Frontier Airlines sheds light on how to operate a winery

Let me start off by saying Frontier Airlines is a terrible company. From its ownership by Republic Airways and dismantling of Midwest Airlines to current owner Indigo Partners, Frontier Airlines has been run by arrogant, greedy and apathetic people. Even its own pilots think so. Yesterday, the Air Line Pilots Association released a statement blaming Frontier's abysmal operations on "the same executive mismanagement and misplaced focus on cost-cutting that has placed Frontier at the very bottom of the industry in operational performance and customer satisfaction. " No winery should aim to operate like Frontier.

I'll get to what wineries can learn from Frontier, but it will take a bit of ranting to get there.

Wednesday's Wines: Derenoncourt Lake County Cabernet Sauvignon

Winery mailing lists are an unusual thing. Most people buy their wine at retail stores near their homes. Depending on the state one lives in, the retail venue may be a grocery store, a liquor store where all types of beverage alcohol are sold, or a wine specialty shop. Those wines find their way on to the retailers' shelves by means of wholesale middlemen who distribute their products only to retailers. This is known as the three-tier system and is the typical model the wine world has operated since the repeal of Prohibition. The direct-to-consumer model of the allocated mailing list is something of a holy grail in the wine world as it cuts out the middleman. Most wineries have a sales option on their website where consumers may purchase products directly from them. The winery then ships the wine directly to the consumer via a common carrier (FedEx or UPS are generally the two main carriers). This process allows the winery to collect the full retail price of the wine instead of selling it at wholesale cost to their distributor. It also allows consumers (depending on where they live) to have access to most of the wines they demand. I still cannot understand, in this day and age, how and why some winery websites still do not have this functionality and why some states restrict this type of commerce. But I digress as this post is not about the disfunctionality of the three-tier system and current alcohol laws.

Some wineries have taken this approach to a different level. Consumers may sign up to receive notification when they are allowed to purchase a set amount of a winery's wine (usually in increments of 3 bottles). Most wineries suggest this as a way to allow more customers access to the wine. In some cases, which continue to become rarer and rarer, there is a waiting list just to be added to the mailing list. For the most part, you can sign up and receive an offer right away for wineries that use allocation lists. Sometimes the amount of wine a winery will allow you to purchase is dependent on previous purchases; as you buy wine, more is offered to you in subsequent years.

Harry Oldman on Killing the Geezers that lay the Golden Eggs

Hello, friends, Dr. Harry W. Oldman here! It has been a while since I've come here to put pen to paper - or do these young whippersnappers call it fingering the computer - partly because I wanted to see what the reaction would be when I said to myself I might cease writing. About a year ago, I took a position with a big-name wine producer, but recently left. My non-disclosure agreement only allows me to say good things about them, but I can't identify them by name. Anyway, I'm back because the wine world needs more old white guys to keep it from destroying itself. Without us, I'd be surprised if the wine industry would survive more than a few weeks. Millennials and bloggers - scum of the earth - are intent on destroying what we worked so hard to achieve: delicious wine.

There used to be hedonism in the wine business. I know, because I know some wonderful women winemakers who... well, let's just leave it at me knowing them. I don't want to get in trouble because the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me. So, let me see... well, we don't have hedonism anymore. No, now, because of all those slack-line-walking bloggers, we have another form of prejudice that’s just as pernicious: asceticism.

Read, for example, this piece, from The New York Times Magazine, that refers to "a band of upstart winemakers ... trying to redefine what California wine should taste like." This group of self-proclaimed arbiters of taste wants wine to be minerally and flavorless. They think wine should have no perceivable alcohol! We are basically living a second-coming of the temperance movement.

Okay, let's break this down.

What you say in advertising is more important than how you say it, unless...

...you sell wine in California. A few weeks ago, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) cracked down on a few small wine and beer producers because they tweeted (well, actually retweeted) information about a retailer's (Save Mart) event that featured their products. What's wrong with that, you might ask? Don't most businesses want to inform their customers where their products can be purchased?

Dr. Harry Oldman has a Surprise Holiday Interview...

Dr. Harry Oldman generously unwraps a spectacular interview for us on this Boxing Day.

Kyle, as an old white man with a beard, I felt that it was only appropriate that I give you and your readers a present this year, but I couldn't quite figure out what would be a good gift. Then it dawned on me! I'm friends with a moderately notorious wine critic and we talk fairly often about wine and life in general. He was kind enough to answer the kind of tough questions no one has ever had the balls to ask him. I felt like Katie Couric! He didn't know that I was going to publish the interview, and I don’t want to name names because I don’t have his permission, so I'll just refer to him as SHhh (as in I'll never tell!). You can guess, but I'll never reveal my source!

HARRY: Hey, buddy! Thanks for agreeing to answer some questions. I know how much you hate answering questions, so this really means a lot to me!

SHhh: No problem, anything for you Harry. I actually love to answer questions, almost as much as asking questions! I write for the consumer, first, foremost and always. So when my readers engage with me, I make it a point to always respond. I learn so much from my readers! Blogs and bulletin boards are supposed to be back-and-forths, right? I mean, we live in this new age of participatory journalism. It is not uncommon for me to comment on other blogs, too!

John Madden the wine critic...

Football season is finally upon us. For many of you (including me), yesterday was spent parked in front of the TV with a beer in hand. The entire state of Colorado is bursting with anticipation for a Super Bowl run after Peyton Manning and the Broncos thrashed the defending champions on Thursday. However, I grew up in Wisconsin so naturally I'm a Green Bay Packers fan. In fact, ever since 1998 I have actively rooted against the Broncos. If the Broncos aren't going to finish 0-16 this year, I'd like nothing more than to see the Packers beat the Broncos in the Super Bowl in New York. I'd be in a better mood today had the Packers beaten the 49ers, but thinking about a Green Bay Super Bowl victory over the Broncos keeps me smiling.

You may be wondering what football has to do with wine. Bear with me as I get there. Along with the beginning of the NFL season, perhaps the most popular sports video game, Madden 25, was released recently. In the game, every single player is given a numerical rating - from 1 to 100. Sound familiar to wine yet? Thinking about how and why human beings are given such subjective ratings got me thinking about how the video game is like the wine review game. Is Calvin Johnson equivalent to a bottle of 2009 Château Latour (WS 99)? Is Anquan Boldin like a bottle of 2007 Canyon Wind Cellars IV (WS 88)? Which bottle of red blend or which receiver would you rather have had yesterday?

A (sort of) defense of the proposed new BAL standard

Blake Gray should lay off the hyperbole pills. Of course his blog views might decline a bit, but his posts might be a bit more believable if he did (I happen to agree with lots of what Blake says, but I don't mind throwing stones at CA writers' hornets nests). Last week, he wrote a few posts about what he called a "Draconian DUI proposal." If you haven't already read about the NTSB's recommendation to create a nationwide 0.05% blood-alcohol level limit that would change the legal drunk driving standard. Gray claims that such a change could "put an end to dining out as we currently know it."

Now, I'm not a proponent of the proposal, but I do know that lowering the BAL from 0.08% to 0.05% would definitely not put an end to dining out. In fact, I am going to make a factless claim that very little would change. The calculation of blood alcohol content is only possible on a case by case basis, so it is hard to say exactly what this lowering of the limit would mean in terms of actual consumption, but as a general estimate only one drink per hour will make a average sized person legally intoxicated whereas currently it takes about two drinks per hour. Perhaps a few law-abiding citizens would order fewer drinks and a restaurant might lose a couple of bucks. Probably not.

A few more people might get pulled over and issued DUI citations, but are the impairment differences between 0.08 and 0.05 really that dramatic that law enforcement officials will notice that many more people driving under the influence? Probably not.

I doubt that the recommendation will see the light of day. After all, the NTSB has no jurisdiction to lower the BAL. That power rests with each state. And since when do all the states get in line and voluntarily do the same thing? Now, if changes in highway funding were tied to lowering the legal limit, then we might see some action.

I am confident that nothing will come of this draconian proposal because it is unpatriotic. I am sure that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann will rise to the occasion and keep us from turning into Europe. After all, every European country, except for the United Kingdom, have BAL standards at or below 0.05%! And Russia, of all places, has a zero tolerance. Perhaps Palin will be patriotic enough to call for increasing the legal limit back to 0.1% just so we're less like her neighbors across the strait. If you ever watched any of those Russian dash-cam videos on Youtube can make your own assumptions on how the zero-tolerance thing is working out...

So sleep well tonight, Blake, dining out as we currently know it can be taken of the endangered activity list.

The false consensus effect in wine (diversity is the spice of wine...)

Something bothered me yesterday on another blog. Describing an interesting, critical alternative to the 100-pt system put forth by a group identifying themselves as "In the Pursuit of Balance" (IPOB), W. Blake Gray quoted Raj Parr, wine director for Michael Mina's restaurant empire. Parr is perhaps best known for his stance on not selling pinot noir or chardonnay that have more than 14% alcohol at his RN74 wine bar in San Francisco. Parr is also the co-founder of IPOB. He started IPOB to promote dialogue around the meaning and relevance of balance in California pinot noir and chardonnay. That in and of itself does not bother me. I actually support that goal.

But Gray quoted Parr saying, "Hopefully one day we won't have a tasting because everyone's going to be thinking the same way ... we do want to talk about how we can get better. Hopefully there will be more awareness that there is something else out there, that it's not just fruits" (emphasis added). I am all for trying to make better wine and having an open dialogue about how to do so. However, the idea that better means everyone thinking the same way bothers me.

What real wine consumers think about alcohol in wine

Steve Heimoff gets off his rocker and takes a stroll around the crazy ward quite often over on his blog, especially when he is trying to drive traffic. Of his usual group of controversial topics, alcohol in wine is one that tends to get the 50 people in the U.S. that comment on wine blogs riled up. Alcohol is the second biggest component in a bottle of wine and relatively small changes (roughly +/- 10%) in its concentration seem to cause a large debate in the wine community. There is a large group of wine aficionados that scoff at wines that exceed 14% alcohol by volume (abv). This group claims that too much alcohol causes a wine to be unbalanced and "hot" (not Paris Hilton "hot"). On the other hand, many California-centric wine cognoscenti tend to not care if a wine exceeds 15% or even 16% abv. These high-alcohol wines tend to be low in acid but full of fruit flavors. Those with this purely hedonistic point of view, led by über-critic Robert Parker, tend to refer to members of the low-alcohol party as Anti-Flavor Wine Elites.

Steve was mostly correct in his assertion two weeks ago about the "anti-high alcohol revolution," or lack thereof, and I commend him for that. He claimed that "there is no trend against high alcohol in California." He may be technically correct, but he failed to acknowledge that there are more than a handful of winemakers in California that are intentionally making wine with lower levels of alcohol than they had been. However, California is known for its big, bold and fruity wines and that is not going to change because a small minority of wine consumers don't like those types of wines. There is a reason California wine is so popular.

This whole idea of a low-alcohol winemaking revolution is an interesting conversation piece amongst wine writers and the most devoted wine enthusiasts as we love to quibble over the minutia of pH, total acidity, residual sugar, rootstock and percent new oak. However, most of the wine buying public don't give two hoots about any of those details. The real question we should be asking is, do regular wine consumers think about alcohol levels in wine?