It’s official: Cheap wine is irrelevant, part II

Can’t afford expensive wine in our “post-pandemic, world is a mess” era? Never fear. There’s plenty of $30 wine out there

Just when the WC thinks the wine business can’t get any more foolish, it does. Witness this, which I got from a PR agency the other day:

“Inflation seems to be hitting consumers across a broad range of everyday items from Kleenex tissues to the bottles of wine. With prices on the rise, savvy shoppers should be seeking out and stocking up on values over the coming months to offset the pressures of inflation. In the wine world, there are still a number of secret bargains available. …”

Those secret bargains? Wines costing $20 and $30, since they don’t cost $45 and $250. Honest.

It’s just as bizarre as the previous cheap wine is irrelevant post, which said $10 wine was only good for cooking and getting drunk.

Let’s count everything that’s wrong about that email and its pitch for coverage:

• Most Americans will never pay more than $20 for a bottle of wine. Really.

• So Kleenex is more expensive. What does that have to do with the price of wine?

• Secret bargains? This is a secret bargain, not a $30 bottle of wine.

• The following phrase appeared in the email: The wines “provide some serious QPR points for those who want to drink like a King, but on a Prince’s budget.” If I ever wrote anything like that, Dick Hainey would get out of his grave, smack me in the head, and tell me to never darken professional writing again.

All together now: “Is it any wonder we worry about the future of the wine business?”

Photo: Pavel Danilyuk from Pexels