Quantcast

Category Archives: Wine news

Winebits 432: Small Wine, wine education, restaurant wine

winenews
Small wine

I’d like a bottle of Rhone Rangers, please.

Not so fast, Big Wine: A group of Australian family producers, angered by Big Wine companies who market their “family” roots, have issued a furious denunciation of the practice. “I’m really sick of the latest trend for corporate misuse of the term ‘family’ when promoting wine brands that were sold by the family founders eons ago and conning wine loving consumers and trade alike,” Robert Hill-Smith, the fifth-generation vigneron at Australia’s oldest family-owned winery, Yalumba, told the The Weekend Australian newspaper. Hill-Smith said Big Wine subsidiaries portraying themselves as family companies undermined the validity of family-owned businesses actually owned by families. This is a fascinating story; wineries never air this sort of thing in public, though they say it in private all the time. It also speaks to Big Wine’s need not to be seen as big, something that never seems to bother General Foods or Procter & Gamble. Why that is I’ll leave to the experts.

Score one for the Italians:  The Wine Curmudgeon regularly bemoans the lack of wine education in the U.S., which is why this Italian proposal is so impressive: Children 6 to 13 would spend one hour a week learning about Italy’s wine industry as part of the national education curriculum. “We’re not trying to teach kids to drink – although even if we were it wouldn’t be so bad,” said the sponsor of the legislation. “It’s been shown that knowledge creates responsible drinkers. But this is just an extra subject that will enrich the education of our students. We make children study music in school without expecting them to become musicians.” Hopefully, the various neo-Prohibitionists who are trying to roll back U.S. drinking laws will note this and pause for a moment.

Won’t they ever learn? A website called Elite Daily, with 2.8 million Facebook likes, ran a piece about how to buy wine in a restaurant and impress your date in the process. The story, supposedly written with advice from a top wine retailer, repeats almost every misconception about restaurant wine I have lamented since the blog started. Gruner veltliner! Plus, it recommends buying white wine from France’s Loire, which is a wonderful idea save for the fact that many wine lists, and especially those at mid-priced restaurants, have little, if any, white Loire. Or we should buy cabernet franc from Spain, which hardly exists. Or we should buy a wine called Rhone Rangers, which is not a wine, but a group of producers in California who make wines with Rhone grapes. Maybe we can enroll the people at Elite Daily in the Italian school wine educations classes.

Winebits 431: Arsenic, private label, craft beer

winenews

arsenicNot in my legal system: A California state judge has dismissed the infamous arsenic lawsuit filed against two dozen California wineries, apparently on a technicality related to the warning labels that most wine bottles have. Needless to say, the plaintiffs were not happy and vowed to appeal. contained illegal and toxic levels of arsenic. My favorite part of the story? This line: “… budget wines produced by more than two dozen California wineries contained illegal and toxic levels of arsenic.” Because, of course, we have to distinguish between the cheap wines in the lawsuit to protect the real wines produced in California — the non-budget wines — from guilt by association.

No more private label: Talk to retailers, producers, and distributors, and a great many are wary of private label wines — those sold only in one retailer, like Trader Joe’s Two-buck Chuck. In public, though, a discouraging word is rarely heard. Why is that? British wine writer Jamie Goode explains: “Private label is bad for the consumer, because most of the time they end up paying rather too much for a pretty mediocre wine.” Goode’s post is one of the best explanations about how private label works, why it’s so popular, and why wine drinkers don’t have any idea what’s gong on. It’s the sort of wine writing we don’t see enough on this side of the Atlantic.

Wine in the rearview mirror:  Lew Perdue at Wine Industry Insight reports (according to research firm bw166.com and published in Wines in Vines), that 2015 U.S. wine sales totaled $38 billion. “Since California Wine Institute data estimates that California represents 65 percent of U.S. dollar sales, that means $24.6 billion in 2015 U.S. wines sales came from California.” He estimates, given craft beer’s 16 percent growth rate, compared to three percent for wine, that craft beer sales in the U.S. could overtake the entire California wine industry by the end of this year: $25.8 billion vs. $25.3 billion. But talk to people in the wine business, and they’ll tell you that everything is OK, mostly because of premiumization. And I make millions of dollars a year from the blog.

Google to WC: Drop dead

winerant
Google

Google, why do you hate the Wine Curmudgeon so?

Google’s most recent edict to blog owners is another example of how it — and not the blog owner — controls blog content, and how the search giant punishes those of us even when we do the right thing. The new system says a wine writer who uses samples, but is transparent about where the samples come from, is no better than a sleaze bag who loads a post with paid links and pretends they aren’t.

At first, Google’s March 11 blog post, “Best practices for bloggers reviewing free products they receive from companies,” seems to make perfect sense, distinguishing between what Google calls “organic links” and links that are only there because the blogger is getting something — money, product, or more links — to put them in the post. Links matter to Google, because that’s one of the criteria used to give pages a better search ranking, and a better search ranking means more visitors to the blog.

So how could something like that affect me, or anyone else who uses only organic links? Because the blog post says that links that refer to an on-line merchant selling the product or to the company that makes the product aren’t organic. That means, I think, that every time I review a wine, whether a sample or not, and link to the winery, I will be punished by Google unless I use a specific “no follow” command in the link. To make matters worse, using “no follow” means I don’t get credit for the link, even though I’m not doing anything wrong. Talk about the worst of both worlds.

Ignoring for a moment that adding “no follow” makes writing posts that much more complicated (if anyone understands “no follow” after reading the link, you can explain it me), it also lumps me with the sleaze bags by assuming that I benefit from the link. In fact, I don’t. No one asks me to put them in, and most wine producers — notorious for their inability to understand how this stuff works — don’t even know the links are there. I add the links to help readers get more information about the wine, which used to be a best practice.

This is just another example of Google’s one-size-fits-all approach, in which it assumes all blogs are exactly alike because it’s easier for Google to think that way. Hence, any blog that contains product references must be trying to sell the product — which certainly isn’t the case for me or for anyone who offers honest reviews, whether wine or not. In Google’s world, though, there doesn’t seem to be such a thing as an honest review.

The headline on this post refers to the infamous 1975 New York Daily News headline during New York City’s bankruptcy crisis.

More about Google and wine blogging::
Google AdSense, wine blogs, and Joe Camel
Google as the WC’s editor
Wine and sex

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: suv | Thanks to toyota suv, infiniti suv and lexus suv