Category:A Featured Post

How low are wine prices these days? Awfully low

There has been a lot of news about wine prices holding steady lately, but it’s been mostly economic — studies, analysis, and so forth. That’s the kind of stuff, as accurate as it is, that is sometimes painful for consumers to read. Not many of us worry too much about grape tonnage.

On the other hand, it’s very easy for consumers to understand low prices, like these in a maling sent this week from Total Wine, the large regional retailer that wants to be a national chain:

? Barefoot pinot noir for $4.97, almost 30 percent off the suggested retail price.

? The 2009 Groth Oakville cabernet sauvignon, a previous vintage, for 12 percent less than the current vintage’s $57.

? Bogle chardonnay, a mainstay of the $10 Hall of Fame, for $6.97.

? A previous vintage of King Estate pinot gris, about as dependable as a $17 wine can be, for $11.97.

? Perrier-Jouet Grand Brut, a holiday Champagne staple, for $39.99 — 20 percent off suggested retail.

Some of these, like the Barefoot and the Bogle, are likely loss leaders — priced to lure customers to the store in the hope they’ll buy other, more profitable, wines. But the prices also speak to two other trends. First, there’s still a lot of unsold wine in the supply chain left over from the recession, and especially expensive wine. Until those wines are sold or disposed of (right, Treasury?) they will continue to drag down prices. The Total mailing also had previous vintages from Cakebread, Chimney Rock, and Silver Oak, each expensive and popular California producers.

Second, competition among retailers is fiercer than ever, with liquor superstores growing 15 percent since 2008, three times faster than their conventional counterparts. Total, with almost 100 stores, wants to double revenues to $2 billion by 2016, while BevMo, with 144 stores mostly in the west, wants to expand outside its base. All that competition — which is especially brutal in Dallas, where Total opened last year — means more discounting in an attempt to build market share. And that means more low prices.

Throw in the economy, which has been treading water for at least a year, and the idea that wine prices are going to go up anytime soon is as silly as the Wine Curmudgeon using wine scores on the blog.

For more on wine prices:
? Retailers and wine prices
? Wine prices in 2013, one final time
? The revolution in cheap pinot noir

The Treasury debacle, masstige wines, and what the consumer is trying to teach the wine business

Treasury debacleThe Wine Curmudgeon, despite his brilliance as a writer, is a lousy businessman. How else to explain that former Treasury Wine Estate CEO David Dearie earned A$2.4 million (about US$2.25 million) for running his company into the ground, while I have been giving away, for free, the wisdom that could have helped Treasury avoid this year’s 53 percent drop in profit?

One more time, for those who still aren’t paying attention: The U.S. consumer buys wine on price. The challenge for wine companies, whether multi-nationals like Treasury, Napa cult wineries, or the thousands of other producers around the word, is to add value so that the consumer gets more than their $10 worth. Some do it with cute labels and marketing; some do it with points and high scores; and the best do it by giving us $12 or $15 worth of wine for our $10. (Go here for almost seven years worth of examples of how the best do it.)

Treasury did none of those. Instead, it looks like it did the absolute worst possible thing — it charged us $12 or $15 or $18 for $10 wines, a technique called masstige that was part of its business plan. I spend some time on this in the Cheap Wine Book, though I didn’t realize what masstige was when I wrote it. Rather, I noted that wines that cost between $12 and $18 seem to offer the least value, “probably because producers don ?t improve the quality of the wine as much as they increase the price and gussy up the label.”

Think of masstige as a cross between mass market products like Two-buck Chuck and Barefoot and luxury labels like high-end Champagne. Masstige is apparently very common in cosmetics, where the added value comes from the prestige a product provides because it costs more money. This approach may still work in cosmetics, where the value difference between Revlon and Clinique remains well established even though the products are quite similar based on what’s in the jar. But in wine, the idea that expensive is always better (as noted here and elsewhere many times since 2008) is something that the consumer has rejected.

Interestingly, I’m not the only one who has realized this. An analyst, discussing Treasury’s problems, said “the underlying problem in the U.S. is not inventory, it’s the health of the brands, because of underinvestment in marketing.” Which, as mentioned above, is one of the three ways for producers to add value.

Want to make money in the wine business? Treat the consumer fairly, and the consumer will reward you. That’s the lesson the recession taught, and it’s really not any more complicated than that. Which is probably why I never thought I needed to charge for the advice.