Followup: The backlash against cheap wine

Three things are clear after last week's post detailing the controversy over the increasing popularity of cheap wine. First, it's a topic that wine drinkers care about; the post totaled the third most number of visitors in blog history. Second, it deeply divides the wine business, with comments praising what I wrote as well as emails telling me I know nothing about the wine business and should pretty much shut up.

Third, and most importantly, the post and the reaction to it shows just how fragmented the wine business is, and that those of us who write about wine don't necessarily reflect -- or address -- the concerns of the vast majority of wine drinkers. The Winestream Media never pretended to do this, but the Internet was supposed to change that, to make wine writing more accessible to the masses. It is beginning to look like that has not happened, and the odds get longer every day that it will.

Most Americans, for whatever reason, don't drink wine. Forty percent of Americans don't drink at all, and the Wine Marketing Council, which tracks these things, says 20 percent of the U.S. adult population accounts for 91 percent of all wine consumption. Or, to put it as simply as possible, 8 out of 10 adult Americans have almost no interest in wine. The wine business, and by extension wine writing, focuses on the 20 percent, and mostly ignores everyone else. After the jump, how this affects our view of cheap wine:

Any discussion of this subject is hampered by a lack of good numbers. We know how much wine is produced and imported in the U.S., and we have a decent idea about how much wine is sold. What we don't have are really good numbers about who buys what, how often they buy it, where they buy it, why they buy it, and the like. The reasons for this are too complicated to get into here, but include the three-tier system; the fact that that wine is sold not only at retail, but in restaurants; and the do-it-yourself, mom-and-pop nature of the wine business, which makes compiling that data more difficult. Which means we know more about how Americans buy laundry detergent than how we buy wine.

That said, there is one thing about the numbers that I have never been able to understand. Why doesn't the wine business pay more attention to the 80 percent of us who aren't interested in wine? Why isn't more effort made to bring them into the fold? After all, if Proctor & Gamble discovered that 80 percent of the country wasn't using laundry detergent, don't you think they would do something about it?

The wine business, though, seems ambivalent about converting non-drinkers. The Wine Market Council figures focus more on the 20 percent, what it calls core wine drinkers, and how the industry can increase that number. And, if you look at how the industry markets wine and how most of us write about it, that appears to be what is going on. We're not making it easier to join the club, as Allison Davis so wonderfully ranted. This club is exclusive, and we aim to keep it that way. Nothing demonstrates this better than the wine media's fascination with Bordeaux, a region that produces wine that is so exclusive that even most of the 20 percent will never drink it. But we do love to write about it -- over and over and over and over.

The wine business' mom-and-pop nature also plays into this. As one of the commenters in the first post noted, many of the companies that make cheap wine enjoy huge economies of scale, so they can make money off something like Two-buck Chuck (which, ironically, seems to be sold largely to the 20 percent). This makes the smaller wineries, which are the face of the wine business in the U.S., crazy -- and I have the emails and comments to prove it. So, since the smaller wineries have enough trouble making money off $20 wine, they add to the backlash by criticizing all cheap wine.

Finally, people who like cheap wine drink YellowTail and Barefoot, and it's almost impossible to describe how much those wines are disliked by the people who do what I do. So cheap wine suffers for that, too.

Somehow, some way, we as wine writers (as well as the industry) must find an approach that makes the 20 percent happy, since you don't want to alienate your best customers, but that also gives the 80 percent an opportunity learn why wine is so wonderful. This is a problem that has increasingly concerned me, and I'm not sure I know the answer. But I do know I'm going to keep looking for one.

Comments

[Alfonso]

So, we aren't the 99%?

We are merely the 20% drinking the 91%?

Am I getting this right?

I'm glad we didn't drop the 90+(percentage) points out of this equation though.

For a minute there you had me worried ;p

[Harvey Posert]

The simple answer is that the industry has not been willing since l975 to put together a national marketing program backed by all the major producers. The "Got Milk?" people offered us "Got Wine?" but the powers that be (and still are) refused to fund much of anything. The Wine Market Council does a great job with what it has, but it ain't nearly enough. I have been at this since l965 and I know.

[Jeff]

We drink wine every day with the evening meal and on weekends recreationally. We also split a bottle when we go out to eat about once a week. We go though 2-3 cases a month. I am in the upper 10% of wage earners in the US. It better be one-hell-of a fine wine if it cost more than $10. There are many good wines at less than $10 and it's fun to search them out. Lets not be snobs! Wine is food after all.

[Dave McIntyre]

Jeff - Several points:

1) If 80% of the people didn't use laundry detergent, their colleagues and neighbors would do something about it.

2) How many of the 20% who drink wine like to spend time reading about it? If they have a favorite label such as Barefoot or Two-Buck Chuck and stick to it because it suits them, that's fine; but that implies they don't search out other labels or particularly care about the story behind the wine. So why are you writing for them? Why aren't you writing for the 20% of the 20% who actually give a damn?

3). You do a great job sussing out $10 wines that offer above-average quality, so I can see the previous commenter being your natural constituency. (And his name is also Jeff. Hmmm, coinkydink?) But to say we should all be writing about Barefoot simply because it's the single most popular brand in the US begs the question: Why write about it at all if everyone's already drinking it?

4). Is there any data on how many bits, bytes and gigadrools are wasted by wine bloggers writing (and commenting) about wine writing, instead of about wine? (Case in point: Campogate ...)

[Jeff Siegel]

I don't know the answers to any of your questions, Dave, which is why I'm posing them.

Though I would disagree with you about one key thing -- I don't think this is navel gazing about wine writing. I try to avoid that, and you'll notice that I have not written about Campogate.

Rather, I 'm trying, desperately, to figure out why more Americans don't drink wine and what we can do about it. And why no one seems particularly concerned about it. There's nothing wrong with writing for the 20 percent of the 20 percent. I just think I should do something more. Maybe that's where our difference of opinion is.

[Michael Kaiser]

I'm I in the minority in thinking that $20 is cheap for wine?

[Jeff]

It would be awesome to make the distinction between "cheap" and "inexpensive"...there are many excellent "inexpensive" wines out there. Most of them come from Europe, however.

[Michael Kaiser]

No wonder I don't know about them.

So cheap would be under $10 and maybe inexpensive would be between $10 and $20?

[Independent]

The wine industry has to bring the Barefoot and Yellowtail drinkers into the fold. I've witnessed an acquaintance being openly mocked by a specialty boutique wine store manager for daring to mention an affinity for Barefoot Chardoplonk. (Whoops, see, I'm guilty, too.) You're just not going to take someone used to enjoying $2-$5 wines and instantly convince them to drop >$20 on a bottle just because of other people's perceptions of worth. What really needs to happen is a broadening of appreciation for the good juice in the $8-$16 range. And, let's face it, there are some tremendous small production values in that range across most styles.

One thing that's going to help is more wine tastings going more mainstream through store brands and grocery store tastings. I know those words make many in the wine snobbery business cringe. But, until Americans really view wine as a regular food supplement or beer alternative, it will remain a niche market product in the US. That's not helped by often bizarre sales restrictions and blue laws. If the wine industry really wanted to gain more traction in the US market, it would work hard to make grocery store sales and tastings regular, weekly occurances in all states.

[Jeff Siegel]

More great comments. Thank you so much. And, yes, Michael, $20 is a lot for a bottle of wine.

When I started the blog, cheap was everything $10 or less. And it meant the same thing as inexpensive. I don't see any reason to change my approach, though I do understand the confusion. Thanks to the significant number of brands that retail for $6 or less and that are more popular than ever, cheap means YellowTail and Barefoot in a way it didn't when I started the blog.

And Independent may be the smartest person to have make a comment on the blog.

[Tampawinewoman]

I have to say that being in a position where I am often out in the public pouring wine, I am amazed at the general public's unwillingness to try anything new when it comes to wine consumption (even when it is a free sample). Perhaps a lesson could be learned from the artisan/craft beer enthusiasts, these people seem to be open to trying just about anything.

Jodi a/k/a tampawinewoman