Some say that it is time for the wine industry to take the initiative to change perceptions through a generic promotion program.  The “Got Milk?” campaign made people think about milk a bit differently. Maybe a similar initiative could shift the needle on wine?

One concern, as I wrote last week, is that as memorable as “Got Milk?” was, it didn’t prevent milk’s ultimate marketplace decline. Maybe “Got Wine?” isn’t the answer. But what would a better approach look like?

Wine in Moderation

I think there are lessons to be learned by studying the Wine in Moderation movement  that began in Europe a decade ago and has now spread to many corners of the wine world.

Wine in Moderation was founded in 2008 at a time when the European wine industry faced a growing threat. It wasn’t just that wine demand was falling — that had been going on for a couple of decades. And it wasn’t just the global financial crisis, either, although that didn’t help. It was rising anti-alcohol sentiments and policies that threatened wine both as an economic activity and also as an integral part of European culture.

I asked George Sandeman, President of the Wine in Moderation Association, to explain WiM’s objectives and the lessons they have learned.

Although a message of “moderation” seemed to be well aligned with the way wines are presented on a day to day basis, focusing quality rather than quantity, we encountered difficulty in waking up the wine sector to the cold wind blowing from Geneva.

Initially there was no recognition of the social responsibility attributed to the “wine sector” (“leave it to beer and spirits!”). At best it was a reluctance to accept the fact that wine needed to be part of the social responsibility which the category required, and at worst we were sleepwalking into the same treatment as tobacco.

The traditional culture of wine was frequently overridden by need to compete in new market environments … Add to this a powerful health lobby working to demonize wine …

So the first two lessons are that the wine industry needs to wake up to sector-wide issues. And the positive story of wine doesn’t tell itself. Someone has to do it.

What wine needed, the group’s founders proposed, was an organization that would help its members tell the counter-story of wine’s benefits when consumed in moderation, and would lean against the wind of damaging anti-alcohol regulations. This was no easy task, Sandeman notes. “The concept of ‘moderation’ is not a simple concept to communicate, varies with different cultures and viewpoints, and is difficult to translate for non-English speaking countries …”

Strength in Numbers 

Wine in Moderation has evolved in the 10+ years since it was founded (you can read about its progress here). As its efforts have gained traction, it has moved from a tight European policy focus to an approach that is broader in both geography and strategy. The map of Wine in Moderation activities is now global and its focus is shifting to education of professionals. Although there are Wine in Moderation activities in the U.S. I suspect that the impact is somewhat limited by the lack of a national coordinating organization,  a role played, for example, by Vinos de Chile, Unioni Italiani Vini, ACIBEV, and FEV in Chile, Italy, Portugal, and Spain respectively.

Seventeen national organization plus several global wine companies (Pernod Ricard, Möet Hennesy, Sogrape), and a host of other groups including WSET and the Institute of the Masters of Wine now support and implement Wine in Moderation programs around the world.

So the third lesson is that there is strength in numbers. It is important to work together on several levels to address important issues.

I first learned about Wine in Moderation from George Sandeman and Susana Garcia Dolla when I was speaking at ACIBEV meetings in Porto a few years ago. Since then I have noted the group’s participation at national and international meetings, always presenting a message of wine in a cultural context.

Wine in Moderation announced a major rebranding in November 2019 with the theme of Choose – Share – Care, which the leaders hope will carry the organization forward into even more ambitious professional and consumer programs in its next decade.

• CHOOSE to make informed choices; choose the best wine for you to enjoy, choose whether or not to drink.
• SHARE wine with friends & family, pair with good food and water. Drink slowly and take the time to fully appreciate.
• CARE about the wine you serve, care about yourself and about others. Avoid excess and enjoy your wine in moderation!

Increased focus on wine tourism is another element of future work. Wine in Moderation’s association with the United Nations World Tourism Organization is one step along the path to providing wineries and regional groups with more tools to shape perceptions and develop the wine tourism experience.

Strike the Right Chord

Two things about Wine in Moderation are especially relevant to the current U.S. concerns. First, while I will admit that Choose-Share-Care does not have that “Got Milk?” punch, the message is one that I think might strike a chord with some of the groups that wine is currently failing to engage.  Health, community, and culture is a strong positive message and one that resonates with young the old alike.

And the way of getting the message out is relevant too. One thing that impresses me about Wine in Moderation (another lesson?) is its multi-layer approach. Here’s how it works:

• The international coordination is provided by a not-for-profit international association, the WiM Association.
• In each country, there are one or more WiM national coordinators that support the planning, coordination, implementation and accountability of the programme in their respective countries.
• WiM supporters join the programme at national level. They actively support a wine culture that inspires well-being and healthy lifestyles and contributes in the prevention and reduction of alcohol related harm.
• Leading wine companies further support the efforts made at international and national level setting the example with their leadership in social responsibility and high contributions. These leading companies are the Wine in Moderation Ambassadors.

Wine in Moderation movement members are given the tools they need to spread the word, which is a model that could work here in the U.S. Leadership is needed, of course, but it seems to me that our many regional wine associations and wine companies, too, would benefit from bringing a coordinated message into their diverse communications programs.

I can imagine a program with a general message agreed at a high level, but implemented with creative local twists and turns by the dozens of regional wine associations around the U.S. Such a plan would share the creative energy (and cost) while leveraging wine’s broad and diverse base.

Work together? Is that realistic? Well, what’s the alternative? In Europe, as George Sandeman said, the alternative was being regulated like tobacco. The alternative here in the U.S might be a  gradual (and then sudden) wine market bust.

This Changes Everything?

Everyone would like to find a silver bullet that would change everything for wine — in a positive way. But silver bullets are hard to come by and they show up in unexpected places. Do you remember the impact of the 60 Minutes “French Paradox” broadcast? Or the Sideways boost for Pinot Noir? (BTW Miles’ “dump bucket” scene from Sideways is definitely not an example of moderate wine consumption!)

Wine in Moderation has moved the needle in its target regions according to its most recent report. Worth further study, don’t think?

I’ve had several conversations recently that circled back to the idea that the wine industry should invest in a generic promotion campaign. You know what I mean. Not “Got Milk?” (maybe the most celebrated generic promotion of all time), but something along the lines of “Got Wine?” or “Got California Wine?” depending on who’s talking.

“Got Wine?” is too copy-cat to work, of course. You can come up with something better if you give it some thought. But you get the idea.

Subsidy Wars?

One argument for generic promotion of wine is based on the realization that wine isn’t connecting with new, younger consumers the way we hoped or expected. If we want consumers to have a particular image of wine (or of the wine-drinker identity), maybe we should be more proactive in shaping perceptions.  Laissez-faire isn’t working so well. Let’s do something.

A second argument, which would support “Got California Wine?” or “Got American Wine?” is provoked by the  subsidies the European Union is giving to its member states to promote their wines in the U.S. market.

Years ago the EU used to support prices and winegrower incomes directly, but buying up surplus grapes and wine (we called the result the European Wine Lake). Now the EU has changed tactics and supports the modernization of wine production and the promotion of exports. Basically, they want the wines to be marketable and if the EU market won’t buy it all (and it won’t), then exports are promoted to avoid re-filling the dreaded lake.

This is a better approach from an economic standpoint, but you cannot blame American producers for thinking that it creates an uneven playing field. It might be better, many argue, to get the EU to stop subsidizing wine export promotion. But that would be complicated and take time. In the short run, the argument goes, generic promotion of U.S. wines might even things up a little.

Milk is All Over

Talking about wine promotion got me thinking about milk. That “Got Milk?” promotion ran for 25 years and attracted lots of attention. All sorts of celebrities posed with milk mustaches (aka moo-staches) to draw attention to milk and its broad appeal.  Everyone enjoys milk — that was the message. The Whoopi Goldberg ad was my favorite.

But, memorable as these advertisements are, they were fighting a losing battle. Increasingly, American consumers don’t follow the “Got Milk?” path.

I first realized this a few years ago when I heard wine economics guru Karl Storchmann talk about trends in various consumer beverages. He examined Google data about searches for wine, tea, coffee, milk, and water and concluded that  while water was rocking it, milk was fading fast. “Milk is all over,” Karl said at the time (here is a pdf of his study).

Karl wasn’t wrong. Dean Foods, America’s largest milk producer, filed for bankruptcy in November 2019.  Milk sales fell for 4 years in a row as Americans shifted to plant-based cow-milk alternatives, including oat milk and especially almond milk.

Wine vs Milk?

Got Milk? Yes. Always. But increasingly it doesn’t come from a cow.

When you think about it, what happened to milk is a little bit like what seems to be happening to wine. There are lots of new products available that compete with wine including craft beer, craft spirits, and alcoholic sparkling water.  Some of these products are popular in part because they have less alcohol than wine, addressing a health concern  in the same way that almond milk avoids a health problem for some dairy-intolerant consumers.

Is wine all over? I don’t think so. But the industry is obviously not as healthy as we’d like it to be.

So what should wine do? A generic campaign is fine, but it matters a lot who it is aimed at, what it says, and how it is organized. And someone has to pay for it. A “Got Wine?” style consumer-focused campaign isn’t the only option.

Sue and I recently attended a promotional event for Italian wine that was aimed at trade — importers, distributors, sommeliers, journalists, and various “influencers” — but not consumers themselves (there was no consumer tasting).  The product chain for wine is long and complex and there are several points where promotion can be effective.

Come back next week for thoughts on some of the issues that a “Got Wine?” push needs to take into account. In the meantime, I have discovered that there already is a GOT Wine — GOT stands for Game of Thrones!

>>><<<

The chart comparing Google search term data for wine, milk, etc. is taken from Karl Storchmann, “Wine Economics.” Journal of Wine Economics 7:1 (2012), p. 3.

The video above is the very first “Got Milk?” commercial.

Wine has many tribes — you probably belong to one of them. Last week I wrote about the Martians, who are interested in only the best in wine and are often disappointed with what they find, and the Wagnerians, who promote a more democratic “everyday wine” vision.  They are often disappointed, too, but in different ways. You can read more about these tribes here.

Land versus Brand

I don’t really understand why the Martians and Wagnerians can’t find common ground (Oregon’s A to Z winery says that it offers “Aristocratic wines at Democratic prices”), but the tension endures, which is how tribes work I guess. There are two more tribes that we need to discuss that, on the face of it have so much in common that they might be cousins, but that also have that tribal feeling. They are the Terroirists and the Naturalists.

I wrote about the Terroirists in my book Wine Wars. Terroirists are all about wines of place — they are protagonists in the Land versus Brand battle for the soul of wine that colors much of my analysis. Terroirists can go to shockingly unnecessary extremes to defend their turf as some French terrorist terroirists demonstrated when they sabotaged wine tanks full of cheap Spanish bulk imports. But this is the exception.

I have to admit that, even though I appreciate how important brands are in today’s crowded market, I identify pretty closely with the terroirist tribe. I look for local and single-vineyard wines, I get excited about field blends and old vines, and I seek out wines made from native and threatened grape varieties. My idea of a great day in the Napa Valley takes me to places like Tres Sabores and Robert Biale winery where other terroirists hang out. Think global but drink local — that’s a rule that I try to follow as much as possible.

The Naturals

I have friends (you know who you are) who belong to a different tribe that I guess I will call the naturalists. Their idea of wine seems to be less about where the wine comes from than how it is made. They want wines that are as close to nature as can be, with as little manipulation as possible and often, at least for the white wines, with a lot of skin contact. They hang out in natural wine bars or attend events like RAW wine, where they can contemplate natural wines from all around the world.

Sue and I have had several very positive experiences with natural wine, so I have never thought of terroirists and naturalists as opposing forces. We are big fans of Chateau Musar, for example, one of the early champions of the natural wine movement. And our visit to Georgia, the cradle of wine, exposed us some of the most natural — and quite delicious — wines on earth.

The natural wines we have tried varied, of course, but that’s true of wine generally. Some were more interesting than delicious. We were done with others after the first sip. Meh. The nature of their production didn’t overcome the problems we had with what we found in the glass.

Most of the natural wine makers we’ve encountered have been terrific, too, although I admit we met a couple of naturalists who went a bit over the top. One winemaker, for example, tried (unsuccessfully) to convince us that a “mousey” characteristic is a feature not a flaw. I checked Jamie Goode’s book Flawless and, sure enough, he says it’s a flaw. “Always bad,” according to Dr. Goode. I agree.

Wines of Place or of Style?

Both terroirists and naturalists are attracted to nature, so it seems that they should be allies in the wine wars. But the particular ideas of nature when it comes to wine don’t always match, so there is a tension. I didn’t really appreciate this until we were invited to seminar and tasting of natural wines and a question came up about wines of place (terroirist wines) versus wines of style (a reference to naturalist wines).

“Is this a wine of style or a wine of place?” asked a panel member as he swirled one of the natural wines in his glass. “Definitely a wine of style,” the wine’s maker shot back without hesitation. He makes lovely terroir-driven wines that Sue and I admire a lot, but this wine wasn’t about the vineyard, it was about the cellar, the way it was made, and perhaps the philosophy behind that technique.

Jamie Goode, who was part of the panel discussion, tried to bridge the gap between place and style. Perhaps natural wines do tell a terroir story, he said, but we are just don’t understand it yet because natural wines are so different. Maybe we need more experience in order to pick out the place when the glass in front of us contains natural wine.

The Natural Divide

This is a very sensible perspective, and I look forward to doing some research, but sometimes sensible middle grounds get over-shadowed by tribal conflicts. Jancis Robinson wrote in a recent Financial Times column  about the extreme positions some natural wine proponents take and the extreme reactions to them. Real tribal stuff. It is easy to see how things could get out of hand.

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that wine has become this way.  Politics has become more tribal and more confrontational, reflecting general social attitudes.  Wine was bound to become more divided, too.

So what’s the particular problem that divides the terroirists and the naturalists?I think it has partly to do with the word “natural,” which the naturalist wine tribe seems to have claimed (or, in some cases, been labeled with). Natural is a privileged word. To say that something is natural is a powerful statement. If something is natural you almost don’t have to argue its legitimacy. It is just there, like the natural rights cited in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. No wonder Enlightenment scholars claimed it to justify their claims.

Terroirists think they are making natural wine since they seek to draw out the nature of the place where the grapes were grown. Naturalists want more. Easy to see why there is tension, but the the differences seem to cut deeper. Come back in two weeks for a wine book review that might shed some light on this question.