In terms of the Oregon brand, the problem with Ken Wright and Shea Vineyard and other high-profile brands is not the taste profile (regardless of how popular it is), it’s that they are expensive. And the prevailing idea about Oregon pinot once you move out of the Pacific Northwest is that you can’t get a good one for under $30. And that’s because of limited production and retail distribution. To get more selection, you have to be willing to have wine shipped (which is how the delicious Cameron ’08 Dundee Hills was able to be served at my Thanksgiving dinner yesterday).

I know that it’s hard for small production wineries to do broad distribution – and that it may not even make business sense to do so. But as long as there are limited selections in most markets, building the brand outside a narrow geography is going to be a tough slog.

Well put. Your assessment of the current hurdles that “brand Oregon” faces is spot-on.

As is your example of Patty Green, who has consistently done an inspiring job of showcasing the differences in soil types (first) and AVA’s (a distant 2nd). She goes so far as to releases 6-packs that are based on soil types, again, not by AVA. She is also a producer who is by most accounts a ‘non-interventionist” in the cellar. The crimes against terroir are far greater in the cellar than they are in the vineyard.

To Sherman’s greater point about “brand Oregon” and the lessons learned from the WWC, Oregon has an extreme advantage over WA in the area of agricultural sustainability. Something the consumer is interested in. It is a MASSIVE difference. Where is WA’s sustainability initiative? Oregon is YEARS ahead of them. We are the epicenter of Organics (Oregon Tilth), Biodynamics (Demeter), Sustainability (OR Cert. Sustainable), Carbon Initiatives (OEC’s Carbon Neutral Challenge), and Clean Water Initiatives (Salmon Safe). How does Oregon then communicate this market advantage. So far the OWB has failed at communicating this.

We really don’t have varietal competition with WA, which is why the Fed’s what OR/WA to be marketed as a NW brand. But, the power centers in both wine regions balk at that idea. Too bad, because it is the quickest way to really compete with CA.

As for the new Exec. Director, I’m not so sure. In the Oregon Wine Industry, it is not the OWB Director that has the power. I hope that she quickly learns this and has the courage to really help foster change. Her way! I’m pulling for her.

The multiple AVA system in Oregon is premature. I will say that I do believe that within the Willamette Valley AVA, only two sub-AVA’s should be allowed and one new one created. The two existing are Dundee Hills and Eola-Amity. I would also include another AVA (that isn’t named) which would be comprised of the Eastside of Chehalem Mountains (where the Beran Vineyards and original Ponzi Vineyards lie). This soil is mostly Laurelwood and the wines are very special and unique, but Ken Wright doesn’t source fruit on that side of the mountain, so……

Put simply, a wine region (WV) that is all of 45yrs old (Eyrie Vineyard) doesn’t have the viniculture history to warrant such delineations. To make matters worse, the bulk of vineyards planted in the WV are barely 20 years old. Again, hardly enough time to draw lines in the sand.

Terroir in Oregon does exist. It doesn’t exist in the producers you site (sorry). You CANNOT showcase terroir buy containing it in 100% new oak. You CANNOT showcase terroir by using cultured yeast. You CANNOT showcase terroir by using vacuum concentrators. You CANNOT showcase terroir by fining or sterile filtering.

With all due respect sir, these two wineries make wines that mask the terroir that they both so ardently try and sell you on.

2007 was a classic Oregon vintage. The critics were wrong to slam it. 2008 is a very good vintage, but mark my words, the 08′s will NOT survive as long as the 07′s will….and there is the irony, these critics (because they LOVE new oak) think that these massive Oregon Pinots are going to age? Ha, not going to happen, not like the 07′s. Big wines get the big scores. I would NEVER pour an Archery Summit, Ken Wright, or Shea Vineyard wine to anyone trying to understand terroir driven Oregon Pinot Noir. Now, if they were looking for big, obnoxious, over extracted, ultra ripe, over oaked wine, I would pour your examples….but for terroir? Not a chance.

And this is the bigger problem for brand OREGON than the AVA or terroir question, and that is that people think these high scoring wines are the best examples of what Oregon has to offer. In fact, they are the worst examples. They fit the oaking palates of Dr. Jay Miller and to a lesser extent, Mr. Steiman. This is the biggest problem and would make for a better article.

Burgundy = Elegance
Oregon Pinot Noir = Elegance

The more our wines taste like high scoring California Pinot Noir the more we lose our “Oregon-ness”

I love your blog, btw.

I just couldn’t disagree more with your examples and argument.

After Patty talked about the “mix and match” nature of the soils, it started to dawn on most of the folks that “location, location, location” does matter in the process of making great wines. Of course, there are many other considerations that play into the process, but it starts with where and how the fruit is grown.

We did make some converts that night, as the “light bulbs” came on for a number of people who got it. We must always be taking advantage of opportunities to educate the consumer, as there will be some who are then spurred to learn more.

Yes, the French system can be confusing and 85% of the US wine-buying public could care less about sub-appellations, vineyard designates or the country of origin for the oak of the barrel. Most of our jobs as sales people (retail, winery and wholesale) is in bringing along those who want to learn more and begin their journey along the wine trail.

Outside of Oregon, if any wine consumer knows about Oregon, they probably know that they grow some pinot noir. The details are not relevant to their lives.

On the larger issue, the Oregon Wine Board should get its act together (now that they have finally selected a new director, although that’s a topic for another column, eh?) and make a concerted effort to market “brand Oregon” outside the home field. With its consistent pre-occupation with land use issues in the Willamette, it seems that the marketing lessons they could learn from such entities as the Washington Wine Commission have gone unheeded.

Look to other regions for emerging markets, target them and spend some money in holistically market and promote “brand Oregon.” Use Pinot Camp (or some variant thereof) to make the progress shown by bringing key wine decision-makers to the area, and giving them the full behind-the scenes tour that will translate into them relating stories to their staffs and customers.