<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Champagne: Keynes or Adam Smith?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wineeconomist.com/2011/09/28/on-champagne-keynes-or-adam-smith/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wineeconomist.com/2011/09/28/on-champagne-keynes-or-adam-smith/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 21:21:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ravi singh</title>
		<link>http://wineeconomist.com/2011/09/28/on-champagne-keynes-or-adam-smith/#comment-2888</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ravi singh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:49:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wineeconomist.com/?p=4495#comment-2888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Mike,

Perhaps the appropriate word is, &#039;cult&#039;. Cult following in the wine world
clearly translates into cash. Champagne has cult status but it goes
beyond cash because it represents the ultimate form of celebration.

The sense of anticipation and the sudden silence before the bottled is 
opened adds to this cult value.

With best wishes to Fat Cork who know doubt intend not to just sell
champagne but to spread its legacy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Mike,</p>
<p>Perhaps the appropriate word is, &#8216;cult&#8217;. Cult following in the wine world<br />
clearly translates into cash. Champagne has cult status but it goes<br />
beyond cash because it represents the ultimate form of celebration.</p>
<p>The sense of anticipation and the sudden silence before the bottled is<br />
opened adds to this cult value.</p>
<p>With best wishes to Fat Cork who know doubt intend not to just sell<br />
champagne but to spread its legacy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryan Maletis (@fatcork)</title>
		<link>http://wineeconomist.com/2011/09/28/on-champagne-keynes-or-adam-smith/#comment-2871</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bryan Maletis (@fatcork)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wineeconomist.com/?p=4495#comment-2871</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Mike,

Thank you for writing such a great post and highlighting the company that my wife and I started, Fat Cork. It was a pleasure to taste with your group and I loved your economic insight. Your book, Wine Wars, is excellent, but getting to talk with you in person is even better. Your students are lucky to have you as a professor!

With regard to Paul&#039;s comments above, we believe that when you buy grower Champagne, you truly are paying for what it costs to produce, ship, and sell. While we also like many of the big name brands, and they generally cost about the same in the U.S. market when compared with grower bubbles, they obviously cost much less to produce per bottle as they have greater economies of scale. (millions of bottles produced vs. a few thousand) So, this means that their mark-up is much higher. But, this is because their cost of marketing is much higher. You know how you see Moet all over every Hollywood and NYC premier? Nobody pays for those bottles that they consume, and in fact, the big producers pay huge dollars for the right to be showcased in those events.

So, that is why grower Champagne represents a great value when compared to the big houses, you truly pay for what it costs to produce. Again, we have nothing against the big houses, they have done a lot to promote the name &quot;Champagne&quot;, and we have all benefited. If one of your students ever wants to do a project on this, we would be happy to provide our time, knowledge, and business statistics.

Cheers! Bryan]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Mike,</p>
<p>Thank you for writing such a great post and highlighting the company that my wife and I started, Fat Cork. It was a pleasure to taste with your group and I loved your economic insight. Your book, Wine Wars, is excellent, but getting to talk with you in person is even better. Your students are lucky to have you as a professor!</p>
<p>With regard to Paul&#8217;s comments above, we believe that when you buy grower Champagne, you truly are paying for what it costs to produce, ship, and sell. While we also like many of the big name brands, and they generally cost about the same in the U.S. market when compared with grower bubbles, they obviously cost much less to produce per bottle as they have greater economies of scale. (millions of bottles produced vs. a few thousand) So, this means that their mark-up is much higher. But, this is because their cost of marketing is much higher. You know how you see Moet all over every Hollywood and NYC premier? Nobody pays for those bottles that they consume, and in fact, the big producers pay huge dollars for the right to be showcased in those events.</p>
<p>So, that is why grower Champagne represents a great value when compared to the big houses, you truly pay for what it costs to produce. Again, we have nothing against the big houses, they have done a lot to promote the name &#8220;Champagne&#8221;, and we have all benefited. If one of your students ever wants to do a project on this, we would be happy to provide our time, knowledge, and business statistics.</p>
<p>Cheers! Bryan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Ahvenainen</title>
		<link>http://wineeconomist.com/2011/09/28/on-champagne-keynes-or-adam-smith/#comment-2869</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Ahvenainen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:46:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wineeconomist.com/?p=4495#comment-2869</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Makes sense, I guess...  I&#039;ll go no logo anytime.  I&#039;m not an economist, but I have a hard time understanding the whole &quot;pay for the logo&quot; concept.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Makes sense, I guess&#8230;  I&#8217;ll go no logo anytime.  I&#8217;m not an economist, but I have a hard time understanding the whole &#8220;pay for the logo&#8221; concept.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Veseth</title>
		<link>http://wineeconomist.com/2011/09/28/on-champagne-keynes-or-adam-smith/#comment-2868</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Veseth]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wineeconomist.com/?p=4495#comment-2868</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for this, Paul. I agree that, while grower Champagnes are not inexpensive, they are often a relative bargain compared with wines of similar quality from the big houses. The fact that grower Champagnes are not widely appreciated is part of the answer, of course. (Sherry is another under-appreciated bargain wine.) But I think the real answer is the fact that the big houses have invested in their luxury brands and need to earn a corresponding premium. Buy grower Champagne and you get distinctive wine. Buy Champagne from a big house and you associate yourself with a symbol of a luxury lifestyle. I guess what I am saying is that grower Champagne is the &quot;no logo&quot; segment of the Champagne market.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this, Paul. I agree that, while grower Champagnes are not inexpensive, they are often a relative bargain compared with wines of similar quality from the big houses. The fact that grower Champagnes are not widely appreciated is part of the answer, of course. (Sherry is another under-appreciated bargain wine.) But I think the real answer is the fact that the big houses have invested in their luxury brands and need to earn a corresponding premium. Buy grower Champagne and you get distinctive wine. Buy Champagne from a big house and you associate yourself with a symbol of a luxury lifestyle. I guess what I am saying is that grower Champagne is the &#8220;no logo&#8221; segment of the Champagne market.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Ahvenainen</title>
		<link>http://wineeconomist.com/2011/09/28/on-champagne-keynes-or-adam-smith/#comment-2867</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Ahvenainen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:08:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wineeconomist.com/?p=4495#comment-2867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting article Mike,

I would like to hear your opinion on the seemingly upside-down pricing structure of of Grower Champagnes, vs. the Grand Marque houses.  I was astonished that the limited production grower wines were far less expensive in Champagne than the relatively large production wines from Moet, Mumm etc.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting article Mike,</p>
<p>I would like to hear your opinion on the seemingly upside-down pricing structure of of Grower Champagnes, vs. the Grand Marque houses.  I was astonished that the limited production grower wines were far less expensive in Champagne than the relatively large production wines from Moet, Mumm etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
