“I know what it’s like to lose. To feel so desperately that you’re right, yet to fail nonetheless… Dread it. Run from it. Destiny arrives all the same. And now it’s here.” — Thanos, Avengers: Infinity War
I once described my friend and wine/tech-intersection guru Paul Mabray as the Steve Rogers to my Tony Stark. I am here today to sort of do that again, since my warnings about the state of play of the wine industry in general and wine writing/media in particular went unheeded, much like Stark’s warnings about the coming threat of something sinister in the Avengers movies.
Now, it feels as though Thanos has fully arrived, kicked our collective asses and wiped out half of the universe. We’re seeing the industry come to terms with a reckoning at least partially of its own making, and those that are on the periphery of that industry—like wine media—are finally waking up to the grim realities that have been so clearly looming on the horizon for at least the last six years.
Mabray is no stranger to taking on those topics, and in this round he’s doing it on his relatively new Transforming Wine Substack feed, in an article titled Talking to Ourselves: Wine Media is BROKEN. To Attract New Customers, We Need to Reinvigorate and Empower Wine Writing in Non-Wine Media.
Here’s how Paul summarizes the main issues:
“Selling wine is no longer a cakewalk. In fact, it’s the hardest it’s been in decades, and it’s only getting harder… the wine industry has a problem. We are not attracting new consumers, and a big part of the problem is that wine publications often target the same small, already dedicated echelon of consumers…. Some of us remember when nearly every local newspaper and lifestyle publication had wine features. Those days are gone.”
It’s not just that wine brands have failed to attract new consumers; Paul goes on to point out that there’s a not insignificant cadre of wine media types who are actively harming efforts to widen the circle of potential wine lovers:
“…There is also a crew of, mostly old white guys or young natural wine fanatics, whose sole job is to promote the wines they enjoy drinking and denigrate all other wines as being inauthentic, from “Big Wine,” from what they deem as boring regions like Napa, Sonoma, Bordeaux, Melbourne, etc., or they consider dull grapes like chardonnay, merlot or cabernet. They build and perpetuate a wine culture around gatekeeping. Since most have never operated a wine business, they have lazy and often harmful takes on the industry.”
Those of us (like me) who operate in small (SMALL!!) niche of independent wine media, according to Paul, have to keep in mind that we speak to a very select group of people who eventually influence buying decisions, as visualized in this infographic:
I have spent a looooong time (a decade plus, actually) hoping against hope that my warnings about the wine industry’s reckoning on declining consumer interest would filter through the 11-15% or so of the wine business that I reach, and that those decision makers would recognize that we had a slowly growing but very really problem.
And here’s where Paul and I, who are in passionate, violent agreement on the causes and issues facing the wine biz, start to diverge; his Steve Rogers to my Tony Stark, once again. Paul remains hopeful that tack will work, and that it can result in an expanded market demand for wine:
“Wine companies need to advertise and support non-wine publications and demand that they create an independent wine section.”
Is this the one way, out of all possible futures, to defeat the inevitable and cruel hand of destiny now pimp-slapping the wine industry?
Mabray does have a solid point with his recommendation. It is essential the wine’s survival that we talk beyond the borders of already-engaged drinkers. I often say that my influence in the wine business is high not because I connect with a ton of consumers, but because I connect with people who are making buying/selling decisions that impact wine consumers. The most direct influence I ever had, however, came in two forms:
- My stint writing a wine column for Playboy’s website, which reached literally tens of millions of eyeballs whenever it was in rotation on their homepage, and
- When I had a budget wine-and-cheese pairing article that ran in Parade. At the time, Parade was an insert that went into the weekend section of pretty much every newspaper in the USA, and that’s not an exaggeration. I was, for that weekend only, by far (and I mean, again without exaggeration, by a factor of hundreds of times) the most influential wine media person in the country, eclipsing all of the wine outlets in the lower-right quadrant of Mabray’s above graphic, combined.
So for my money there is real, tangible value to the approach to fixing the wine media reach issue that Paul describes in his article.
The trouble is, will the U.S. wine industry even listen to that recommendation?
Unlike Paul, I have serious doubts that the wine industry will listen right now, because the industry is a) in a tailspin, and b) notoriously cheap (and this stuff costs real money).
Let’s hope, for the sake of all of us, that I’m wrong…
Cheers(?)!
Dude, I remember MORE than a decade ago there were a few of us with double X chromosomes pointing at the absurdity of the old white guy gatekeepers. And yet…
Right? The fast that this situation was so preventable makes it even more sad…
Sad, or pathetic. Probably both.
Amen, brother! We need more outreach to the (apparently) disinterested general population. To stir their imagination. And it need to come from those companies that a best resourced and would most benefit from a change in current trends.
Yep. They are NOT gonna come to us!
So many of us saw this change happening over a decade ago when clever modern journos then termed as wine bloggers which morphed into influencers and now KOLs. Many of us remember when PARADE, Better Homes & Gardens, O, Garden & Gun, Playboy, Maxim, (and many others in that publishing category) RELISH, even AARP had wine reviews with good wine content. Even Reader’s Digest took a stab at it. Did any large wine companies advertise? Nope. All to busy trying to gain market share with premiumization, exclusive labels for chains, little innovation so we remain optimistic. “The trouble is, will the U.S. wine industry even listen to that recommendation”???
Obviously, I think t he answer is “No.” But I hope I am wrong.
Even the large wine companies cannot justify the cost of advertising in most of the big publications — especially since they are competing with the massive budgets of liquor and beer (in the alcohol space) and with all the other much-more-profitable businesses (tech, fashion, etc.). Heck, that’s why even Food&Wine magazine has very little wine content today — it’s all about who can pay the big $$$ (ad rates start at $100K per page), and that’s not most wine companies.
Underscoring Jamal’s comment about the marketplace power of the liquor companies . . .
Excerpts from The Gray Report
(July 31, 2017):
“Wine trade secrets revealed at OIV Wine Marketing Program”
URL: http://blog.wblakegray.com/2017/07/wine-trade-secrets-revealed-at-oiv-wine.html
“John Collins, CEO of a company called GreatVines that sells alcohol distribution software, started the week off with a slap in the face to all wine companies: ‘None of the wine companies are getting any attention (from distributors). Period. Because the spirits companies are that important to the distributors.’
“Collins compared the profit size of Diageo, a huge spirits company, to Jupiter. Gallo, the largest wine company, is Neptune. And if Gallo doesn’t matter to a big distributor like Southern Glazer’s, no wine company does. . . .”
“The opposite of Constellation was a presentation by Bruno Walker, director of sales and marketing for Chambers and Chambers Wine Merchants, a California distributor with an outstanding fine wine portfolio.
“Walker was one of several speakers to caution people that large distributors won’t do much to sell wines by small wineries.
” ‘If your wine is not on some kind of special of the month, it won’t sell’ at a big distributor, Walker said. ‘That sales person is not out making presentations of your wine. Their manager is telling them, you’ve gotta sell this and you’ve gotta sell that. That’s how their bonuses work. That’s how they’re hired and fired.’
“But Walker also chilled expectations for what a distributorship like his can do.
” ‘The reality is, I have 15,000 unread emails,’ he said. ‘Most people are really, really busy.’
“He said that when his salesmen present wines to stores or restaurants, they only have about 45 seconds per wine. ‘We have to be able to deliver a compelling story, quickly,’ he said.”
Understood. And agreed.
Part of the reason I feel so absolutely f–king dismal about this situation right now is that, in the USA at least, every tier and step of the system has been gamed to the Nth degree. Wine has painted itself into a corner from the perspective of sales, marketing, and finances.
Companies that didn’t have to go under are going to go under. People who didn’t have to lose their jobs and suffer are going to lose their jobs and suffer. There is no silver bullet solution. Most of the choices left open to the industry at this point suck donkey bong. The time to have headed this off is long, long gone.
This is why my Thanos snap comparison feels so apt. Thanos won. He was not stopped. A lot of people had to suffer before things could be set right, or at least, improved in that story. The wine business globally is too late. Only a series of smart steps will get us out of all of this. And they will require spending in ways that were not done previously, and coordinating at levels not done previously.
More suffering is imminent, and that sucks, and there’s NO “it’s gonna be ok very soon and with minimum discomfort” answer.
Mabray writes:
“We are not attracting new consumers . . .”
Back in 2010 David Francke, the then managing director of California’s Folio Fine Wine Partners, made a presentation to the Fine Wine 2010 conference in Spain. Among the wine consumption statistics he revealed:
“. . . U.S. wine drinking is compressed into a small segment of the population. 16 PERCENT OF CORE WINE DRINKERS consume wine once a week or more frequently, which ACCOUNTS FOR AROUND 96 PERCENT OF CONSUMPTION. Thirty-five million adults drink virtually all of the wine sold in America, Francke said.”
[CAPITALIZATION ADDED FOR EMPHASIS ~~ Bob]
Excerpts source: http://www.winebusiness.com/news/?go=getArticle&dataid=73903
I have seen no evidence that those “core” wine drinkers have increased with time.
Mabray writes:
“Wine companies need to advertise and support non-wine publications and demand that they create an independent wine section.”
In this discussion I bring firsthand experience — having worked as an employee and freelancer for leading ad agencies in Los Angeles and San Francisco and New York.
So let me volunteer these two podcasts from Freakonomics on the timeless question: Does advertising prompt sales? And if som how do we measure it?
Does Advertising Actually Work? (Part 1: TV) | Freakonomics Radio | Episode 440
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0tfr-WPU0
[ This episode was originally published November 18, 2020. For a full transcript, resources, and more, visit: https://freak.ws/3GXiCMZ ]
Does Advertising Actually Work? (Part 2: Digital) | Freakonomics Radio | Episode 441
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSWM4pYh_Ak
[ This episode was originally published November 25, 2020. For a full transcript, resources, and more, visit: https://freak.ws/3VUZ53S ]
This was the downfall of the WineRAMP proposal . . . akin to a modern-day “Got Milk?” campaign.
The milk campaign increased awareness for the beverage, but did not increase consumption. Indeed, consumption went down through the history of the campaign.
Commented upon here by a USC business school adjunct professor:
“Got Milk? Got Fired: 5 Valuable Lessons That All Executives Must Heed” | Huffington Post (March 12, 2014)
URL: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/got-milk-got-fired-5-valu_b_4938176
Mabray writes:
“Wine companies need to advertise and support non-wine publications and demand that they create an independent wine section.”
In this discussion I bring firsthand experience — having worked as an employee and freelancer for leading ad agencies in Los Angeles and San Francisco and New York.
So let me volunteer these two podcasts from Freakonomics on the timeless question: Does advertising prompt sales? And if som how do we measure it?
Does Advertising Actually Work? (Part 1: TV) | Freakonomics Radio | Episode 440
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0tfr-WPU0
[ This episode was originally published November 18, 2020. For a full transcript, resources, and more, visit: https://freak.ws/3GXiCMZ ]
Does Advertising Actually Work? (Part 2: Digital) | Freakonomics Radio | Episode 441
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSWM4pYh_Ak
[ This episode was originally published November 25, 2020. For a full transcript, resources, and more, visit: https://freak.ws/3VUZ53S ]
This was the downfall of the WineRAMP proposal akin to a modern-day “Got Milk?” campaign.
The milk campaign increased awareness for the beverage, but did not increase consumption. Indeed, consumption went down through the history of the campaign.
Commented upon here by a USC business school adjunct professor:
“Got Milk? Got Fired: 5 Valuable Lessons That All Executives Must Heed” | Huffington Post (March 12, 2014)
URL: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/got-milk-got-fired-5-valu_b_4938176
[Sorry — the “latency” in a comment appearing on Dude’s website prompted me to upload a second time. Mea culpa!]
This comment that was supposed to be “sandwiched” between the two above . . .
Mabray writes:
“We are not attracting new consumers, and a big part of the problem is that wine publications often target the same small, already dedicated echelon of consumers . . .”
New customer acquisition is incredibly difficult — expensive and time-consuming . . . with no guarantee of success:
“It’s an adage of the business: Persuading a satisfied customer to return is cheaper than attracting a new one. Now, in the struggle to do more with less, that concept is becoming even more important.
“Acquiring a new customer costs about five to seven times as much as maintaining a profitable relationship with an existing customer, says Marc Fleishhacker, managing director at WPP’s Ogilvy Consulting . . .”
Excerpt source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122766322705958805.html
McDonald’s restaurants has embraced that sentiment by focusing on the habitual customer . . . and not trying to cultivate the infrequent diner or first-time customer:
“After losing about 500 million U.S. orders over the past five years over FAILED ATTEMPTS TO WIDEN ITS CUSTOMER BASE, THE FAST FOOD CHAIN SAID IT IS GOING TO embrace its identity as an affordable fast-food chain and STOP CHASING AFTER PEOPLE WHO WILL RARELY EAT THERE.
“CRITICS HAVE LONG BEEN URGING THE CHAIN TO FOCUS ON ITS CORE CUSTOMERS, but McDonald’s had added more salads, snack wraps and oatmeal to its menu to attract health-conscious customers. In recent months the chain pulled many of those slow-selling products. It also had experimented with higher-priced burgers that failed.
“CHASING NEW CUSTOMERS IS A PITFALL THAT’S HURT OTHER FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS.”
[CAPITALIZATION ADDED FOR EMPHASIS ~~ Bob]
Excerpts source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mcdonalds-to-expand-mobile-delivery-as-it-plots-future-1488390702
Regarding Mabray’s infographic comparing the subscribership or “total readership” of each named wine writer or publication, I proffer David Morrison Ph.D.’s analysis of the geographic influence of selective wine writers:
“The rise and fall of wine blogs, and other things” | The Wine Gourd (Jan 2, 2017)
URL: https://winegourd.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-wine-blogs.html
A distinction needs to be drawn between paid circulation and readership.
Example: The New York Times circa November 2023 had 670,000 print edition subscribers . . .
Statista graph: https://www.statista.com/statistics/192815/average-paid-sunday-circulation-of-the-new-york-times-since-2007/#:~:text=The%20average%20paid%20print%20Sunday,product%20has%20flourished%20by%20
. . . and 9.41 million digital-only subscribers.
Excerpted source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/business/media/new-york-times-q3-earnings.html
Suppose a paid subscriber brings the Sunday print edition to her local Starbucks for a leisurely read over a Frappuccino®. Upon departing she leaves behind the newspaper for others to read — for free. Those non-subscribers are counted as “pass-along readers.”
10 million-plus readers (paid print and paid digital and unpaid “pass-along”) comports with the largest circle on Mabray’s infographic.