I have seen the future of artisan wine, and it comes in a can

 

This may sound odd, but there is a link between packaging innovation and the increasing focus on biodynamics and ‘natural wine’, it just isn’t a simple one.

I am not suggesting that natural wine producers are better served choosing tetrapacks, paper bottles or aluminium cans for their wines (although they might), but sometimes the simplest way to define what you ARE about is to explain what you are NOT, after all:

  • a desert is that area where rain doesn’t fall
  • land is all that planet surface not covered by water
  • silence is the absence of sound

Wine in a can

Wine in a can

The wine trade expends a lot of effort arguing over differences between organic, biodynamic and natural wines for example, but almost none trying to find a way to differentiate between the real extremes of the wine market, namely between all of the above ‘artisan’ wines and those wines made to be sold in vast volumes through mass distribution channels such as supermarkets. In fact, you might be forgiven for thinking that the wine trade pretended that these wines in supermarkets didn’t even exist.

How do you explain to a consumer, in simple terms, what makes a bottle of Gallo Chardonnay different from a Gravner Ribolla Gialla? What ‘category’ of the market do they fall into? How is a consumer to differentiate between them when they both come in 75cl glass bottles, with similar corks and basic paper labels?  We need to develop a POSITIVE categorisation of these volume wines in order to have a meaningful conversation about the different needs and benefits of each part of the market.

ARTISANAL WINES

We may not all agree that ‘Natural’ is a fair category name, but we might all basically agree that the Gravner, and thousands of other small producers, are ‘Artisanal’ wines of some sort (read this great post by Robert Joseph on the subject of artist vs artisan).

Defining this is very hard however, so let’s take a “model” Artisan wine and say it probably comes from a small producer with their own vineyards, produced in limited quantities, that is different year on year, that has some taste characteristics that sets it apart from the vast majority of other wines (that not everyone will like) and is linked to the local ‘terroir‘, and that none of these factors are subject to change based on consumer feedback. Essentially, the wine is driven by the producer’s interpretation of what is ‘best’ from their vineyards, take it or leave it. Lots of wines will diverge on some of these points, but the general sense is there.

Artisanal wines are Producer driven (these are sometimes referred to as Terroir wines, but you still need a producer involved!)

The above is obviously not the driving motivation of the wines on offer in multiple grocers around the world. So, what do you call the rest?

  • Branded? No! Branding is very limited and not exclusive to this area.
  • Bulk? No, too negative and not necessarily true
  • Commodity? A good option, but it still implies a negative view of the factors.

How about a term like “Convenience Wines”?

CONVENIENCE WINES

The key features of these wines is that they are dependable, consistent, easy to drink, not overly challenging and widely available. All of these are driven by consumer demand, not producer preference. In simple terms, then, ‘Artisanal’ wines are wines that are NOT ‘Convenience’ wines.

Wine snobs may sneer at the quality of the “wine” in the bottle, but in fact this is only one aspect of the product that consumers are after. What’s the use of a “great” wine that I can’t afford, can’t find and may not even like? Great for whom?

Convenience wines are Consumer driven (to the extent that wine producers really understand their consumers).

The problem is that convenience wines still LOOK like artisanal wines.

If convenience is the key to this category of wine, then we have a reason to work to increase convenience by looking not just at wine styles, but also at packaging, branding & communication.

For example, glass bottles are great for longer term storage of wine, often benefitting artisanal wines. However, alternative packaging, such as bag-in-box, paper bottles or wine pouches for example, is logical in this context of convenience. It is potentially cheaper, easier to transport, more flexible for different drinking occasions, more flexible for branding and offers more communication opportunities. A wholesale move into alternatives would bring down their costs and remove a great deal of cost from the product, potentially meaning higher margins and/or cheaper products.

GreenBottle Paper Wine Bottle Alternative packaging has not really taken off in the UK compared to, for example, Scandinavia. One reason is that we treat ALL products of fermented grapes as “wine”, so the same communication rules are applied to all, resulting in an undifferentiated sea of “handmade” wines, from “historic vineyards“, made by “passionate” individuals that match any food you may choose to pair them with – whatever the truth might be.

If we were to find a way to promote the specific attributes of Convenience Wine and differentiate them visually, in terms of branding and communication as well as style, the wine retail market could be made more straightforward for the consumer, to everyone’s benefit. Wine drinkers might no longer be confused about the difference between a simple wine for weeknight supping, and the experience of an artisan wine for special occasions.

Isn’t it in the interests of both ends of the spectrum to come to an arrangement?

Sometimes, the worst of enemies can find common cause, and in this case it is to fight consumer confusion and indifference.

I’ll raise a can of wine to that!

  • http://themorningclaret.com/ Simon Woolf

    I’m firmly in agreement with this argument, I’ve long been a fan of the term “artisanal wine” as a differentiator – even if it looks like it isn’t going to catch on (I fear we’re stuck with “natural wines” and a few other slippery categories, at least for the forseeable).

    It is certainly interesting to note that many other food categories (think cheese, cured meats for example) already function just as you suggest above: Those products bought from “artisan” outlets tend to be hand-wrapped simply, using materials that are unbranded and “naturalistic” (eg: brown paper, greaseproof paper), whereas mass-produced versions are invariably packaged in sealed, heavily branded plastic containers.

    There is a barrier however – supermarkets and other large retail outlets often want their customers to believe that a product range ts “special” or “artisanal” even if it isn’t. So I suspect that the use of the traditional glass bottle, signifying quality and tradition, is something they will be reluctant to ditch.

    You have to ask why bag-in-box, wine in cans/tetra packs etc hasn’t caught on, except right down at the “Value” end of the chain. I would say it is precisely because of the adverse association with the packaging.

    • http://thirstforwine.co.uk thirstforwine

      I totally agree, but that is where I think that a positive commitment by the wine trade to find a POSITIVE discussion around convenience, instead of a negative one, will open the doors for innovation and differentiation. We are so negative about it, nobody dares stray from the ‘path’ of traditional wine communication, which dilutes and destroys its credibility, even when it is justified.

      I am sure that supermarkets would JUMP on this (like screwcaps) if the industry were able to demonstrate increased margins, decreased carbon footprint, alternative promotion channels, etc.

      • http://themorningclaret.com/ Simon Woolf

        Certainly, the winetrade needs to accept the existence of – and need for both broad categories. But I think supermarkets are still going to be conflicted – essentially a large part of their model (as I understand it) is to buy products as cheaply as possible (and in massive quantity), and then to market them as luxury or premium products with a hefty margin.

        What that means is that supermarkets are always going to look to blur the dividing line between value/convenience/mass-produced wine and premium/artisanal products.

        • http://thirstforwine.co.uk thirstforwine

          Wholly agree – but that is why we must collaborate to tip the balance. That is the current model, but margin trumps everything, so if you can find ways to sell more wine for higher margin, however you choose to do it, I suspect they will “see the light”. Thats not to say they won’t stock any premium wines, but maybe they’ll have less of a confusing impact on the consumer and only represent choice (of sorts)

  • http://twitter.com/robertjoseph wine thinker

    Great post Robert (and thanks for the mention). I think you are looking at a very important aspect of the question, but cans, tetra etc won’t be the answer, for the simple reasons a)these tend to be most easily used by big producers (rather than the mobile bottling lines used by small guys) and b)no-one can own them.

    So, my proposal would be that a recognisably diferent proprietary recyclable/reusable bottle be created that is exclusive to Artisans who sign up to a set of standards (not merely those who vaguely call themselves “natural”).

    I absolutely agree that it is crazy to use the same 4-letter word (wine) to describe Ch Margaux, Blossom Hill and an unsulphored orange wine from Italy. But there is no way for any one group to oblige the others to change the way it is described, bought and sold. The answer, as I’ve tried to say elsewhere is to transcend existing categories. Worryingly, the Naturalistas in France appear to be trying to legally co-op “Natural” wine as a term. Red rag to a bull time!

    • http://thirstforwine.co.uk thirstforwine

      I’m not sure if there was a miscommunication. I am NOT saying the small guys should use the alternative packaging, quite the contrary. It is exactly the big producers creating wines that are not differentiated by the contents, but by the branding, that I believe should be employing alternatives.

    • Per-BKWine

      “my proposal would be that a recognisably diferent proprietary
      recyclable/reusable bottle be created that is exclusive to Artisans who
      sign up to a set of standards”

      That sounds thoroughly utopian. Do you really meant that? And what would those standards be? Defined by whom? Evaluated and judged by whom? Obviously not by the consumers since it is someone who will “set standards”.

  • Per-BKWine

    I am very puzzled by this article. If I understand you right I think you are totally wrong, even if your argument is, hrm, interesting.

    First, I think you under-estimate the consumer or over-estimate their stupidity. The average consumer has no difficulty at all spotting the difference between a Gallo Chard and a Gravener wine. They just look at the price tag. They don’t need someone to explain to them that one is better than the other. I cannot imagine that anyone would confuse the two. Price is a very simple and effective communications tool. Understood by most people. Even by the ones who created the Bordeaux classification.

    Second, your whole thinking seems to be based on some idea that there is a super-entity (the new Wine Segmentation Ministry perhaps?) that can define how wine should be organised, classified and marketed. I don’t get it. Should “we all agree” that “convenience” wine should be package in such a way that we can all easily identify it? Why? Sounds like a plan economy to me.

    Thirdly, one of the basic ideas that marketeers use in marketing these “convenience” wines, cheap or cheapish wines, is to make great effort to make them look like the more expensive wines (“artisanal”? How artisanal is a Ch Margaux? Or a Masi amarone?). Why do you think that, say, Jacob’s Creek is called that, looks like it does and that there is no way for the average wine consumer to know that it is made by one of the world’s biggest industrial wine makers? Whose name is not even on the label.

    It sounds as if you’re saying: “we want that we, the chic artisanal wines be recognised as superior or different, so let’s make them, those simple and drab convenience wines, dress up, or rather dress down, to show what they really are like”…

    I think there are better things to do than to try to regulate, explicitly or implicitly, the wine market like this. But perhaps I simply don’t get your point.

    (and for the record, I find Disqus annoying and user-unfriendly ;-) )

    • http://thirstforwine.co.uk thirstforwine

      Thanks Per. Let me try to answer these:

      1. Price IS a big differentiator, but in the absence of any other information it can be abused (as we see in the UK all the time). Most importantly, if all other costs remain the same (dry goods), then the only variable available to play with in order to compete on price is wine quality (as we have seen in Burgundy recently). How do we change this?

      2. I am not talking about enforcing anything or imposing this. You accuse me rather aggressively here of something I did not say.

      My point is that we do not have an accepted term for the market to inform our thinking. Trainers were just cheap sports footwear until the category was shaken up by marketing segmentation as fashion, sports, utility, etc. Denim was workwear until Levis created segmentation between styles, and so on.

      I believe that if the wine trade, both producers and writers, could agree on some form of language that allowed us to differentiate effectively between parts of the market, then we could ALSO come up with new, clever and useful marketing strategies. That’s all.

      3. I completely agree that this category, which I shall call Convenience Wines in the absence of a better term (please do suggest alternatives if you think there is something better), DO emulate the more artisanal wines specifically because there is no other POSITIVE characteristic to work with.

      Your comment about “dressing down” is exactly what the wine trade always says in such cases. WHY? Why do we assume that alternative packaging is DOWN? It is much more appropriate to wines that are shipped in bulk, packaged in the market of sale, distributed through mass retail, and consumed within days or even hours of purchase. What role could glass possibly play here?

      If instead we cut out the cost of glass (and environmental impact), the cost of the wine might be lowered enough to leave margin for much better branding and increased profit. Retailers, Producers AND Consumers would be better off.

      This is not true, obviously, for wines that need to age or settle in bottle, and therefore glass packaging would be a differentiator between different kinds of wines, and one reason, amongst many, to pay more for the ‘artisanal’ wine.

      In this case, why would a consumer of Jacobs Creek looking for a volume of tasty alcoholic treats for the family BBQ want his wine to pretend to be from a French village from 50 years ago, when in fact he wants something that will impress his friends, possibly even be a topic of conversation, make the party go well, and not cost him more than he can afford?

      3a. I toyed with the idea of how to classify certain large volume, premium wines such as Bordeaux. That is an interesting question. They strive for volume, consistency (100 Parket Point target each year), reliability (for investors) and availability (at least through the right channels). Where does this leave them? Very good question indeed.

      4. I am not trying to regulate anything, I am asking questions to help shape a discussion that we have only seemed to dance around the edges of :)

      5. I’m sorry! Disqus has just changed and we have not tested it much but I thought it looked OK. What do you find annoying in particular? We will see what we can do.

      Thanks again, as ever, for your input :)

      • Per-BKWine

        OK, this is an interesting subject so I’ll go into some length
        in answering.

        1. What is it you want to change? I don’t understand what
        you mean with “change this”. Change that wines compete on price and quality?
        That’s a good thing, isn’t it?

        Of course price can be “abused” (whatever that means). Who
        in his right mind would buy a handbag for £2000? But it’s not “just” a hand
        bag. No one in his right mind would pay £200 for a bottle of wine either, if it
        was just a question of the quality of liquid inside the bottle. But it’s not
        just that.

        2. Sorry if you think I’m aggressive. Was not my intention.
        I just tried to understand what you meant and explain why I think it’s wrong. And
        in doing so I try and be as clear and direct as possible.

        That trainers became segmented in fashion, sports, etc was
        hardly because a bunch of journalists collectively agreed to do so. Rather it
        was because marketeers started to try and market the shoes in that way and that
        it also made a lot of sense to consumers.

        It bothers me a bit that you seem be saying that it is the
        role of journalists to help producers and marketeers sell their wines. So that
        you don’t say I’m aggressive again, here’s what you say: “if the wine trade,
        both producers and writers, could agree on some form of language, then we could
        ALSO come up with new, clever and useful marketing strategies” “We” presumably
        meaning writers and journalists as well as marketing people in the trade. I don’t
        think it is not the responsibility of journalists or wine writers to take the
        role of wine marketeers and develop marketing strategies for wine.

        3. Why say “down”? Because “cheaper” is simply “down” for
        me. Even if you prefer to say “convenience” rather than “cheaper”. It’s just a
        common way of expressing things, understandable to most people. That does not
        mean that “cheaper” is bad or that it does not serve good purposes.

        In addition, I did not see your argument as being for “alternative”
        (meaning environmentally friendly) packaging. Rather I understood that you want
        it primarily to be easy to identify convenience/cheap wines as different from “artisanal”
        (i.e. expensive) wine. (with the eco-friendly piece being a nice side effect)

        And glass does server a purpose in many cases on cheaper
        wines. One of them being that a wine in glass bottle looks less cheap, which
        many producers would think is a good thing. The look is a a very important part
        of the wine experience. The glass bottle is also part of the branding. (Just
        like super-heavy bottles are for some artisanal/expensive wines).

        OK, perhaps you’re not trying to regulate something with
        laws but clearly you are trying to define, and perhaps decree (albeit with “common
        consent”), some kind of frame work, we could even call it a classification
        system (!), by “the trade”. I don’t see what purpose that could serve.

        This reminds me of a conversation I had some years back when
        it was question of remaking the classification of the Graves. “So what criteria
        will you base a new classification on?” I asked the interprof president. “Well”,
        he said, “the only really objective criterion we can use is price, what people
        are prepared to pay for the wines”…

        As with most artificial classification systems I see it as a
        bad thing, pretty much like most classifications in wine regions. Mainly serves
        the purpose of protecting those in the upper echelons from competition from
        those in the lower.

        I don’t see what you would achieve that is more or better
        than simply using the categorisation cheap vs expensive.

        I guess perhaps I just simply don’t understand what it is
        you are trying to achieve.

        (And no, I am not aggressive, I am just trying to discuss
        and figure out what it is you mean.)

  • http://arnoldwaldstein.com/ awaldstein

    I will let you UKer’s argue about the uniqueness of your channel and the use of terms that will work.

    Once comment…

    To underestimate the intelligence of your market is always a mistake. It’s not their intelligence that is ever the problem, it’s the communicators ability to speak intelligently to them in their own language that is usually the culprit.

    Dumping down is almost always dumb!

  • http://warddem.com Warddem

    Great discussion but it is mixing up a lot of subjects so hard to draw a conclusion. Here my opinion about certain parts.

    Packaging is a major factor in selling a product like wine. After price probably the most influential part when the average consumer buys a bottle for the first time.

    Packaging needs to tell a (visual) story. Bag-in-box producers do this but Petrus too. Robert (@thirstforwine) I think we need to leave this artisitic freedom to the producers and not force them into using any kind of package.

    Stories are the connection between the physical (grapes, liquid, bottle) and the mental state (status, producer, family, vision, culture).

    Honest stories are viral. Oportunist need big budgets and push advertisement to sell their (fake) message or be good counterfeiters (see Burgundy).

    If the actual wine doesn’t match the story the average winedrinker won’t buy your brand anymore.

    The status of a luxery product can skyrocket the price for a niche market (see blue-chip Bordeaux’s). Receiving that status is a combination of lots of factors.

    Do not underestimate the intelligence of the end consumer. Due to years of advertising they developed a sixth sense that tells them: fake or buy this! (see Gary Vaynerchuk’s bullshit detector).

    The proposal of Robert Joseph (wine thinker) of reusable bottles is great but we need an economical system that reward sustainability instead of (over)production. It is much more expensive to collect my used bottles, clean and re-use them than buying new ones.

    I prefer “Artisanal wine” much more than “natural” (Simon Woolf) but we need to let the market choose. Looks like it chose “natural wines”, fits with the romantic idea of winemaking and is easy to pronounce in all languages. I’m afraid that CONVENIENCE won’t stick Robert M.

    We are trying to classify and categorise wine by regions and quality the last hundreds of years and it doesn’t work (see the mess they made of AOCs). It usualy ends up being a “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” game. I agree with Per (Per-BKWine) on not complicating the (legal) situation even more.

    Most winedrinkers don’t really care about subregions and special varieties, they want to finish their glass and say: “hmmm, that was nice, let’s drink another one”.

    Really “getting wine” takes time and passion, not every winedrinker wants to invist in this. Specialized “gatekeepers” will inform their followers about the market they both like. Arnold (awaldstein) is doing this already for the natural wine community.

    I already see the end of the winecritics as we know them. The idea that a couple of wine-critics can decide about the style, quality (and price) of wine worldwide is crumbeling down.

    The solution might be what we do here NOW. Internet is a tool that connects passions and enable “geeks” to talk about their common passion (realtime and remote) and pass it to their followers. If the follower has more information than the sender he becomes the gatekeeper. A dynamic system that evaluates “stories” from the base up in a social, transparent way.

    Or am I being too utopian? ;-)

    • http://arnoldwaldstein.com/ awaldstein

      Really well said. You are an astute thinker.

      And not too utopian at all.

      I’m as much a believer in the bottoms up world of free expression as you are. The future is now, just that not everyone has seen it yet.

      That’s why all these discussions about blogging being dead are really so much silliness. Free expression once given a free platform for all changes everything.

      I would push on only one point.

      People need filters. They need labels. They need words to remember and search by.

      Believe in Natural or Artisanal or not. The politics of appellations and AOCs aside. People do search under names of things that they relate to.

      How things are made. Where they are from. What they remind them of. These things become icons and help us discover more than they define.

      That is what I was trying to get to in this post http://awe.sm/kUVi

      Nicely said.

      • http://warddem.com Warddem

        Thanks Arnold. I agree on the labels. As long as we don’t have a semantic web we need terms to search for. It is just so easy to abuse them. A while ago I visited “the most sustainable winery”. They have 1.000 hectares of vineyards and a winery that can store two 747′s. On paper it might be sustainable but it is just big industrial business to me.

        At Château Castigno we try to make our wines with respect to everything that surrounds it so I am a fan of artisanal wines in general. We don’t use sustainable nor organic (certified since 3 years) on the label because I see so much opportunists abusing these terms they get hollow.

        I put more trust in the future gatekeepers that will filter, double check, label and spread their information about our wines. I know it is choosing for the long road and if it is not for me it is for our children. Time will tell.

        • http://arnoldwaldstein.com/ awaldstein

          I’m enjoying this conversation with you. It makes me want to search out and support you and your wines! If they are available here, let me know.

          I agree and dream of a semantic web. We are inching slowly towards it.

          The gatekeepers of the artisanal and the natural here in the states are the small wine shops, the sommeliers and bloggers like myself. That is why my little project (www.thelocalsip.com) is 100% focused on the boutique wine shop and tastings as the way to introduce the broader market to the wonders of small producers of quality (and natural) wine.

          Labeling is a bigger topic and one that I’ve not spent a lot of time on honestly. I’ve rarely bought anything by a label. Fortunately almost everything I try is through referral, at the shop or my network level.

          • http://bartg.org BartG

            Side note regarding wines and the Semantic Web.

            There is an ongoing project called WineAgent to categorize wines with an ontology:http://tw.rpi.edu/web/project/Wineagent

          • http://arnoldwaldstein.com/ awaldstein

            Thanks Bart…I’ll check it out!

  • Fabio (Vinos Ambiz)

    As a producer of artisan wines, I’m very interested in the packaging of wines. I like to think of myself as a ‘sustainable’ and ‘ecological’ producer and I strive to be so as much as is possible for me, given my limited resources, both economic and temporal.

    My main concern is that the packaging be recyclable and eco-friendly, as opposed to aimed at a certain type of consumer. And basically that means glass bottles and natural corks. I don’t use capsules at all. And I would like in the future to use eco-friendly paper, ink and adhesive for the labels but haven’t been able to do so, so far.

    Market-wise, I think the consumers who buy natural/biodynamic/artisan/fine quality wines are already aware of the environmental issues involved and in general wouldn’t go for bag-in-boxes or cans, and much prefer bottles and corks. Not only for
    environmental reasons but also from the historic/cultural/traditional point of view, ie the pleasure/ritual/ceremony of uncorking a bottle of wine at your table in company. So it’s either that, or pouring straight from the amphora or barrel!!! And not many people have one of those handy in their homes!

    As far as the technical closure aspect is concerned (eg, cork taint, oxygenization, etc) all I have to say that it’s totally secondary for me, the primary issue being envirnomental. I have a very reliable cork suplpier and in the 9 years I’ve been using his corks, I’ve never ever received one single complaint about cork taint (touch wood!). It’s the artisan’s responsibility to assure quality here and
    IMHO he/she should not use low quality corks just for the sake of cutting costs.

    I just made this up, after a somewhat overly liquid lunch :)

    Ever since wine began,
    It was made by artisan

    8000 years of skins and clay
    But alas, they were not here to stay

    Now we have our tins and cans
    Widely used by many fans

    And bag-in-box and plastic too
    All to hold our vinous brew

    Mostly made in factories
    With no care for birds or bees

    And now begins my great lament
    On where to put all this ferment

    One thing I will not consent
    Is to rape the environment

    “The people must have their wine
    Be it swill or be it fine,
    No matter what the cost
    Even if nature’s land is lost”

    But I will resist and do my bit
    Even if I’m called a poor misfit

    First of all, the wine I make, it must be fine
    But not at any cost; for to pollute I do decline

    So bottles and corks it is for me
    Saving life on land and sea.

    Lets spare a thought for our sons and daughters
    And for our land and our ground waters

    And try to leave a cleaner place
    Than what we found in our case

    The drive for profit is A-OK
    But lets try to find a middle way

    Life is short, and there is not time
    To taste and talk of all the wine

    So let us taste and talk, not just of ‘what’
    But also of the ‘how’, in our glass it got!!!