Ferment: Opinion from Tincknell & Tincknell

Mixed Messages: "Two Buck Chuck" and "Wine. Since 6000 B.C."
by Paul Tincknell, October 2003

If you think you've had enough of the Terminator governor-elect of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Ben and Jen, just think of how tired us wine industry folks are hearing about "Two Buck Chuck", Charles Shaw. And to make that point, I'm not going to bother to give any background history on the phenomenon; if you don't know just google either name and you can read ALL about it.

But you would be the rare person who has heard of the new wine advertising campaign from the Wine Market Council titled "Wine. Since 6000 B.C.". It is the latest campaign from the same organization that brought you, "Wine: What Are You Saving It For?" Which you likely never heard about either.

Therein lies the great divide in the wine industry: on the one hand we have the unbelievably successful Charles Shaw brand, selling millions of cases, creating a new pricing category, and totally absorbing the wine press and wine consultants with "Sky is Falling" hyperbole. On the other hand we have a marketing campaign that is supposed to bring new people to drinking wine ... by promoting wine's history as the main product differentiator against other beverages.

It remains to be seen if this new advertising campaign will bring in converts, as it just launched as of this writing. But the people have spoken loudly with their wallets that they think affordable, quality wine is very important.

However, I don't think the wine industry is hearing what the real messages are here, and why this new advertising campaign is misguided. Most of the press (and some industry personnel via the press) on Charles Shaw has been bemoaning its wild success at its price of $1.99 per 750-ml bottle. This price is practically unattainable by most wineries except the largest (Bronco Wine Company makes Charles Shaw), and it, combined with the soft economy and a surplus of grapes and finished wine from California, are forcing wineries to slash margins and price just to compete.

The message of Charles Shaw is not that wine drinkers want wine priced at $1.99, but that they want affordable, quality wine that they can buy without pretension. Charles Shaw is sold only at Trader Joe's, a grocery chain that specializes in negotiating bulk deals with suppliers so as to offer good quality goods at low prices. People shop there because they know the quality is good, the prices reasonable, and there is no pretense in what is being sold. None. It's just good stuff at good prices. No one in the store looks askance at you when you pick up a certain bottle of wine, maple syrup, or olive oil. People buy Charles Shaw because it is cheap, of decent quality at the price, and, up until the media storm, had no stigma attached. They could actually buy it and drink it without social strings. A lot of debate has been had whether it is attracting new wine drinkers or cannibalizing existing wine drinkers, but my informed guess is that it does both. New wine drinkers can take a chance on it without too high of a cost, and existing wine drinkers - those that are feeling the current economic pinch and those that want a house wine - can supplement their wine buying with a cheaper option.

I don't believe, though, that most wine drinkers are going, "Ah HA! We always knew wine was waaaay over priced, and now the cork is out of the bottle!" If anything, most wine drinkers are probably wondering why it took so long for someone to make a Charles Shaw. But those familiar with wine realize that wine is not a cheap beverage to make, and that there are different qualities at different prices. There is no confusion with Coca Cola, milk, Snapple, or other common beverages. That is why the current stampede in the wine industry, from buyers in wine shops and restaurants, to distributors, to wineries are so wrong with this bout of slash-and-burn pricing marketing. It is damaging the wine industry in a number of ways, essentially making it unprofitable to make and sell wine. It cannot be sustained without the consumer losing many of the brands they encounter on the shelves to becoming either locally sold products or being no longer in existence.

But the message that wine has been around for 8,000 years - no matter how humorously conveyed - is a non-starter. Old statues reclining with a glass of wine and a headline about the "ancient art of kickin' back" is pretentious; it doesn't break down the barriers towards people being more familiar and comfortable with wine. The campaign site (www.winemarketcouncil.com) comments that the ad campaign, "...'Wine. Since 6000 B.C.' communicates the authenticity and enduring relevance of wine as an enjoyable part of casual, everyday life." No it doesn't. It reinforces the academic stuffiness that plagues wine's image with the broad public. The web site adds, "This campaign is a call to action for everyone in the wine industry, to take our future into our own hands and make wine a lasting part of American culture." How? By alluding to our today's culture's most shallow moments with jingoistic phrases in reference to wine's history?

Charles Shaw was the call to action: it said people want to buy unpretentious wine. It isn't the doomsday wine destroying family vineyards. It isn't the product of the Dark One designed to wreak havoc on competitors. It isn't forcing anyone to work below cost because they must.

It is a two-dollar bottle of wine.

The wine industry can follow that call to action, but it is going to take more than an advertising campaign. It has to start at the point of sale: wine consumers must feel comfortable and not threatened when they buy a bottle of wine, even if it is white zinfandel or Arbor Mist. Sellers of wine must stop fixating on meaningless numerical scores and reviews from an inbred wine media to sell wine; the scores and most reviews are pretentious cow flop. Most don't describe wine in the ways that most people taste wine, with simple food-oriented descriptors, instead preferring cool sounding biochemistry terms and things one would never put in their mouth, like pencil lead and cat piss (I'm not making those up, people). And numerical scores?!? Those are so ridiculously subjective as to be completely useless - even to people in the wine industry. It is the biggest hoax perpetuated on an unknowing buying public in today's market; too bad the US government can't prevent their use as a fraudulent advertising claim.

Wineries can heed the Charles Shaw call not by lowering prices to bankruptcy, but by offering wine in alternative packaging and venues that match peoples' lifestyles. The recent emergence of boxed wine - which T&T has been very active in - is one such smart move ... as long as the wine media doesn't denigrate the wines being produced and creating a stigma on the wines. Wine coolers were a good trend, until the industry so trashed them that no one felt comfortable buying them. Ditto white zinfandel, chardonnay, merlot, fruit-flavored wines ... . Alternative packaging - single serving sizes at competitive prices, boxed wines for casual occasions, plastic bottles, screw caps, new wine products, etc. - will bring more people to wine if the wines are of good quality and the pricing is in line with their expectations.

Wholesalers can help by stopping the war against direct shipping and internet sales. Allowing people to try more wines - diverse grape types, new brands, etc. - will ultimately lead to a broader, more informed consumer purchasing more wine in their local markets.

Yeah it's cool that wine is 8,000 years old. But most people buy Charles Shaw and drink it within 24 hours. That is the time frame we all need to heed.

top