There have been plenty of hard lessons for the wine industry in the two-plus years since the start of the recession. The consensus used to be that there were enough wine drinkers who needed that $100 bottle, that consumers would always equate expensive wine with status and that there was inexhaustible demand for new brands, so long as they got the scores.
Clearly, there’s been an intensive course in revised market realities. But for all these misjudgments, I’d say that the most important lesson the industry and consumers need to absorb is there’s a huge difference between selling and buying wine and selling and buying scores. A big part of the current predicaments (mind-numbing sameness of wine styles, bloated inventories and ongoing downward pricing pressure) results from the fact that so much of the trade has long since made a habit of selling scores: producers and retailers highlight good reviews on their websites; scores are displayed in tasting rooms; shelf-talkers are standard procedure at so many retailers.
This approach isn’t working like it once did. Wines with reviews that previously would have sparked healthy demand now gather dust. I recently spoke with a Napa Cabernet producer who received a mid-90s score from Wine Spectator. As a result of this review (for a wine that retails for significantly less than $100), the winery received zero response. No faxes, no phone calls, nada. I’ve heard a similar story during the last two years from many producers and retailers.
Consumers now are more price driven than score driven. And grade inflation is so egregious that it takes a very high score at a great price to make any kind of splash. Even cult producers, whose success was built almost entirely on critical approval, are struggling to move inventory due to the contraction of their mailing lists and restaurant accounts.
There are certainly some noteworthy wineries, retailers and trade that would eat ground glass before citing scores from any critic. But they are a decided minority that have not defined the terms or tone of the conversation. More of the industry need to recognize that even though selling scores may help short-term sales, it hurts long-term prospects. For one thing, every time scores are sold the message to the consumer is that they should buy because of the score, rather than the more substantive factors that foster brand loyalty. Yes, one score can really help move a particular wine, but that sale does no lasting good for a winery or a retailer (marketing types would say there is no halo effect). Once the scores drop (or the producer decides they no longer want to make wine in a critic-pleasing style), so do the customers, who move on to better numbers.
Looking at a shelf-talker or score on a website, a consumer thinks something along the lines of:
1. This is a really good wine that I should buy.
2. I should buy this wine rather than that wine.
3. The critic recommends this.
However, they do not think:
1. This bottle was made by a good winery.
2. I like the story behind this wine.
3. I met and liked the people behind the brand.
4. Next year’s wine will be just as good, if not better.
And here’s the nasty hitch: wineries and retailers that sell scores are promoting the critic (for free, no less!) and perpetuating their power. The consumer walks away from the purchase thinking that the critic’s opinion matters because the wineries or retailers say it does. That’s wonderful for the critics, but it’s not in the best interest of consumers or the industry given that the prevailing approach to wine criticism is a mess, in large part because it punishes winemakers who deviate from narrow stylistic parameters.
There’s a lot that can be said about how and why wine critics became so influential (someone please tell me of another industry where critics have comparable clout). I’ve often heard people in the business lament this reality, but if they’re looking for someone to blame they need only look in the mirror. Robert Parker and Marvin Shanken have power because wineries and retailers have been selling scores for the better part of the last thirty years and taught consumers to equate scores with quality.
I do not in any way mean to minimize the difficulties of selling wine, especially now. The time and cost, particularly for small producers, can be crushing, so I understand the temptation to sell scores. Nor do I have any magic bullets. But the oceans of unsold wine and the distress felt by so much of the industry are convincing proof that the old ways are not working. Healthy companies in whatever industry tend to succeed by controlling the variables, not by incessantly plugging the opinion of a not-so-disinterested third party. Why can’t that work for wine?
It takes a lot of effort to connect with consumers or partners in the trade, but that is the only path to long-term success in the wine business. It might seem like a path of too-much resistance, given how tempting it is to send a couple of bottles to Parker or Spectator and hope for that 90-point benediction. But the only way to build a solid foundation is to develop a relationship with the consumer that doesn’t start and end with a score.
