Some thought it was a good idea, making it clear that Laville was the white wine of La Mission Haut-Brion while others were sorry to see an old name disappear from Bordeaux. Re-branding a well established wine brand is usually a very well thought out decision. In the case of Château Laville Haut-Brion, both names were historically justified. For almost 100 years, Château Laville Haut-Brion belonged to the Laville Family. Marie de Laville bought the estate on July 16, 1611. Ten years later it passed to her brother, Bertrand de Laville. It was only in 1717, that the Laville family sold the estate to a surgeon called Bernard Gaussens.

It made a lot of sense to name the wine after the place it came from. Even after the Laville family didn’t own the place, the successive owners kept the name as part of the tradition. But, at some point during the 20th century – around 1930 if I remember well my history – the owner of Château Laville, M. Bibonne, changed the name to La Mission Haut-Brion blanc. The Woltners went back to the original name.

What does this story tell us about re-branding a wine? For three centuries, the name of the Laville brand was associated to a family who did not belong to the place anymore. By changing the name to associate it to a place currently existing, La Mission Haut-Brion, two factors were accounted for at once: the historical value of the name and the consumer. The latter will gain a better understanding of a rather complicated system since there are three wines available in the La Mission Haut-Brion range: Château La Mission Haut-Brion red and white, La Chapelle de la Mission Haut-Brion, the second wine (red) of Château La Mission Haut-Brion. It is always positive to help the consumer better understand the world of our wines.

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.

One of the most interesting challenges for a wine marketer is promoting a collective brand. Champagne was certainly the most successful example of such a strategy: it is now synonymous with party, special occasion and pleasure. Unfortunately we know it backfired: consumers don’t see Champagne as an everyday drink but more as the special drink open for a specific event. High prices, down economy and depressed consumers halted the trend.

The second side effect of this collective promotion was the emergence of a few internationally recognized brands and a lot of brands left in the shadow of the leaders. That’s at least what a lot of smaller Champagne producers complained about. It’s the case also in other areas where an umbrella brand is carried to the front. But is it really the case? Wasn’t there a missing step in the Champagne smaller producers’ strategy?

In every collective action, there are leaders. Those leaders can be compared to the oldest in a family of several children. The oldest has the privilege and the honor of being the one opening the road for his/her siblings: getting the authorization to go out at night, then getting the authorization to come back at 1:00 am instead of midnight and so on. When their turn comes to be teenagers , the youngest children will find the road paved and open to their own initiatives without having to discuss extensively with their parents to get what they want. And the oldest will be so frustrated to see how easy the life of his/her younger brother(s) and sister(s) are!

The position of oldest child is as uncomfortable as the position of leaders in the promotion of a collective brand. The leaders will open the road and pay for the eventual mistakes: the wrong store, the wrong market or the wrong price. The brands coming after them can learn a lot from the mistakes and the successes of their leaders: they’ll figure out faster and cheaper what is right for their own brand and will be able to position themselves more easily and with a better chance of succeeding.

Believe an oldest child in a family of several children: the next in line has it a lot easier!

Marketers are always on the look out for new consumers. They seem to have bypassed an interesting category, the Boomer Woman. What is so different between a Boomer Man and a Boomer Woman? A Boomer Woman just spent 20 or 25 years of her life building her career, child rearing and managing a home. Women feel like they now have a lot of time and a lot more money to devote to themselves. Their discretionary income improved a lot and they now have an important professional and personal network. They are connected, they have a Facebook account and sometimes are even on Twitter.

According to a recent study by VibrantNation’s “Well-Connected and Wired,” a quantitative study of 1000 Boomer women, “boomer women influence 80% of the $2.1 trillion in consumer goods purchases made by the boomer demographic each year — the largest of any segment of the population. Every day, 8 of 10 boomers are online, making them the largest online consumer.”

What does it mean for brands in general? Most of the time, those women don’t refer to advertising or television to make their buying decisions. They listen to other women of their kind, whether on line or off line. They are ready to indulge and pamper themselves. How can a wine brand tap in this market? Wine and food are very seductive and part of everyday life. Wine brands should appeal to the tastes and skills of those women. Pink labels and silly names? Why not? Wine can be fun. If behind the pink label and the silly name, there is a good wine, then there will be a happy consumer. This happy consumer will refer the brand to her peers and this piece of good news will go around. QED!

Last week I was invited to the “Panorama” Tasting of the on line store Millesima.com on Sauternes and Barsac. I was privileged enough to taste château d’Yquem 1998, 2002 and 2005, Château Climens 1998, Château Rieussec 1997, Château Rabaud-Promis 1997, Château Coutet 1998 and 2004, château de Fargues 1996 and 1997. Many others were presentend but I was not able to taste all of them. Useless to say, those wines were gorgeous and it was a delight to go through the beautiful chais of Millesima, talking to wine makers and other passionate wine lovers while tasting those classics.

Of course, as you well know, I’m not an enologist and will not disgrace myself by writing tasting notes (Suffice to say they were wonderful). But I must say that among those jewels of Sauternes and Barsac, I found two pearls I never heard about: Château Liot and Château de Myrat (no site). Both wines were amazing and I started digging around trying to understand why they do not shine as much as they should. The case of Château de Myrat is rather puzzling. The estate belongs to the Pontac family – the very same Pontac family that created the notion of “cru” in the Bordelais and the very first brand, Haut-Brion, in the 17th century. Indeed the Pontac family owned Château Haut-Brion until the middle of the 17th century and its descendants now owns Château de Myrat. Why didn’t they apply the same strategy as their ancestors to brand their delicious wine? Of course, times changed but branding has now a lot more tools at its disposal than three centuries ago. Château Liot is a more discreet estate, located in the Barsac appellation – of course, less famous than the Sauternes – and belongs to the David family.

It is really too bad for two great brands not to get the proper attention. It would be so easy to have a good web site in French and English and try to use some of the new tools. Their wines deserve better communication.

Readers of Wine Brands might remember I opened the book through the story of the worldwide celebration of Beaujolais Nouveau. It happens that Beaujolais Nouveau’s international success became a curse for the image of the good Beaujolais wines. In his article “Taking on the Beaujolais Clichés” in his blog The Pour, Eric Asimov stated clearly the problem of the Beaujolais wines and region: “For decades if not centuries, we have thought of Beaujolais as a simple, light-hearted, fun, good-doggy kind of wine. All you have to do is tap the Beaujolais button on the keyboard and the clichés spew forth.”

Is it still true? Mostly certainly for some Beaujolais and Beaujolais-Villages but not anymore for some nice and “artisanal” wines, according (still) to Eric Asimov: “The best of these wines retain the joyousness that is at the heart of the gamay grape, but it is time to recognize that they are much more than that. They are complex, multi-layered, graceful, delicious wines that are nonetheless true to the spirit of Beaujolais.”

Beaujolais was a lot in the French news lately. It was suggested that Beaujolais got included in the neighboring Burgundy region. The project did not please the Burgundy producers and might be rejected or abandoned at the end. Whether the idea is legitimate or not is not for me to say but the reaction to the project showed clearly how the image of Beaujolais as a generic brand is poor among wine professionals and consumers.

Fortunately Beaujolais producers are resourceful and energetic. That’s why they organize a 3-day trip to their region for wine professionals and journalists that will take place in October. The purpose of this trip is to present the region, organize tastings and meetings with local producers – in one word, educate. The trip will be conducted by Aurélie Labruyère, wine consultant and author of many books on wines. Their hope? Change the image of the Beaujolais wines in the mind of the “gate openers” and lead back serious wine consumers to their wines.

When I was working on Wine Brands, I happened to notice the launch of a new Spanish wine brand, Tapeña. At that time, I was mostly intrigued and seduced by the great label. Two years later, I had the opportunity to hold a bottle of their 2008 Tempranillo in my hands and taste the wine, giving me the opportunity to test some of their assertions.

The originality of the label is what attracted my eye to the bottle among the dozens lined up on the supermarket’s shelves: the fork design, the contrast of colors and the bright orange literally drove me to the bottle.

The web site brags about its food friendliness. I tasted the wine on a strong Italian dish and figured the assertion to be true. The mellowness as well as the very slight sugary taste (for my European palate) were very nice on the dish. It also gives a total meaning to the label and the name: a fork symbolizing the food with the name being a contraction of “tapas” and “peña”, a slang word for a group of friends.

Obviously this wine is designed for non European palates: on the sweet and fruity side it wouldn’t have so much appeal on European markets or maybe only on younger trendy consumers, like Millenials. The fact is the (very well done) site shows mostly young people having fun with a glass of wine in hand.

Tapeña, a success story? I hope so and I wish them well.

Want a Barolo, Penfolds’ “St. Henri” Shiraz or a Roederer Cristal 57% down their regular prices? Go to a few sites just opened to surf on the new (unfortunate) wave of overstock: winestilsoldout.com or thewineliquidator.com. On winestilsoldout, the sale rarely exceeds 8 hours – about a working day. That’s why many high-end or luxury wine brands consider it doesn’t hurt their image or pricing: “It’s such a short time window,”told Giacomo Turone, a sales executive for Palm Bay Imports to Los Angeles Times writer Patrick Comiskey, who has moved more than a dozen hard-to-sell Italian wines through the site. “It doesn’t undermine the price positioning of the brand in the long term. It’s not on their Web site for months — it’s on for eight hours.”

This is a comforting thought for the winemaker but is it true for the consumer? Consumers – even those who love expensive wines – are sensitive to price bargains. Is there not a risk to make them “addicted” to some high discount web sites? If consumers know that they get their favorite wines at half price or high-end wines at a huge discount, why would they buy it full price at their wine store? Why would they pay a high mark up in restaurants for the same bottle?

Discounting heavily a wine is not good for its image. Of course, times are hard for all wineries but thinking ahead is of importance. Let’s hope this sad situation won’t last too long…

Wine marketing is a funny line of work. A recent Vinexpo study showed that women despise “women wines” – i.e. “pink” or “sweet wines” – specifically designed for them and favor red wines. On the other end, Michelle Locke from the San Francisco Chronicle cites Nelson Barber, an associate professor of hospitality management at Texas Tech University who has studied gender differences in marketing wine, who said: “”As a general rule, guys get together, they don’t want to be seen with a glass of wine”.

Locke is obviously talking about American men. European men don’t feel embarrassed to be shown a glass of wine in hand – quite the opposite. It is a flattering and glamorous image of a refined and elegant manhood. What’s wrong in drinking wine for an American man? Men drink more beer than wine – true. Is it because beer is a symbol of masculinity in the US?

We are touching now the delicate subject of cultural differences. In Europe, beer is not connected with any social values, such as elegance, culture or refinement. On the contrary, it is a “popular” drink – one for picnic or for the “café” before going home. It’s not young or trendy: it’s the drink of the middle-aged, very medium income male. Wine carries historical values going over gender differences: it is the drink of the well educated and refined people.

The wine drinking America doesn’t have yet this kind of cultural references. Wine is more recent in consumption history and doesn’t carry the same image of quality and style for men. But I’m sure men will come to recognize the values of wine as they recognize the importance of… cosmetics and colognes!

Silly question? The Santa Carolina wine brands state in their printed ad: “The place is in the taste”. It’s signed “Santa Carolina” over the picture of 7 bottles of wines (2 whites and 5 reds) . I briefly scanned the ad and saw: a “Feel green” logo, a “certified carbon neutral” logo, a web site URL. Where is Santa Carolina? I read the titles of the paragraphs: Leyda Valley, Rapel Valley, Colchagua Valley, Maule Valley and Casablanca Valley. Casablanca? Marroco? I kept searching the text to confirm my guess and after at least 30 seconds (and with a mild irritation), I discovered I was… wrong! Santa Carolina comes from… Chile!

What does this story tell me? As all readers, I skipped most of the info: I read the title that attracted my attention and then moved to the picture of the wines. While doing that I missed the info I was looking for. The answer was in the first sentence under the title: “The roots of Santa Carolina go deep into the 19th century, and into the soils of Chile‘s best winegrowing regions.” Am I so senile (or exhausted) that I missed an obvious information or is there something wrong to the ad? First of all, Santa Carolina assumed all readers knew their brand. Some of them might not. Second, it assumed that what is important is the taste more than the origin (the place) of winegrowing. Wrong again! When you don’t know the brand, you look for the place. Third, they made me read 6 lengthy paragraphs on various valleys I never heard about to get a few banal words on “oustanding, aromatic, and finely balanced” sauvignon blanc, the “fine tannins and remarkable complexity” of their Carmenère-Syrah or the “well-developed flavors and firm acidity” of the Chardonnay because of those places. This focus on terroir is well and good and I’m very happy to see a Chilean winery focusing on its various terroirs. But it is an other level of communication: the first level is on the brands and then on the brands in connection with the terroirs. The concept is very clever but should be carried a little further in order to be 100% efficient. Or should I get some rest?