Hi everyone,

One of the hot issues in our industry right now is the sale of Erath
Vineyards, one of the first commercially-established wineries in
Oregon, to Chateau Ste. Michelle in Washington. We examined the issues
and posted a rather... unique article about it on our site:

http://www.oregonwines.com/article.php?ArticleID=369

It's interesting to note that we seem to be the only ones publishing
comments that this might *not* be such a good idea. While for some in
the larger states, it may not be that big a deal, for us here in
Oregon, the implications are far-reaching and, unfortunately, might set
off a trend of small-gem wineries selling out to large out-of-state
corporations.

Well, whatever you think, we'd love to hear your comments about this.

Thanks,

David

David Anderson wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> One of the hot issues in our industry right now is the sale of Erath
> Vineyards, one of the first commercially-established wineries in
> Oregon, to Chateau Ste. Michelle in Washington. We examined the issues
> and posted a rather... unique article about it on our site:
>
> http://www.oregonwines.com/article.php?ArticleID=369

Lots of local boosterism and jabs at others.

> It's interesting to note that we seem to be the only ones publishing
> comments that this might *not* be such a good idea. While for some in
> the larger states, it may not be that big a deal, for us here in
> Oregon, the implications are far-reaching and, unfortunately, might set
> off a trend of small-gem wineries selling out to large out-of-state
> corporations.

It's one thing to respect Dick Erath's work and want to conserve it,
but I don't think that anyone at U. S. Tobacco will enjoy the poke in
the eye you give them with your coverage. Perhaps an interview with an
executive from Ch. Ste. Michelle would have gotten some concrete
stances on what they would do with Erath. If you choose to poke them in
the eye rather than talk to them, that's your business.

On 6 Jun 2006 21:17:00 -0700, "David Anderson"
> wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
>One of the hot issues in our industry right now is the sale of Erath
>Vineyards, one of the first commercially-established wineries in
>Oregon, to Chateau Ste. Michelle in Washington. We examined the issues
>and posted a rather... unique article about it on our site:
>
>http://www.oregonwines.com/article.php?ArticleID=369
>
>It's interesting to note that we seem to be the only ones publishing
>comments that this might *not* be such a good idea. While for some in
>the larger states, it may not be that big a deal, for us here in
>Oregon, the implications are far-reaching and, unfortunately, might set
>off a trend of small-gem wineries selling out to large out-of-state
>corporations.
>
>Well, whatever you think, we'd love to hear your comments about this.
>
>Thanks,
>
>David

First of all, let me correct you regarding a factual error in your
posting and in the referenced article. Erath was not sold to Chateau
Ste. Michelle, as you state, but rather to Ste. Michelle Wine Estates
(henceforth "SMWE"). Chateau Ste. Michelle is SMWE's flagship label,
but not even its largest (Columbia Crest, in terms of volume, is
larger). This may sound like nitpicking but I assure you it is not.
And yes, SMWE is a division of UST, Inc., whose primary business is
smokeless tobacco. If this troubles anyone, so be it. But take a close
look at who owns such household names as Kraft Foods and Nabisco.

I suggest that you delve more closely into the Washington wine
industry by actually talking to some of its primary players,
particularly the owners and winemakers of some of the smaller wineries
that are not (yet) owned by Constellation Brands and other such
entities who buy and sell wineries like commodities. I suspect that
you will find very few, if any, who will tell you that SMWE has had
anything other than a net positive impact on the Washington wine
industry.

Among others, you might talk to the owners of wineries that lost all
or most of their crop in the 1996 and 2004 freezes and were able to
produce wine only because SMWE provided them with fruit from its own
vineyards. Or you might talk to the many winemakers who honed their
skills at one of the SMWE wineries and now have started their own
wineries or have become head winemakers at other Washington wineries.
Or you might talk to the former owners of Spring Valley Winery, a
truly boutique winery which recently received, FWIW, several 90+
scores in WS for wines made in quantities less than 1000 cases. When
they lost their winemaker, they approached SMWE with a proposal that
SMWE manage their winery. Instead, SMWE purchased Spring Valley with
the assurance that the quality of the wines made there would be
maintained. Or you might talk to Bob Betz, a Master of Wine and for 25
years SMWE's VP of Enology. A few years before he retired from SMWE,
he started a small winery that he named the Betz Family Winery, truly
a "mom and pop" operation. He is now making world class wines in a new
facility in Woodinville, WA. I could go on and on, but I think I've
said enough to make my point.

You seem to long for the days when Oregon wines were a "well-kept
secret". I've got some advice: GET OVER IT! You're too late. Oregon
wines are no longer a secret and wine lovers everwhere are the
winners. There is no question that with success comes problems. Your
challenge now is how to deal with those problems. One other piece of
advice: whining, which was so much in evidence in your article, won't
help.

Cole

Cole,


> First of all, let me correct you regarding a factual error in your
> posting and in the referenced article. Erath was not sold to Chateau
> Ste. Michelle, as you state, but rather to Ste. Michelle Wine Estates
> (henceforth "SMWE"). Chateau Ste. Michelle is SMWE's flagship label,
> but not even its largest (Columbia Crest, in terms of volume, is
> larger). This may sound like nitpicking but I assure you it is not.
> And yes, SMWE is a division of UST, Inc., whose primary business is
> smokeless tobacco. If this troubles anyone, so be it. But take a close
> look at who owns such household names as Kraft Foods and Nabisco.

Thanks for the correction. I'm sure you didn't intend to, but it almost
sounds as though you grouped Ste. Michelle in with Velveeta and Nilla
Wafers (household names owned by big-brand tobacco). Add in some
chewing tobacco instead of a cigar, and that would make for a very...
odd... wine and cheese soirée. Thanks, you can have it -- we'd rather
Oregon wines not be "groupable" into the same types or lines of
products as that.


> I suggest that you delve more closely into the Washington wine
> industry by actually talking to some of its primary players,
> particularly the owners and winemakers of some of the smaller wineries
> that are not (yet) owned by Constellation Brands and other such
> entities who buy and sell wineries like commodities. I suspect that
> you will find very few, if any, who will tell you that SMWE has had
> anything other than a net positive impact on the Washington wine
> industry.

Our focus is not just on the primary players, but on the "little guys"
as well. And we're not talking about seeing Erath grow to the size of
SMWE and become a "mother hen" entity for the industry, as your
"points" below reference, but instead, the net positive marketing
effect Erath's sale will have, if any, on the Oregon industry as a
whole. The "primary players" in Oregon think all this is positive -- of
course they will -- it's because they are the ones who are going to
directly benefit from it. We just don't see how the "little guys" stand
to gain anything. Nothing in the press has been written up outside the
self-congratulatory rhetoric, which is precisely why we took an
admittedly dire stance on things. Someone's gotta kick people into
thinking about all this.

In our haste, absolutely, we may have made factual errors, and I thank
you for pointing them out, because we are concerned about accuracy. At
the same time, I think the more important aspect of our article was to
get people to start thinking about the implications that smaller Oregon
wineries could be left behind.


> Among others, you might talk to the owners of wineries that lost all
> or most of their crop in the 1996 and 2004 freezes and were able to
> produce wine only because SMWE provided them with fruit from its own
> vineyards. Or you might talk to the many winemakers who honed their
> skills at one of the SMWE wineries and now have started their own
> wineries or have become head winemakers at other Washington wineries.
> Or you might talk to the former owners of Spring Valley Winery, a
> truly boutique winery which recently received, FWIW, several 90+
> scores in WS for wines made in quantities less than 1000 cases. When
> they lost their winemaker, they approached SMWE with a proposal that
> SMWE manage their winery. Instead, SMWE purchased Spring Valley with
> the assurance that the quality of the wines made there would be
> maintained. Or you might talk to Bob Betz, a Master of Wine and for 25
> years SMWE's VP of Enology. A few years before he retired from SMWE,
> he started a small winery that he named the Betz Family Winery, truly
> a "mom and pop" operation. He is now making world class wines in a new
> facility in Woodinville, WA. I could go on and on, but I think I've
> said enough to make my point.

I don't doubt SMWE has done good things for its industry, but any
company can have a positive effect if it invokes altruism. Within WA
state, I'm sure many wineries have been assisted by SMWE, and SMWE
should be acknowledged and thanked for its role in that. Still, how
many non-SMWE labels can you find, outside of Washington, in the
everyday-average supermarkets? The answer is, relatively few. Is that
truly a net positive effect for the industry? Is the goal to create a
"mother hen" winery that looks out for all the little "chicks", or
instead, a cohesive marketing strategy so that all of the wineries, big
and small, can reap the benefits?

If more Oregon wineries were bigger players, it might be a different
story. But with something like 90% of our wineries in the "smalltime,
mom-and-pop" scale, what's needed before everyone gets excited about
Erath, is to establish a strategy that could actually, directly benefit
them. Otherwise, they're all cheering for nothing, because they will
see nothing, and little positive will result. Our 'whining' is not
simply about corporate takeover hurting the culture of the industry,
but also our dismay that for years, it has seemed that many wineries
don't care about marketing their product. They need leadership and
guidance in order to get to market, and unfortunately, that flies in
the face of the "any press about our industry, in any way, shape, or
form, is therefore good press" approach that many of these smaller
players seem to have adopted.

Recalling from now-ancient memory... In one episode of West Wing,
presidential staff were discussing which wine to serve at dinner.
"Willamette Valley Vineyards" (WVV) one replied, even though the actor
butchered the pronunciation. That single, 10-second clip was met by
multiple "news" articles in the local press about how Oregon wines were
suddenly getting national attention. But it was all the same blah blah
blah - nothing substantive, and seemed to be nothing other than direct
brand recognition, which fueled the interest. While WVV has in recent
years posted ever-increasing profit reports, which is fantastic, what
about Ankeny Vineyards, just a few miles across the valley from WVV?
How can Ankeny stand to reap benefits whenever WVV is mentioned in the
news? Again, we're all for promoting the industry, but feel there needs
to be more of a qualitative type of promotion that supports the entire
industry -- since so many wineries could use the assistance -- rather
than the individual ones that occasionally grab national attention.


> You seem to long for the days when Oregon wines were a "well-kept
> secret". I've got some advice: GET OVER IT! You're too late. Oregon
> wines are no longer a secret and wine lovers everwhere are the
> winners. There is no question that with success comes problems. Your
> challenge now is how to deal with those problems. One other piece of
> advice: whining, which was so much in evidence in your article, won't
> help.

Wine lovers won't be the winners if only a few big-name Oregon wines
don't reach them. All it will do is put Oregon into the same category
as WA and CA, where the biggest names dominate, but the smallest labels
are all but forgotten, and no one outside of their immediate, in-state
market know they even exist. Call that "fate" if you will -- again, we
call it an utter failure on the part of the industry to help support
the little guy.

In any case, our 'whining' elicited a response from you, so that's
something. We prefer to call it editorializing. Our goal isn't to
win anyone over to our side of the argument, but simply to get people
talking about it, period - because there's been very little, if any
type of discourse or analysis beyond the ever-so-short AP article,
which read much more like a press release than any type of newsworthy
article.

Oregon doesn't have to remain a secret. We'd love to see its wines
reach every corner of the global market. But that doesn't change the
fact that the fundamental culture of Oregon winemaking here has always
been about privately-owned, small-scale artisan production. While some
wineries have gone the corporate route with large-scale production,
very few of the smaller ones have the means - or money - to reach the
scale of production -- nor would that type of marketing and
distribution make sense for them, since they deal in such small-scale
production.

The challenge has always been about getting the industry to promote
itself from within, while retaining a hold on the culture that
established Oregon as an artisinal winemaking region.

Let's look at it from a marketing angle: If I walk into local a grocery
store, I'm sure to see Ste. Michelle wines all over the place, and
perhaps Maryhill and a few other WA wines as well. Yet, I could count
the number of WA wines that come to mind with both hands. We're just 30
miles from Washington state, and yet so few WA wineries are distributed
across the river.

Admittedly, we live smack dab in the middle of wine country. Well, what
about other areas, where competition from Oregon wineries isn't as
great? If you go out-of-state, to Idaho or California, even back east
to Georgia (this is from personal experience, mind you) believe it or
not, it's the same story. Ste. Michelle wines here and there and
everywhere -- which is great for them, but not great for all of the
smaller, artisinal WA wineries who weren't lucky enough to be able to
jump on board their coattails.

So, while SMWE has no doubt done some great things for the local
industry, I don't see the benefit outside of Washington, nor am I sure
consumers are either. If the purpose is to build up a big corporate
winegrower that can single-handedly supply the "smaller players" with
their fruit in off-years, fine -- you've just created a type of
"socialized welfare" for the wine industry.You've not done much of
anything, however, to empower the small players to succeed under their
own power.

But if, on the other hand, the supposed benefit to a region is that it
will draw more attention - and create greater distribution channels for
*all* players in the market (including the smaller players), and enable
small-name wineries to get their product nationwide, and into empty
wine glasses everywhere, then I can't see that happening for Oregon,
simply because that's not been the case with Washington wines!

So forgive me if I don't see how this will benefit the 300 small Oregon
wineries who lack the funds, marketing power, or nationwide
distribution that the bigger players have enjoyed. More likely, it just
seems that it could yield several, centralized "mother hen" outfits in
this state, who will go on to become "flagship" wineries for sure, but
who will likely shine brightly in the national spotlight, while all
their smaller, neighborhood wineries are lost in their shadow.

David:

I read with interest your reponse to my posting. Clearly, you are
passionate about the Oregon wine industry and have heartfelt concerns
about its current state and how it will evolve in the coming years. In
particular, you are concerned about smaller, artisnal wineries that
are unable (or are indifferent to taking collective action necessary)
to market their products. Believe me, I share the same concerns,
whether the wineries in question are in California, Oregon,
Washington, or wherever. I fear these problems will continue to exist
barring a fundamental change in the wine distribution system in the
USA, which is not likely. The ongoing liberalization of state wine
shipping laws may help some but won't, on its own, solve the problem.

In Washington, wineries of all sizes coexist relatively peacefully,
recognizing that their main competion is two states to the south and
from a very large country located south of the equator. Some of the
better known "small" wineries (Leonetti, Quilceda Creek, Cayuse, etc.)
don't have a problem since their entire production is basically sold
out before it is bottled. Some smaller wineries have problems because,
frankly, they don't make very good wine. It's the others that you and
I should be (and seem to be) concerned about.

I don't claim to have a good answer to these problems. But based on my
personal observations of the Washington wine industry over a number of
years, I truly believe that your fears regarding the effect on the
Oregon wine industry by the acquisition of Erath, on its own, are
misplaced. But only time will tell.

Cole

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:12:11 GMT, Cole > wrote:

>David:
>
>I read with interest your reponse to my posting. Clearly, you are
>passionate about the Oregon wine industry and have heartfelt concerns
>about its current state and how it will evolve in the coming years. In
>particular, you are concerned about smaller, artisnal wineries that
>are unable (or are indifferent to taking collective action necessary)
>to market their products. Believe me, I share the same concerns,
>whether the wineries in question are in California, Oregon,
>Washington, or wherever. I fear these problems will continue to exist
>barring a fundamental change in the wine distribution system in the
>USA, which is not likely. The ongoing liberalization of state wine
>shipping laws may help some but won't, on its own, solve the problem.
>
>In Washington, wineries of all sizes coexist relatively peacefully,
>recognizing that their main competion is two states to the south and
>from a very large country located south of the equator. Some of the
>better known "small" wineries (Leonetti, Quilceda Creek, Cayuse, etc.)
>don't have a problem since their entire production is basically sold
>out before it is bottled. Some smaller wineries have problems because,
>frankly, they don't make very good wine. It's the others that you and
>I should be (and seem to be) concerned about.
>
>I don't claim to have a good answer to these problems. But based on my
>personal observations of the Washington wine industry over a number of
>years, I truly believe that your fears regarding the effect on the
>Oregon wine industry by the acquisition of Erath, on its own, are
>misplaced. But only time will tell.
>
>Cole

David:

I was trying to be conciilatory and suggest that the two of us have
more in common than might have first appeared. Then I read your smug,
self-congratulatory posting on your own web site that bragged about
how much controversy (two whole posters responding) your original
article stirred up. I am now convinced that your primary purpose is to
call attention to yourself by creating a controversy where none really
exists. To use a well-worn cliche but which seems highly appropriate
in your case, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want
Oregon wines to become better known, but would rather sit back and
whine that they are not (when in fact they are very well known around
the country; look at the Zachy's ads in the Wednesday editions of the
New york Times; there are more Oregon wines there than Washington
wines) than to actually do anything to advance their cause. I'm
signing off. This is my last contribution to this manufactured
controversy.

Cole

Hi Cole,

> I read with interest your reponse to my posting. Clearly, you are
> passionate about the Oregon wine industry and have heartfelt concerns
> about its current state and how it will evolve in the coming years. In
> particular, you are concerned about smaller, artisnal wineries that
> are unable (or are indifferent to taking collective action necessary)
> to market their products. Believe me, I share the same concerns,
> whether the wineries in question are in California, Oregon,
> Washington, or wherever. I fear these problems will continue to exist
> barring a fundamental change in the wine distribution system in the
> USA, which is not likely. The ongoing liberalization of state wine
> shipping laws may help some but won't, on its own, solve the problem.

I'm glad to find common ground with you on this, because this is
something that will take a lot of people's input and guidance, if we
are to help turn things around.

You're absolutely correct about the existing wine distribution system.
It is designed for mass "broadcast" of product, assuming there is ample
inventory, which by the numbers alone crosses most artisan wineries off
the list. There are many hoops to jump through, competing distributors
and out-of-state wineries who'd rather not see their products compete
with one from 1,000 miles away, etc. It can add up to a lot of hassle,
and even be cost- and effort-prohibitive for small producers.

On the other hand...

While the changing inter-state shipping laws could be opening up
faster, I think they may present the smaller players with the most
feasible/workable opportunity to get into new markets. For example,
many of the small Oregon ones currently do direct-ship to customers in
all of the reciprocal states (thanks in part to few if any licensing
fees), and are simply waiting for additional states to join the ranks.
For them to ship to a "new" reciprocal state would entail checking on
shipping options, and adding that new state to their sales database.

If you consider the paperwork aspect, direct shipment sales to
reciprocal states make for the least headaches. There's no issues with
having to deal with a middle-man (distributor, wine bar, state-run
liquor store, etc) as there are in some of the "permit" states. Even if
you're talking about a permit state, where special licensing is
required in order to ship product to residents there (and may include
the winery needing to ship to a local/state-run liquor store close to
the resident), it still enables the winery to get their product out to
the consumer, direct.

What we've found is that even though many Oregon wineries *can* ship to
a lot of states, they don't sell many in some states because residents
there don't know the winery exists. Overall, we've encountered, again
and again, cases where this or that winery would love to get their
product out-of-state, but have said again and again, there's simply no
demand. That is where being a "best kept secret" is frankly killing
them, and that's in part something we're trying to turn around, not
only with our Web site, but by trying to get the message out, head up
marketing campaigns that target out-of-state audiences, but most
importantly, simply get people to start talking about it all.

I digress below with some thoughts on direct shipping...


> In Washington, wineries of all sizes coexist relatively peacefully,
> recognizing that their main competion is two states to the south and
> from a very large country located south of the equator. Some of the
> better known "small" wineries (Leonetti, Quilceda Creek, Cayuse, etc.)
> don't have a problem since their entire production is basically sold
> out before it is bottled. Some smaller wineries have problems because,
> frankly, they don't make very good wine. It's the others that you and
> I should be (and seem to be) concerned about.

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with selling out of your product. And,
if your wines don't sell themselves, you need to re-examine why it is
you're in the business. If you fall in-between these two, with good
product but extra inventory, then you have the problem that we are
discussing


> I don't claim to have a good answer to these problems. But based on my
> personal observations of the Washington wine industry over a number of
> years, I truly believe that your fears regarding the effect on the
> Oregon wine industry by the acquisition of Erath, on its own, are
> misplaced. But only time will tell.

This is where, in our haste, we didn't go into enough detail to
underscore why we have these concerns. And likewise, we certainly don't
have many answers. What we do know is that many wineries here have an
ambivalent approach to marketing, if any at all. Some even just expect
the business to fall into their hands. And it's unfortunate, because
some of those wineries produce damn fine wines! Whenever 'Oregon wine'
is mentioned, they cheer. But then they walk away, back to their fields
and the status quo.

So our concerns are really about the recent press doing little to help
the small players, and that they shouldn't for a moment lose sight of
that fact.

Now, you talked about large and small WA wineries working together.
This is information that we want to know about. I'm sure that within WA
state, things are going very well, and of course wineries big and small
have some type of symbiotic relationship. They are, after all,
neighbors and members of the same industry.

My interest is to find out how this relationship has extended for these
wineries -- if at all -- beyond the state boundaries, or if, thanks
again to the established distribution system, it's every winery for
themselves, competing against one another, etc., with the "largest
label" winning through sheer brand domination.

I can't help but feel that, as interstate shipping laws continue to
open up, many of the smaller wineries will be able to avoid the
necessity for out-of-state distributors. It strikes me that the three
things limiting the small winery from shipping out of state, to State
X, a

1. Whether they can direct-ship there (so as to not have product pass
through a restricted/felony state -- which typically leads to the
product being dumped out on the tarmack, if you will);

2. If it is a permit state, then is there enough demand from residents
of that state to make it cost effective for the winery to front the
additional licensing fees;

3. This is the big one -- to simply get their message out, get their
brand in front of people, and start building a target market in that
state.

For the small producers, many of whom have no budget -- or know-how --
for marketing, #3 is frequently the killer. They tend to join the
state-run winegrowers and winery associations, attend a tasting or
wine-related event close to home, and stick to other grassroots
marketing efforts to fuel their business. Like many small businesses,
they depend on repeat customers to drive future sales growth. If they
cannot get their own message to market, then they are completely
dependent upon relying on members and marketers of their industry to do
it for them.

And on that note is where my concern about big-name companies comes in,
because while they will certainly raise awareness to Oregon (or any
other wine-producing state) as a whole, maybe even helping people learn
how to locate the state on a map, I don't think their presence or
marketing efforts will do anything to build direct brand recognition in
the small wineries located around them.

Now, forget about companies and marketers and associations, all of whom
are certainly doing their part to help out (some for their own gain
more than others).. what about state-run marketing efforts? There is a
Web site for the Oregon wine board, and they do list all wineries and
vineyards, some events calendars, and some industry news... and there
are some state-sponsored wine events -- but it seems that little has
been yielded from those well-intended efforts. Whatever the case, more
needs to be done.

Again, in our admittedly... dire... editorial, we did poke fun at Brand
Oregon, something aimed to build brand recognition for out-of-state
people that yes, Oregon produces wine, beer, bison/emu, fruit, and this
and that... in fact, the homepage of the official state site for that
effort proudly says, "Pears are Oregon's Official State Fruit..."
http://www.oregon.gov/BRANDOREGON/

Did you know pears were our state's official fruit? Now we all know.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, Oregon pear growers should
expect a bunch of people to start inquiring about pears, right? Sorry
-- a bit more sarcasm there -- but the entire plan just struck us, and
many others here, as rather grade-schoolish, and it soon disappeared
from headlines, Web sites, everywhere, except perhaps the "Made in
Oregon" stores at airports and some malls throughout the state.

What is needed is something more cohesive, more of a tie-in between
wineries and organizations, to truly get together as a team and get
their brand(s) out to other markets. More many wineries, could they
supplement their existing demand with residents from every reciprocal
(and many permit) states, they'd be kept busy with sales until the cows
came home -- and by then, even the cows might want a glass or two. Moo!

Along these lines, here in Oregon, we frequently see T.V. ads produced
by tourism boards in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, etc. I even saw
one for San Diego recently. All of them show inviting imagery, pictures
of wine country (I think Florida focused mostly on the nice, sandy
beaches, although we have plenty of those here -- but give the
Floridians credit for trying!), etc. They all showed a banquet of
imagery, and then a simple link to this or that Web site, perhaps a
toll-free number. But it's simple and effective, and it gets the
message out. Things like that do actually tend to work.

To recap... sorry this is such a diatribe but it's a continuing
issue...

1. Small wineries are dependent upon the assistance of others to market
their product.

2. Where those providing assistance are not doing enough of the right
things, the wineries must take the initiative and do it themselves.

3. Because of the small scale of production, jumping on board with
distributors isn't going to solve the problem, as it comes with
production requirements for it to be cost effective, which simply will
not be met.

4. Due to local competition with other producers, these wineries may
have a better chance by targeting out-of-state audiences in markets
they presently can and do ship to.

5. The only thing preventing increased out-of-state demand is lack of
brand awareness in those markets. If they are out to do it themselves,
they need to look at cost effective marketing avenues, but whatever the
case, they simply need to do it. As in, yesterday.

6. If available, then the "right" kind of assistance from state
agencies, marketing firms and associations for these small players is
that which is aimed at driving in more business from those out-of state
markets.

7. With this type of infrastructural shift in the marketing of local
regions, less-focused branding campaigns (yes, even Brand Oregon can be
counted in this) and industry events (such as recent press from SMWE
purchasing Erath) can and will add supplemental support to the overall
marketing effort, but by no means can #7 alone accomplish the task.

8. Prior to #7, #'s 1-6 need to be instituted in some form, as one
builds on another. Going right to #7 is essentially getting the cart
before the horse.

Everyone, those are my thoughts for now... again, feedback welcomed.
This is turning into a thesis. Ugh! Thanks for reading. Of course, I
respect and welcome everyone's views. If anyone thinks this is off
base, please tell me you think so -- but please also provide your own
insights on the matter. Through our conversations, we may actually
figure out a way to help that small guy that Cole addressed - the guy
who produces good stuff but can't get it to market.

Cheers!

David

Hi Cole,

You just caught another factual error on our site.

I'd posted a message similar to the first one here, on a Web-based
message board (NOT Usenet) which elicited some extremely, shall we say,
"colorful" responses from members. My comments were in no way a
reference to your posts, which are valid and important to this
discussion. All due apologies if you have gotten the wrong idea about
this -- definitely not our intent!

David

David, with all due respect....I think it is far more simple than stated
here.

Its "Corporate" wineries vs "boutique" wineries.

Corporations will over time try to be more efficient. Quality eventually is
compromised. That is the concern I have.

The single vineyard might be corporate sponshorships like this: Eraths
"Nike" Pinot Noir. That said, Erath has been sold before and to me was moe
corporate. Afterall my Costco in North Carolina has had pallets of their
bargain basement Pinot.

If suddenly Ken Wright or Bersgstrom were sold to Constllation I would have
your concerns... but Erath...not really.


"David Anderson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Cole,
>
>> I read with interest your reponse to my posting. Clearly, you are
>> passionate about the Oregon wine industry and have heartfelt concerns
>> about its current state and how it will evolve in the coming years. In
>> particular, you are concerned about smaller, artisnal wineries that
>> are unable (or are indifferent to taking collective action necessary)
>> to market their products. Believe me, I share the same concerns,
>> whether the wineries in question are in California, Oregon,
>> Washington, or wherever. I fear these problems will continue to exist
>> barring a fundamental change in the wine distribution system in the
>> USA, which is not likely. The ongoing liberalization of state wine
>> shipping laws may help some but won't, on its own, solve the problem.
>
> I'm glad to find common ground with you on this, because this is
> something that will take a lot of people's input and guidance, if we
> are to help turn things around.
>
> You're absolutely correct about the existing wine distribution system.
> It is designed for mass "broadcast" of product, assuming there is ample
> inventory, which by the numbers alone crosses most artisan wineries off
> the list. There are many hoops to jump through, competing distributors
> and out-of-state wineries who'd rather not see their products compete
> with one from 1,000 miles away, etc. It can add up to a lot of hassle,
> and even be cost- and effort-prohibitive for small producers.
>
> On the other hand...
>
> While the changing inter-state shipping laws could be opening up
> faster, I think they may present the smaller players with the most
> feasible/workable opportunity to get into new markets. For example,
> many of the small Oregon ones currently do direct-ship to customers in
> all of the reciprocal states (thanks in part to few if any licensing
> fees), and are simply waiting for additional states to join the ranks.
> For them to ship to a "new" reciprocal state would entail checking on
> shipping options, and adding that new state to their sales database.
>
> If you consider the paperwork aspect, direct shipment sales to
> reciprocal states make for the least headaches. There's no issues with
> having to deal with a middle-man (distributor, wine bar, state-run
> liquor store, etc) as there are in some of the "permit" states. Even if
> you're talking about a permit state, where special licensing is
> required in order to ship product to residents there (and may include
> the winery needing to ship to a local/state-run liquor store close to
> the resident), it still enables the winery to get their product out to
> the consumer, direct.
>
> What we've found is that even though many Oregon wineries *can* ship to
> a lot of states, they don't sell many in some states because residents
> there don't know the winery exists. Overall, we've encountered, again
> and again, cases where this or that winery would love to get their
> product out-of-state, but have said again and again, there's simply no
> demand. That is where being a "best kept secret" is frankly killing
> them, and that's in part something we're trying to turn around, not
> only with our Web site, but by trying to get the message out, head up
> marketing campaigns that target out-of-state audiences, but most
> importantly, simply get people to start talking about it all.
>
> I digress below with some thoughts on direct shipping...
>
>
>> In Washington, wineries of all sizes coexist relatively peacefully,
>> recognizing that their main competion is two states to the south and
>> from a very large country located south of the equator. Some of the
>> better known "small" wineries (Leonetti, Quilceda Creek, Cayuse, etc.)
>> don't have a problem since their entire production is basically sold
>> out before it is bottled. Some smaller wineries have problems because,
>> frankly, they don't make very good wine. It's the others that you and
>> I should be (and seem to be) concerned about.
>
> Exactly. There's nothing wrong with selling out of your product. And,
> if your wines don't sell themselves, you need to re-examine why it is
> you're in the business. If you fall in-between these two, with good
> product but extra inventory, then you have the problem that we are
> discussing
>
>
>> I don't claim to have a good answer to these problems. But based on my
>> personal observations of the Washington wine industry over a number of
>> years, I truly believe that your fears regarding the effect on the
>> Oregon wine industry by the acquisition of Erath, on its own, are
>> misplaced. But only time will tell.
>
> This is where, in our haste, we didn't go into enough detail to
> underscore why we have these concerns. And likewise, we certainly don't
> have many answers. What we do know is that many wineries here have an
> ambivalent approach to marketing, if any at all. Some even just expect
> the business to fall into their hands. And it's unfortunate, because
> some of those wineries produce damn fine wines! Whenever 'Oregon wine'
> is mentioned, they cheer. But then they walk away, back to their fields
> and the status quo.
>
> So our concerns are really about the recent press doing little to help
> the small players, and that they shouldn't for a moment lose sight of
> that fact.
>
> Now, you talked about large and small WA wineries working together.
> This is information that we want to know about. I'm sure that within WA
> state, things are going very well, and of course wineries big and small
> have some type of symbiotic relationship. They are, after all,
> neighbors and members of the same industry.
>
> My interest is to find out how this relationship has extended for these
> wineries -- if at all -- beyond the state boundaries, or if, thanks
> again to the established distribution system, it's every winery for
> themselves, competing against one another, etc., with the "largest
> label" winning through sheer brand domination.
>
> I can't help but feel that, as interstate shipping laws continue to
> open up, many of the smaller wineries will be able to avoid the
> necessity for out-of-state distributors. It strikes me that the three
> things limiting the small winery from shipping out of state, to State
> X, a
>
> 1. Whether they can direct-ship there (so as to not have product pass
> through a restricted/felony state -- which typically leads to the
> product being dumped out on the tarmack, if you will);
>
> 2. If it is a permit state, then is there enough demand from residents
> of that state to make it cost effective for the winery to front the
> additional licensing fees;
>
> 3. This is the big one -- to simply get their message out, get their
> brand in front of people, and start building a target market in that
> state.
>
> For the small producers, many of whom have no budget -- or know-how --
> for marketing, #3 is frequently the killer. They tend to join the
> state-run winegrowers and winery associations, attend a tasting or
> wine-related event close to home, and stick to other grassroots
> marketing efforts to fuel their business. Like many small businesses,
> they depend on repeat customers to drive future sales growth. If they
> cannot get their own message to market, then they are completely
> dependent upon relying on members and marketers of their industry to do
> it for them.
>
> And on that note is where my concern about big-name companies comes in,
> because while they will certainly raise awareness to Oregon (or any
> other wine-producing state) as a whole, maybe even helping people learn
> how to locate the state on a map, I don't think their presence or
> marketing efforts will do anything to build direct brand recognition in
> the small wineries located around them.
>
> Now, forget about companies and marketers and associations, all of whom
> are certainly doing their part to help out (some for their own gain
> more than others).. what about state-run marketing efforts? There is a
> Web site for the Oregon wine board, and they do list all wineries and
> vineyards, some events calendars, and some industry news... and there
> are some state-sponsored wine events -- but it seems that little has
> been yielded from those well-intended efforts. Whatever the case, more
> needs to be done.
>
> Again, in our admittedly... dire... editorial, we did poke fun at Brand
> Oregon, something aimed to build brand recognition for out-of-state
> people that yes, Oregon produces wine, beer, bison/emu, fruit, and this
> and that... in fact, the homepage of the official state site for that
> effort proudly says, "Pears are Oregon's Official State Fruit..."
> http://www.oregon.gov/BRANDOREGON/
>
> Did you know pears were our state's official fruit? Now we all know.
> Now that we've gotten that out of the way, Oregon pear growers should
> expect a bunch of people to start inquiring about pears, right? Sorry
> -- a bit more sarcasm there -- but the entire plan just struck us, and
> many others here, as rather grade-schoolish, and it soon disappeared
> from headlines, Web sites, everywhere, except perhaps the "Made in
> Oregon" stores at airports and some malls throughout the state.
>
> What is needed is something more cohesive, more of a tie-in between
> wineries and organizations, to truly get together as a team and get
> their brand(s) out to other markets. More many wineries, could they
> supplement their existing demand with residents from every reciprocal
> (and many permit) states, they'd be kept busy with sales until the cows
> came home -- and by then, even the cows might want a glass or two. Moo!
>
> Along these lines, here in Oregon, we frequently see T.V. ads produced
> by tourism boards in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, etc. I even saw
> one for San Diego recently. All of them show inviting imagery, pictures
> of wine country (I think Florida focused mostly on the nice, sandy
> beaches, although we have plenty of those here -- but give the
> Floridians credit for trying!), etc. They all showed a banquet of
> imagery, and then a simple link to this or that Web site, perhaps a
> toll-free number. But it's simple and effective, and it gets the
> message out. Things like that do actually tend to work.
>
> To recap... sorry this is such a diatribe but it's a continuing
> issue...
>
> 1. Small wineries are dependent upon the assistance of others to market
> their product.
>
> 2. Where those providing assistance are not doing enough of the right
> things, the wineries must take the initiative and do it themselves.
>
> 3. Because of the small scale of production, jumping on board with
> distributors isn't going to solve the problem, as it comes with
> production requirements for it to be cost effective, which simply will
> not be met.
>
> 4. Due to local competition with other producers, these wineries may
> have a better chance by targeting out-of-state audiences in markets
> they presently can and do ship to.
>
> 5. The only thing preventing increased out-of-state demand is lack of
> brand awareness in those markets. If they are out to do it themselves,
> they need to look at cost effective marketing avenues, but whatever the
> case, they simply need to do it. As in, yesterday.
>
> 6. If available, then the "right" kind of assistance from state
> agencies, marketing firms and associations for these small players is
> that which is aimed at driving in more business from those out-of state
> markets.
>
> 7. With this type of infrastructural shift in the marketing of local
> regions, less-focused branding campaigns (yes, even Brand Oregon can be
> counted in this) and industry events (such as recent press from SMWE
> purchasing Erath) can and will add supplemental support to the overall
> marketing effort, but by no means can #7 alone accomplish the task.
>
> 8. Prior to #7, #'s 1-6 need to be instituted in some form, as one
> builds on another. Going right to #7 is essentially getting the cart
> before the horse.
>
> Everyone, those are my thoughts for now... again, feedback welcomed.
> This is turning into a thesis. Ugh! Thanks for reading. Of course, I
> respect and welcome everyone's views. If anyone thinks this is off
> base, please tell me you think so -- but please also provide your own
> insights on the matter. Through our conversations, we may actually
> figure out a way to help that small guy that Cole addressed - the guy
> who produces good stuff but can't get it to market.
>
> Cheers!
>
> David
>

Hi Dick,

Good points. By itself, this may not seem like a big thing -- but if
more wineries jump on board, especially with many local owners quoted
as seeing this as a good thing -- there could be a fundamental change
away from the boutique and towards the corporate.

But now that you mention it, it would be pretty funny (or would it?) to
see Nike stamp their label on an local vineyard. It reminds me of an
Italian marathon where they once served wine and olives instead of
sports drinks and power bars.

Anyway... we're concerned that sales like this could cause an overall
transition towards more of a Napa-style (highly corporate) industry,
when it seems there are still so many options left to help the small
wineries. I suppose, overall, that's my main point, that while wineries
should keep their options open, that there are still many options out
there which they haven't fully explored. So more could keep their
artisan/boutique status and also see substantial growth, but without
necessarily going the corporate route.

Are you aware of any growing regions outside the Pac NW where something
like this has happened (a relatively small industry begins shifting
towards a corporate structure)? Would like some stats and info so we
could examine it more.

Thanks again,

David


> David, with all due respect....I think it is far more simple than stated
> here.
>
> Its "Corporate" wineries vs "boutique" wineries.
>
> Corporations will over time try to be more efficient. Quality eventually is
> compromised. That is the concern I have.
>
> The single vineyard might be corporate sponshorships like this: Eraths
> "Nike" Pinot Noir. That said, Erath has been sold before and to me was moe
> corporate. Afterall my Costco in North Carolina has had pallets of their
> bargain basement Pinot.
>
> If suddenly Ken Wright or Bersgstrom were sold to Constllation I would have
> your concerns... but Erath...not really.

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:30:02 GMT, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>David, with all due respect....I think it is far more simple than stated
>here.
>
>Its "Corporate" wineries vs "boutique" wineries.
>
>Corporations will over time try to be more efficient. Quality eventually is
>compromised. That is the concern I have.
>
>The single vineyard might be corporate sponshorships like this: Eraths
>"Nike" Pinot Noir. That said, Erath has been sold before and to me was moe
>corporate. Afterall my Costco in North Carolina has had pallets of their
>bargain basement Pinot.
>
>If suddenly Ken Wright or Bersgstrom were sold to Constllation I would have
>your concerns... but Erath...not really.
>
This is an interesting point. Two factors govern the ability to make
good wine: sources of good fruit and the talent of the winemaker.
Having modern (or at least appropriate) equipment is also important
but proper use of the equipment goes back to having a winemaker who
knows how to use it.

There are three wineries in the Seattle area whose operations I am
somewhat familiar with and which I would consider "boutique" or
"artisinal". Each has a talented winemaker and reliable sources of
good fruit. Each has a strong family presence in its management. And
each relies heavily on volunteer labor to do a lot of the "grunt work"
that has to be done, particularly around harvest time. None does any
marketing to speak of because their entire production is essentially
sold out before it is even bottled.

I can't say for certain but my sense is that none of these wineries
has any desire to significantly expand production beyond what they are
producing today. Although they all have reliable long-term sources of
high-quality fruit (to my knowledge, none actually owns any
vineyards), I don't know how difficult it would be for them to obtain
more (of the same quality) than they are getting now.

Given the characteristics of these three wineries (and almost
certainly several others whose operations I am not as familiar with),
none would be an attractive aquisition, at this time at least, for a
large corporation. But people get old and may not have family members
who are willing and/or able to carry on the business. In such cases,
the owner has no choice but to sell the busness. Hopefully he/she will
be selective about the buyer. My sense is that this is what Dick Erath
has done.

I don't agree as to the inevitability of a decline in quality when a
small winery is purchased by a larger company. Certainly this has
happened many times in the past. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Cole

You say it does not have to be that way but it usually does and will not end
here.

Monadavi fought the buy out by Constellation. But the reality is it is a
business and when they chose to become public years earlier they had already
lost this battle.

They wanted to produce quality wines...but appeasing a 90 day forecast at
Wallstreet became more important.

Consumer may not notice each change made at once.

Example I was with Colgate Palmolive in the beginning of my career and we
changed our formula about 13x in 10 years. We called in Gen 1, Gen 2 , Gen
3 etc. Consumers could never tell the Gen 2 when compared to Gen 1, or Gen
3 compared to 2, or Gen 4 comparared to 3. But when you compared 4 to
1...big difference noted by most. We did consumer testing...

Did that slow us down on changes...not if we could put more money in the
profit coffins.

That is how corporation companies think...its wallstreet baby not wine at
that point. In the USA we are just more short term on corp side.

Erath makes nice wine, but to me they were already mostly corporate for a
Portland producer.


"Cole" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:30:02 GMT, "Richard Neidich"
> > wrote:
>
>>David, with all due respect....I think it is far more simple than stated
>>here.
>>
>>Its "Corporate" wineries vs "boutique" wineries.
>>
>>Corporations will over time try to be more efficient. Quality eventually
>>is
>>compromised. That is the concern I have.
>>
>>The single vineyard might be corporate sponshorships like this: Eraths
>>"Nike" Pinot Noir. That said, Erath has been sold before and to me was
>>moe
>>corporate. Afterall my Costco in North Carolina has had pallets of their
>>bargain basement Pinot.
>>
>>If suddenly Ken Wright or Bersgstrom were sold to Constllation I would
>>have
>>your concerns... but Erath...not really.
>>
> This is an interesting point. Two factors govern the ability to make
> good wine: sources of good fruit and the talent of the winemaker.
> Having modern (or at least appropriate) equipment is also important
> but proper use of the equipment goes back to having a winemaker who
> knows how to use it.
>
> There are three wineries in the Seattle area whose operations I am
> somewhat familiar with and which I would consider "boutique" or
> "artisinal". Each has a talented winemaker and reliable sources of
> good fruit. Each has a strong family presence in its management. And
> each relies heavily on volunteer labor to do a lot of the "grunt work"
> that has to be done, particularly around harvest time. None does any
> marketing to speak of because their entire production is essentially
> sold out before it is even bottled.
>
> I can't say for certain but my sense is that none of these wineries
> has any desire to significantly expand production beyond what they are
> producing today. Although they all have reliable long-term sources of
> high-quality fruit (to my knowledge, none actually owns any
> vineyards), I don't know how difficult it would be for them to obtain
> more (of the same quality) than they are getting now.
>
> Given the characteristics of these three wineries (and almost
> certainly several others whose operations I am not as familiar with),
> none would be an attractive aquisition, at this time at least, for a
> large corporation. But people get old and may not have family members
> who are willing and/or able to carry on the business. In such cases,
> the owner has no choice but to sell the busness. Hopefully he/she will
> be selective about the buyer. My sense is that this is what Dick Erath
> has done.
>
> I don't agree as to the inevitability of a decline in quality when a
> small winery is purchased by a larger company. Certainly this has
> happened many times in the past. But it doesn't have to be that way.
>
> Cole

David, I cannot tell you in Wine specific but in virtually every business I
can think of today there is massive consolidation where corporate take over
the market share.

Example: Grocery Stores. Years ago...say 50 years ago the entire industry
was virtually independent ownership. You have two very nice stores Zupans
and Wizers in your area. Then you have Safeway, Fred Myer, and Albertsons.
Some Thiftways I believe. 50 years ago it was mostly all independent or
small chains--not public entities. Wal-mart entered the supermarket
business and Kroger, Albertsons, and Safeway went on a buying binge. Today
you find selection at these chains dwindles on brands in favor of increasing
their own labels. Reality is consumers don't really want more private
label. The might want to see more flavors of soda, more wine selection,
better artesian breads and cheeses...but...the chain wants more margin.
Wal-mart gets a bad rap by many but the truth is they keep the other guys
more honest. Zupans and Wizers are GREAT stores and I would love to have
something like that here in NC to shop at.

Banking...same story.....
Insurance...same story
Airlines...same story except the Valu providers Southwest are giving the big
guys a run for their money along with Jet Blue.
Drug Store...same story
Pharmaceuticals...same store

on and on.

I don't like the corporate scene today. Its about counting profits by the
hour....





"David Anderson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Dick,
>
> Good points. By itself, this may not seem like a big thing -- but if
> more wineries jump on board, especially with many local owners quoted
> as seeing this as a good thing -- there could be a fundamental change
> away from the boutique and towards the corporate.
>
> But now that you mention it, it would be pretty funny (or would it?) to
> see Nike stamp their label on an local vineyard. It reminds me of an
> Italian marathon where they once served wine and olives instead of
> sports drinks and power bars.
>
> Anyway... we're concerned that sales like this could cause an overall
> transition towards more of a Napa-style (highly corporate) industry,
> when it seems there are still so many options left to help the small
> wineries. I suppose, overall, that's my main point, that while wineries
> should keep their options open, that there are still many options out
> there which they haven't fully explored. So more could keep their
> artisan/boutique status and also see substantial growth, but without
> necessarily going the corporate route.
>
> Are you aware of any growing regions outside the Pac NW where something
> like this has happened (a relatively small industry begins shifting
> towards a corporate structure)? Would like some stats and info so we
> could examine it more.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> David
>
>
>> David, with all due respect....I think it is far more simple than stated
>> here.
>>
>> Its "Corporate" wineries vs "boutique" wineries.
>>
>> Corporations will over time try to be more efficient. Quality eventually
>> is
>> compromised. That is the concern I have.
>>
>> The single vineyard might be corporate sponshorships like this: Eraths
>> "Nike" Pinot Noir. That said, Erath has been sold before and to me was
>> moe
>> corporate. Afterall my Costco in North Carolina has had pallets of their
>> bargain basement Pinot.
>>
>> If suddenly Ken Wright or Bersgstrom were sold to Constllation I would
>> have
>> your concerns... but Erath...not really.
>

My point using supermarkets and Wal-mart is as follows. First it is
cyclical.

Independents and regional chains were abusing their suppliers with Slotting
fees and shelf placement fees and at the same time elevating their margins
at the expense of the consumer. Why? Because they could. The competed on
location, selection, etc....but they charged and overcharged.

Along comes Wal-mart who does not accept money from supplier in slotting or
shelf placement fees. Suddenly they open up 140000 to 220000 square feet
supercenters and the groceries are on average 25% less for same items in
Safeway, Albertsons, Kroger-Fred Myer.etc. Amazing because those chains
want to collect $100 per store per item to put items on shelf(approx
average). Wal-Mart does not. They say...just treat the consumer right.

Suddenly the independents and regional chains have to compete...Zupans and
Wizers have incredible selections of small regional suppliers. They can
actually cater better than any of the big guys. So they don't sell as much
toilet paper and dog food at cheap prices as Wal-mart...but you can get
organic free range chicken, tons of unique items that Wal-mart would never
supply. In essence they will create a niche.

Not all consumers will be happy with Wal-mart...but Wal-mart did not grow
because they were bad to their suppliers. I supply everyone in the industry
and Wal-mart is a good in fact excellent trading partner as is Safeway and
Kroger. Albertsons is a different picture presently.

The consumer will want local butchers again one day soon. They will want
local produce again, local bakeries, small supermarkets that really cater to
their needs. Charcuteries etc. Wal-mart will help the chains and smaller
store that are not really doing a service to consumers and help them out of
the business. And that will not be bad. Then smaller start ups will emerge
and niche themselves.

Ken Wright Cellars, Bergstrom etc...they are not commodity wines. The 2
buck chuck is however. Who cares of Gallo acquires them as long as I can
get my Leonetti, L'Ecole etc.

Again, Erath is an excellent winery and I hope that they would not beocme a
target. But if they did it would be because the current ownership approves
of the sale to another party at an agreed upon price and conditions. I
don't really want to stop them from doing what they feel is on their best
interest. If they did sell remember that Dick Erath made his mark in Oregon
Pinot in the early days and he has the right to profit on it if he wants to.
We have the choice of buying or not buying his wine. Remember this is
capitalism in a free economy.

Personally, I do not like corporate influence in the wine industry. I
cannot and you cannot stop it. We can only decide what we choose to drink.
That is where we make the difference.
"David Anderson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Dick,
>
> Well, the corporate consumer landscape looks a lot alike, but I'm
> hoping to find out from someone - anyone - if they've seen a case where
> a wine region in the U.S. underwent a significant shift towards
> corporate management, yet was able to retain a grasp on quality and the
> culture of its product.
>
> The average (American) consumer doesn't really care about differences
> in products, as much as they seem to care about price. And that, my
> friend, is the best gift anyone ever gave to Corporate America: an
> audience indifferent to what they're purchasing so long as it doesn't
> make dent their wallet. It invites a lot of abusers into the supply
> stream, including the wine biz. Buying more for "less" can work for
> some industries, but not ones where quality is of prime concern.
>
> On one hand, toilet paper can be as rough as sandpaper, but so long as
> it's cheap, people will apparently still buy it (along with some
> Tuck's!). But we're talking about wine, not $.08 rolls of toilet paper
> on the end of aisle 57 at Wal-Mart. This is a type of product which
> consumers tend to be a bit pickier about, and care a little more
> regarding quality than, say, Joe Six Pack who just cares about alcohol
> content in his "BEER" cans from Costco. Wineries produce an "artisan
> libation", not an "alcoholic beverage". Not that there has to be any
> snobbishness, either. It's simply the fact the making good wine is hard
> to do, making very good wine is extremely hard to do, and all of it
> takes an artist's touch. And, whenever you attempt to accomplish that
> under the gun of corporate expectation, you're bound to run into some
> trouble along the way.
>
> Personally, I dislike the thought that wine has to be haughty, a thing
> of sofistication about which you must read tomes in order to appreciate
> its complexities... I would much rather see it settle into U.S. culture
> as more of a day-to-day thing that just happens at table... much like
> the dinner tables of Europe where it is a common drink enjoyed by most
> without a thought of status. But that paradigm shift would simply
> involve better education for consumers, not any change on the part of
> the supplier. There shouldn't be any requirement that wineries must go
> corporate in order to appeal more to consumers, unless beyond mass
> marketing, the aim is to "Joe-Six-Pack-ify" their product to such a
> level that Joe Six Pack will concede to drink it.
>
> But guess what? All those artisan boutiques that we're talking about
> don't have to increase supply, or sacrifice quality. They don't have to
> go corporate. They simply need a better vehicle with which to move
> their product. I should like to think that, while some larger wineries
> like Erath are purchased, the smaller ones are able to keep a foothold
> on that small appeal. The thing that bugs me to bits is that if you
> actually talk with these small players, quite a few don't see it that
> way. They think the key to growing their business is to take the easy
> route and sell out to corporate management.
>
> And on that note, I'm sure a lot of small businesses in rural America
> thought likewise when they were looking for a way out, and Wal-Mart
> came along. Only Wal-Mart didn't pay any of them a dime -- it simply
> shut them down due to sheer market domination. And to THAT end, I
> reiterate the concern that whatever shift takes place in a winegrowing
> region, its members shouldn't forget they are, still, actually
> competing against one another, and when it comes to corporate buy-outs,
> sponsorships, partnerships, or any other way of saying it -- the
> players who get in with corporate America will likely see profits
> increase -- but also likely is that it will happen in a way to keep
> their local competitors small, or worse, shut them down as well.
>
> Meandering thoughts on a Friday evening. Sorry guys, I should start a
> blog so as to not clog your inboxes.
>
> David
>

On 8 Jun 2006 22:00:55 -0700, "David Anderson"
> wrote:

>Hi Cole,
>
>You just caught another factual error on our site.
>
>I'd posted a message similar to the first one here, on a Web-based
>message board (NOT Usenet) which elicited some extremely, shall we say,
>"colorful" responses from members. My comments were in no way a
>reference to your posts, which are valid and important to this
>discussion. All due apologies if you have gotten the wrong idea about
>this -- definitely not our intent!
>
>David

Just for the record, the posting I referred to was by you and was on a
web site that it appears you control. It specifically referred to a
"Usenet" site. I see now that the reference to Usenet has been quietly
deleted. So where is ithis other web-based message board where so much
controversy has been aired?

Cole

Cole,

> Just for the record, the posting I referred to was by you and was on a
> web site that it appears you control. It specifically referred to a
> "Usenet" site. I see now that the reference to Usenet has been quietly
> deleted. So where is ithis other web-based message board where so much
> controversy has been aired?

Why are you trying to make everything we do and say sound negative or
in some way sneaky? What is your motive here? What are you really
after?

Of course we have control over our Web site. What group of webmasters
doesn't? When you caught the SMWE error, we went back in and revised
our editorial to reflect your corrections, and thanked you for pointing
out the error to us. Even though we felt that detail was, as you put it
yourself, nitpicking, we wanted to make sure the facts in the editorial
were correct.

As for the list/board comment, that's a personal reminder for me to be
careful to re-check the facts when doing late-night publishing on the
site. I honestly don't recall putting in the term 'Usenet', because in
my post on that board I was not referring to this list. But you were
right, when you pointed it out to me, I looked it up on our board and
sure enough, saw the comment. I then realized I got mixed up with which
list/board I was talking about. I use Google Groups, and all messages
and posts for alt.food.wine are through a Web-based interface. At the
same time, I subscribe to dozens of other lists, and participate in
about half a dozen other online boards. So mistakes are bound to
happen.

My comments on our board were in reference to some of the negative
feedback we have received, having simply posted an editorial -- which
by nature is opinion-based and so of course will elicit some personal
bias in its writings -- to our Web site. Even on this list, I think
someone used the term "local boosterism" or the like. It's amazing to
see how dismissive some people can be when they don't take the time to
try and understand the topic -- or understand where we were coming from
when we wrote the piece -- or stop to consider that editorials
frequently talk about scenarios, what-if's and the like. But everyone
has their right to their own opinion. You certainly do, and my comments
on our board were certainly not intended to imply anything negative
about you. If I didn't appreciate your input, I wouldn't have spent a
bunch of time replying to your other posts here trying to strike up
more conversation with and relate to you.

Cole, you have now said some rather opinionated things on this list
about me personally, regarding our motives among other things. No,
we're not smug. No, we're not braggers. Nor is the topic we were
writing about a manufactured controversy. Regarding the quantities of
postings we receive on our board, the majority of traffic goes to the
resumes/open-jobs section. While we do have links to discuss each and
every article/editorial we post to the site on our board, the average
reader just wants to view the content, not participate in the
discussion. The links are provided as a courtesy to our readers, and
are in no way out there to force readers to take part. If they don't
want to participate, that's okay by us. I guess if we wanted more posts
to our board, we'd simply need to write more editorials and less
news/reviews, since we seem to be so capable of firing people up over
'manufactured controversy'.

In any case, take it for what you will. I hold no animosity towards
you, nor do I have any desire to argue or mince words over this or that
detail. If you don't like what we have to say on our Web site, we
respect your opinion, but in any case, it's our site, and no one's
forcing you to read it. As for my comments to this list, I would simply
ask that you get your own facts straight, and stop jumping to the wrong
conclusions about our motives or views, because it makes you sound as
though you're out to hinder our efforts or tarnish our image, which I'm
pretty sure isn't the case, but you never know.

In any case, I will not be responding to any further comments by you
about this matter on this list. If you want to continue it off-list,
that's fine by me.

Best Regards,

David

On 12 Jun 2006 01:08:18 -0700, "David Anderson"
> wrote:

>Cole,
>
>> Just for the record, the posting I referred to was by you and was on a
>> web site that it appears you control. It specifically referred to a
>> "Usenet" site. I see now that the reference to Usenet has been quietly
>> deleted. So where is ithis other web-based message board where so much
>> controversy has been aired?
>
>Why are you trying to make everything we do and say sound negative or
>in some way sneaky? What is your motive here? What are you really
>after?

For starters, a clear and umambiguous answer to the question I posed
in the last sentence of my recent posting quoted above. I'd like to
read some of the postings you keep referring to but whose location you
seem reluctant to provide. Could it be that they just don't exist?

Cole

> For starters, a clear and umambiguous answer to the question I posed
> in the last sentence of my recent posting quoted above. I'd like to
> read some of the postings you keep referring to but whose location you
> seem reluctant to provide. Could it be that they just don't exist?

Cole -- if that is you, since you're writing in from a different Yahoo
address that's also subscribed to this list (which to me looks
suspicious) -- as I said previously, if you want to discuss this
further, take it off-list. Otherwise, I'm done answering your 20
questions, since no matter what I've said, you still posture and doubt,
which gives me no reason to do anything to appease you.

But since you (again) asked about the list which you don't believe
exists, quite frankly, I have absolutely no desire to post the link and
help promote that abusive list, just as you have no any desire, as it
has become increasingly apparent, to say anything positive about my
efforts to contribute discussion to this list. All you seem to want to
do is be confrontational. Who's the one 'manufacturing controversy'
now? Get over it. Say what you want. I personally don't care.

David

I have watched this thread for a while and wanted to pipe in with my
thoughts. I am not 100% against the sale of Erath. I am more worried about
how this effects the rest of the Oregon wine scene. I think this could be a
needed and helpful wake up call the scene has needed. If the new owners do
get Erath wines into new markets and people do enjoy the wines it could help
other wineries increase their sales in those areas as the consumers look to
learn more about Oregon wines.

However if this starts the wave of mid to large size Oregon wines selling to
other owners I am against this move then.

Respectfully I don't have any way to stop it and I understand each business
will determine what is best for themselves. I just hope this is used as a
springboard to get Oregon wines out to new markets and help grow our wine
industry.

I look at the current Washington State wine scene and I am not a big fan of
it. I see three major players controlling a large portion of it and the rest
fighting for left over scraps. I think WA wine scene is even harder/harsher
then CA where you have a few large players (Gallo,etc) but most are self
owned and seem to work together to keep their tourist dollars and still
fight each other for retail space. I think CA wineries have a full
understanding of what is going on and what needs to be done. WA is just
trying to become the 500 lb gorilla. Oregon does not truly know how to act
or what do to and this sale of one of the founding wineries might be what is
takes to make them figure it out.

Here is hoping that Oregon Wineries learn quickly

Matt

to be fully open to all, I also write for Oregonwines.com, like David. I am
not saying my opinions are facts but these are my thoughts and feelings may
not be shared by many or all.


"David Anderson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hi everyone,
>
> One of the hot issues in our industry right now is the sale of Erath
> Vineyards, one of the first commercially-established wineries in
> Oregon, to Chateau Ste. Michelle in Washington. We examined the issues
> and posted a rather... unique article about it on our site:
>
> http://www.oregonwines.com/article.php?ArticleID=369
>
> It's interesting to note that we seem to be the only ones publishing
> comments that this might *not* be such a good idea. While for some in
> the larger states, it may not be that big a deal, for us here in
> Oregon, the implications are far-reaching and, unfortunately, might set
> off a trend of small-gem wineries selling out to large out-of-state
> corporations.
>
> Well, whatever you think, we'd love to hear your comments about this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:40:24 -0700, "Matt" > wrote:

>I have watched this thread for a while and wanted to pipe in with my
>thoughts. I am not 100% against the sale of Erath. I am more worried about
>how this effects the rest of the Oregon wine scene. I think this could be a
>needed and helpful wake up call the scene has needed. If the new owners do
>get Erath wines into new markets and people do enjoy the wines it could help
>other wineries increase their sales in those areas as the consumers look to
>learn more about Oregon wines.
>
>However if this starts the wave of mid to large size Oregon wines selling to
>other owners I am against this move then.
>
>Respectfully I don't have any way to stop it and I understand each business
>will determine what is best for themselves. I just hope this is used as a
>springboard to get Oregon wines out to new markets and help grow our wine
>industry.
>
>I look at the current Washington State wine scene and I am not a big fan of
>it. I see three major players controlling a large portion of it and the rest
>fighting for left over scraps. I think WA wine scene is even harder/harsher
>then CA where you have a few large players (Gallo,etc) but most are self
>owned and seem to work together to keep their tourist dollars and still
>fight each other for retail space. I think CA wineries have a full
>understanding of what is going on and what needs to be done. WA is just
>trying to become the 500 lb gorilla. Oregon does not truly know how to act
>or what do to and this sale of one of the founding wineries might be what is
>takes to make them figure it out.
>
>Here is hoping that Oregon Wineries learn quickly
>
>Matt
>
>to be fully open to all, I also write for Oregonwines.com, like David. I am
>not saying my opinions are facts but these are my thoughts and feelings may
>not be shared by many or all.
>
This seems like a good opportunity to cool the rhetoric here and
engage in a rational discussion of what is, after all, a topic of some
importance, particularly to those of us who live in Washington and
Oregon and who care about the wine industries in those two states. I
apologize for any part I played in the earlier degradation of the
level of discourse here.

Matt, you seem to be more open to the idea that SMWE's acquisition of
Erath might not be such a bad thing. As they used to (and still do)
say where I grew up, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do take
pride in the wine industry of my adopted state.

In your opening paragraph, you express some hopes as to what might
happen as a result of the Erath acquisition. Based on my observations
of the influence of SMWE on the Washington wine industry, I truly
believe your hopes will be realized. I think everyone would agree
that, without SMWE and the support provided by UST, the industry would
be very different from what it is today. I suspect it would more
closely resemble Oregon's, but no one can really say for sure. Almost
certainly, it would be smaller than it is today. The result, whatever
it might have been, might have been more to certain individuals'
liking but at this point the whole issue is irrelevant.

I don't really agree with your assessment of the Washington wine
industry. When you refer to 'three major players", I can't figure out
who you are talking about. SMWE is clearly the largest wine producer
in Washington, with its flagship label Chateau Ste. Michelle and other
labels, most notably Columbia Crest. The only other large companies
that I am aware of that have any presence in Washington are Diageo and
Constellation although there may be others. Both companies gained that
presence by acquisitions (Chalone, Vincor, etc.) and it is not obvious
to me that either has any strong commitment to the Washington wine
industry.

If you go into a typical Seattle supermarket with a decent wine
collection, it is probably true that you will see more SMWE labels
than any other single winery, although if you totaled all of the
Constellation labels, the result might be different. In any case I
believe this would be more a result of broader product lines rather
than any any form of market control. But you would also find that
SMWE's products would represent a small minority of the the total
wines on display. Size does not inevitably lead to market control.

In an earlier posting I suggested that David talk to some owners and
winemakers of various size wineries in Washington. I used the term
"major players" which was (understandably) misinterpreted in a way as
to exclude the many small (mom and pop) wineries. I'll make the same
suggestion to you. I think you will find an overwhelming consensus
that SMWE has had a beneficial effect on the industry here. Hopefully,
that scenario will be replicated, at least to some extent in Oregon.

Cole

When I mentioned three players, I keep being told and reading there are
three major corps that control/own a large share of the wineries and wines
produced in the state of Washington. I am not saying all three a bad or all
three are good. My thoughts are if you have such a small group controlling
such a large portion of a market it usually does work out well for the
consumers or quality. Now, I will admit my one personal tasting tour of
Washington was around Leaveningworth during a winter vacation there. All the
wineries I visited where single ownership situations, like what we have in
Oregon. I like most of the wine tasted and brought back about two cases from
I think seven different wineries. I did talk to the owners and at that time
I think there were a fewer corp influences in the state but most agreed a
few big boys is good for the industry but not if they start buying up the
little guys to get control.

Matt


"Cole" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:40:24 -0700, "Matt" > wrote:
>
>>I have watched this thread for a while and wanted to pipe in with my
>>thoughts. I am not 100% against the sale of Erath. I am more worried about
>>how this effects the rest of the Oregon wine scene. I think this could be
>>a
>>needed and helpful wake up call the scene has needed. If the new owners do
>>get Erath wines into new markets and people do enjoy the wines it could
>>help
>>other wineries increase their sales in those areas as the consumers look
>>to
>>learn more about Oregon wines.
>>
>>However if this starts the wave of mid to large size Oregon wines selling
>>to
>>other owners I am against this move then.
>>
>>Respectfully I don't have any way to stop it and I understand each
>>business
>>will determine what is best for themselves. I just hope this is used as a
>>springboard to get Oregon wines out to new markets and help grow our wine
>>industry.
>>
>>I look at the current Washington State wine scene and I am not a big fan
>>of
>>it. I see three major players controlling a large portion of it and the
>>rest
>>fighting for left over scraps. I think WA wine scene is even
>>harder/harsher
>>then CA where you have a few large players (Gallo,etc) but most are self
>>owned and seem to work together to keep their tourist dollars and still
>>fight each other for retail space. I think CA wineries have a full
>>understanding of what is going on and what needs to be done. WA is just
>>trying to become the 500 lb gorilla. Oregon does not truly know how to act
>>or what do to and this sale of one of the founding wineries might be what
>>is
>>takes to make them figure it out.
>>
>>Here is hoping that Oregon Wineries learn quickly
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>to be fully open to all, I also write for Oregonwines.com, like David. I
>>am
>>not saying my opinions are facts but these are my thoughts and feelings
>>may
>>not be shared by many or all.
>>
> This seems like a good opportunity to cool the rhetoric here and
> engage in a rational discussion of what is, after all, a topic of some
> importance, particularly to those of us who live in Washington and
> Oregon and who care about the wine industries in those two states. I
> apologize for any part I played in the earlier degradation of the
> level of discourse here.
>
> Matt, you seem to be more open to the idea that SMWE's acquisition of
> Erath might not be such a bad thing. As they used to (and still do)
> say where I grew up, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do take
> pride in the wine industry of my adopted state.
>
> In your opening paragraph, you express some hopes as to what might
> happen as a result of the Erath acquisition. Based on my observations
> of the influence of SMWE on the Washington wine industry, I truly
> believe your hopes will be realized. I think everyone would agree
> that, without SMWE and the support provided by UST, the industry would
> be very different from what it is today. I suspect it would more
> closely resemble Oregon's, but no one can really say for sure. Almost
> certainly, it would be smaller than it is today. The result, whatever
> it might have been, might have been more to certain individuals'
> liking but at this point the whole issue is irrelevant.
>
> I don't really agree with your assessment of the Washington wine
> industry. When you refer to 'three major players", I can't figure out
> who you are talking about. SMWE is clearly the largest wine producer
> in Washington, with its flagship label Chateau Ste. Michelle and other
> labels, most notably Columbia Crest. The only other large companies
> that I am aware of that have any presence in Washington are Diageo and
> Constellation although there may be others. Both companies gained that
> presence by acquisitions (Chalone, Vincor, etc.) and it is not obvious
> to me that either has any strong commitment to the Washington wine
> industry.
>
> If you go into a typical Seattle supermarket with a decent wine
> collection, it is probably true that you will see more SMWE labels
> than any other single winery, although if you totaled all of the
> Constellation labels, the result might be different. In any case I
> believe this would be more a result of broader product lines rather
> than any any form of market control. But you would also find that
> SMWE's products would represent a small minority of the the total
> wines on display. Size does not inevitably lead to market control.
>
> In an earlier posting I suggested that David talk to some owners and
> winemakers of various size wineries in Washington. I used the term
> "major players" which was (understandably) misinterpreted in a way as
> to exclude the many small (mom and pop) wineries. I'll make the same
> suggestion to you. I think you will find an overwhelming consensus
> that SMWE has had a beneficial effect on the industry here. Hopefully,
> that scenario will be replicated, at least to some extent in Oregon.
>
> Cole

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:10:41 -0700, "Matt" > wrote:

>When I mentioned three players, I keep being told and reading there are
>three major corps that control/own a large share of the wineries and wines
>produced in the state of Washington. I am not saying all three a bad or all
>three are good. My thoughts are if you have such a small group controlling
>such a large portion of a market it usually does work out well for the
>consumers or quality. Now, I will admit my one personal tasting tour of
>Washington was around Leaveningworth during a winter vacation there. All the
>wineries I visited where single ownership situations, like what we have in
>Oregon. I like most of the wine tasted and brought back about two cases from
>I think seven different wineries. I did talk to the owners and at that time
>I think there were a fewer corp influences in the state but most agreed a
>few big boys is good for the industry but not if they start buying up the
>little guys to get control.
>
>Matt
>
I still don't know what the three major corps are that your refer to.
(Please don't treat this as a hostile statement. I'm simply trying to
establish some common ground upon which any rational discussion must
be founded.) I've provided my take in an earlier posting and there is
really nothing, at least at this point, that I can add to it. With all
due respect to the wineries that you might have visited around
Leavenworth (I've probably visited most or all of them), they are not
representative of the Washington wine industry as a whole. (Among
other things, they are close to Wenatchee, which is close to Lake
Chelan, where several vineyards are trying to grow pinot noir. This is
not a variety that grows well in the Columbia Valley, but I wish them
well. But to date I have not tasted a Washington pinot noir that
compares well with an average Oregon PN.) I'm not sure what else to
say that I have not already said but I would like to continue this
dialogue.

Cole

For what it is worth friend of mine will be working as a cellar rat during
this years harvest. When he heard the news about the sale he spoke to the
assistant winemaker and he was told that they do not expect any changes.



"Cole" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:10:41 -0700, "Matt" > wrote:
>
>>When I mentioned three players, I keep being told and reading there are
>>three major corps that control/own a large share of the wineries and wines
>>produced in the state of Washington. I am not saying all three a bad or
>>all
>>three are good. My thoughts are if you have such a small group
>>controlling
>>such a large portion of a market it usually does work out well for the
>>consumers or quality. Now, I will admit my one personal tasting tour of
>>Washington was around Leaveningworth during a winter vacation there. All
>>the
>>wineries I visited where single ownership situations, like what we have in
>>Oregon. I like most of the wine tasted and brought back about two cases
>>from
>>I think seven different wineries. I did talk to the owners and at that
>>time
>>I think there were a fewer corp influences in the state but most agreed a
>>few big boys is good for the industry but not if they start buying up the
>>little guys to get control.
>>
>>Matt
>>
> I still don't know what the three major corps are that your refer to.
> (Please don't treat this as a hostile statement. I'm simply trying to
> establish some common ground upon which any rational discussion must
> be founded.) I've provided my take in an earlier posting and there is
> really nothing, at least at this point, that I can add to it. With all
> due respect to the wineries that you might have visited around
> Leavenworth (I've probably visited most or all of them), they are not
> representative of the Washington wine industry as a whole. (Among
> other things, they are close to Wenatchee, which is close to Lake
> Chelan, where several vineyards are trying to grow pinot noir. This is
> not a variety that grows well in the Columbia Valley, but I wish them
> well. But to date I have not tasted a Washington pinot noir that
> compares well with an average Oregon PN.) I'm not sure what else to
> say that I have not already said but I would like to continue this
> dialogue.
>
> Cole

Salut/Hi David Anderson,
Ny only comment is to do with your use of English.

le/on 6 Jun 2006 21:17:00 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

>and posted a rather... unique article about it on our site:

Unique means - something thaty is literally one of a kind. That means that
it can't be qualified by comparatives. Either it is unique, in which case no
such article has ever existed before, or it isn't. "Rather unique" like very
unique is simply bad English.

As to whether the sale of an Oregon winery to Ste Michelle is "hot news for
the wine industry"....... I guess that depends upon what your perspectives
are. Mine are, forgive me, a touch wider.

> for us here in Oregon, the implications are far-reaching and, unfortunately, might set
>off a trend of small-gem wineries selling out to large out-of-state
>corporations.

Anywone would think Ste Michelle was the Devil incarnate and based in Outer
Mongolia. Crumbs, it's under 200 miles from Seattle to Newberg. What's more
they make some fine wines. I remember that when I emailed Erath to try to
lay on a visit, they didn't reply. Ste Michelle laid on a splendid visit,
and even contacted their Walla Walla subsidiary to arrange a visit there
too.

Sorry

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

"Ny only comment"... and you want to nitpick on "my" use of English?

Si vous n'aimez pas mon anglais, je suis désolé, mais je crois que
vous n'avez pas grande chose à faire là!

If your inbox is "full to avoid spam", I might advise you to find a new
host.

David


Ian Hoare wrote:
> Salut/Hi David Anderson,
> Ny only comment is to do with your use of English.
>
> le/on 6 Jun 2006 21:17:00 -0700, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >and posted a rather... unique article about it on our site:
>
> Unique means - something thaty is literally one of a kind. That means that
> it can't be qualified by comparatives. Either it is unique, in which case no
> such article has ever existed before, or it isn't. "Rather unique" like very
> unique is simply bad English.
>
> As to whether the sale of an Oregon winery to Ste Michelle is "hot news for
> the wine industry"....... I guess that depends upon what your perspectives
> are. Mine are, forgive me, a touch wider.
>
> > for us here in Oregon, the implications are far-reaching and, unfortunately, might set
> >off a trend of small-gem wineries selling out to large out-of-state
> >corporations.
>
> Anywone would think Ste Michelle was the Devil incarnate and based in Outer
> Mongolia. Crumbs, it's under 200 miles from Seattle to Newberg. What's more
> they make some fine wines. I remember that when I emailed Erath to try to
> lay on a visit, they didn't reply. Ste Michelle laid on a splendid visit,
> and even contacted their Walla Walla subsidiary to arrange a visit there
> too.
>
> Sorry
>
> --
> All the Best
> Ian Hoare
> http://www.souvigne.com
> mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Another person who doesn't care to delve into the issue.

David


Mike Tommasi wrote:
> Seems to me this thread is only intended to get people talking about
> this winery. A marketing thread?
>
> Mike

On 17 Jun 2006 01:08:10 -0700
"David Anderson" > wrote:

> Another person who doesn't care to delve into the issue.
>
> David
>
>
> Mike Tommasi wrote:
> > Seems to me this thread is only intended to get people talking about
> > this winery. A marketing thread?
> >
> > Mike
>

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please.

David is passionate about Oregon wines. That's great. He's got a site
to promote them. Great too. He cares about small producers being
swallowed up. Who among us doesn't share that concern?

Sometimes he seems a little market-speak. OK, that's the nature
of the world, sadly or no. I may not like it that much, but I'm not
going to get into a ****ing match about it. We all defend and
promote our little corners of the viticultural world. Mike, we
don't accuse you of being a marketing tool for the syndicate at
Bandol, do we?

So, let's lighten up. I find David's presence very welcome, and I'd
hate to chase him away just because we're in a bit of a ****y phase.

And David, Ian made a (I thought) valid point, to which you didn't
reply. It's obvious to all that Ian is a Brit, trying to address him
in French and telling him (whether intended or no) he has no
business here is just ridiculous, not to mention impolite.

Referee session over. Back to the cup. (Except I gotta mow the lawn, damn).

And apologies for getting preachy and sticking my oar in.

-E

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies

Salut/Hi Mike Tommasi,

le/on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:06:34 +0200, tu disais/you said:-

>
>Et Ian, apprends un peu d'anglais, d'acc? ;-)))

Oui chef!, mais quand on parle des perles et le culs noirs, c'est un peu
riche de ne pas reconnaitre la différence entre une faute de frappe et une
erreur de grammaire fondamentale.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Salut/Hi David Anderson,

le/on 16 Jun 2006 20:42:20 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

>"Ny only comment"... and you want to nitpick on "my" use of English?

Yes, because although I can't type, I can speak English.

>> Anywone would

Did you miss this one?

>> think Ste Michelle was the Devil incarnate and based in Outer
>> Mongolia. Crumbs, it's under 200 miles from Seattle to Newberg. What's more
>> they make some fine wines. I remember that when I emailed Erath to try to
>> lay on a visit, they didn't reply. Ste Michelle laid on a splendid visit,
>> and even contacted their Walla Walla subsidiary to arrange a visit there
>> too.

No comment here?

Did I see you post that link that people are asking about?

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Hi Emery,

Thanks for your comments.

> So, let's lighten up. I find David's presence very welcome, and I'd
> hate to chase him away just because we're in a bit of a ****y phase.

I remember something Dick Neidich mentioned three years ago about a
post... recalling from memory (stuck with me all this time), "I don't
know what you were drinking last night, but it looking at your posts,
it must have been **** and vinegar"!


> And David, Ian made a (I thought) valid point, to which you didn't
> reply. It's obvious to all that Ian is a Brit, trying to address him
> in French and telling him (whether intended or no) he has no
> business here is just ridiculous, not to mention impolite.

No one said he has no business here. I simply thought it sounded as
though he was bored, since his first comments were about my use of
grammar.

I inferred Ian understands French because the footer of every single of
his posts has a link to a French-hosted Web site about a B&B in
France... oops... now I'm marketing for him again... in any case, I
wouldn't have posted it if I thought otherwise.

Since when is posting in French here impolite? It's not the first time
I've seen it done here. Last I checked, this is alt.food.wine, not
alt.food.wine.englishonly. Sorry if that sounds ****y too, but I've
just about had it with the nitpicking here.


> Referee session over. Back to the cup. (Except I gotta mow the lawn, damn).

I feel your pain. Spent hours weeding today, would much rather have
spent it sipping a Pinot while watching (your?) grass grow.


> And apologies for getting preachy and sticking my oar in.

Not at all, point taken. Hope my own oar didn't stick you too sharply.
I think I understand where you're coming from on this, just hope you
can too (about me).

David

On 17 Jun 2006 22:27:35 -0700
"David Anderson" > wrote:

[]
> No one said he has no business here. I simply thought it sounded as
> though he was bored, since his first comments were about my use of
> grammar.
>
[]

I'll be brief. That's pretty much what you said: "vous n'avez pas grande chose
Ã* faire lÃ*!" Whether you're french is idiomatically good enough to know that
a) vouvoying (to use the proper franglais) someone is already potentially grating
in this context and b) that's certainly a valid translation of the quote, I
don't know. But there it is, and not meaning to nitpick. If you've lived in
France for a dog's age or two, then you might be expected to know this,
otherwise it is always the danger in using a different language to those
who speak it daily.

There's nothing rude about including a phrase in the language of your
choice that I know of, although I believe this is typically considered an
english language forum, and of course Ian is first and foremost anglophone.

I'll leave it at that, having said my piece, and not having much time for
even on topic posting these days.

cheers, and keep up the good fight!

-E


--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies

Hi Emery,

> cheers, and keep up the good fight!

Thanks... let's all have a glass of something, and watch the grass
grow. Hard to upset people doing that -- unless someone is still after
you to get it mowed.

David

"David Anderson" wrote in message ............
>
> Hard to upset people doing that --
>

David, I have steered clear of the discussion is respect of Oregan wines
because, residing as I do in New Zealand; well frankly, they do not appear
on my radar, although, even here, there is the battle between "the
corporate" and the artisan.

However, I have noted the "words" which have been exchanged in relation to
language (English/French/other etc) and the degree of commercial content
allowed in posts on AFW.

May I respectfully draw your attention to the FAQ of AFW as has existed for
several years.

It is archived here.

http://tinyurl.com/g69dl

AFW is an an unmoderated, noncommercial Usenet newsgroup devoted to the
discussion of wine and wine-related topics.

There is a clear understanding on behalf of all contributors that this is an
English language newsgroup.

Furthermore, whilst commercial posts are discouraged (in fact the FAQ
categorically states that "advertising is not permitted") - there is
provision for a 4-line signature with business information to be placed with
the signature at the bottom of a post.

There is a clear distinction between advertising within the content of a
post and promoting a web site as part of your signature.

(Next portion written with tongue firmly in cheek - and foot in mouth!!!!!)

In respect to Ian's correcting your grammar, I come firmly on the side of M.
Hoare.

You American's have been *******ising "our" language for centuries.

You are lazy (through becomes thru); you plainly cannot spell (aluminium
becomes aluminum) and you change the meaning of words simply because you
deem it
unAmerican to use the Queens English (we write cheques; check is something
altogether different !!!

So the least you can do is have the good grace to accept a free lesson in
correct English usage when offered - even when the tutor is
typographically challenged.

(Please note the emoticon - ;-))))

When America has colonised the entire planet, you will have earned the right
to correct those of us who speak pure English.

NOTE: The abovementioned does not apply to any Australian - who we all know
speak Strine, and continue to display their convict background by stealing
other nations heritage and property and proffering it as their own (Pavlova;
Phar Lap; Split Enz - the list goes on!!!!!)

--

st.helier

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:30:38 +1200, "st.helier"
> wrote:

>
>You American's have been *******ising "our" language for centuries.

Apostrophe where one shouldn't be?
>
>unAmerican to use the Queens English

No apostrophe where one should be?

Or is this NZ English? ;-)))

Cole

"Cole" wrote in message

>>You American's have been *******ising "our" language for centuries.
>
> Apostrophe where one shouldn't be?
>>
>>un-American to use the Queens English
>
> No apostrophe where one should be?
>
> Or is this NZ English? ;-)))


Oops ! Bugger!

Is it too late to claim that English is a second language to this
Polynesian?

:-)

st.helier

"David Anderson" wrote .....
>
> "Most" does not equal "all". Nor does it substantiate a
> requirement that the discussion be held solely in English.
>

You are right - most does not equal all; however those who insist in posting
other than in English (UK, US, other!) will be reminded that courtesy
dictates certain practices.

If you transgress, then expect to be reminded.

The decision, therefore the consequence, is in your hands.

>
>> There is a clear distinction between advertising within the content of a
>> post and promoting a web site as part of your signature.
>
> Agreed, but it's safe to say that some people here don't see, nor care
> to acknowledge, that distinction. Again, thanks for helping clarify
> this for everyone.
>


I am not addressing "everyone" - and I have not read the every post in a
thread which holds little interest.

However, Mr. Anderson, *you* are the one with an interest in the Oregon
industry.

You agree, there is a clear distinction - perhaps the test would be "Is this
a subject of interest to the group (or part thereof) or is this a subject in
which I have a vested interest?"

I rest my case !

>
> We don't write cheques or checks anymore,

Don't spin the bulls**t - of course you write cheques.

SOME (not) most transactions these days are done online.


> What are they using in New Zealand these days?
> Still bartering with apples and kiwis? ))))


As long as you limit your travel experience to the northern hemisphere, you
will never know!


>
>> When America has colonised the entire planet, you will have earned the
>> right
>> to correct those of us who speak pure English.
>
> We're getting there. We first have to finish taking over the
> Middle East, but I assure you, New Zealand is right around
> the corner. We need your fruit. Enjoy your kiwis whilst they last.
>


You left yourself open to this - I cannot resist !!!!!

You will never take over the Middle East: NEVER! Not in 10,000 years,
and hundreds of thousands of body-bags.

Like other, so called, wars of liberation, you will cower out of the Middle
East with your tails between your legs - full of bulls**t and bravado.

So I, and the next 400 generations of NZers have absolutely nothing to fear.

Now, I am going to finish my glass of Mt.Difficulty Pinot Noir, from
Central Otago - on a par with anything coming out of Oregon, so I am told,
and slope off to bed.

Take over the Middle East, indeed!!! Ho ho ho ho ho.

--
st.helier

(( I am not after grammar correctly or punctuation discussions here, just
wine))

I spent the weekend out and about in the Oregon wine scene and did talk in
more depth about the Erath Sale. I was shocked to learn from a few wineries,
that Ste. Michelle Wine Estates is not the first corporate entry into the
Oregon wine scene. I really don't care to exposed the other 5 wineries not
locally owned for they are doing a very impressive and decided job of trying
to hide that fact. The only difference is the other owners are not the size
of Ste. Michelle Wine Estates and don't have the market muscle and history
Ste. Michelle Wine Estates does either. But if Ste. Michelle Wine Estates is
anything like the other 5 corporate owners ( which all but one has its home
not in Oregon) then Erath should be fine and the new owner should do nothing
but help increase production. Erath was looking to increase it's winery
since it has max'd out its current home and this sale should let them do
that.

But I still stand by my first comment and concern, only time will truly tell
if this sell was a good thing or a bad thing for the Oregon wine industry as
a whole.

Matt

"sibeer" > wrote in message
...
> For what it is worth friend of mine will be working as a cellar rat during
> this years harvest. When he heard the news about the sale he spoke to the
> assistant winemaker and he was told that they do not expect any changes.
>
>
>
> "Cole" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:10:41 -0700, "Matt" > wrote:
>>
>>>When I mentioned three players, I keep being told and reading there are
>>>three major corps that control/own a large share of the wineries and
>>>wines
>>>produced in the state of Washington. I am not saying all three a bad or
>>>all
>>>three are good. My thoughts are if you have such a small group
>>>controlling
>>>such a large portion of a market it usually does work out well for the
>>>consumers or quality. Now, I will admit my one personal tasting tour of
>>>Washington was around Leaveningworth during a winter vacation there. All
>>>the
>>>wineries I visited where single ownership situations, like what we have
>>>in
>>>Oregon. I like most of the wine tasted and brought back about two cases
>>>from
>>>I think seven different wineries. I did talk to the owners and at that
>>>time
>>>I think there were a fewer corp influences in the state but most agreed a
>>>few big boys is good for the industry but not if they start buying up the
>>>little guys to get control.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>>
>> I still don't know what the three major corps are that your refer to.
>> (Please don't treat this as a hostile statement. I'm simply trying to
>> establish some common ground upon which any rational discussion must
>> be founded.) I've provided my take in an earlier posting and there is
>> really nothing, at least at this point, that I can add to it. With all
>> due respect to the wineries that you might have visited around
>> Leavenworth (I've probably visited most or all of them), they are not
>> representative of the Washington wine industry as a whole. (Among
>> other things, they are close to Wenatchee, which is close to Lake
>> Chelan, where several vineyards are trying to grow pinot noir. This is
>> not a variety that grows well in the Columbia Valley, but I wish them
>> well. But to date I have not tasted a Washington pinot noir that
>> compares well with an average Oregon PN.) I'm not sure what else to
>> say that I have not already said but I would like to continue this
>> dialogue.
>>
>> Cole
>
>

> You are right - most does not equal all; however those who insist in posting
> other than in English (UK, US, other!) will be reminded that courtesy
> dictates certain practices.
>
> If you transgress, then expect to be reminded.

Uh... I don't think it would be a "transgression". "Most" implies that
occasional non-English is (or should be) easily tolerated.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Yo, wine-ho's, you dissin my ebonic ass---yo bitch does ripple mfucxxx, your
palate is like concrete bro and you stank big time----- Sir Nigel
Prescott-Prescott III (da trey) as told to
"Jose" > wrote in message
.net...
> > You are right - most does not equal all; however those who insist in
posting
> > other than in English (UK, US, other!) will be reminded that courtesy
> > dictates certain practices.
> >
> > If you transgress, then expect to be reminded.
>
> Uh... I don't think it would be a "transgression". "Most" implies that
> occasional non-English is (or should be) easily tolerated.
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Err David,


le/on 17 Jun 2006 22:15:22 -0700, tu disais/you said:-
>really wanted to talk about the OR<>WA wine industry, I figured you
>would have addressed that first.


Why? Normally one gets the trivia out of the way first.

>It's too bad Erath didn't contact you. However... seeing how your
>"mailbox full to avoid spam"
That's my sig on this Newsgroup, not what I put on my email.

(which BTW is not proper English -- it should be "My mailbox is full to
avoid spam"),

I say what I say to give a clue to my real email address. Sorry if that was
too subtle for you.

> are you sure they didn't try?

Well, when I emailed them well in advance of leaving for my trip, and failed
to get an answer, I did a follow up. After two attempts, I had too many
other visits to arrange with wineries ike Chehalem, Patricia Green, Domaine
Drouhin, Cristom, Bergström and so on, to bother chasing more than twice.
Most of the small wineries throughout the west coast (loosely) were very
competent and positive. As was Ste Michelle.


>> Did I see you post that link that people are asking about?
>
>Did you bother reading any of my previous posts? Guess not.

Yup, that's why I asked. I was interested to see what constituted a flurry
of interest.


>off-topic, such as the link to your Web site present in your email
>footer, I suppose that's a different matter, but it really doesn't
>bother me in any case.

No, it's the only way in which it is considered permissable to give a
business web site.


--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website