Salut/Hi Dana Myers,

le/on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:40:56 -0800, tu disais/you said:-


>>>Other consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't
>>>know the difference and don't care anyway).
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, Dana, I find that a little arrogant towards the millions of
>> people who buy "champagne" in those countries which allow their local
>> sparklers to be called that, and all similar attempts to pass off local
>> products using prestigious names from elsewhere.
>
>Well, what's happened here is that a specific name has become generic.
>It is, actually, a success problem. The examples that we most often
>cite are of brand-names that have become generic (like Kleenex and Coke).

I have to say that I use neither as generic terms. However I _do_ use "Biro"
for ball point pen, I guess. I quite accept that is what happened in the
past, but (just as for Alsace producers who claim that it is "too difficult"
to re-educate consumers not to ask for "Tokay d'Alsace") quite independantly
of what's legally incumbent, I feel that a punctilious winemaker wouldn't
WANT to tread on the toes of colleagues elsewhere, if only out of
enlightened self interest some time down the line.

>You say "pass off local products using prestigious names from elsewhere".
> From this, I infer that you find the practice to be rooted in an attempt
>to deceive.

Without any doubt. At least it was when it started. American "chablis" is so
wildly different from the real thing that it's difficult to claim that
there's a serious attempt to pass off. In this case, the name itself is
being debased - in the eyes of the great mass of consumers. If Joe Public
has no idea that Chablis (a wine made with Chardonnay grapes near the town
of Chablis in France) is a fine wine, their image of the name will be
coloured by the Gallo (or whoever it is) plonk of that name.

> I believe the practice is easily as much about attempting to communicate with consumers in terms they know.

Nope. In terms they have been taught to recognise (incorrectly). If
Californians had never ever called their sparklers "champagne" then the
problem wouldn't exist now. The reason _originally_ was that everyone had
heard of "champagne" as a prestigious sparkling wine, so winemakers
(abusively) _used_ it as a generic term in the hope their wine would benefit
from the glow of the real thing. Well, in a sense that's _their_ problem.
They have to live with the expense of refocussing the public.

>there's a legitimate desire to want to label the product in a way that
>speaks directly to your consumers.

With respect, not legitimate. There's a desire and an understandable one.
But just as I might have an understandable desire to label my homemade word
processor "Word" so their desire to do so doesn't make it legitimate.

>I don't intend to dismiss the issue or insult consumers who don't
>know the difference, but what's the point of educating them?

At the most basic level, so that the people who have laboured over centuries
to give their wines an identity and excellence should not see their work
debased.

>American consumers already think wine is too complicated and wine
>enthusiasts are too snooty; attempting to correct those very consumers
>on their improper use of the term will simply alienate them further.

I can't speak to the sophistication or lack of it of American consumers, but
I do know that in the UK they were able to move from a wholesale abuse to a
respect of wine names. Wine consumption has increased steadily. I can't
believe that this wouldn't happen in the States.


--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.