Does the market make the wine or the wine make the market?

The following is an excerpt from an article on SFGate.com about the winemaker, Andrew Murray. It's interesting, but not surprising that he admits to adjusting his wines to perceived market preferences.

About the 15 percent alcohol that is almost common in his reds now, Murray passes on the blame. "I believe in low-alcohol wines, but they're not commercially acceptable." He says his distributors began to express discomfort when he released a 13.5 percent Syrah. And distributors, he says, go by wine critics. The fault is in the system, he believes. "If you taste a low-alcohol wine after an afternoon of in-your-face high alcohol wines, it tastes flat."

He adds, "Wine critics have killed softer wines. If they taste 50 to 100 wines at one sitting, the high alcohol ones will come out on top." In some ways, he intimates, he can't argue with the results: "Robert Parker Jr. has been generous to us. We certainly make some unabashedly big Syrahs that collectors love." His own heart, he suggests, lies with lower alcohol levels.

The whole article is here:
Man, 35, seeks grapes for serious relationship: Central Coast winemaking whiz kid Andrew Murray splits from his parents and strikes out on his own.

Makes sense to me. 15% ABV Cabs seem to be the rule for the "cult" wines. Not that I should be/can be buying "cult wines"

California is an expensive place to live. If one doesn't come to the table with a large fortune, one had best listen to the market - like it or not.
I'm not saying I like the idea. But reality is a stern taskmaster.
Best, Jim

California is an expensive place to live. If one doesn't come to the table with a large fortune, one had best listen to the market - like it or not.
I'm not saying I like the idea. But reality is a stern taskmaster.
Best, Jim

What you are saying is that the market makes the wine, not that I disagree. How else would you account for the success of stupid names and silly labels. My guess is that only about 10% (and I am being generous) pay any attention to what is in the bottle, only marketing, points and cost.
Walt

A bit of both really.

Originally, it was production-driven: This is a wine I make. Do you want to buy any?

As the business got bigger...and yes, as the megacorps got involved and it became more of a business...it evolved into more of a consumer-driven model: I'll find out what the consumer wants and make it for them.

Now both models exist. And both models succeed. And both models fail.

The consumer model fails when the wine-creators misread the consumer. The production-driven model fails when the producer is so badly out of sync (or such a totally clueless winemaker that he/she is oblivious to what actually tastes good) the public simply does not want his/her wine in sufficient quantity to or at sufficient price to keep the enterprise alive.

I might be in the minority though, in blaming the critics for this state of affairs. I think that's the lazy way out, frankly, and a cheap shot by Murray, frankly. It's also something of a surrender---especially when you benefit from that approach, and admit you benefit from that approach, and then have the temerity to complain about it.

It's not the critics: it is who the public chooses to follow and anoint as the critic-of-choice to dictate their preferences.

Parker is the pinata of choice right now for those who excoriate critics. Stop paying attention to him (and stop swinging away blindly at him), and he will cease to have the effect he does. To go on jumbling metaphors, when you realize that the wine world is a sufficiently large enough place to accomodate a wide range of preferences in wine, you realize that piper's song is not as compelling a reason as you thought it was to give up your ability to make a decision.

And, what the heck, I'll throw in a muddled Shakespeare: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

I might be in the minority though, in blaming the critics for this state of affairs. I think that's the lazy way out, frankly, and a cheap shot by Murray, frankly. It's also something of a surrender---especially when you benefit from that approach, and admit you benefit from that approach, and then have the temerity to complain about it.

It's not the critics: it is who the public chooses to follow and anoint as the critic-of-choice to dictate their preferences.

Hoke,
Absolutely. As my brother says, "the adjustable nut" is often the problem.
But just as the consuming public pays too much attention to the critics, so do the producers. And I suspect that changes only when the consuming public makes it so.
Best, Jim

[David M. Bueker]

Hoke covered my main point, but I will point to an example the other night. We were havign a small gathering and one of the wines was the 2003 Alban Reva Syrah. Now I have liked Alban wines in the distant past, but this bottle was so candied, so thick and so alcoholic that I couldn't even keep a straight face. everyone looked at me and one guy instantly said "Dave hates it." It was completely undrinkable.

Well three guys loved it. (Another thought it over the top but ageable!)

I'm sorry, but the wine was macerated blueberry swill, and it has a market!

I might be in the minority though, in blaming the critics for this state of affairs. I think that's the lazy way out, frankly, and a cheap shot by Murray, frankly. It's also something of a surrender---especially when you benefit from that approach, and admit you benefit from that approach, and then have the temerity to complain about it.

It's not the critics: it is who the public chooses to follow and anoint as the critic-of-choice to dictate their preferences.

Hoke,
Absolutely. As my brother says, "the adjustable nut" is often the problem.
But just as the consuming public pays too much attention to the critics, so do the producers. And I suspect that changes only when the consuming public makes it so.
Best, Jim

Truth told, Jim, the producers pay way more attention...and closer attention...to the critics than the consuming public do. (Does?)

Look at the distribution levels of the WS. They are really not that big. But every producer, distributor, marketer, etc., in the wine biz is paying close attention to what they say. They are the bellwether (along with Parker and a couple of others).

Normal business procedure, of course: any good businessman is always trying to figure out which direction the wind is blowing...and if possible, find out the direction before the public realizes the wind has fully shifted.

I'm sorry, but the wine was macerated blueberry swill, and it has a market!

What? Turley hasn't yet proven than phenomenon to your satisfaction, David??? You need MORE proof? FWIW, I agree about Alban. Heck, I can't even enjoy their Roussanne anymore.

Our only hope is that every trend has its arc, and maybe, just maybe, we're approaching the end of one arc and the beginning of another.

up to a point you might be able to make you own cult; and some older CA winneries have done it at reasonable price levels; but that point is probably around $20. if you MUST get $50 or more, parker will probably have to make it for you.

Our only hope is that every trend has its arc, and maybe, just maybe, we're approaching the end of one arc and the beginning of another.

We influence the market with how and where we spend our shekels. But stop and think. Even if all 946 and counting of us registered users could agree on one wine and then we all bought a case of it, how large a drop would that be in the wine barrel?

True, pendulums eventually usually swing in the opposite direction. Once a market is glutted, something has to make the product different so that it stands out and can be sold. In our case, for example, the non-oaky, non-buttery Chardonnay or maybe the gentle Pinot Noir at 11.5% a.b.v. But it's going to take a movie, a wine pundit, a smart distributor or someone who stands to profit before that pendulum's direction changes. I don't think our humble selves are going to effect that change in the broader market.

Sometimes I muse whether, if all wines were soft and subtle, would we be grumping about it and demanding the big and in-your-faces wines, the grass being always greener on the other side of the fence. Do we, as an elite group of sorts, have a need to be different?

Yes, I am a Romantic and yearn for the product which is the blood of the heart of the inspired winemaker. I like to delude myself with the mythology because it makes me feel good. But a winemaker is not going to make wine which isn't going to sell. Most have kids to feed and many pay spousal support. If you're in it to make a living, then Andrew Murray is doing what he has to. If you're in it to make a point, then be ready to go broke.

There is no National Endowment for the Arts for winemakers. Maybe we should just choose a few we like and throw them our support!

Very eloquent, Gary!

I agree, though, that the wine market is big enough that there will always be a few people out there producing the niche styles. And, tastes do vary (I still remember the awful, awful caramel juice cab from last year-that was slurped up by a coworker and his friends!)

The influence is in the aggregate, not the individual, Gary, so I am resigned to a slower pace of change than you. (But that's because you still have revolutionary fervor; mine has moderated somewhat )

As to trends, I agree with you that the general progression is that we start noticing isolated incidences, then more and more incidences, then numbers indicating trends, then more numbers supporting those trends, and finally a catalyzing incident (the movie or pundit or whatever) at precisely the right moment to dramatize and push the trend over the top.

Most people now believe that Sideways, solely and alone, created the explosion of Pinot Noir. Hardly. It may well have been the most dramatic catalyzing event that brought the already existing----strongly existing---trend to full publich exposure, yes. But those who trace such things have known for several years that PN was trending, ever more steeply, into the public consciousness and the public mouth.

We had the sales figures to support it. And we had vineyard planting statistics to further support that the trend was registering with the producers. Otherwise, quite frankly, the trend would not have exploded quite as loudly as it did with the movie. One of the major problems hindering any previous explosion of PN was the fact that there wasn't very much PN planted or produced. So, even if Sideways had happened, say, ten years ago, it would not have had the effect it did recently: there was such little PN, and what there was wasn't necessarily all that good either, that the sudden demand would have driven the price up so high as to make it essentially unaffordable except for the cult collectors with fully disposable income or estates. By the time supply caught up with demand enough to bring the price down to affordable levels, the trend would have already languished because people would have moved on to something else.

Sideways catalyzed the trend because the timing was superb: there was enough bearing vineyard land to barely supply the sudden demand (even if it meant rushing to market with some pretty mediocre crap, frankly; but that crap was being sold to people that didn't know the difference because they hadn't been drinking PN up until then).

The Sideways Effect depended on a fairly decent $10 or under PN that was in good enough supply for people to find without expending any effort.

Now, of course, we're seeing PN coming out of Oregon, CA (mostly Central Coast) and such places as the Languedoc and Italy, commanding that entry-level price point. Of course, it should be noted that, while Italy has enjoyed some considerable experience with Pinot Noir (Lombardy, primarily), no one even knew they were growing PN in the overly warm winebasket of the Languedoc. But lo and behold, suddenly, it appeared that such was the case. Isn't grafting wonderful? Especially in a high yielding zone?

Soon, of course, we'll be dealing with the glut of PN. And it will be soon.

But a winemaker is not going to make wine which isn't going to sell. Most have kids to feed and many pay spousal support. If you're in it to make a living, then Andrew Murray is doing what he has to. If you're in it to make a point, then be ready to go broke.

And therein lies the perennial rub: there are wines that could be made, in theory, and these would have some admirers ... but if said wines don't reach critical mass due to whatever factor or confluence of factors - maybe even pure luck - then they won't get made precisely because of the no-return-on-investment issue. I've always made a point of noting that a wine may be of exceptional purity and focus yet still fail to claim a critical mass despite its unquestionable quality. Sometimes good products just don't sell, but well-marketed crappy ones do. It sucks, but it's reality.

I understand the point you're trying to make, Paul, but once again I'm not sure I can fully subscribe to it.

I've always made a point of noting that a wine may be of exceptional purity and focus yet still fail to claim a critical mass despite its unquestionable quality.

The probem that I have with what you said is the "unquestionable quality" part. As it applies to wine, I mean. There's really no such thing as "unquestionable quality".

If what you describe as devine, is something Robin describes as so-so, or even repugnant, how is that "unquestionable quality"? Yet you've championed numerous wines that Robin, and others, have disagreed with. The fact that you like the wines does not make them of unquestionable quality. Perhaps...just perhaps...those wines (or at least some of those wines) are not successful simply because they don't appeal to enough people to keep them in production? Perhaps they are not to peoples' tastes. Maybe it's not a failure of marketing, but a failure of the style of wine?

I am still naive and romantic enough to believe that if a wine is of good enough quality to appeal to enough people that will purchase it, that wine will survive and stay in production (barring poor business practices or malfeasance, not to mention overarching ambitions for prestige or profit, of course).

I know of one winemaker who campaigned tirelessly for years for wine made from Muscadine. He was indefatigable in his pursuit, but was unsuccessful in his goals. He finally ran out of people willing to listen to him, or to buy and drink his Muscadine (red or white; both were available). Fact was, the wine just didn't appeal to enough people.

I know of another winemaker who campaigned tirelessly for another grape, Napa Gamay. He put his heart and soul into the wine and the winery, and expended considerable energy (of which he had plenty), charm (of which he had plenty), and money (of which he had increasingly less and less as time went on) to push the wine he honestly believed was "The Next Big Thing" from California. Finally, he gave up. Left the business, moved to the Midwest, and got a job in software.

His name was Charles Shaw. Ironically, enough, after giving up on his effort to sell Napa Gamay (i.e., a Beaujolais-styled wine from CA), because no one really wanted it, his name eventually gained fame and fortune as Two Buck Chuck. Of course, the fame and fortune was not for him but for Fred Franzia, and the success wasn't based on Napa Gamay, but on the old traditional Cabernet, Chardonnay, Merlot and Sauvignon Blanc that people were more than willing to pay $2 for.... But that simply supports what I'm saying.

Nope, I'm sorry. I still believe there is enough diversity in this big, big world of wine and wine lovers, that any wine good enough to survive will survive. And if it doesn't.....maybe it wasn't worth it afterall?

If what you describe as devine, is something Robin describes as so-so, or even repugnant, how is that "unquestionable quality"? Yet you've championed numerous wines that Robin, and others, have disagreed with. The fact that you like the wines does not make them of unquestionable quality. Perhaps...just perhaps...those wines (or at least some of those wines) are not successful simply because they don't appeal to enough people to keep them in production? Perhaps they are not to peoples' tastes.

Hoke,

When I speak of unquestionable quality, I am thinking of unquestionable purity of fruit; a wine made from ripe, clean, healthy fruit; a wine that is enologically-speaking stable and free from defects such as oxidation, under- or over-sulfiting, mercaptans, TCA, and so on.

You, I and Robin define quality differently: for you guys, it's grape-specific; for me, it is not grape-specific but is dependent on ripeness/cleanliness of the fruit and a lack of either human-induced enological errors or chance events that would spoil the wine. Therefore, it is completely possible that a "quality varietal Concord" as per my definition (see above again if unclear) will be found repugant by those for whom that particular aroma - no matter what the level of purity and cleanliness of the wine - is unappealing. But that rejection is not a rejection (or even a bothering to acknowledge) of the quality of the fruit harvested for that particular wine; it's a full-stop rejection of the grape variety. With this being the case, why worry about such a wine at all if you don't like it? If it's vitis non-grata to you, I say don't lose any sleep over it.

Now, I know where you're coming from in arguing from the popular-acceptance point; it's just that I feel that's not always a reliable indicator of the quality of that product. If it were, then why do industrial jug wines continue to sell?

Well, you see, there is where the problem is, Paul: you are using the words "purity" and "quality" as if they were one and the same thing. And they are not.

I prefer wines made from "ripe, clean, healthy fruit" as well, Paul. That's a no brainer, and not worth arguing about. But when you say that, my own particular paradigm (a word you favor) suggests you must be talking about sustainable/organic or even biodynamic fruit (for that is what the phrase means to me).

You, I and Robin define quality differently: for you guys, it's grape-specific;

Nope, there you are wrong, Paul. Well, at least in reference to me; I can't speak for Robin. I do not, and never have, related quality to "grape specific". By which you mean I cannot recognize quality when it is applied to non-vinifera grapes. Wrong. Very, very wrong. Actually, in that sense, I'd say you were more of an Imusian Grape Bigot than I, since you choose to champion hybrids and labruscas (despite...or perhaps specifically because?...their falling outside the norms of popularity?)

I work very hard to assess the worth of a particular wine, whether it is made of vinifera, labrusca, hybridized grapes, or even non-grape fruits for that matter. There are vinifera wines that don't appeal to my particular taste; that doesn't mean I reject them before trying them. But I also do not intinsically accept them and approve of them simply because they are made from a certain variety, or whether they were made in a noble cause either.

Quality is entirely a personal matter. The assessment of quality may be related to the nature of the item or object itself; it may also be entirely dependent upon one's predilections. It's not necessarily a communicable or consistently shared judgement, however.

You accuse me of rejecting a wine simply because it is made from non-vinifera. I could easily accuse you of supporting non-vinifera because you have decided to do so, and not through any physical appreciation of non-vinifera...in other words, a conscious decision rather than a taste decision. Which stance would be sillier? Perhaps it would be better for both of us to avoid making such accusations, eh? Let's just say I don't think you're capable of judging the quality or appeal of non-vinifera for me; and I, in return, am not capable of judging your preferences either.

You think I will unfailingly condemn anything non-vinifera (you are wrong, by the way). I think you will almost unfailingly support non-vinifera, or at least campaign for it regardless of how other people might regard it. Your goal is to convince me (and others; maybe you've given up on convincing me) of the overweaning worth and goodness of non-vinifera. You've got a bias. I've got a bias. I don't think either of us will convince the other to come over.

[Lest anyone jump to any conclusions, I am not angry, or irate, or cranky, and this response should not be interpreted (by Paul or anyone else) as being in that vein. This is civil disagreement, thassall. No defamation intended or expressed ]

Oops. Sorry, I forgot to respond to the whole post.

Paul said:

Now, I know where you're coming from in arguing from the popular-acceptance point; it's just that I feel that's not always a reliable indicator of the quality of that product. If it were, then why do industrial jug wines continue to sell?

Straw man, Paul. Or perhaps a red herring? Disingenous and off point, in any case. Jug wines continue to sell because people who buy them believe they are good quality for the price they pay (And who are you to argue to them they are wrong? It is their money and their mouth. Their perception of quality is up to them, not you as an arbiter of what they like.), or they are willing to buy lesser quality wines because they are not willing to spend more money for better quality wines. In any case, this doesn't really bear on what we are discussing.

Quality is entirely a personal matter. The assessment of quality may be related to the nature of the item or object itself; it may also be entirely dependent upon one's predilections. It's not necessarily a communicable or consistently shared judgement, however.

There, I agree.

[Lest anyone jump to any conclusions, I am not angry, or irate, or cranky, and this response should not be interpreted (by Paul or anyone else) as being in that vein. This is civil disagreement, thassall. No defamation intended or expressed ]

But you sure are taking the time to write, and write and write about my views on non-vinifera and all those other things when I never even inserted those topics into this thread - you picked open that tangent, quite without my prompting. I have views on non-vinifera and beliefs in their value that I am not afraid to admit, nor am I embarrassed to hold those views. Not expecting people to agree does not equal never expressing said views should the topics come up.

You sure seem to be on the prowl here, Hoke. The best way to end a civil disagreement (your words) is to admit disagreement, and just quietly move on. Who's beating the proverbial dead horse this time, I ask? I do not feel that I have ever set out to insult anyone's tastes, just offered unvarnished views about my own - as everyone is free to do.

Peace.

Paul, I'm merely discussing different sides of an issue, and responding to a point you made earlier. I've never seen any issue that can't be discussed.

But if you're uncomfortable with the exchange, I quite understand, and will drop it.

I've never seen any issue that can't be discussed.

Obviously you've never had the pleasure of meeting my second wife.