Going local

A couple of weeks ago, my old friend, Jim Trezise, President of the promotion and research office, the New York Wine and Grape Foundation (NYWGF) wrote a piece in his newsletter titled: Why Don’t New York Restaurants Feature More New York Wines?

Jim told the story of having dined in a seafood restaurant located in the state’s capitol, Albany, where he found not one New York wine on the wine list.

This is a restaurant that apparently has taken part in an annual event that NYWGF sponsors to acquaint restaurants and retailers in the state with New York wines from all appellations and AVAs.

Yet, on this regular working day, the restaurant offered Riesling from Washington State, but not one from the state that arguably does that wine best in the U.S., and the state in which the restaurant is located!

Jim wanted to know from the manager why there are no New York wines on the list. When he asked if her choice had to do with quality, the manager said no, the quality of New York wine is not a problem.

Jim pressed on. Is it pricing? No, she isn’t concerned about the pricing of New York wines.

He didn’t give up. Jim asked if she was unhappy with the promotion of the wines. No, she is glad to participate in the annual get acquainted promotion hosted by NYWGF.

One more time: Do the wines lack recommendations? Not really. In fact, the manager told Jim that the NY Restaurant Association encourages restaurants to feature local wines.

The only thing the manager did say that seemed to be nice to hear is that even though New York wines have been receiving decent magazine ratings lately, those ratings don’t really matter in a restaurant setting—good news, if you ask me.

Baffled, Jim wanted to know what the problem is.

The manager’s answer was that wholesalers bring specials to the restaurant, print the wine lists, and make her life easy.

Jim was of course incredulous. He cannot understand why the manager would forgo wines on the list that she admitted are a good match for her restaurant just because the wholesalers make her life easy, to which I ask: why not?

Why shouldn’t the manager respond to a promotional mechanism that makes her life easy? Isn’t that why the wholesalers do it? They make her life easy; she buys wine from them.

Obviously, the wholesalers don’t offer specials on New York wine, and even wholesalers who offer the wines don’t seem to readily print them on the wine list. Should we blame the manager for accepting the specials she is offered and the printed wine list?

First, let's address the specials.

The wholesaler provides the specials to the restaurant, but they are generally sponsored—and paid for—by the producer. The producer provides the wholesaler with what is called in the business a “program.”

A program can come in a number of forms, but each form is a way to reduce the wholesale price of wines while increasing the incentive to buy in large volume. Both wholesaler and producer get behind the program and help promote the wines so that they move well and the restaurant makes a profit.

A program is also designed to motivate the wholesaler’s sales team to push the wines in the marketplace.

I suspect that New York wines need more programs and they need to push the wholesalers harder--either that, or get customers to demand their wines in restaurants.

Loyalty to local wines is a fine thing for the NYWGF to promote and for a restaurant to engage in, but it’s profits that the restaurant needs in order to stay in business. The annual New York wine promotion event is proof enough that the promotion must either bring more people or better wine prices to the restaurant. If the promotion is not extended or added to throughout the year, and the hordes stop asking for local wine, the restaurant goes back into “easy profit” mode.

Now, for that wine list printed and provided by the wholesaler.

In this day of desktop publishing, there’s no excuse for a restaurant to rely on it. And by not using desktop publishing to create its own wine list, the restaurant shows that it isn’t much interested in giving its customers revolving and dynamic wine choices. To me, that’s an even worse offense than shunning local wines.

If you are reading this entry anywhere other than on the vinofictions blog, be aware that it has been lifted without my permission (and without recompense), and that’s a copyright infringement, no matter that the copyright information appears with it.

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
February 2009. All rights reserved.

America the wine culture

While trying to catch up on my reading the other day, I came across a story from January that addressed the seeming growing wine consumption in the United States.

The direction of the brief story was to show the relationship between declining wine consumption in Europe (especially France and Italy) beside the rising consumption in the United States.

One of the statistics in the document that caught my eye also jiggled my memory.

The numbers reported in the story don’t always appear as per capita but rather as the overall consumption numbers and then they are compared to Europe and Australia, etc.

I did quick math on the overall consumption numbers and came up with a per capita wine consumption by Americans in 2008 at nearly three gallons.

Each case of wine is approximately 2.4 gallons. So, the numbers mean that for every adult of drinking age, wine consumption in the United States accounted for just over a case annually.

Juxtapose those three gallons a year over here with the per capita consumption in Italy and it presents quite a picture.

In Italy, wine consumption has been steadily dropping for a few years now. Still, the per capita consumption in Italy hovers just above nine cases annually, and that’s the wine that’s not homemade, which in Italy is surely quite a number.

All of this got me to thinking. I seemed to remember a per capita wine consumption number in the United States from 1984 that wasn’t too distant from the one posted for 2008. I did some checking and came up with the Wine Institute link below.

The reason 1984 stuck in my mind is because, that was the year I started my small winery and I was doing consumption research that year. Sure enough, as you can see in the link, in 1984 per capita wine consumption in the U.S. was just under one case annually.

What do the numbers say about the United States as a wine culture?

I’m afraid the numbers don’t say what we would like to believe about our wine culture.

Wine consumption in the U.S. has been rising for the past 15 years, and all we’ve come up with is an annual increase in per capita consumption from just under one case to just over one case!

So, why do we keep hearing about the United States wine market being coveted by Europeans and Australians?

The answer to that is in the numbers, too.

The latest census bureau report shows the adult population of the United States at 218 million (that includes 18 year olds). The over 65 group is at 36 million and the under 17 at 53 million.

I can’t find any information that gives a census of how many adults drink that one case each year, but I did find that just over 300 million cases of wine are consumed each year.

Think about it: 300-plus million cases going to a couple hundred million people, yet each person is allotted just over one case a year.

Based on my wine consumption, and the consumption of people I know, it’s clear to me that there’s a vast opportunity for selling wine to adults in the United States. Only a few of us presently do the heavy lifting.

Couple the opportunity here with the opportunity in China, where they might drink one bottle per year on a per capita basis, and you’ve got the two truly growth markets for wine in the 21st century—provided someone figures out how to speed up the growth, because at this pace, it will take a couple of centuries to make any money selling wine.

One thing is certain: the United States is NOT yet a wine culture. Not even close.

Wine Institute

Wine Market Council

If you are reading this entry anywhere other than on the vinofictions blog, be aware that it has been lifted without my permission (and without recompense), and that’s a copyright infringement, no matter that the copyright information appears with it.

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
February 2009. All rights reserved.

wine as a grocery

Many years ago, when the New York State legislature funded the start up New York Wine and Grape Foundation, Walter S. Taylor of Bully Hill Vineyards used to warn that taking government money leads to having to bend to the whims of bureaucrats.

These days, the whims of New York bureaucrats are pointedly in the direction of trying to find money to run the government. So, in the scramble to make ends meet, Governor Paterson’s proposed budget hits the wine industry, and in a number of ways: he wants to do away with that $2.8 million a year the state puts into wine and grape promotion and research; he wants to raise excise taxes on alcohol; and he wants to open up wine licenses to the grocery industry.

I’m neither for nor against the first proposal, except to say that the NY wine industry has had 25 years of state funding for promotion and research and in that time the industry has neglected to make an effort to become self sustaining in promotion and research; I dislike the second proposal because it means higher prices; and I’m for the last proposal, which is the one I want to address.

Some of the money that the state spent on promotion and research showed that wine is a healthy food; if so, where in the world should wine show up on shelves?

At the very least, the governor’s proposal to allow wine in grocery stores is consistent with the research.

NY wine and liquor retailers are not unanimously parading the streets in support of the wine in grocery store concept, and they have a valid reason to be upset. They’ve been forced to play under rules that created special “sin” shops. It wasn’t the retailers fault that the system was set up that way since 1933.

On the other hand, the system was set up so that wine and liquor retailers are in a semi-protected business. Not just anybody can get a license to sell wine—ostensibly, anyway—and you can’t plop your wine shop a foot away from an existing wine shop. A new wine shop must be within a certain radius distance from existing retail shops, and when a retail shop application for license is submitted, the state liquor authorities ask existing shops in the vicinity if they have any objections.

Now that the state wants to change the rules, retailers are indeed in a pickle. Maybe the state can give retailers some choices.

Retailers are afraid that grocery stores will gain buying leverage that will force the wine and liquor store out of the low priced/high volume wine market and then out of business.

The state should allow cooperative buying so that small stores can make large purchases from distributors to take advantage of the same volume discounts that will be available to grocery chains. As the rules stand now, large wine retailers have that discount buying advantage over small retailers and that isn't nice.

OK, that's the retailers-what about the consumers?

Existing retailers claim that consumers will lose out because grocery stores won’t offer small producer products.

If true, that situation could be turned into an opportunity for small retailers to develop a niche, provided the state allows them to sell beer and groceries. To compete, small shops can provide small producer wines, beers, and gourmet foods and they certainly can provide more personal and educated service.

There are other concerns. My point is that there may also be solutions.

One solution, however, doesn't look like a solution at all. A group of retailers have targeted New York wineries in their attempt to prevent wine in grocery store legislation. They have met and made some sort of pact to remove from their shelves the wines of any New York producer that supports the concept.

That's a dumb solution.

The last time I checked, retailers make a living by making a profit on the sale of the items that they retail. Removing product from the shelves works against that system. It also lessens reasons for consumers to come to your store, or to support you when you need them to press their legislators.

Threatening to remove wine from the shelves brings up that old saying about cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face…

Besides, wineries don’t make alcohol policy. Their only interest is to get wine to the consumer. That’s why they sell it to wholesalers and/or direct to retailers.

Speaking of policy, I don’t think the governor has much interest in whether or not wine is food that should be sold at grocery stores. He needs money and he sees grocery chains as a way to pay big dollars for licenses to sell wine. He also knows that this subject has been kicking around in NY for decades.

Retailers need to come up with creative ideas to offer the state that would solve the governor’s financial need, the grocery industry’s desires, the wholesalers and retailers interests, and, most of all, consumers.

Hint: blackmailing wineries isn’t the answer.

To effect legislation, you lobby the legislature.

NOTE: Sorry to report to all who have been reading the Contrarian blog on Cruvee.com that the owners of the site have decided to end the blog.

If you are reading this entry anywhere other than on the vinofictions blog, be aware that it has been lifted without my permission (and without recompense), and that’s a copyright infringement, no matter that the copyright information appears with it.

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
February 2009. All rights reserved.

Moronic me

Recently, I came to the same conclusion that my colleague, Lyle Fass, came to about wine-centric forum Web sites. There’s a major level of futility connected to the many discussions that take place over and over on those sites.

As a result, I find myself gravitating more and more toward commenting on blogs, which, it turns out, isn’t always smooth sailing either.

A little while ago, one of the columns that I write for a newspaper’s magazine managed to migrate to the newspaper’s Web site—this happens not with all the columns, but with a few columns that the editors seem to think worthy of Internet exposure.

The column was about pairing dessert wine with dessert. I didn’t know that it was online until one of those Google Alerts came to me to tell me whenever my name is mentioned in an online post. The alert sent me to a blog by Kathleen Lisson, who talks about wine and food pairings. In her blog entry Ms. Lisson referenced my column and so I clicked on the link to see where it appeared online.

I won’t go into the extent of the column; you can read it by clicking the link below. But I was struck by the one comment to the column that appeared right under it.

People with nothing constructive to say often post anonymously or with a fictitious screen name. In this case, the reason for hiding one’s identity likely has to do with the nature of the name calling, not to mention the general vacuous nature of the overall post.

The writer starts by calling my column moronic and then proceeds to point out myriad misunderstandings, lack of knowledge, and general lack of civility not displayed by me but by the writer’s rebuttal.

Just in case this person follows this blog: they are called dessert wines because they often ARE the dessert and because you don’t consume them until the end of the main meal—get it?

At first, my heart raced when I read the inane comment. It’s that instinctual fight or flight reaction that so often takes over our sense of reason. I made ready to post a heated response, but then I stopped to do what matters—to think.

Over my lifetime and especially ever since I started to teach wine classes, I’ve learned that one’s efforts at educating have the best effects on those who seek to learn. You can’t teach those who already know everything. Ego makes no room for rationality. Of course, this particular writer’s dripping sarcasm makes a feeble attempt at covering up a lack of knowledge, but isn’t that what making noise is all about?

In my view, one of the hallmarks of intelligence is a sense of irony and humor; in a reference to something I wrote about Port, the writer could not have been any clearer about his or her lack of either. Therefore, I chose not to engage the recalcitrant know-it-all but instead to vent here, where I use my real name and invite the comments of real people unafraid to tell me who they are.

I do wish that those interested in spewing venom would turn to talk radio where it belongs.

You can make your evaluation of both my column and that person’s response. If you want to comment here on the matter, tell me who you are and I’ll engage in the conversation—the same goes to my secret admirer, should he or she be reading this blog.

Column

Lisson

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
January 2009. All rights reserved.

Just the facts, please

I’ve said this before, but after a recent experience I had on someone else’s blog, it’s worth saying one more time: opinions are fine, as far as they go, and we all harbor opinions. But my wider interest is in the facts.

I can’t count the many times over the course of my life when my opinion on some situation was shot down by the truth of the matter, or a small fact that I did not know existed. Over time, I learned that an opinion without accompanying facts isn’t of much use to others.

I recently had the experience of questioning the opinion of a blogger concerning pairing wine with chocolate. The blogger’s opinion is not only that red wine and chocolate do not pair well together, but also that a winery trying to persuade consumers that the pairing works is guilty of scamming.

The blogger’s opinions would at least seem credible if some evidence of a universal nature were provided to support the universal criticism. But the blogger provides none of that.

Other than chocolate is sweet and red wine is not, the blogger says nothing enlightening about the pairing—and of course, not all chocolate is sweet and not all red wine isn’t.

Even still, it would be nice to know what there is to stop a sweet chocolate from pairing with the right dry red wine? Wine and food pairings rely on texture and components. In my experience, the fruit in wine and the tannin in chocolate are often the key to whether or not there can be a marriage of the two. Blanket condemnation is off the mark.

In addition, the blogger accuses wineries of scamming consumers when they pour red wine with chocolate in their tasting rooms because consumers have been drinking. Following the logic, one can make the claim that wine tasting rooms are a big scam, because consumers are drinking and that is why they like the wine that they buy.

The blogger admitted to not having tried some of the wine and chocolate pairings that some mentioned in their comments. In my book, that doesn’t lend credibility to the blanket opinion, and I hope the blogger tries some of the suggestions.

When posting my comments on that blog I did something that I have never done before: I posted under anonymous. When I called the blogger on the assumptions of the opinion, my motive was questioned. Coming from this particular blogger, that’s an interesting allusion:

I posted anonymously because the blogger does not divulge his or her identity, claiming that the opinions might get the blogger into trouble at work.

I’m sorry to say, but the blogger's defense for anonymity does more to raise suspicion than to build confidence; the blogger proves that by suspecting my motive for commenting anonymously (which was my way of making a statement about the blogger's anonymity).

Aside from what I think of the red wine and chocolate opinion that comes without factual back up, a person must take responsibility for his or her words. If for whatever reason that isn’t possible, then that person ought to re-evaluate the leap he or she has made, and the reader ought to take the opinions with a grain of chocolate—and a glass of wine!

WineRocks

If you are reading this entry anywhere other than on the vinofictions blog, be aware that it has been lifted without my permission (and without recompense), and that’s a copyright infringement, no matter that the copyright information appears with it.

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
January 2009. All rights reserved.

Get on the offensive

Far be it from me to give PR advice to someone who is in the PR game—if I had any PR talent, I’d certainly be a much wealthier wine writer. But a recent series of posts at Fermentation.com compelled me to both pull out of the discussion and give my opinion here where I am safe and comfortable!

I applaud Tom Wark’s work with the Specialty Retailers Association. I believe fully that the present system of alcohol regulation that was left to the states to decide, individually, is a disaster of great proportions, not to mention the little matter of it being the result of a Constitutional Amendment (the 21st) that contradicts an earlier and still existing Constitutional clause (the Dormant Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8).

Yet, I am of the opinion that Tom’s counter arguments to the specious arguments put forward by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) may be helping to create more fog rather than to lift it.

WSWA is obviously in favor of maintaining the present three-tier wine distribution system, and even to tighten it further. The system is perfect for the group. It makes wine wholesalers among the few, if there are any other, industries that survive by way of government revenue protection--a cursory glance at many state regulations clearly shows that the purpose of the three-tier system is to contain the industry so that the state can easily identify and collect its tax revenue.

That same glance at the regulations will show the astute among us something more enlightening about the system.

When Prohibition ended in 1933, the country did not automatically lose those with “dry” sentiments. The Congress knew this fact, and some in congress knew they had constituents and lobbyists back home who were watching. So, the mealy bunch in Washington punted the ball to the states. After the feds set up their alcohol tax revenue interests, they allowed the states to set up their own, plus their own idea of what constitutes alcohol commerce.

States where powerful “dry” interests resided were more severe with regulations than those with a weaker “dry” interest. In the former states, legislators brazenly stated that their interests were to make it difficult for businesses to traffic in and for consumers to have access to alcohol—in a recent court case in Washington State involving Costco, that state’s liquor control authority plainly said so in testimony.

The 75-year three-tier system is entrenched. It will not go away easily if at all. The only way that it can ever be abolished is through a national frontal attack on its obvious Constitutional conflict, and even then it would take a less moralistic Supreme Court than the present one to shoot down those contradictions.

When Tom Wark rails against the self-interested bullshit that WSWA puts out, he gets himself sucked into the wrong arguments. Those who support the WSWA bring up all the side issues that have little or nothing to do with the real issue; then, Tom responds and some other subject comes up. With each response, a new subject comes up and soon enough, people are arguing over everything except the plain fact that the three tier system may not have been designed in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, but the Congress of 1933 certainly opened the doors for abuse of the Constitution.

If Tom or anyone else wants to do something positive concerning the disgusting way that wine is regulated and controlled across the U.S. it would seem best to ignore the WSWA and go straight to the courts. Build a coalition of legal minds from state-to-state to attack the constitutionality of state legislation over the commerce of wine and get that story into the mainstream press.

The people who agitated for Prohibition were successful because they learned that reformers do their best work when they turn the tides from being on the defensive to being on the offensive.

(Anyone reading this blog on a site other than Vinofictions is made aware that it has been used without permission--a violation of my copyright.)

Fermentation blog

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
December 2008. All rights reserved.

Is this what socialism means?

My dictionary lists at least three definitions for the word socialism, none of which apply strictly to any system of government that I can find, but for the sake of argument, let’s use the first definition that comes up:

...a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.

The above definition of socialism seems a lot more benign than we make of the word. Maybe that’s why our heads of state have no problem bailing out the corporate world or handing out an agricultural subsidy, even if the money is ours and we haven’t authorized using it that way.

The New York State grape and wine industries have been the beneficiaries of a form of socialism since 1985. That was the year the New York Wine and Grape Foundation was formed to pump government, er, taxpayer money into research and promotion connected to the two industries.

Originally, the Foundation was to get started with New York State money; then, the government payments were to be incrementally reduced over a few years while industry money was to supplant it, until no more government money was necessary.

Today, the Foundation faces the hard reality that you can’t count on the government forever.

As almost every governor will be forced to do in their coming budgets, New York State’s Governor Paterson is forced to shove economic realities down our throats with a budget proposal that cuts programs and raises taxes and fees.

One of the cuts in New York is the money for the New York Wine and Grape Foundation. In his weekly e-newsletter, the Foundation’s President, Jim Trezise, alluded to the possibility that it might be the last correspondence from him and that 2009 might present us with the end of the organization.

I find it truly sad that after 24 years the Foundation still relies on state money that was supposed to have been cut off decades ago; how difficult it is to break a socialistic addiction. The situation seems to me like a combined indictment of the wine and grape industries, the state, and the Foundation.

The wine and grape industries should have long ago tried to become self-sustaining through a marketing order formula that would have made research and promotion industry-funded.

New York State is at fault for not forcing the industries to become self-reliant.

The Foundation should not have relied on New York State money as something perpetual but instead should have found ways to persuade the industries to create that marketing order.

Of course, the same problem that is causing government money to dry up has also created financial disarray in an industry that relies largely on tourism, which in this downturn is down. The grape and wine industries aren’t likely to be in a position to take up the slack. But then, maybe it takes something like this disaster to galvanize an industry, and maybe an industry-based solution will emerge.

Whatever happens, one thing is certain: the New York grape and wine industries are about to discover how people feel when their welfare checks stop arriving or their unemployment insurance runs out. That's the down side of semi-socialism.

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
December 2008. All rights reserved.