Author Archives: Mike Veseth

Globalization, Wine Value and the Two Buck Chuck Index

January 11, 2008 By in globalization, journal of wine economics, robert parker, Two Buck Chuck, wine magazines, wine ratings, wine spectator 1 Comment

Has the globalization of the wine industry given us the best of wines, as many wine drinkers believe, or the worse of wines, as the film Mondovino suggests?

Two economists from the Whitehead School of Diplomacy at Seton Hall University address this question in the December 2007 issue of the Journal of Wine Economics (see full reference below). Their conclusion? Globalization has benefited American wine drinkers, who have a broader choice of quality wines at lower prices.

That’s pretty much what my supermarket empiricism leads me to conclude, but can it be proven scientifically? Here’s how the article’s authors arrived at their results.

First you need to define what it is that American wine drinkers are buying. The authors decided to focus on the Wine Spectator annual Top 100 list of wines. This has the advantage of limiting the study to a reasonable number of widely available wines. The Top 100 list is chosen each year on the basis of price, wine rating, availability and “excitement.” Many people use rankings like the WS 100 to guide their purchases, so I suspect that there really is some correlation between what is on the list and what is on store shelves and restaurant wine menus. The disadvantage of limiting the study to the Top 100 is of course that most of the wine sold in America — the inexpensive Gallo, Yellow Tail and Two Buck Chuck wine — does not make it to this or any other “top” list. If we want to know if globalization has improved choice at the middle and bottom of the market we will need more research.

The authors examined the WS 100 lists from 1988 – 2005 to determine (1) where the wines came from, (2) how much they cost and (3) their quality as measured by the WS ratings. They then calculated measures to determine changes in the geographical concentration of the wines (more or less choice in terms of countries of origin), the average quality rating and the relative value to consumers as measured by rating points per dollar.

What we learn from this is that the overall quality of the top wines has stayed relatively constant over the years, but the real price has fallen and the range of offerings has increased. It cost $4313 (in today’s dollars) to purchase the entire WS100 in 1988, for example, but just $2622 to buy the Top 100 wines in 2005. The cost per “point” of ratings in 1988 was 46 cents, so a hypothetical average 90-point wine cost $41.40. The per point cost was 28 cents in 2005 and so a hypothetical average 90-point wine cost just $25.20.

The top wines came from just six countries in 1998 versus 11 countries in 2005, an indication of the globalization effect. A great majority of WS100 over the years have come from four core wine countries: Australia, France, Italy and the U.S., but the proportion of non-core wines has increased, too, from just 5 percent in 1988 to 24 percent in 2005.

The authors divide the wine world of this study into Old World (France, Italy), New World (Australia and the U.S.) and “New-New World” (New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina and so on). Globalization has brought American wine drinkers more and more excellent New World and now especially New-New World wines that provide the same quality at lower average prices, according to the study.

Research like this is interesting both for the questions that it answers and for the new questions that are raised. It would be interesting, for example, to find how important the four criteria for selection are — price, rating, availability and “zing” — and if the relative weight they are given has changed. As the wine market has expanded, for example, greater emphasis may have been put on price and availability, leading to a Top 100 that leans more toward (global) good value wines.

It would also be interesting to see if the editors respond in any way to external forces. A lot of people read and study the Top 100 list, so perhaps they use it as a way to build the wine market (and thereby indirectly build their potential subscriber base). A focus on value would be consistent with this goal. A Top 100 list that you can’t find or can’t afford doesn’t build the wine market and won’t sell many magazines. The fact that there are more New-New World wines might reflect rising quality and availability of these wines or it could indicated that the WS editors desire to add these wines to keep costs down, value up and the market growing. In other words, the WS100 might show more choice and continuing good value because that’s what the WS editors want it to show. I suspect that the truth is that the market has evolved toward global good value and that WS has been part of that process, encouraging people to try New-New World wines by putting them on the Top 100 list.

Exchange rates could also play a role here. The dollar has fallen against most currencies (increasing the cost of imported wine), but the depreciation is not uniform. The Euro is much more expensive but the Argentine peso has not changed as much. If would be interesting to see to what extent the WS100‘s New-New World globalization has offset exchange rate driven increases in Old World wine costs.

Another interesting question relates to the idea of value in wine purchases. It does seem to me that people often find themselves buying WS points or Parker points more than the wine itself because they are unsure of their ability to judge quality. One local wine merchant had a sale of wines rated 90 points or more for $20 or less. The idea was that the wines must be good value because of the low cents per point ratio. But there is more to wine than rating scores, as anyone who has tasted high-scoring wines will tell you.

It might be interesting to try to put together a slightly more sophisticated wine value index using WS and other ratings. I don’t think that cents per point is a good measure because it assumes a linear relationship between money and quality — and we all know that is not the case. Very expensive wines frequently receive much lower ratings than their cheaper competitors. I understand that a $100 Chardonnay came in last at the tasting where Two Buck Chuck won the Gold Medal.

Even where price and quality are correlated, the relationship isn’t necessarily linear. The average price difference between an 86 point wine and a 88 point wine may be pretty small, for example, but it might cost a great deal to go from 92 to 94 points if the demand for the very best wines is particularly strong as is often the case in winner-take-all markets.

The price-quality relationship, even using imperfect wine scores as a measure of quality, is certainly non-linear. No wonder wine buyers are so confused — and depend so much on ratings and lists like the WS100.

Here is a simple alternative to cents per point as a measure of value. Let’s adjust price and quality for a baseline wine: Two Buck Chuck. You could call it the TBC index. Suppose that you can purchase a 70-point (to just make up a number) TBC Chardonnay for $2 (or $3 here in Washington State). The question we want to answer is how much does it cost to improve on TBC? A wine that gives you a lot of additional value for only a little additional money is a good deal.

In other words, the TBC index would be a relative index of value calculated by asking would be how many points in excess of 70 (or whatever the quality of the baseline wine you choose) you can buy for the dollars you spend in excess of the baseline cost. Here’s a numerical example. A 88 point wine for $20 would have a TBC rating of (88 – 70 points)/($20 – $2) = 18 point/$18 or a dollar a point. An 86 point wine for $10 would be a better value because (86 – 70)/(10-2) = 16 points /$8 = two points per dollar. It seems to me that this is a better (but still badly flawed) indicator of relative value. (Economics students have already realized that I am applying the principle of decision-making on the margin to this problem).

Perhaps I will find some students to work on the TBC index, perhaps using a different base wine for each varietal or wine type. I predict that their research would find that the “optimal” TBC point is being pretty close to the heart of the premium wine market — right on the center shelf in the supermarket — where so many wine brands compete for your wine dollars.

Wine ratings are very important in some parts of the wine market and very controversial, too, so I think I will see what I can learn about them. With this in mind I have subscribed to six different wine-rating publications: Wine Advocate (Robert Parker), Wine Spectator, Wine & Spirits, Wine Enthusiast, the British Decanter and Wine Press Northwest (for Washington/Oregon wine news and ratings). Watch this space for a comparative analysis of these influential publications.

References: Omer Gokcekus and Andrew Fargnoli, “Is Globalization Good for Wine Drinkers in the United States?” Journal of Wine Economics 2:2 (December 2007) pp. 187-195).

The China Wine Syndrome

January 7, 2008 By in Changyu, China wine, Grace Vineyards, Supply and Demand 2 Comments

I’ve never tasted Chinese wine, but that’s going to change quite soon. I have two bottles, both hand-carried from China by my former student Brian West. One is a 1999 Cabernet Sauvignon from China’s oldest winery, Changyu (founded in 1892). The other is a 2003 Tasya’s Reserve Cabernet Franc from what many people say is China’s best winery, Grace Vineyard (or Shanxi Grace Vineyard to differentiate it from a Japanese winery with the same name — Shanxi is the region of China where Grace Vineyard is located).

I have heard a lot of stories about Chinese wine — about how bad it is, how prestige-seeking Shanghai yuppies mix expensive first growth Bordeaux with Coca Cola and of vast vineyards in China that threaten to flood world markets with cheap wine (as Chinese exports have flooded some other markets already). The prospect of drinking Chinese wine for the first time gave me an incentive to see what I could find out about the Chinese wine industry and market. Here is a brief account of what I have learned.

Wine has a long history in China, reaching back more than 2000 years to the first wine imported from Ferghana in what is now Uzbekistan. It wasn’t until the 19th century, however, that more than a trickle of wine was produced or consumed. Western missionaries brought grapes and wine to China along with their bibles (as they did in California, Argentina and Chile). The real roots of today’s industry were planted in the late 1800s, however, when Changyu and other wineries were founded, mainly to produce wines for the foreign communities in the commercial centers.

The communist government expanded wine production after the 1949 revolution. Wine was promoted as a form of alcohol made from abundant fruit sources (grapes, both vitis and indigenous Asian varieties, and other fruits) in order to reduce use of precious food grains for alcohol production. Wine was meant to replace beer or grain spirits in the diet. Wine was typically made from a combination of grapes and other fruits. I understand that it is still sometimes necessary to specify grape wine in China, since generic wine may be made out of any number of fruits. It is probably not surprising that Chinese who were brought up on these mixed-fruit wines might today mix dry grape wine with fruit juice or Coke to get a more familiar flavor.

China’s vineyards are indeed vast, totaling six percent of the world total. There are 453,000 hectares of vineyards in China, which is roughly equal to the U.S. (380,000 hectares) plus Germany (98,000 hectares) or just over the half the vineyard area of France, the world leader. But 80 percent of the grapes are grown as fruit for the table grape market. About 10 percent of the grapes are dried to make raisins. The remaining 10 percent are wine grapes. China’s wine production is relatively small — 730 million liters compared to 2,546 million liters for the U.S. and 898 million liters for Germany. China produces about as much wine as Moldova and Romania combined — a lot of wine, but still just 2.6 percent of the global total.

Comparative wine production statistics for China are a bit problematic because (1) much of the wine produced is not pure grape wine but may be mixed fruit wine and (2) the rules on what can be labeled Chinese wine are quite lax. Grape wine needs to be only 50% grape and Chinese wine needs to be only 50% from Chinese-produced juice, according to one report I found. This means that a great deal of the bad wine that tourist report being served is not really grape wine and may be a blend of a little Chinese grape wine and a lot of imported bulk wine of undetermined origin. Rules get bent and outright fraud is not uncommon, I understand.

China has about 450 wine producers, which is approximately the number here in Washington State. The industry is highly concentrated with four wineries accounting for 60 percent of domestic production and sales. The big four are Great Wall, Dragon Seal, Changyu and Huadong. Foreign partnerships are common, giving Chinese winemakers access to international technology and expertise. The French multinational Pernod Ricard helped create Dragon Seal in 1987, for example, and Seagrams and Remy Martin have also been involved in joint ventures.

If the quality of the large scale wineries is disappointing, as many tourists report, the reason can be found in the supply chain. Wine is only as good as the grapes that go into it, or so growers tell me, and the grape supply situation in China is difficult. Most of the wine grapes are grown by families that lease about an acre of land from their local agricultural commune. That acre is tyically divided into four or five small plots that are planted with different crops so as to minimize risk. One or perhaps two of the plots may be wine grapes in the vineyard regions. So vineyard scale is impossibly small — smaller even than in the south of France.

These small growers insist on calling the shots, which is natural since they are so dependent upon the success of their tiny farms. The wine producers have no control over what these hundreds of thousands of micro-vineyards produce, how they are cropped, and when the grapes are picked. Researchers suggest that the grapes are chosen and grown to maximize quantity not quality and that the grapes are picked as soon as possible to minimize risk of poor weather than could destroy the crop. So small crops of flavorful fully ripe grapes — the winemaker’s dream — that’s not going to happen in a typical Chinese vineyard. One study I found suggested that the grapes sell for as little as $80 a ton.

There is not much incentive for individual growers to sacrifice quantity for quality because their grapes are sold by weight to agents who lump together fruit from dozens or hundreds of individual growers. Good fruit would quickly get mixed with inferior fruit, so why pay more? The local agents often then resell the fruit to regional agents who sell again to the large winemakers. You can just imagine the condition of the fruit by the time it finally gets to the winemaking facility having passed through so many hands. This system is worse than the European cooperatives I have read about (and I didn’t think anything could be worse than that).

Wine is sold in all sorts of ways. The Changyu website offers to let me buy wine by the barrel, which is perhaps what I would do if I owned a restaurant or a village drinks shop where I could decant the wine into bottles, jugs, or any other available container. Economists who study the Chinese wine market are increasingly focusing on supermarkets as a growing distribution vector. Partly I think this is because grocery store sales of wine are increasing, but also I think because these economists are interested in the potential for foreign wine imports. I don’t think relatively expensive French or California wines have much chance of penetrating the traditional bulk distribution system where a lot of Chinese wine goes, so supermarkets are their best bet. Supermarkets may also eventually play an important role in educating Chinese consumers about wine in general and foreign wine in particular.

A small number of boutique winemakers have appeared, often financed by Hong Kong Chinese families and using international “flying winemaker” expertise. This is the basic story of my Grace Vineyard Cabernet Franc. Hong Kong businessman C.K. Chan invested USD 7 million to build a French-style Chateau. He hired Bordeaux winemaker Gerard Colin to supervise production full time. Output is now more than 40,000 cases. My bottle of reserve wine says that it is estate bottled from grapes grown on the estate and this may suggest why Grace Vineyard wines are often rated the best in China: control of the supply chain. If Grace controls the quality of the grapes then they can better control the quality of the wine. People say that Grace Vineyards is the best French wine made in China. I’m looking forward to trying it.

The bottom line is that the future of wine in China is difficult to predict. Surely wine consumption will grow as China gets richer and Chinese adopt more western consumption habits. Wine production will grow, too, and quality will rise as better technology is adopted. But it will be interesting to how quickly Chinese consumers accept dry western grape wines after their long experience with mixed fruit wines. And it will be interesting to see how quickly the quality of grapes can be raised.

It seems to me that the biggest barriers to quality wine are not in the stores or even in the habit of mixing red wine and Coke. The biggest problem remains the sorry state of rural Chinese agriculture — a good reminder that wine is fundamentally a product of the soil.

Note: Special thanks to Brian West for bringing wine back from China where he was teaching with a University of Montana law school program. Thanks as well to Judy Leissner, who runs Grace Vineyard, for her assistance in locating Grace Vineyard products. Click here to view an interview with Judy about running a family wine business in China.

Special Note (added 1/13/2008). Click here to read an interview with Judy Leissner on the a blog called The Grape Wall of China, which is a good resource on the changing Chinese wine industry. Thanks to Jim Boyce (a.k.a. Beijing Boyce) for this link.

The End of Cheap Wine?

December 30, 2007 By in brands, Costco, Supply and Demand, Two Buck Chuck, wine bargains, wine markets, Yellow Tail Leave a comment

It is becoming increasingly clear that a golden age of sorts (for American wine drinkers) is coming to an end. Good quality wine has been amazingly affordable for the last several years and New World wine consumption has risen as a result.

This is changing (or has already changed, as Jancis Robinson writes in Saturday’s Financial Times) and a quick look at the economics of the wine market explains how and why.

The demand for wine in the United States has increased for a number of reasons. Studies that show that moderate consumption of wine (especially red wine) is healthful gave consumers license to experiment with table wines. The existence of Two Buck Chuck (the Charles Shaw wines sold at Trader Joe’s stores) and other value brands made this experimentation affordable.

The increasing emphasis on wine brands helped demand grow by making the wine purchase itself somewhat less mysterious. The wine aisle is the most complex choice space in any grocery store — there are more options at more price points than anywhere else. Brands reduce uncertainty and so encourage consumption. The enormous success of [Yellow Tail] brand wine from Australia is testament to this fact. Costco, the nation’s largest wine retailer, has used limited selection and its Kirkland Signature own-brand wine to achieve spectacular results.

The demand for wine has not just increased it has also evolved as many consumers have moved to higher quality (or higher price,anyway) and developed specialized wine expertise. Wine is more than a beverage, it is a lifestyle for many people who collect wines, take wine tourist vacations and subscribe to wine publications such as Wine Spectator or The Wine Advocate and read the wine columns now found in many newspapers. There is a pretty steep learning curve when it comes to wine. Knowing more about wine and having more experience with it increases the pleasure that wine provides and makes further learning more efficient. In economic terms, the specific investment in wine knowledge makes the demand for wine more inelastic — less sensitive to changes in price since buyers are less likely to switch from wine to other products or beverages where they have less expertise.

The supply of wine has also changed to create higher prices. The falling U.S. dollar has increased the cost of imported wine, which contributes to rising domestic prices both directly, as those costs are passed along to consumers, and indirectly, as higher import prices allow domestic producers to raise price, too. I don’t think that we have seen the full pass-through effect of the exchange rate changes yet, so expect dollar-driven price increases to continue.

But domestic prices would have increased even without the dollar’s decline. Wine buyers in recent years benefited from a global surplus of wine grapes that drove down price and pushed up quality. Faced with accumulated surpluses that sometimes amounted to a year or more of sales, winegrowers held back on expansion plans (except for hot varietals like Pinot Noir). Demand has slowly grown into the existing supply and may soon exceed it for some wine types. Falling prices due to surpluses are coming to an end and rising prices seem likely, even in Australia where drought and disease have further reduced production. The new EU wine regime, if it is effective, should further reduce wine surpluses and tighten supply.

When you combine these factors along with a few others, such as growing interest in wine in Asia, the result is a new market environment and it will be interesting to see what happens next. The latest round of wine magazines seem to take higher prices in stride. The Wine Advocate reports that the cellar door price of California cult wine Screaming Eagle is now $500 per bottle — if you can get some — and a long list of wines are listed with prices above $100 or $200. Wine Spectator and the wine columnists in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times all seem to be struggling to keep a lid on their definition of an inexpensive or good value wine — a $12 or $15 or even $20 ceiling no longer provides much choice! You can still buy cheap wine, but the good value bargains are disappearing.

It will be interesting to see how the American wine culture, which has been built in part on good quality at low prices, copes with this new world of wine. In the meantime, enjoy those bargains and good values when you find them, but don’t count on your good fortune lasting forever.

Draining Europe’s Wine Lake

December 24, 2007 By in Uncategorized Leave a comment

Europe is afloat in a sea of bad wine and the European Union agriculture ministers agreed last week to do something about it. But is it too little and too late?

Marian Fischer Boel, the EU Agriculture Minister, proposed a number of fairly radical reforms in 2006 and these were the basis of the discussion. She wanted an immediate end to distillation subsidies and a vast program to encourage small winegrowers to pull up their vines — one million acres — replacing them with other crops or, in some cases, with more marketable grape varieties. Perhaps predictably, the policies agreed last week are much weaker than the original proposals. Distillation subsidies will be phased out over five years and as many as 400,000 acres of vines will be “grubbed up.” Four hundred thousand acres seems like a lot, but given the size of the problem is it, as Wine Spectator reported, just “a good start?”

Current EU policies are as useless as the old wine barrels shown above. At the top end of the market, national and EU policies tend to stifle innovation and prevent effective market adjustment (the counter argument is that they preserve tradition and prevent destructive commercialization). I have read any number of stories about high end European winemakers who have expanded abroad in part to escape regulations on what they can produce, where, and how they can market it.

In the mid-market, where current attention is focused, EU and national regulations seem to prevent winemakers from achieving the transparency that an increasing global market requires. It is hard enough to know what’s in a bottle of wine without the complicated rules that government European wine labeling. French wines are typically “branded” by place of origin, not grape varietal, for example. Buyers who are not confident about their French geographical knowledge and the relationship between place, grape variety and wine style, are likely to choose New World wines with more easily understood characteristics. Australian wines sell well in France partly for this reason.

At the low end of the market, EU policies designed to support farm incomes have produced the famous “wine lake.” Each year the EU spends about $2 billion to buy up unsold wines and turn them into industrial alcohol. This vast reliable market for poor quality wine keeps thousands of small scale producers in business. The distillation subsidy insulates low-end producers from market forces with the result that the vineyards remain uneconomically small, the practices favor quantity over quality, and the wine, while it may reflect local tradition, finds few buyers in the marketplace. Cheap New World wine is preferred to bad Old World plonk.

The new EU policies are designed to drain the wine lake by making the wine sector more responsive to market forces. Label laws and regulations will be reformed so that European wines can be sold by regional and grape varietal just like New World wines. The distillation subsidy will be phased out over four years, with some of the subsidy funds returned to regional groups to be used in wine marketing and promotion efforts. And up to 400,000 acres of vineyards will be included in the new “vine-pull scheme.” New plantings will be allowed over time, but they will be market-driven not subsidy-driven.

The top end of the market is unlikely to be affected very much by these policies, since by definition they already have established brands and distribution channels. New label laws and subsidy reductions will have few direct effects on these producers, although they may be able to gain indirectly as vineyard consolidation takes place and Australian-style brands grow in importance. I predict that the most visible early effect of the new rules will be expansion of European brands both at home and in export markets.

The clear gainers are the mid-market producers — the wines that sell for about $12. There is great potential profit in this part of the market, which is expanding rapidly in the New World. Freed from the constraints of tradition, European winemakers should be able to compete in this market quite well. It is, however, a hotly contested market segment. European producers will need to use their new freedom well to succeed and those who choose not to adjust may suffer as the European market realigns itself.

The real problem is at the bottom of the market. Losing the distillation subsidies will hurt many producers and I don’t know how enough about the cost-benefit of the vine-pulling schemes to comment. Pulling 400,000 acres out of wine production should help stabilize the market by reducing the annual surplus, but I don’t know if it is enough and I don’t know if the incentives provided are strong enough.

Four hundred thousand acres — how big is that? Huge if you are thinking New World — Australia had just 388,000 acres of vineyards altogether in 2003 according to my Oxford Companion. But tiny if you think Old World — and of course this is an Old World problem. Italy and France had more than 2 million acres of vines each in 2003 and France had nearly 3 million more. (The Languedoc region in the south of France has 528,000 acres by itself.) Taking 400,000 acres out of production in Europe is like removing Moldova and Switzerland from the market. The effect on the regions where the vines are grubbed up will be large, but the impact on the global market is likely to be quite small — reducing the global surplus, but not eliminating it. I don’t know if it will be enough.

Will it work? Much of the discussion that I have read focuses on the size of the vine-pull scheme — 400,000 acres versus the million acres that Marian Fischer Boel proposed two years ago. Although I think the size of the grubbing up program is important, I believe that the market-driven reforms and the elimination of distillation subsidies are more important. The 1988 vine-pull scheme took over a million acres out of production but, as we see today, didn’t eliminate the surplus because of the difficulty of selling the good wines and the incentives to keep make bad ones.

A Wine Research Gap?

December 8, 2007 By in alcohol, dry farming, wine research 1 Comment

If there’s one thing that I have learned about wine markets it is that they are dynamic. Although there is much about wine that is classic and timeless, there is a lot of change, too, and winemakers and growers need to take account. Global wine markets are changing, the social function of wine is changing and the natural environment of winegrowing is changing, too.

How do you cope with a rapidly changing market environment? Innovation is one answer and that requires research. Is the U.S. wine industry doing enough to keep up with foreign wine producers in basic wine research? That’s the cover story in the December issue of Wines & Vines magazine and their answer is No.

Wines &Vines is a wine industry trade journal; whereas Wine Spectator and Wine Advocate are aimed at consumers, collectors and enthusiasts, W&V‘s audience are industry insiders. It’s a very good publication — I rely on it for information about emerging trends in the industry. If you are seriously interested in wine you ought to take a look at it.

The cover story argues that there is relatively little public research on wine industry problems in the United States. “Public” research is research that is available to all winemakers and growers and is different from proprietary research that individual winemakers undertake for their own use. Australia, with a wine industry about half the size of the U.S., spends about $23 million for public research, with funds raised from levies on winemakers and growers matched by government funds. By comparison, W&V reports about $2 million for public wine research in the U.S. (although total research levels are much higher when private R&D expenditures are included). The argument is that increased funding for applied research would strengthen the U.S. industry in an increasingly competitive global market.

What would increased research funding buy? I think I got a taste of what research can do in an electronic newsletter I received recently from the Australian Wine and Brandy Commission. The AWBC (a.k.a. Wine Australia) is the Australian government agency that was created in 1981 to support the wine industry. One of their current research projects involves the problem of rising alcohol levels in wine.

Everyone knows that alcohol levels have been going up for some years. Climate change is part of the problem — warmer climate and longer growing seasons increases sugar levels and therefore alcohol levels. This is beneficial to wine quality up to a point, but beyond that point there are real problems both with wine balance and with consumer attitudes towards alcohol. How do you bring alcohol levels down without bringing quality levels down, too? Premature harvesting means less sugar and alcohol, but less character. De-alcoholization (usually through a reverse osmosis process — did I get that right David?) is common in California and elsewhere but there are quality trade-offs here as well.

The AWBC reports that their alcohol reduction research is focusing on the yeasts — trying to find yeast strains that will make wine with lower alcohol levels without sacrificing balance and character. They even mention the three little letters that I think everyone in the wine business is afraid of — GMO. No genetically modified yeast varieties have been used in Australia (and are unlikely to be used there ever, thay say), but research into yeasts and even GMO yeasts is an example of the sort of public research that could have wide-ranging benefits for the wine industry. The Australians are out in front on this sort of research, Wines & Vines suggests and it may be so. I know that I rely almost exclusively upon AWBC economic research on global wine market patterns.

The November issue of W&V has an article on dry farming of vineyards that reminds me that innovation and research can take many forms. Once upon a time most quality vineyards were dry farmed (farmed without artificial irrigation), but as irrigation technology improved the focus turned to scientific irrigation practices. I guess the idea is that because technology allows a winegrower to carefully control water availability then this must be the right thing to do. The people who make Mollydooker, the big-boned Australian wines with the huge Parker numbers, attribute their success to the trade-marked Marquis Vineyard Watering Programme, for example.

But John Williams, whose Frog’s Leap wines are also recognized for quality, has taken a different approach, going back to dry farming. He manages the vineyard soil (see photo above) so that it retains moisture effectively and encourages the sort of deep vine growth that gives character to the finished product. The W&V article explains …

Williams pointed out that a vine grown on drip irrigation is essentially a potted plant sitting in the middle of a field, with moisture and nutrients delivered through the drip system. He believes that is a problem. “What kind of flavor do you get from a hydroponic-grown tomato? Very little. Same thing with a grapevine. When the winemaker comes out to taste the berry at 22° or 23° Brix, the flavor isn’t there. So the decision is made to leave it on the vine a little longer, more hang time until it reaches physiological ripeness at 26° or 27° or even 28° Brix. You still aren’t getting a lot of flavor, so you have to start manipulating the wine–micro-oxygenation and lots of oak–to try and get it to taste mature. And you end up with high-alcohol wines.”

He added, “If we talk about when wine went from its historic place as a mealtime beverage that deeply reflects the soil and climate from whence it comes to killer, jammy monsters that advertise that they will ‘melt your panties,’ I think you will come to the same conclusion that we did 18 years ago: that the real wines are made by deeply connecting them to their soils and that dry farming is fundamental to that.”

John Williams’ statements suggests that dry farming, where it is practical, might solve the alcohol problem and yield other benefits at the same time. This suggests to me that, while research tends to focus on winemaking as a science (hence the search for high tech solutions), we need to remember that wine is made in the vineyard and the craft of winegrowing can yield answers, too.

Innovation — doing new things — is one answer to rapid change, but doing the old things more effectively sometimes works even better. Kinda makes you rethink the question of a wine research gap.

Message in a Bottle? The 2007 Wine Star Awards

December 5, 2007 By in wine awards, wine brands Leave a comment

Wine Enthusiast has announced the winners of their 2007 Wine Star Awards and I find the selections pretty interesting. Usually wine magazine awards go to famous winemakers like Robert Mondavi or Paul Draper the “philosopher/winemaker” at Ridge. But Wine Enthusiast positions itself as more of an industry publication than an enthusiast mag, so these awards are a bit different — they honor exceptional achievement in an increasingly complex global wine market and send a message to those who pay attention about how the global market is evolving.

The top award — Man of the Year (yes, they really call it man of the year) — goes to Ray Chadwick, who is not a household name unless your house is pretty deeply involved in the wine business. Chadwick has an MBA from the University of Chicago instead of a oenology degree from Davis. He runs the Chateau & Estate group of Diageo, one of the world’s largest drinks companies. His achievement was to build a successful global brand portfolio of premium wines. The citation for the award says in part

Chadwick has overseen tremendous growth at DC&E, launching new brands from California, Australia, New Zealand and France, growing its wine portfolio from three brands to 21, and focusing on premium wines. DC&E’s strong California portfolio includes Beaulieu Vineyard, Sterling Vineyards, Acacia and Chalone. In the last year, it launched Newharbor (NZ), B&G Bistro (France), Beauzeaux (CA) and A by Acacia (CA). Under Ray’s leadership, DC&E began fiscal 2007 as the No. 4 premium wine company in the United States (8.7% market share), and finished the year at No. 3, with a 9% market share. With sales of 5 million cases a year, at a retail value of $1 billion, DC&E is one of the 10 biggest U.S. wine companies. But beyond the astonishing numbers, Chadwick has helped build an engaged and dedicated team. As an insightful strategist and superb administrator, he has repeatedly met and mastered an enormous challenge: to bring together different corporate cultures, successfully merging Diageo, Seagram’s, and finally Chalone, providing a collaborative and winning environment.

This says a lot about what the wine industry in the U.S. and the world. First, the award stresses the importance of marketing and distribution in today’s market environment. Second, although the trend towards consolidation continues, the premium wine segment is still pretty open — the third largest firm has just 9% of market share. Third, it stresses that fact that having a diversified international portfolio of premium wines is of growing importance. Retailers like to deal with a small number of suppliers, so successful distributors must have products that will fill a lot of different spots on the wine rack. And finally, the stress on team building reminds us that this is still a people business. Personal relationships and trust are necessary in a business where you don’t always know what’s in the bottle you are selling.


Several of the other awards also make interesting statements about the wine business today. The Importer of the Year is Gallo, which we all think of as company deeply rooted in California’s Central Valley (and now Sonoma, too, of course). But wine is a global business and so Gallo has become global, too. The citation explains

The importing side of the business began in 1997 with Ecco Domani Pinot Grigio from Italy, a company which Gallo started from scratch. It was one of Ernest Gallo’s ideas, and a fairly radical one, considering the company’s exclusive focus up to that point on California wines. The company currently imports 15 brands from 11 wineries in nine countries: France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Chile, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Of these, seven were created, while the other eight represent partnerships.

Gallo is a master of brand management. Gallo’s emphasis on expanding its imports (and exports, too, although that’s another topic) underlines the point that a diversified portfolio of international brands is the dominant competitive strategy today.

But global markets don’t necessary spell the end of regional family wine firms. They can survive and even thrive, but they have to evolve along with the market. Two other Wine Star awards recognize achievements in this vein.

DFV Wines (Delicato Family Vineyards) was named the American Winery of the Year for its successful portfolio of California brands. The citation reads

DFV Wines is a family-owned winery committed to its 80-plus-year wine heritage in California. Three generations of the Indelicato family have overseen vineyard operations and winemaking, and produce a portfolio of wine brands from their various properties. Originally a top quality supplier of grapes and bulk wine, in the 1990s they moved into bottled varietals; they currently offer 9 different brands, which appeal to a wide range of consumers. In the late 1980s, the family purchased the 12,000-acre San Bernabé Vineyard in Monterey, and in the 1990s they added Clay Station vineyard in Lodi, and North Coast vineyards in Napa and Sonoma. The Indelicato family has earned a reputation for maintaining the highest standards in farming, with an unwavering dedication to environmentally sensitive winegrowing practices and economically sustainable business practices. Individual wines that have gained recognition in recent years include Gnarly Head Zinfandel, Clay Station Viognier, Irony Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, 337 Cabernet Sauvignon and Delicato Shiraz. DFV Wines answers consumer demand for great tasting, mindfully grown, intelligently vinified wines for every occasion

The New World Winery of the Year is one of my personal favorites, Villa Maria. The citation reads

Villa Maria is one of New Zealand’s leading wineries. It was founded in 1961 by its current owner and Managing Director, George Fistonich, and is 100-percent New Zealand—and family—owned. The company’s primary focus is on the vineyards themselves,to produce the highest possible grape quality, while respecting the importance of regional differences. Astute site selection is followed by superior vineyard management and then complemented by expert winemaking. Villa Maria is also known for its innovations in its native country: a tiered system of payment for grape growers based on the fruit quality and the creation of reserve and single-vineyard wines. Under Fistonich’s leadership, Villa Maria also became the first major wine company in the world to declare its wineries “cork free,” opting for screw cap closures on all of its wines. Through his ceaseless pursuit of quality, Fistonich and Villa Maria have made outstanding contributions not only to New Zealand wines, but also to the wine world in general.

Villa Maria shows that it is possible for a family-owned winery in what must still be considered an “emerging” wine region to achieve international success without a huge brand portfolio or multinational money — through a stubborn and consistent commitment to quality. Villa Maria’s success comes from a combination of good old-fashioned winegrowing (a strong focus on grapes, vineyards and growers) and an openness to innovations like the screw cap.

Congratulations to all the winners of the 2007 Wine Star Awards. And thanks to Wine Enthusiast for using these awards to highlight important characteristics of the contemporary wine market.

The California Bill and the Birth of Washington State Wine

December 2, 2007 By in Paul Gregutt, Washington wine 2 Comments

I am spending this cold, wet day re-reading parts of Paul Gregutt’s great new book Washington Wines & Wineries: The Essential Guide (University of California Press) and his chapter on the history of Washington wine got me to thinking about the origins of the industry. Is it possible to point to any one person or event that is responsible for the birth of Washington wine?

There are several possible choices. Some would say that it happened in 1937 when Washington State University horticulturalist Dr. Walter Clore, the godfather of Washington wine, began working in his research center north of Prosser. Dr. Clore and his team are responsible for many of the advances in Washington viticulture that we take for granted today. Without Clore and his colleagues, Washington winegrowers might still be planting Muller-Thurgau and Concord grapes.

Others might argue that Washington wine was born in 1967 when Andre Tchelistcheff, the famous winemaker from California’s Beaulieu Vineyards, came to Washington and praised a Gewurztraminer made by Phil Church, a partner in Associated Vintners (now Columbia Winery). Tchelistcheff’s endorsement lent credibility to Washington wine and his encouragement helped propel the industry forward. (Tchelistcheff even encouraged his nephew Alex Golitizin to make wine in Washington — the result is Quilceda Creek Vintners, the maker of Washington’s first 100-point cabernet sauvignon.)

A third important event occurred in 1976, when the Chateau Ste. Michelle winery opened at the former Hollywood Farms location in Woodinville. The $6 million winery and headquarters complex was the largest single investment in the industry to that time and it represented a great gamble by Ste. Michelle’s corporate parent, the United States Tobacco Company (the makers and Skoal and Copenhagen smokeless tobacco). CSM, which was created through a merger of pioneer wineries Pomerelle and NAWICO before being purchased by US Tobacco, is now the Colossus of Washington wine, accounting for about 70 percent of all wine production in the state.

My choice for the key event in Washington wine history, however, didn’t happen in the vineyards with Dr. Clore or the tasting room with Mr. Tchelistcheff or at the grand opening of the Woodinville winery. From an economist’s viewpoint, the critical act (and it really was an Act) took place in March 1969. That’s when the Washington legislature passed House Bill 100, the California Wine Bill. The California Wine Bill exposed the Washington wine industry to competition from both domestic (California) and international competition and forced winemakers to improve quality or disappear.

Here’s the back story. Many wineries opened or reopened in Washington when Prohibition was repealed in 1933. Almost the first thing that they did was to seek protection from the state legislature from out-of-state competition. This protection was provided almost immediately in the form of the Steele Act of 1935, which set up a dual distribution system for wines. “Domestic” Washington wineries could sell directly to wholesalers, but “foreign” out-of-state wines (including wines from California) has to be distributed through the more rigid channels of the state liquor monopoly, the Washington State Liquor Board. The result was that “domestic” wines were relatively easy to purchase and widely available, but “foreign wines” including California products could only be purchased through state stores with their limited hours and strict controls. Later legislation provided for minimum prices in order to prevent competition from cheaper California wines.

The result of this protective legislation was exactly what you’d expect. With no competition to keep winemakers honest, quality suffered. The industry focused on the low end of the market, making large quantities of cheap, sweet, fortified wines like this NAWICO port. There was little incentive for winegrowers to seek quality (although some did) because good grapes and poor ones were all blended together. Although Dr. Clore was busy developing quality wine grapes in Prosser, Washington’s most important grape crop for many years was the Concord grape that went into Welch’s juice and Gallo’s sweet sparkling Cold Duck.

Rather than thriving behind its protective wall, the Washington wine industry collapsed. There were only eight wineries in Washington in 1969 (down from 42 in 1937) and, with a few exceptions such as Associated Vintners, their wine was mediocre at best.

The paradox that protecting a wine industry actually destroys it is not unique to Washington. I have seen it time and again in my research, in New Zealand, Argentina and in France under the EU’s old wine regime. The only thing that can protect a wine industry is competition, which forces winemakers to become more efficient and to raise quality.

With nothing to keep cheaper California wines out, Washington winemakers had no choice but to look upmarket. A quality wine industry emerged and has thrived — there are now more than 500 wineries in Washington state and new ones appear every month. Washington is unusual in the wine world in that it has developed a major wine industry that is not built upon a base of inexpensive bulk wine. Only New Zealand (which cannot compete with Australia at the bottom end of the market) and Washington can claim to have pure premium wine industries.

You can thank competition — and the California Wine Bill of 1969 — for Washington’s status as an important producer of premium wine.

What’s Red and White and Green All Over?

November 22, 2007 By in biodynamic wine, French Rabbit, Oregon wine, sustainability Leave a comment

The answer, of course, is wine.

Perhaps the most interesting trend that I have observed in wine this year is the growth of green wine. By green I mean wine that is made and marketed with attention to the environment (although vinho verde from Portugal can claim to be a green wine on other counts).

What drew my attention to the green wine movement was not the existence of organic wines — they’ve been around for a long time — but the variety of ways that winemakers are embracing sustainability and the environment as an integral part of their work.

I uncovered three sustainability initiatives while doing fieldwork in Oregon, for example. The first was the Low Input Viticulture and Enology initiative, or LIVE for short. This is an a voluntary program with about 70 certified members that, according to the website, aims …

  • To see the vineyard as a whole system
    		•
  • To create and maintain a high level quality fruit production
    		•
  • To implement practices that reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals and fertilizers with the goal of protecting the farmer, the environment, and communities at large
    		•
  • To encourage responsible stewardship of the land, maintain natural fertility and ecosystem stability
    		•
  • To promote sustainable farming practices that maintain biological diversity in the whole farm
    		•


    I haven’t studied the LIVE program closely, but my impression is that it is an attempt to both promote sustainable vineyard practices and, at the same time, take local control of the certification process. Why create an organization like LIVE — why not just go “organic” and be certified organic? I have talked to a number of winegrowers who hesitate to seek organic certification because of the considerable expense and also because the sort of sustainable viticulture they seek to practice goes beyond the avoidance of chemicals. Regional initiatives like LIVE allow groups of growers to define sustainability in a way that is compatible with local conditions and practices and to retain local control of the process.

    Some winemakers are going all the way when it comes to sustainability, which is what the biodynamic wine movement is all about. Biodynamic winemaking is based upon a set of agricultural theories that the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner proposed in the 1920s. The biodynamic idea is to treat the entire vineyard as a living organism and to adopt practices that promote the health of the entire structure — vines, soil, insects, and so forth. This reminds me of the famous Gaia Hypothesis that the whole earth is a living organism.

    Most biodynamic practices are uncontroversial, but the use of special organic field sprays draws special attention. The sprays are made by burying cow horns full of cow manure or ground quartz in the vineyard for six months and then spraying the estate with the resulting composted product in diluted form at specific times of the day and phases of the moon. The idea is to promote microbial health and the balanced growth of the vineyard. It sounds a little like voodoo viticulture, to me, but there are plenty of good winemakers who have adopted this practice so I am going to keep my skepticism in check for now.

    Several Oregon winemakers including Brick House and Cooper Mountain have gone or are going biodynamic. They join California producers including Frog’s Leap, DeLoach and Benzinger and a growing number of winemakers in Europe and around the world. I understand that many winemakers in Chile such as Emiliana Orgánico are adopting biodynamic practices, for example, both on philosophical grounds and, I suspect, in an attempt to differentiate their wines in the marketplace. (Click here to read Emiliana’s explanation of the principles of biodynamic viticulture). I haven’t tasted enough biodynamic wine to have an opinion about how the process affects the end product.

    The final example from Oregon is the Carlton Winemakers’ Studio, a facility that about a dozen smaller winemakers share. This operation was designed to meet recognized environmental standards from the group up. According to the website it was …

    The first winery registerd with the US Green Building Council, The Carlton Winemakers Studio was designed to be compliant with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification, promoting a whole – building approach to sustainability by recognizing five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.

    Some of the most intriguing environmental building materials and techniques are the following:

    • Below foundation water capture and reuse
    • North roof water capture and reuse
    • Clear roofing materials
    • Daylighting, windows, doors, and hallway
    • Night air cooling
    • Coal byproduct (fly-ash)/concrete mix
    • Recycled mats, paint, office desk materials, roofing metal, carpet
    • Non-conventional material uses: sals-walls, curtains, shade
    • Reused: counter tops (SS & acid resistant composite), light, concrete, sinks
    • Dynamic flow air pocket walls
    • Earth berm / below grade walls for natural cooling

    The Winemakers Studio’s strategy suggests that green wine can be good wine, good economics and good for the environment.

    Sustainability is obviously important in winemaking, but it doesn’t end there. A growing number of wine brands, such as French Rabbit, are embracing sustainability in wine packaging and transport. Here’s how Boisset America, the French firm that makes and markets French Rabbit (and owns biodynamic DeLoach) got into the sustainable packaging business.

    Canada is a good market for wines, especially French wines, and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is therefore a big buyer with lots of market power. As a state monopoly, the LCBO sets economic, social and environmental goals for its operations. They aim to minimize energy use and maximize recycling. LCBO challenged their wine suppliers to introduce new products to promote these goals and French Rabbit was one result. As Patrick Egan, brand manager for French Rabbit, notes

    “Our real immense success was with Liquor Control Board of Ontario. They inspired the creation of French Rabbit. As a goverment entity they were interested in challenging themselves and their suppliers to reduce packaging waste. They set an ambitious goal of eliminating 10 million kilograms of packaging waste per year. There were no other wines yet available in Tetra Paks when we presented French Rabbit, and they immediately embraced the concept. FR was the most successful launch of a new brand they’ve ever had, and spawned more than 75 other wines in Tetra Pak packages since French rabbit was launched there in July 2005. The success helped the LCBO reach their packaging reduction goal some 2 years ahead of schedule. Here in the US, there are really 3 primary brands [in Tetra Paks] so far, with more on their way.

    “Turns out, much of the world has been consuming wine from the Tetra Pak package for many years (you must have seen Tavernello on your travels to Italy). Our angle, our raison d’etre, for introducing a new wine in this package to North America has been the ecological benefits to the package. In the age of global warming and increasing interest in sustainability, our package has the benefits of the lowest carbon output per unit of wine sold when the full life cycle of the package is considered. Its lightweight and minimal packaging materials mean immense savings when compared to the glass bottle. So, as wineries make more and more efforts to combat global warming in the vineyards and in their energy consumption, we’ve gone the angle of actually transforming the package that wine is delivered in to consumers. Just as globalization increases choice for consumers, it also means more and more wine is shipped all over the world. Ours dramatically reduces the impact when wine is shipped, in addition to the savings generated when the package is produced and the package is recycled.”

    It seems to me that the wine industry is ahead of the curve with respect to sustainability and the environment. Wine is a product of nature, after all, and there are special reasons, aesthetic, philosophical and economic, why winemakers should wish to emphasize that connection. Green wine, I predict, is here to stay.

    The French Connection

    November 18, 2007 By in French Rabbit, Pinot Noir Leave a comment

    Watching Jonathan Nossiter’s film Mondovino gives the viewer the impression that the world of French wine is being overrun with Americans and modern American wine influences. Maybe that’s true, but if so it is only half the story. Herewith three stories of French wine and wine-makers in America inspired by recent conversations with former students (thanks to Jeremy, Devin and Patrick for your help).

    Story 1: Pinot Noir is a hot wine in the United States — the Sideways phenomenon continues for now. The best-selling Pinot Noir in American is called Redwood Creek. Have you seen it? Redwood Creek is a popularly priced Gallo brand; the label says that the wines are “inspired by the Frei Bros. 100 Year Old California Winemaking Tradition.”

    “Inspired” is a good word to use here because, although the brand reflects California tradition, the wine itself is from France. The label says “Product of France” and “Vin de Pays D’Oc.” So it doesn’t come from California’s Central Valley, as you might expect from a Gallo product, but France’s equivalent, the vast vineyards of Languedoc.

    I expect that many American supermarket shoppers who would never have had the confidence try to pronounce “vin de pays d’oc” much less spend money on some of its wines will be happily opening bottles of Redwood Creek Pinot Noir this Thanksgiving. Moral of the story: American consumers will buy French wine if it is presented in a familiar, understandable way, which in this case means as a branded varietal wine

    Story 2: I gave the faculty toast to our Phi Beta Kappa graduates at a luncheon last May and I was surprised to discover afterwards that the sparkling wine we drank came from New Mexico of all places. It was called Gruet and I was further surprised to find some of it on the neighborhood Metropolitan Market shelves.

    Gruet et Fils is a prominent French Champagne house, founded in 1952. Champagne is a good business, but a difficult one, too, for an entrepreneur. The business is highly regulated and expansion opportunities are strictly limited. Vineyard yields and locations are tightly controlled. If you want to make more Champagne to take advantage of market conditions, well basically you can’t. But you can make more Champane-like product, Methode Champenoise sparking wine, if you invest in vineyards outside the Champagne region. It won’t be Champagne, of course, and won’t earn Champagne’s price premium, but people will buy it if it’s very good.

    Members of the Gruet family were therefore vaguely searching for vineyard expansion opportunities when they were passing through the American Southwest in 1983. They ran into some fellow European winemakers who were trying to make a go of it in New Mexico and, inspired by their example, ended up planting vineyards at elevation 4300 feet near the town of Truth or Consequences, about 170 miles south of Albuquerque. The winery equipment was shipped over from France along with members of the Gruet family to make the wine and, in due course, a first vintage (1987) was released.

    Today Gruet produces more than 80,000 cases of American sparkling and still wines in New Mexico, which must make them the state’s largest producer. Prices run from about $13.50 for the basic sparkler up to nearly $50 for limited release wines — prices that are significantly lower than for equivalent Champagnes. Moral of the story: Americans will buy French-style wines from unexpected places if they are good, which the Gruet wines are, and a good value.

    Final story: Boisset, Vins et Spiriteux is a major French wine and spirits company. Founded in 1961 by Jean-Claude Boisset, it has evolved into a a top-five producer in France, exporting to more than 80 countries with investments in California (DeLoach Vineyards), Italy, Spain, Uruguay, South Africa and Canada. Their French brands include J. Moreau & Fils (Chablis), Bouchard Aine & Fils (Cote de Beaune) and Louis Bernard (Rhone Valley), all of which are sold in the United States.

    But Boisset America‘s big push at the moment is a wine called French Rabbit. Like Redwood Creek, it is wine from Languedoc. Unlike Redwood Creek, however, it doesn’t pretend to be inspired by anyone’s tradition, either French or Californian. It is designed to appeal to modern consumers who want to make wine part of an active, informal, sustainable lifestyle. That’s why it is packaged as you see it here, in lightweight eco-friendly octogonal-shaped one liter Tetra-Prisma containers (and 250-ml single-serving untis, too).

    (The wine on the left, Yellow Jersey (think Tour de France) is another Boisset America brand. It comes in a PET plastic bottle and will fit in your bicycle’s water bottle holder.)

    Is the world ready for wine that looks like this? A lot of my friends cling to tradition, unwilling even to give up corks for screw caps. Will they accept wine in what appears at first glance to be an orange juice carton? Apparently so — Boisset America sells more than 100,000 cases of French Rabbit in the United States and Canada and is now introducing the innovative brand into what must be the most traditional possible market, France itself. (Watch for an upcoming post about how French Rabbit and its unorthodox packaging was born).

    Moral of the story: French wines can succeed outside of France because of the creativity and entrepreneurship of French winemakers. Who knew?

    Wine Economists Unite!

    November 7, 2007 By in Uncategorized Leave a comment

    You may or may not be surprised to learn that there is an organization called the American Association of Wine Economists. It’s headquarters are at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington, where Karl Storchmann teaches wine economics.

    The Association publishes the Journal of Wine Economics, which features interesting articles covering a range of wine economics topics under the direction of a most distinguished editorial board: Kym Anderson (University of Adelaide and World Bank), Orley Ashenfelter (Princeton), Victor Ginsburgh ( Université Libre de Bruxelles), Robert N. Stavins (Kennedy School of Government, Harvard) and of course Karl Storchmann.

    The Association’s first annual meeting took place last year in Trier, Germany (click to view a pdf of the conference program). Karl aims to bring the meeting to Portland, Oregon this summer, probably in mid-August. Check out the links to the Association and the Journal if you are interested in how economists apply their technical tools to the analysis of wine markets.