In spite of the financial crisis or maybe because of the financial crisis, a recent study of the 2008 edition of The U.S. Wine Market: Impact Databank Review and Forecast show that Americans are drinking more and better wines. The study seems to confirm that US wine drinkers keep away from low-end brands and favor smaller brands. The Wine Spectator reported in depth on the subject:

“Smaller brands will continue to drive the U.S. market. The 50 largest brands nationwide, all selling at least 1 million cases, are projected to post a collective 0.2 percent decline in 2008, according to the report. Wine brands beyond the top 50 will account for less than half the industry’s volume but are once again expected to significantly outperform their much bigger counterparts. Currently, well over 7,000 wine brands are sold in the United States, but less than 300 labels sell more than 100,000 cases annually.

Fifty brands sold between 500,000 and 1 million cases each last year, combining for a solid 4.3 percent increase, including such brands as Fish Eye, Menage à Trois and Santa Margherita. Another 61 brands sold between 250,000 and 500,000 cases each, led by the likes of Kim Crawford, Red Diamond and Edna Valley, and posted a combined 7.2 percent gain. But the hottest segment, comprising the 118 brands that sold between 100,000 and 250,000 cases, surged 8.2 percent last year, thanks to such brands as Acacia, Bohemian Highway and Oyster Bay.

The bigger brands still make up a large share of the market. Last year, 28 brands sold more than 2 million cases each, and another 26 labels sold between 1 and 2 million cases.”

This report confirms there is room for small and creative brands – as we suggested yesterday.

I just finished reading The Wine Trials 2010 by Robin Goldstein and Alexis Herschkowitsch. I must confess I’m very perplexed by this book. The authors blame the “lifestyle marketing” for overpriced wines. They also condemn the fact that a group like LVMH invest more money on marketing than to produce the goods, without mentioning that this marketing strategy covers all products manufactured by LVMH and not only their wine and spirits business. Because they reject marketing (they call it the “enemy” of the wine drinker) and the “taste of money”, they promote wines widely available in supermarkets and under $15. But, among the 150 selected wines, there are Two Buck Chuck, Norton, Almaden, Barefoot wines, to mention just a few. Do the authors sincerely think those wines are so widely available without heavy marketing and a lot of money? This selection by two main criteria – under $15 and widely available in supermarkets – is counterproductive for the wine industry. Wine drinkers and consumers need wines under $15 but original and well crafted. There are so many of them all over the world. It’s true it requires a little effort on the part of the consumers but it is well worth it. The Web 2.0 provides tools to look for, find and now locate affordable and not so easy-to-find wines.

All the selection of wines is based on blind tasting. I won’t make any comment on this choice: I’m not an enologist or a wine critic and have no opinion on the subject worth of mention. When they say blind tasting gets the truth out of a wine, I’m a little skeptical: why is it right to prefer a $15 cava over a $150 Dom Perignon and wrong to like a Dom Perignon? It’s just a matter of taste and education. I’m the last one to condemn somebody who likes a $3 Two Buck Chuck. As I already wrote, a wine is like a book: some people like reading detective stories or chick lit and others poetry or essays. There’s nothing wrong with it. But don’t tell me it is “un-American” to drink expensive wines because of their marketing strategy!

The Wine Trials 2010 is also very critic of wine critics and established magazines, such as The Wine Spectator. Critics of critics have been going on for many years. One of the answers provided by the Web 2.0 is the peer-to-peer recommendation system. Consumers have now a huge array of information through social media, forums, blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter. They can access this information instantly on their phone or through Internet.

Did I dislike this book? Not really. While reading it, I went from smiling to raising a perplexed eyebrow or being mildly offended. This said, I respect the effort behind the work: it is certainly very hard to carry such a tasting, even if I have a lot of reservations about the result. I also respect the thinking behind the work. Goldstein’s introductory chapters are worth reading thoroughly. As he says all along his book, the reader has to make up his/her own mind on the ideas and principles behind the book as well as on wine. Maybe the authors and I have to agree we disagree!

Next week I’ll be on my way to the European Wine Bloggers Conference in Lisbon, Portugal. I’m one of the lucky one who’ll get to speak twice – once on Social Wine Brand and the second time on the Future of the Social Wine Brand.

But what is exactly the social wine brand? More and more winery owners are getting aware of the importance of social media to reach their consumers. They start writing blogs, create a page on Facebook and an account on Twitter. Those are great initiatives but they’re far from being as efficient as they could be. Indeed being part of a social media network means a lot more. It means interfacing with other wine professionals – even peers – and, of course, consumers. One of the weaknesses of the European wine network is the lack of communication and cooperation between winery owners and wine makers. Europe is more individualistic and competitive than its New World friends – i.e. Americans, Australians or South Americans. It impairs the launching of efficient networks. Indeed, networks require trust and sharing information and tips. Europeans are usually more retentive and don’t give away information or tip to an unknown party.

Is there a solution for this situation? Yes, we see in Europe innovative initiatives coming from wine makers who understood how working together (and not against each other) is important. The French “Mes Vignes” network is one of the best examples. Several winemakers from various French producing regions got together to offer wine lovers the opportunity to rent some vines for a year and create their own wine. In Cahors, the wine makers “banded” together to promote their wines in the US through blogs and buzz marketing. I’m sure other countries have many success stories they’ll share during this panel on social wine brands.

Blogging is certainly one of the best social media a winery can develop. But it is not enough to write posts on the state of the vine or how the wine is doing in the vat or in the barrel. The blog needs to bring value to the winery or the shop owner by creating a special relationship with the final consumer. The blogger needs to create links with other bloggers by sharing information, giving away ideas or starting interesting discussions. Topics can vary. I recently read a discussion on Facebook initiated by David Corey on : “would you rather buy high priced wine discounted or small production wines with consistenly fair pricing? let’s say $29 and under?” The question is a very good example of the kind of topics consumers are passionnate about: over 30 people answered and commented upon each other’s comments.

Don’t hesitate either to join professional networks such as OpenWineConsortium or LinkedIn with its Wine 2.0 or Wine Business section. Be proactive, create relationship and emotion around your brand. Comment on other people blogs, give away information to help somebody, get involved in discussions you are interested in – “just do it” or “think differently” but whatever you chose to do, do it in a spirit of cooperation and with an open mind.