that makes it a crime for a an out-of-state retailer to ship wine to a CA resident. This one went into effect in 2005 and was supported by Family Winemakers of California, The California Wine Institute, The California Association of Wine Grapegrowers, Napa Valley Vintners and a number of wineries. The bill was opposed by a number of CA retailers who realized that not only was the law unconstitutional as it discriminated against out-of-state retailers, but that it would encourage other states to lock out CA retailers from shipping to their state residents.

There has been no enthusiasm by California's winery organizations, Free the Grapes, or any politicians to change this other example of a stupid law, though they all are well aware of the law. One wonders if it will be "discovered" in a few decades and quickly reversed by legislation because it no longer has any value, rhyme or reason.

It turns out this law is actually on hold because retailers sued the state of CA and were able to get an agreement from the state not to enforce it until the end of 2008. However, that time is quickly approaching. One hopes that consumers, wine organizations and politicians will feel an equal urgency to fix one more stupid law when it comes to light.

The Future of Online Wine Sales

"He said: "I think the market has just tipped. All of a sudden, rather than being driven by 20-year-olds who were the early adopters [of the net], I'm starting to get emails from people saying 'as a pensioner ... The silver surfers have arrived."

This comes from a news story put out by Off License News. Just how significant is this finding that older drinkers are coming to the on-line wine sales channel?

I think it must be significant. Despite the talk about young folks being the one's helping to drive wine's sales accent, it is somewhat older folks that do the real buying of wine. There appearance in any significant number in the on-line world would in fact represent a notable turning point in the on-line wine sales world.

Now get this quote, from the same article:

"Vinitrac research from Wine Intelligence in March 2007 found that 16% of regular wine drinkers in the UK had bought wine online in the previous six months. Internet shopping was marginally more popular among those aged over 55, the survey found, with those under 34 the least likely to buy wine online."

These kind of findings remind me that we are still very much in a transitional phase when it comes to the world of on-line sales and wine. While on-line purchasing has overtaken some industries such as travel and books, this same kind of transition WILL come to the world of wine and completely transform how this beverage is sold. And for those companies that are making full court presses to be at the center of this transformation and who have the funds to keep going and breaking even during the transition, AND who have the ability to either develop or implement "ease-of-use" technology to the sector will find themselves sitting pretty in the years to come.

It also suggests that as this transformation to on-line sales continues, the political pressure to make these virtual transactions easier will become more intense. This is bad new for those who still want to argue that restricting consumer choice in wine is a needed trade off in preventing all those teens from purchasing Paso Robles Syrah and the Austrian Rieslings they are known to crave.

Shipping & The Big Question For Wineries

As executive director of Specialty Wine Retailers Association, I've been thinking a lot recently about who supports free and open markets in wine and who supports retailer to consumer shipping—the only channel through which consumers can actually access ALL the wines on the market today.

We know consumers do. They've written letters to legislators, testified on direct shipping bills, and even donated $1000s of dollars to the work Specialty Wine Retailers Association is carrying out.

We know newspaper editorial boards and wine writers do. They've written scads of editorials denouncing the laws that serve to only protect wine distributors from competition.

The Wine 2.0 community has been vocal about their support of both winery and retailer shipping

And we know retailers support free and fair trade and consumer access to wine. See SWRA.

BUT WHERE DO WINERIES STAND ON FREE & FAIR TRADE IN WINE?

WHERE DO WINERIES STAND ON RETAILER TO CONSUMER SHIPPING? WHERE TO THEY STAND ON CONSUMER ACCESS TO WINE THROUGH RETAILERS? DO THEY IN FACT SUPPORT THE WINE RETAILER—THE GROUP MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING THEIR PRODUCTS IN FRONT OF THE CONSUMER—AND THEIR BID TO HELP ADDRESS THE LEGITIMATE CONSUMER DEMAND FOR ACCESS TO WINES?

The various winery associations and trade groups have been true to their fiduciary responsibility to their members and seen fit to support laws that prohibit consumers from buying wine from out-of-state retailers both in CA and IL. They have opposed laws that would allow retailer to consumers shipping in WA. And in other cases the wineries have simply been neutral on laws that would open shipping to consumers and retailers. In doing this they've supported their members' needs, despite the impact on consumers and wine merchants. OK...I understand this approach that many trade associations believe they must take.

But the more important issue is not how the various wine trade associations conduct themselves with regard to issues of fair trade in wine and consumer access to wines. The real question is HOW INDIVIDUAL WINERIES STAND ON RETAILER TO CONSUMER SHIPPING? Do the individual wineries support their best customers—wine lovers and the wine merchant?

Does CONSTELLATION BRANDS, perhaps the wine producer that benefits most from support by retailers, support the wine merchants bid to engage in direct to consumer sales? Are they willing to say they do publicly? Are they willing to donate a mere $125 a month to support this cause?

Does JOSEPH PHELPS WINERY support real consumer access to wine? Are they willing to say so publicly or show their support by joining the cause to break down barriers to retailer shipping by putting up, say, what they take in for the sale of a single case of Insignia?

Does DON SEBASTIANI & SONS support retailer shipping or just winery shipping? Are they willing to support efforts to bring down unconstitutional restrictions on retailer shipping and consumer access to wine?

Does STAGLIN think that free trade and shipping for wine merchants is worth supporting through publicly standing up and saying so or by joining an organization that is fighting for the right to sell their wines to consumers that want them but can't find them?

Will GALLO take a stand for retailers and donate real cash to the cause to allow consumers to access the wines they want?

Will the folks at ALBAN VINEYARDS take a stand against monopolists laws that keep wine retailers from selling their wines to the folks who want them enough to pay shipping from another state? Will they say so publicly? Will they make even a small donation to actually make this happen?

Will the MENDOCINO WINE COMPANY demonstrate its support for its best customers and its consumers by issue a public announcement of support for real fair and free trade in wine? Can they show their support by making a financial donation equivalent to the retail value of a mere 5 cases of their Paul Dolan Zinfandel?

Is DUCKHORN willing to only support winery shipping or will they publicly state they support retailer to consumer shipping, as well as help the only organization fighting for the right of retailers to market Duckhorn wine through direct shipping with a small contribution...just as "thanks" for the effort?

I wonder if RODNEY STRONG VINEYARDS, which has grown significantly with the support of wine merchants, has consumers in mind and will support retailers' attempts to change wine shipping laws with a small donation to the cause or just a public statement?

What about KORBEL and their family of wineries including Kenwood and Valley of the Moon? Do these folks have any interest in stepping up and supporting consumers and retailers with a monetary donation or public support for retailers who have supported their products for decades?

Do the folks at LORING WINE COMPANY have any interest is supporting the retailers that work to assure their outstanding wines get into the hands to the wine geeks that can't find them locally or from the winery? Can they step up with a show of support?

And then there is FOSTER WINE ESTATES, one of the largest wine producers in the world with a collection of wines that is nearly entirely dependent on wine merchants for putting these brands in front of the public. Can they afford to donate $1500 a year ($125 per month) ($4 per day) to the cause of retailers, who are fighting for the ability to to sell Foster's wines to wine lovers across the country? Or is this not important enough for them?

Is it possible that HANZELL VINEYARDS in the hills of Sonoma, a brand that fine wine merchants have supported for literally decades, can find the time to make a donation to, or public statement about, the retailers and consumers that are fighting monopolists for the right to simply fulfill a legitimate demand?

Is there any room in the PAHLMEYER budget to support consumers who merely want the right to purchase wine without the threat of being fined? Do they have room to make a simple statement to the effect that "we support consumers and retailers in their desire to simply do business together"?

I have to think that the folks at VINE CLIFF support free and fair trade in wine and have enough respect for their consumers that they too would show support through donations or public comment for the work consumers do through organizations like SWRA.

Are the IRONSTONE people satisfied with their retail supporters being left out of direct shipping now that they have their battle won, or are they willing to make even a small donation to the cause of direct shipping by retailers and consumer access to wine. Even a short public statement of support would be helpful if they think the cause is worth supporting.

Is it possible that PACIFIC WINE PARTNERS, the marketers behind brands like Rex Goliath, Hardys, Blackstone and Twin Fin and a company that relies tremendously on retailers to sell their products, might be able to help those friends of theirs with some support for the simple cause of direct shipping, or are they content to sit on the sidelines not get involved and see retailers hurt more and more as Pacific's best customers are shut out of more and more direct ship markets?

Is DIAGEO CHATEAU & ESTATES, a company whose wine such as Chalone, Beaulieu Vineyards, Sterling Vineyards and Acacia, are dependent on retailers, willing to step up and make a small donation to the cause of retailer to consumer shipping or just say out loud, "we support a free and fair market for retailer to consumer sales and shipping"?

There is nothing particularly special about this grouping of wineries other than they, like most other wineries in America, rely on wine merchants to put their wines in front of the consumer. They are a pretty random selection used only to make a point. Each in this group, like most other wineries, COULD afford to support though donations, membership in SWRA or contributions, those retailers and consumers that are working to create a free, fair and accessible market for consumers and retailers alike.

If they choose not to support retailer to consumer shipping, the question is why?

Why let your most important partners work all alone when you can could get involved?

That's the big question for American wineries. And I suspect both wine merchants and consumers do take some notice of how this question is being answered by wineries.

I Have Been Shamed!!

It appears that shame has fallen upon me.

In response to this press release, issued two days ago on behalf of Specialty Wine Retailers Association and in conjunction with the 75th anniversary of Repeal of Prohibition, I received the following scolding:

"Your press release is an absolute travesty; I wonder how the members of your organization would feel if people outside your industry considered all of the retailers the same.  I'm sure your stereotyping and fear-mongering seems more than justified in your eyes, but as a Sales Manager for a reputable wine wholesaler I take offense at being lumped in with everyone else.  What people like you don't understand is that not all consumers in the US are comfortable supporting causes or organizations that only see things in black or white; that paint everything with the same brush.   You are no better than people running around saying "All politicians are corrupt scumbags" or "All professional athletes are rich, spoiled steroid junkies."  Shame on you."

I would have sympathy for the pain this gentleman feels if he were actually willing to come out publicly, as a wholesaler, and break with the two decade old line the distributors have held: that direct shipping is bad for the public and will only lead to children dying from consuming Pinot Noir.

I'd have sympathy for this gentleman's plight if he issued a statement saying, as a wholesaler I disagree with my industry's cynical and self serving positions that serve only to line their pockets and screw consumers. I've been looking for just such a wholesaler for a very long time.

In fact, my response to this gentleman wholesalers was as follows:

"Tell me Sir, are you the wholesaler I've been looking for? Are you the one that will break from the party line. Because if you are, I'm willing to send out a press release nationwide, retract any sweeping statements I've made about wholesalers and demonstrate my mistake by noting that you, a Sales Manager at respected distributorship, are willing to support retailer to consumer shipping.

In fact, I suspect that next year there will be a bill in your state's legislature that would create a permit for out of state retailers to ship to consumers. Would you be the wholesaler willing to testify in favor of it. Can you get the owner of your distributorship to put his firm on record as supporting retailer to consumer shipping?

You see, until I can find a wholesaler willing to actually prove me wrong, a wholesaler willing to stand up for consumers and support their ability to purchase wines that wholesalers will not bring into the state, then I think I'm on firm ground in painting with a very broad brush."

I've not yet received a response to my offer. However, the offer stands for ANY wholesaler: Come out against the cynical positions your state and national associations have taken for two decades and Specialty Wine Retailers Association will issue a press release withdrawing any sweeping statements it has made about the cynicism of wholesalers and their willingness to dismiss and disregard the consumers for the sake of their own bottom line.

I await the flood of wholesalers taking me up on my offer.

The Persuasive Writing Skills of Children

My daughter recently had to take a writing test mandated by the state. The format of this particular test was to have the kids write a "persuasive letter". The topic, which the kids could take either side of, was "Should schools add an additional two weeks to the annual school schedule?"

I thought it outstanding that persuasive writing skills of the 7th graders were tested simply because good persuasive writing might be the most important type of writing a child should learn to do well. It is a skill that will be used their entire life.

Paul Chartrand, a former Maine State Legislator and now wine importer, has certainly put the talent of persuasive writing to good use in a letter to the Kennebec Journal Morning  Sentinel that argues against the pending Direct Wine Sales legislation in that state. What Mr. Chartrand's letter demonstrates is that good persuasive writing combined with a disregard for the truth can often make a poor argument appear much better than it is.

From Mr. Chartrand's letter:

"For a small state, Maine already has an incredible choice of wines and beers available to customers through our wholesale and retail distribution....Can a Maine retail customer buy every single wine available in the United States?

No. Why?

Wineries not selling in Maine have chosen to bypass the state in their nationwide distribution plans in order to avoid the time and cost involved, while focusing their resources on larger markets. They could pay Maine license fees, register their products and develop distribution, but they refuse to undertake that task."

There's nothing about this part of the letter that is untrue. In fact, Mr. Chartrand's description of why many wineries choose not to distribute wine in Maine is dead on. But what's brilliant about this short description of the circumstance that result in many wines remaining unavailable to Maine consumers is the subtle insinuation that the wineries that choose not to distribute their wine in Maine are just lazy. They just don't want to go through the process. But here's where Mr. Chartrand's writing skills are on display. He wisely fails to note that it's not simply a matter of "registering" one's wines and a simple task to "develop distribution." Rather, a wholesaler in Maine must agree to distribute your a wine before the winery can enter the state. As in most other states, the only wines that are distributed in Maine are the one's that are chosen by distributors, making Maine, like most others, a state whose selection of wines are determined by a very tiny group of folks who have no contact with consumers and usually have no interest in distributing a wines that are made in very small supply.

Then Mr. Chartrand goes on to use a writing technique I like to call, "Inserting and twisting".

"Instead they [wineries, presumably] whine, pressuring Maine customers and government for an easy way into the state, avoiding the work and fees the rest of us pay to sell here. Rather than admitting Maine customers are not so important to them, these wineries cleverly blame big government."

Wow! That's good writing!! Wineries are whiners who don't care about Maine wine lovers. Why? Because they want the right to obtain a permit to sell wine directly to Maine residents without going through a distributor. I know, the underlying reasoning is loopy in the extreme, but you have to appreciate the deftness with which the knife was inserted and twisted. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chartrand is on his way to arguing that the conditions under which Maine residents obtain wine ought to remain as complicated as possible and as expensive as possible for wineries. Why? Well, because, of course. Note there is no reason offered here why Maine residents ought to be prohibited from obtaining wines distributors don't offer other than the implication that making wine difficult to get into the hands of Maine residents is the way it is and the way it should be.

But now watch this flawless turn in the argument:

"My company spends thousands of dollars and hours every year for the privilege of legally selling our wines in 25 states, including Maine. No question about it, alcohol sales requirements are expensive and burdensome. The United States and Maine have antiquated systems. But it won't be fair unless it changes for everyone. All I, and other Maine wine dealers, ask is a level playing field."

Wow!!! In five short sentences Mr. Chartrand has admitted that Maine's laws are burdensome and antiquated and inefficient, while implying that there ought to be some sort of national standard set to level the playing field for wine sales and distribution...all after he just got finished defending a patently unfair system of wine distribution. And in addition, he makes the brilliant move of ginning up sympathy for his own plight. And again, Mr. Chartrand makes the strategically proper decision not to mention that under the legislation now being considered, Maine's laws would offer a level playing field for those that want to go through a distributor or those that want to sell direct to consumers. IMPORTANT RULE OF PERSUASIVE WRITING: AVOID THE TRUTH AND EVEN SUGGEST THE OPPOSITE IF DOING OTHERWISE WILL HURT YOUR ARGUMENT.

Chartrand finishes with flourish:

"If the newspaper wishes Maine government to subsidize distant wineries while Maine business suffers, so be it. It does not surprise me that your last letter on this came from Kennewick, Wash., home to many such "whine-eries.

In a year of budget deficits, I vote for continuing to collect all fees that Maine can collect from alcohol sales."

Once again, Chartrand does not mention that all sales of wines direct to Maine customers from out-of-state shippers would be taxed [see rule above] or that the wines that would be shipped are most likely those that are not distributed in the state, can't be found in the state and would not lead to any cannibalization of sales at Maine retail stores. Another good move in this persuasive letter.

But then comes the flourish: "Whine-eries". Wow!!! Not bad. Chartrand has turned those Maine wineries, who under this legislation would be allowed to finally ship direct to Maine residents, into nothing but whiners.

The cynical would simply call this projection on the part of Chartrand, who I suspect simply can't abide the notion of fair competition. But you have to admit, it's a bold rhetorical move.

I'm going to show this letter to my daughter as an example of what can be created when really, really good persuasive writing is combined with a disregard for truth .

The Implosion Begins!

Let me see if I have this right...

On the one hand, wine retailers across the United States are telling alcohol regulators in every state that they'd like to enhance their operating budgets by paying an annual fee to ship wine to consumers in those states. They'd like to help fill their state's coffers with funds resulting from the remittance of taxes on the wine they sell and ship to consumers in their state. These retailers would like to voluntarily submit themselves to the legal jurisdiction of a remote state as well as allow their books to be audited at the notice of the regulators.

On the other hand, the Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of America want alcohol regulators to commit a significant amount of their valuable time looking for an alleged band of adult wine lovers who are claimed to be committing the sin of buying wines they can't find in their own state, from a retailer in another state. Further, the WSWA wants these alcohol regulators to spend their valuable budgets looking for these supposed scofflaws in their own states as well as tracking down the alleged sellers in other states. Of course, wholesalers aren't mentioning that this would take significant time and resources away from actually carrying out the core mission of these alcohol regulators: making sure licensees in their state are following the law and attempting to assure licensees don't over-serve their drinking patrons.

Get More Money for their states and their budgets...VS...waste time protecting wholesaler profits???

Hmmmm? Tough one, isn't it.

Yet this is the silly suggestion that the head of the American wholesaler cartel actually made in the form of a press release today as well as in letters to Attorneys General, governors and alcohol regulators in 50 states.

In case anyone reading this has missed the point of the American Wholesaler Cartel, allow me to remind you: PREVENT AS MANY AMERICANS FROM ACCESSING ANY WINE UNLESS WHOLESALERS FIRST MAKE A PROFIT ON IT.

Damn the regulators and the efforts they make to maintain an orderly and safe market for wine and spirits. Damn the states and their need to raise revenue. Damn the consumers who only want to obtain the wines the wholesalers feel these folks don't need to have. JUST PROTECT OUR PROFITS.

I wonder if WSWA and the wholesalers ever tire of being ridiculed?

I don't think so. The American wholesaler cartel appears to never tire of having their face rubbed in it. They lose lawsuit after lawsuit. They get slapped down by the Supreme Court of the United States. They get caught in their misogynistic ways. Their arguments against direct shipping are put to bed with efficiency and ease by person after person. But none of this is enough for them it appears. Now, they whine like a little girl who just soiled their Sunday dress and run off crying to daddy asking him to put down his tools and stop doing his job, so he can clean the mess the little girl made all by herself.

If anyone is wondering, it's only going to get worse for the wholesaler cartel as they continue to spin out of all control.

But what I'm really wondering is who in their right mind at WSWA gave the approval to issue a press release that actually criticizes the the most powerful newspaper in the land merely for an offhand quip a wine writer made in its pages? Is there no one at the helm at WSWA? All they have to do is call me and I can recommend a number of fine PR professionals who will tell them the utter depth of stupidity that move represented. But allow me to recreate this act of stupidity...just as an object lesson in how not to run a communications program.

To quote from yesterday's WSWA press release that whines about the alleged "Illegal alcohol trafficking and open disregard for state liquor  laws":

"Wolf even cites a prominent New York Times wine writer openly sympathetic to the unregulated-shipping cause, who recently opened one column: “I have a confession to make.  I am a lawbreaker.”

Wrote Wolf in response to the remark: “That a newspaper of record would publish such comments in the clear light of day, we believe, ought to trouble any regulator, lawmaker or law enforcement official.”

Tell you what, if I ever recommend to one of Wark Communications' clients that they criticize the New York Times in a press release, please have someone come to my home, drag me out of bed and beat me senseless.

Finally, I fear I'm forced, out of the knowledge that my good readers love a bit of humor, to quote from the letter that WSWA's CEO Craig Wolf wrote and sent to alcohol regulators, the top law enforcement officials and the Governors (yes, the following quote actually ended up in a letter to GOVERNORS) in all fifty states:

"As you are well aware, the sidestepping of state-controlled alcohol distribution channels causes a host of negative effects—the inability to collect taxes, the absence of a face-to-face transaction that addresses myriad regulatory aims, and the very real possibility of introducing tainted or counterfeit product into your marketplace, to name but a few.”

Tainted Products? Now the American wholesalers are protecting us from tainted wine? I've got news for them. This is not 1926. No one is making tainted wine in a bathtub with grain alcohol and red food coloring, slapping a stopper in it and running it across the river to avoid Elliot Ness. And just when was the last time a wholesaler broke open a case of Opus or Dom Perignon or Russian River Valley Chardonnay to make sure it wasn't "Tainted"?

I think we may be witnessing the end of a long sad saga as the implosion begins.

Warning: This Entry May Make You Angry

The recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the important wine-related case of Costco v. Hoen is a disappointment to many in the industry who believe that that the state violates the law when it promotes anti-competitive regulations that hurt the consumer and benefit a small group.

Yet this issue is a very difficult one to wrap your arms around. It's very complex and deals with an area of the law (Anti-Trust Issues) that few people are familiar enough with to understand the implications of the decision at hand.

I've been looking for a layman's explanation of what happened in the 9th Circuit since the decision came down. I found one

Over at VINO FICTIONS, Thomas explains the case in plain and simple words in a post he entitles:

"NEWS RELEASE—SURE!"

It is well worth a read. But I have to second his warning early on in the post: "WARNING: THIS BLOG ENTRY MAY MAKE YOU ANGRY"

The Heart of Darkness

Let's go into the heart of darkness. Let's examine the center of cynicism in the world of wine:

"It is cynical to say you support people just because of the power shift," he said. "But clearly when the power in Congress changes, there is a tendency to support those who wield authority."
-CRAIG WOLF, CEO, Wine & Spirit Wholesalers Association

This is Mr. Wolf's commentary on the fact that his organization has "decided  to shift his group's donations so that two-thirds will go to Democrats rather  than, as before, to Republicans"

How much will wholesalers spend on federal candidates before the election in November is over? Well over $1,000,000. When you add to this the fact that alcohol wholesalers across the country will likely break their previous record for giving to state political campaigns in a single year ($19.2 Million in 2006), you have a very good indication why the vast majority of laws concerning access to alcohol by adults are anti-consumer, pro-monopoly and a shining beacon for cynics the world over.

How is it that America's wine-related laws can still be largely based on decades old assumptions, stifle the growth of the American wine market, needlessly criminalize consumers, take millions of dollars in tax revenue out of the states' coffers and demonstrate a complete lack of concern or respect for consumers kept in place?

Consider this nugget from the Chicago Tribune article:

"He (Craig Wolf) believes in giving to friends in Congress, both Democrat and Republican, who can help his organization. He believes in helping friends stay in office, especially when they have power in Congress. And he likes to make friends with the new arrivals in Congress, who can ultimately help his group."

This is hardly news, nor should it be shocking, to those who have watched politics in America for any amount of time or who have observed the way the politics of wine are played in America. However, it is a great reminder of what the consumer and the entire wine industry is up against: The Very Heart of Darkness.

1997 Whatever....

"most Americans were satisfied with the system as it is except for a small, very vocal segment who say they can’t get their bottle of 1997 whatever.”

Count me in as part of that small, vocal segment of folks who really do love the "1997 Whatever". What a great wine that was, huh! I'd loved it's fruity component of So What. And who can forget that wine's firm and crisp Too Bad. And the wine was legendary for it's long, smoky Nevermind.

The wine that all vocal wine drinkers will be looking for today, the 1997 Whatever, is the creation of Craig Wolf of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers Association. Mr. Wolf made note of this very hard to fine legend of a wine in a New York Times article by Eric Asimov. In the article Mr. Wolf pull off a pretty neat trick as he responds to the movement to open up direct shipping laws: He very capably denigrates both consumers and wine producers in once sentence. That's not easy to do...you have to work at it.

The implication of his "small, very vocal segment" is that these wine lovers, the ones that purchase LOTS and LOTS of wine from retailers, restaurants and wineries, really don't matter to him and the wholesalers he represents. And I can understand that. It's awful difficult to really pay attention to this big spending, influential, but small, group of wine lovers when your main concerns is making sure 15 year-old Lisa Schoolgirl isn't ordering 1997 Whatever on her laptop while hiding under her bed covers at night (a trick that is always followed by her faking sickness the next day so she can stay home from school and convince the delivery person that, yes, she really is 21 years old even though she lost her drivers license. Craig Wolf is worried about this group not getting wine, as well as worrying that the small, vocal segment of adults don't get their 1997 Whatever. He's a busy guy.

But Mr. Wolf also finds a way to denigrate the producer. "Eh...it's just 1997 Whatever". I suspect the owners of Chateau Whatever work pretty hard to make and sell their elusive bottling that Craig has now made famous. In fact, I'll bet the VP of Marketing at Chateau Whatever spends a GREAT DEAL of time begging his few distributors across the country to PLEASE sell the wine they said you would!! Who knows, maybe the folks at Chateau Whatever decided to drop their wholesalers and start selling their wine direct to retailers and to consumers. After all, why give away margin to a distributor who is so willing to denigrate your wine and wines of other small producers right there in the NEW YORK TIMES!!!!

If you ever wanted a pure explanation of how the wholesaler community views fine wine lovers and producers of fine wines in America, all you need to do is re-read Craig Wolf's statement today in the New York Times. Make no mistake. He knew he was talking to the NEW YORK TIMES. He knew he was talking to a reporter who's article would be read by millions including the vast majority of the winemaking community and the fine wine drinkers in the United States. He chose his words carefully. So let me remind everyone what he carefully chose to say about wine drinkers and fine wine producers:

"most Americans were satisfied with the system as it is except for a small, very vocal segment who say they can’t get their bottle of 1997 whatever."
Craig Wolf, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers Association

You Just Got a Victory

Here's the good news...the REALLY good news:

A Texas judge has declared that a state may not discriminate against out-of-state retailers. This means, if a state let's its own retailers ship inside its state, it must allow out of state retailers to ship into their state.

The fact that this issue even had to be litigated in the first place should give you an idea of how screwed up American wine laws are. After all, the 2005 Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court decision declared:

"States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers or shippers simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses"

But, when you have a the state-mandated monopolists who distribute wine being full scale against this and when they contribute millions upon millions of dollars to legislatures that make the laws, you get an idea how the lawmakers buy the argument that the Supreme Court decision did not apply to retailers. Silly, but sadly a reality.

That charade is done with. In fact, I suspect we'll have more judicial decision this year that simply confirm what this judge said.

However, the Texas Judge's very clear decision regarding retailers and shipping, he did get one thing wrong that will have to be addressed. Imagine the following:

1. Idaho wine store wants to sell wine to a Texan.
2. Idaho wine store must buy wine from Texas wholesaler.
3. Texas Wholesaler puts wine on truck and sends it up to Idaho.
4. Idaho wine store takes wine off truck.
5. Idaho wine store puts wine on a new truck and sends it back down to Texas wine lover.

Crazy? You bet.

But this scenario has a few other light hearted elements to it. First it's illegal both in Texas and in Idaho, not to mention nearly every other state I can think of. Second, the Judge in Texas actually said this is what is required.

.....I'll wait while you clean up that wine you just spit up on your nice white carpet.....

.....OK.

This rather odd part of the Texas Decision does raise some very interesting questions:

1. If a number of states put this rule into effect that retailers must by wine from wholesalers in the state to which they want to ship wine, does this mean that a national wholesale wine market has just been created because retailers will now be able to buy wine from wholesalers around the country—shopping for the best price, as it were? A corollary to this question is does this pretty much dismantle the traditional model of wine distribution that America's wholesalers have been spending a Gazillion Dollars to protect?

2. If there is now no longer a residency requirement in order to get a Texas retailers license, will California and New York and Illinois retailers begin talking more slowly and with longer syllables?

3. What happens if this requirement that out-of-state retailers buy their wine from a Texas wholesaler is completely unworkable, illegal and therefore a severe burden on Interstate Commerce?

There are in fact many other issues at hand with this part of the decision. Many of them are likely to be fleshed out in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

But for now, if you are a supporter of fair trade, if you believe protectionism is poor public policy, if you believe that the consumer of wine should have legal access to the wines you want then you need to let me leave you with this very simple message:

You Just Got a Victory in Court.

Subliminal Wine Reviews

There is a wildly subversive and subliminal quality to this story.

The Office of Champagne, USA has issued a press release exalting the fact that "Belgian Customs       authorities seized and destroyed a shipment of over 3,200 bottles of André       sparkling wine. The shipment was seized at the port of Anvers, Belgium,       on Tuesday."

The Gallo-produced products were seized and destroyed because the wine carries the terms “California       Champagne” and “André       Champagne Cellars”. Using the term "Champagne" on a wine not from the Champagne region is a violation of       export laws that protect the place names of wine       regions.

What's really interesting is that the press release comes with a link to a video of the Andre Sparkling Wine being destroyed. The video itself is perhaps the best subliminal statement about wine quality I've seen in ages. Toward the end you see the once sparkling liquid now browned by its exposure to shredded cardboard wine cases, glass, label paper, bins and who knows what else, being drained into bins from the container in which the wines were destroyed. The brown, ugly liquid can't be any good to drink, now can it? It OBVIOUSLY isn't champagne. In fact, is this what most American wine that tries to sparkle really looks like???

I'm a big supporter of this notion that integrity demands that place names ought to mean something. "Champagne" falls into that category. I'm unaware if Gallo had an exemption to the recently negotiated treaty concerning place names. Nor do I have any idea if this shipment had been in the pipeline for some time or if Gallo wanted to get away with something.

The point is that Gallo SHOULD be changing the label of Andre's so that it merely says "Sparkling Wine". It's not Champagne. It's wine that sparkles.

The Good & The Bad

The issue of direct shipping brings out the best and the worst in folks, no doubt about that. But I also think the Direct Shipping issue is the kind of topic that can demonstrate the power of online media and the power of blogs.

First the good in people. Alder's post on the Wine.com Stings has resulted in a remarkably coherent and well thought out set of comments on the issue. I can tell you that people are reading them too. In the past few days I've been interviewed by upwards of 8 different media outlets on the issue and what it means for retailers in general and to direct shipping in particular. But I want to bring you back to this issue of bringing out the good. Consider the comment on Alder's Vinography by one Emily & Stephan of Winemonger.com. It's at the bottom  of the comments. If you want to see a comment on a blog that not only sets the issue in context, but also delivers an appropriate rebuke, is amazingly articulate and actually takes action by putting their money where their mouth is, theirs is the comment to read.

More than anything you have to congratulate Alder for having what is clearly one of the most involved and well spoken readership anywhere.

But then there is the Bad that this issue of direct shipping brings out. I simply must highlight a comment I received on the post just below this. It is in fact the kind of comment I like to see if only because I know they are reading Fermentation. But it also highlights what this issue of direct shipping can do to people who are personally engaged in the issue. "The Big Boys" had this to say:

The last thing this world needs is a presumptuous prick like you telling everyone else that a system thats worked great for 70 years is corrupt.

You think you've got this figured out don't you. If there weren't any wholesalers you and your faggy California vintners would be up shit creeke.

You think drinkers and your precious SWRA will win against distributors then think again. You don't stand a chance and it's not cause of few mllion doallars. Its because no one wants to buy 100 dollar bottles of wine ovr the Internet. And it's because states don't want kids ordering booze.

Why don't you take your shitty blog, your shitty SWRA and leave the work to the big boys."

The issue of Wine.com and its stings will eventually fade away and we will all be on to another topic and another conversation. But the fact that the issue was unwrapped by bloggers and blog readers and by those that comment on wine bulletin boards will be remembered by Wine.com, "The Big Boys" and all those in the media and the simple wine lovers that found introduction to the issue online.

 

$50,000,000

Some of the most important work I've done over the past year has been with the Specialty Wine Retailers Association where I began acting as executive director in January 2007. In that year I've had the chance to testify in a number of states on the issue of direct shipping, work with some amazingly talented folks and even bear the brunt of some of the wholesalers' more nasty and snide remarks.

However, a good deal of that time was spent staring at numbers. Everyone knew that America's wine wholesalers gained influence via their campaign contributions at the state level. But we never knew the extent of that largess. So I started looking...and looking...and looking.

All that looking resulted in the SWRA Report issued today called "Wholesale Protection" that breaks down the $50 Million dollars that American wholesalers and their associations have delivered to state politicians between 2000 and 2006.

The number is remarkable not only for its size but for the way in which it exceeds the amounts of money given to political campaigns by any other sector of the alcohol industry. In fact, in that time wholesalers have given more to politicians than all wineries, beer producers, spirit producers, restaurants and retailers—combined.

Many have suggested that these are amazing numbers but that there is no smoking gun. I suppose a "smoking gun" would be evidence of legislation in exchange for dollars. Of course, this has not been found and this sort of research could not find it.

However, consider that nearly every state has laws on the books that either protect wholesalers directly from competition or limit the access that consumers have to wine in a way that aids wholesalers bottom line. Better yet, consider these circumstances:

•Between 2000 and 2006 Illinois alcohol wholesalers contributed $5,731,776 to political campaigns. In 2007 the Illinois Legislature passed a law that protected in-state alcohol wholesalers by prohibiting Illinois consumers from continuing to buy wine from out-of-state retailers. Wholesalers also convinced the Illinois legislature to force large Illinois wineries to sell only to state wholesalers, rather than direct to retailers has they had been able to do.

•Between 2000 and 2006 Texas alcohol wholesalers contributed $6,976,104 to state political campaigns. The Texas Legislature has passed prohibitions on out-of-state retailers shipping to Texans and limitations on in-state retailers shipping to Texans, both moves protective of and supported by state alcohol wholesalers.

•Between 2000 and 2006 California alcohol wholesalers contributed $4,296,304 to state political campaigns. In 2005 California passed legislation protecting wholesalers from competition by prohibiting Californians from purchasing wine from out-of-state retailers, policy California wholesalers pushed for.

•Between 2000 and 2006 Michigan wine wholesalers contributed $2,099,319 to state political campaigns. In 2005 the Michigan legislature passed a wholesaler-supported law that protected in-state wholesalers from competition by prohibiting Michigan consumers from purchasing wine from out-of-state retailers.

•Between 2000 and 2006 Virginia alcohol wholesalers contributed $2,580,161 to state political campaigns. The Virginia General Assembly passed a wholesaler-supported law prohibiting Virginia wineries from continuing to sell wine directly to retailers and forcing them to sell their wine to wholesalers.

One wonders if all this is simply a coincidence.

Here's what I know. This kind of largess buys access and influence. The lobbyists for the the wholesalers have open doors into legislators' offices where the lawmakers are told that consumers don't care about direct shipping, that retailers are bootleggers, and that minors are going to get their hands on alcohol via direct shipping.

These kinds of conversations lead to states like Illinois passing boldly unconstitutional laws even in the face of consumers begging it not be passed in the form of conversations, e-mails, letters and with the media writing over and over that the legislation stinks.

Now while I know this kind of legislation hurts the members of Specialty Wine Retailers Association, I know that it hurts consumers even more. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that there has not been the creation of a national organization that represents consumers on these issues because that's really where the leather meets the road; when consumers are told that "no, we can't ship you that wine."

The "Wholesale Protection" report is the first in a serious of steps that will expose the wholesalers, that will demonstrate conclusively that their rhetoric is not just rhetoric but actually damaging to the American wine industry and the American wine consumer. What they've yet to understand is that things will get a lot worse for them when consumers begin to get involved. They accuse me and the Specialty Wine Retailers Association of wanting "nothing less than the total deregulation of alcohol regulation in America."

What they don't understand is that I and SWRA would never advocate such a thing. However, American consumers will not just advocate it eventually, but they'll demand it.

Most Interesting Wine Stories of 2007

The 2007 calendar year is coming to an end an that prompts me to think harder about the past two months, to make assessments and to try to learn some lessons before we move on the perfectly lovely arbitrary notion of a "new year".

The wine new of 2007 when looked at retrospectively turns out to be truly educational as well as a signal of what to anticipate in the coming year and years. Here are my most interesting news stories of 2007

Ernest Gallo Dies
You don't see a death like this every year. The man was 97 years old, the patriarch of the most important wine organization in the world and had led a company that literally spanned the entirety of the modern history and development of the modern American wine industry. I can get kind of morbid when these types of passings occur and start thinking who among us has the potential to illicit the kind of full on pause when they pass and the kind of jaw dropping awe when we are forced to consider the meaning of their lives to our industry. I can think of only one living person in the American wine industry who possessed similar industry personification potential.

The Case of Wine & Family and Books
The reception that Julia Flynn Siler's "House of Mondavi" received did not totally surprise me. W hat surprised me was that it was published to begin with and received such wide distribution. Though probably  a case of my being blinded by being inside the forest rather than in the clearing, I'm still stunned at how well this book on the travails and successes of the Robert Mondavi Winery did. Most books sell few copies. This book sold MANY copies. It's a testament to Flynn Siler and her publisher. But it should also be message: the goings on in the wine business ARE interesting to those outside it. I see the success of "The House of Mondavi" similar to the success of Sideways: There is ample room to exploit the goings on of the wine business that will be of great interest to the general, beer and coke drinking society.

$162 Billion and Counting
That was the amount that MKF Research determined the American Wine Industry contributes to the economy. This is a big Frigg'n number and was not lost on policy makers in Washington when it was unveiled there in January. It's hard not to take seriously an industry that generates this kind of contribution to the economy. When you combine this revelation with the related revelation that America will soon become the largest wine drinking country in the world and all sorts of ideas start swirling in your head from the change that has overcome our culture to the willingness of non-traditional wine producing states to support their developing industries to the potential to use the American wine market to explore new ways to promote and market wine.

Gary Vaynerchuk
It's very difficult to predict the course any public personality will take in the future, particularly Gary's. But it's important to note things about Gary's success with and and as a result of WineLibraryTV: 1) It has been a very long time since a true "personality" has emerged from the American Wine Industry that has the potential to transcend the cynical gaze of the industry itself and appeal to an audience of "regular people". Gary is doing that. 2) Gary emerged from an online presence. I think he'll eventually shed his association with the world of wine online. But the fact that he burst on to the scene in the form of ones and zeros is significant to a lot of people and should be significant to a lot more people.

"Screw'em"
That was the message that emerged from the Illinois Legislature during the middle of the year as lawmakers their bent to the will of wholesalers and striped Illinois consumers of the right to purchase wine from out-of-state wine merchants. The push to keep wine from being shipped from out-of-state retailers to Illinois consumers was a truly cynical effort on the part of nearly every organization involved. The same effort was made in Oregon, where it failed. And it was the same effort that succeeded earlier in places like California, New York, Michigan and Texas, all states where lawsuits are in place opposing this kind of anti-consumer and unconstitutional lawmaking. The successful effort in Illinois to screw consumers raises a very fundamental question: What will it take to demonstrate conclusively that state-mandated monopolies that deliver unchecked power to wholesalers are not just wrong, but almost always result in immoral results?

No More Wine X
I'm not sure how many people remember the brief impact the story of Wine X Magazine closing d own made. But I do. I think I remember more vividly because I know the publisher pretty well, I understood his vision for the magazine, I recall the rancid reaction from the wine industry when it first emerged with its truncated and off the cuff reviews. Wine X never became a big name publication. It never competed with the Wine Spectator, Robert Parker, etc. But it did change the way many people think AND write about wine. Darryl Robert's short, sometimes hilarious wine reviews that often used pop culture references or compared wines with body parts, music and celebrities is something you see in lots of places now. It doesn't matter if you like this practice. It only matters that you recall what magazine opened the door to allow it to become popular.

Turmoil Caused By Costco
When Costco convinced a Federal Judge in Washington State that it was unconstitutional for a state to allow its own wineries to sell direct to retailers and restaurants but force out-of-state wineries to use wholesalers to get their wines to market all hell broke loose. In 2007 we began to see the results of this. Naturally, America's wholesalers hate this development. It opens doors behind which they know lies the the shredded remains of their faux necessity. Nevertheless, the ruling changed a lot of things for a lot of people. In Virginia, a serious winemaking state, wholesalers convinced legislators to take away their wineries right to sell direct to retailers. In Illinois the legislature curtailed local wineries' ability to use "self distribution" to their hearts content and even stripped the larger wineries of their right to do any self distribution. It's important to note that these negative reactions to the ruling were all taken for the specific reason of protecting wine wholesalers from protection. But it's more important to note that the ruling will and is leading to some of the most interesting innovations that will have a huge impact on the American wine industry.

There were other important stories in 2007. There may be more to come. But these are the ones that really made me stop, sit up and think.

Promote Viticultural Authenticity: You Can Do it!!

For some time now a controversy has been brewing over the system of American Viticultural Areas (AVAs). Russian River Valley, Sonoma Valley, Napa Valley...these are all AVAs, geographically delineated areas created/approved by the Federal Government's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) that in theory possess unique climate and geologic aspects affecting grape growing. AVAs are akin to Europe's well-established appellation system. Unlike in Europe, America's AVA's do not come with rules on what grapes can be grown, how they can be processed into wine, etc. However, in order to put the "Sonoma Valley" AVA on your bottle of wine, 85% of the grapes that went into the making of that wine must have come from the the AVA on the label.

In theory (one uses that phrase a lot when discussing AVAs) the unique climatic and and geological elements of an approved AVA are supposed to impart something unique to the wines that are produce with grapes grown within that AVA. Why else would there be a reason to identify a particular area? However, when proposals for AVA's are submitted to the TTB for approval, exactly what the unique character of wines produced from the proposed AVA are supposed to be really plays no role in whether the TTB approves that AVA. The question is only, does the proposed delineated area have unique natural characteristics that apply to the entire area inside the boundaries.

One could make a case that the Russian River Valley AVA in Sonoma County does indeed possess unique climatic and geologic characteristics throughout it's vast area. The Russian River Valley AVA encompasses 126,000 acres. However, a much better case could be made that smaller areas within the Russian River Valley AVA possess even more precise and consistent climatic and geologic characteristics that are in fact quite different from other areas inside the larger Russian River Valley AVA. It's this fact, one that can be applied to nearly every other medium to large AVA in America that has resulted in the brewing AVA controversy.

Last week the TTB addressed this controversy by discussing it and making suggestions for the future of AVA granting. Rich Cartiere of the Wine Market Report(subscription)  has done a great job of outlining the substance and significance of the TTB's Report. What's troubling is the way the TTB understands the issue of "preciseness". Consider this statement from the TTB's report:

"with reference to the boundary description and the geographical features criteria, a change in an existing AVA boundary, or the adoption of a new AVA within an existing AVA,could suggest that the original boundary was improperly drawn or that there is no unity or consistency in the features of the existing AVA that give it a unique and distinctive identity in a viticultural sense."

What they are acknowledging is that proposals for AVAs within AVAs (such as the Green Valley appellation within the Russian River Valley AVA) suggest that the larger AVA is not the climatically and geographically or geologically consistent area its approved status suggests its is.

Their proposed response to this "problem" is to let future petitioners for new AVAs inside established AVA's know they "should be expected to dispel any apparent inconsistency or to explain why it is acceptable"

My guess is future petitioners will go with "explain why it is acceptable" since dispelling "any apparent inconsistency" would remove any good reason for having the new AVA if it's climatic and geological features are consistent with the larger AVA's.

The concern of the TTB is that AVA's inside AVAs "might draw into question the accuracy and validity" of the larger AVA or even the entire AVA system as currently conceived.

The unique problem the TTB faces in trying to address the issue of what an AVA is comes from the fact that they apparently want to keep AVA's as a marketing tool while more and more winemakers want to use AVAs as legitimate tools for discerning differences among growing regions.

Yes, AVA's are marketing tools primarily. If they were genuine tools for identifying unique and homogeneous areas for grape growing you would not see so many huge AVAs that simple do not encompass homogeneous climatic and geologic features. Consider the original rational that was given by the government for the creation of AVAs:

"The establishment of viticultural areas and the subsequent use of viticultural area names as appellations of origin in wine labeling and advertising will help consumers better identify the wines they may purchase, and will help winemakers distinguish their products from wines made in other areas."

"Help Consumers" and "Distinguish Their Products" are marketing goals.

Yet back when this description of AVAs was created in 1986 vintners and growers were just beginning to really notice the differences among growing areas that often resulted in grapes from particular areas having distinct character. They were just beginning to really appreciate terroir. Today, that recognition is at the heart of every growers mindset. Growers and artisan winemakers need tools to communicate the very specific differences among terroirs. Most AVAs just aren't the right tool. They are too big, too clumsy, and too general.

One response to this has been petitioning the TTB for AVAs within AVAs.  Again, Green Valley, a much smaller tract of land located in the southern reaches of the Russian River Valley where the fog first hits and is the last to recede is a good example. Atlas Peak, a mountainous area inside the Napa Valley AVA where the winds and diurnal temperatures distinguish it from the much warmer Napa Valley floor is another good example.

But the existence of these and other sub-AVAs are consistent reminders of the problems with the larger AVAs within which they exist: They make little real sense.

Another response to the uselessness of large AVAs to distinguish real climatic and geologic reality is the increased use of Vineyard Designation on labels. By identifying the specific vineyard from which grapes came, a winemaker is in affect saying, "what's unique about the grapes that went into this wine is not the character of the appellation we have on the label, but the climatic and geologic character of the vineyard we've identified on the label.

In the end, if the TTB is most concerned with retaining the marketing value of existing AVAs, then it should discourage the creation of smaller and, ironically, more consumer-friend sub-AVAs. And this seems exactly to me what they are concerned with. Otherwise they would not point with trepidation to the fact that "the adoption of a new AVA within an existing AVA,could suggest that the original boundary was improperly drawn or that there is no unity or consistency in the features of the existing AVA that give it a unique and distinctive identity in a viticultural sense."

They state this as though it is a problem; that noticing the lack of climatic, geological and geographical unity within so many of the existing AVAs isn't a good thing. Well, it's not a good thing if your concern is retaining the marketing value of existing AVAs.

However, if your concern is doing a good job of identifying authentically unique grape growing areas that, due to their specific combination of climate and soil have a unique effect on grapes grown in them, then you'd want to encourage MORE sub-AVAs.

A message to the TTB: YOU CAN DO IT. YOU CAN CAN HELP PROMOTE VITICULTURAL AUTHENTICITY.

Beezelbub Comes To Utah?

You have to admit, it has to be one of the funniest and weirdest anti-alcohol laws in the country:

No Alcohol will be served or available for purchase on election day or when the polls are open.

Yet leave it Utah.

But wait the spawn of the Devil is on his way to rectify the situation and bring Satan back in control of Utah. State Senator Scott McCoy thinks this law should be repealed:

"This whole notion of not being able to drink on the day you're voting is just archaic. You can get completely liquored up at home and go vote if you want to, or you can have a glass of wine at home while you fill out at an absentee ballot, yet on Election Day you can't walk into a restaurant at noon and have a glass of wine. It seems there's a bizarre inconsistency."

This guy clearly wants out of Utah politics. But he's got a point.

No doubt the political leaders in Utah will point out that Senator Scott is in the employ of Beelzebub and has it in mind to lead all the children and weaker souls in Utah to the gates of Hell, all the while chugging down cheap Chardonnay.

Indeed, Senator McCoy has a tough road to hoe ahead of him if he thinks he'll get this law changed. Consider this little nugget found in the middle of the Associated Press story on Mr. McCoy's Windmill Tilting expedition:

"Bobbie Coray, a recent appointee to the state liquor commission and who does not drink for religious reasons, proposed hiding liquor bottles from view in restaurants so those who don't drink aren't offended by the sight of them."

But here's my favorite thing about his entire article. The very next sentence following the revelation that simply seeing a bottle of Cabernet would likely offend folks in Utah is this beautifully understated sentence:

"McCoy acknowledges revising any liquor law will be difficult."

You think?

It's unfortunate that many Associated Press articles don't carry the reporter's name on them and also that I'm too lazy to go searching for the name. At the very least this reporter should get the Sense Of Human Award for Journalism.

Utah happens to be one of those states that we look at from afar and think, "what pretty mountains...let's go ski." But upon closer inspection of the state and its inhabitants' proclivity to legislate the fun out of living, we almost always end up heading to Nevada. After all, if you are going to do the Devil's work, you may as well do it in his back yard.

Wine Blogger Goes Political

It was only a matter of time before someone wrote the book on Wine & Politics; on the political machinations that help determine who will make money on wine by controlling how it is made, how it it sold and how it is consumed. The only question was who would write.

That would be Dr. Vino.

Not scheduled to hit the shelves until spring of next year, "Wine Politics: How Governments, Environmentalists, Mobsters and Critics Influence the Wines We Drink", appears by its title to take a broad view of what constitutes "politics". This is I think the only way to approach this subject.

The book is an extension of Tyler Colman's dissertation on a very similar subject and includes further research and likely some removal of the scholarly elements and language that tend to make up a dissertation.

While I hope Tyler's effort finds a wider audience, I suspect it will be a book that particularly fascinates those in the wine industry, those who regulate it, those who drink the majority of wine, the environmentalists that deal with the consequences of the growth of vineyards and the mobsters that have attempted to control the wine industry for decades.

What's really fascinating about the nexus of politics and wine is how the issues that surround wine can be applied to any number of important political issues and trends that have helped define the United States. Whether you are discussing federalism, active state liberalism, civil rights, commerce and the constitution,  environmentalism and individual rights or Progressivism, you can use wine to explore these topics.

I'm looking forward to Tyler's book.

 

The Solution is At Hand...Rejoice

"It's just a matter of time before we all end up in court"
—Mike Wittenwyler, Attorney for Wisconsin Wine & Spirit Distributors

What would Mike and the Wisconsin wine and spirit distributors do without me? Luckily, I'm on job and can explain in simple terms how they and the state of Wisconsin can avoid ending up in court. But first some background.

In Wisconsin it was legal for Wisconsin wineries to sell and deliver wine directly to retailers. they were not forced by law to sell their wine to a wine distributor who may or may not have sold the wine to retailers and who don't know nearly as much about the Wisconsin winery's brand and wines and who most of the Wisconsin wineries wanted nothing to do with..thank you very much.

However, Wisconsin did not allow out-of-state wineries to go around the wholesaler and sell directly to Wisconsin retailers. That's a constitutional "no no".

The wholesaler's solution? Make it all fair by taking away the Wisconsin winery's right to sell directly to retailers and force them to sell their wine to wholesalers. The Wisconsin wineries will make less profit. They'll have far less control over the marketing of their wines. But, Wisconsin would be in compliance with the constitution and Wisconsin wholesalers would make more profit.

The Governor of Wisconsin vetoed this approach, which led Mr. Wittenwyler to offer his dire prediction that "It's just a matter of time before we all end up in court".

Fear not, Mr. Wittenwyler. I have the solution:

Allow all wineries, whether in Wisconsin or outside Wisconsin to sell and ship directly to retailers. This approach has a number of benefits:

1. It is an embrace of free trade.
2. It rejects commercial restrictions.
3. It rejects protectionism.
4. It helps Wisconsin wineries
5. It assures greater selection for retailers and customers
6. It is not unconstitutional

There you go Mr. Wittenwyler. Sleep soundly tonight. The answer to your worries is hence offered.

More on this issue can be found at the Specialty Wine Retailers Association Blog, "Wine Without Borders".

"For Immediate Release"

We send out press releases at Wark Communications. Of late, many of them and for various clients. I don't like press releases very much mainly because they are 1) impersonal and 2) even when the list of those folks you are sending them too is well vetted and well developed over time, it still feels like using a shotgun to blast a whole in the door when a simple knock will do.

But to this feeling I have to add that I really do enjoy writing them if only for the challenge of having to accomplish so much with them. For example, I need to satisfy the client who themselves often must see that various people and entities are included in a press release if only to cover their political bases.

In writing the release I have to be conscious of the fact that no matter how compelling the or interesting the content, many folks will never get past the first paragraph. That puts a lot of pressure on that first paragraph and the headline.

The press release, as an information piece and stylistically, lies somewhere between the used care salesman shouting in your ear over the TV and the sober "just the facts" reporting of the daily paper's business section. That's not an easy balance to achieve. So I do enjoy that challenge too.

Then of course there is the challenge of writing a press release that needs, to the extent it can, to draw the eye of a variety of reporters, writers, and bloggers who while they all clearly have some interest in the wine media also have a different audience of general approach to writing about wine. If you can't do this with a single press release, then you need to write two, possibly three release on the same subject that will appeal to different types of wine journalists. Or, in lieu of that, you need to find a nifty justification that you can use to convince yourself that this single press release will appeal to everyone.

After more than 17 years of writing, reading and editing and receiving press releases I have a decent idea of what kind of subject matter will really get attention. But in all honestly, it's only "a decent idea".  For example, a couple days ago I helped write and released a press release about a lawsuit that a winery had won here in California. It was an obscure lawsuit that in effect staved off the creation of a defacto "franchise law" here in California. I used BusinessWire to distribute the press release electronically as well as sent it to a small, but specific set of wine writers that tend to be interested in industry news.

Later in day, after it was released, I get a call from my account manager at BusinessWire who tells me that this release was the third most most read and most accessed and read release sent that day. That's a pretty impressive accomplishment. Hundreds of releases are sent over the wires by BusinessWire daily and only two were accessed and read more often than this one about an obscure California lawsuit. This just goes to show that even when I do my job well, I'm not always clear why it was done well. Just writing the previous sentence and looking at