Out of network writing

Yesterday I read an article in the Denver Post titled, "Cabernet franc goes with a wide range of foods." I was pleasantly surprised that the newspaper would write an article about what might be  Colorado's signature grape cultivar. I thought the story would at least include a passing mention of the local versions. It wasn't until I finished the article, and the usual recommendations, that I noticed it was written by Bill St. John all the way from Chicago.

St. John used to be the food and wine editor for the Denver Post, but that was years ago. He since moved on to the Chicago Tribune. Occasionally St. John's writing is published in the Post as a special report (aka syndicated). Just as with broadcast syndication, newspaper syndication can provide market penetration and revenue for the author. Pretty good work if you can get it.

But the problem with this type of publishing is that it can actually be a detriment to the reader. Publishing generic articles that don't have a pulse on the local conditions goes against the grain of what wine consumers want: authenticity. Local sections of local newspapers should be about local conditions. I'm not suggesting that the article should have been solely about local wines, but some awareness that cabernet franc is important to the local industry would be something a local writer would have.

Now, syndicated wine columns are not all that bad. David White, of Terroirist.com, writes a twice monthly wine column that’s distributed to newspapers across the country. These columns are hosted over on Grape Collective. Generally syndicated columns are generic enough to be applicable anywhere. White usually does a good job with this. Most of the time articles about a specific grape variety are adequately universal, but yet the cab franc piece completely missed the mark when it could have been so much more salient.

Consumers looking for a voice...

Last week, the American Wine Consumer Coalition launched. The organization, led by Tom Wark and David White (among others) is set to give a voice to the people most affected by the wide array of wine regulations, but are regularly ignored during the process of creating those laws. If you've ever been told you can't drink a certain wine just because you live in a certain state, the AWCC (sounds more like an athletic conference, but other acronyms are probably worse) is for you. Here is the group's manifesto:

The unique needs and desires of the American wine consumer have for too long been ignored by lawmakers as special interest groups have used the legal and regulatory system to protect their own interests at the expense of consumers. This is neither fair nor in the interest of the wine consumer. Wine consumers have the right to be heard, to be part of the entire process devoted to the regulation of wine and to have access to the broad range of products in the national marketplace. Anything less is unacceptable.

• Wine Consumers ought to have the legal right to purchase the wines they want as long as a licensed entity agrees to sell them the wine.
• Wine Consumers deserve a well-regulated marketplace designed to give them access to the wines they want.
• Wine Consumers have a right to be consulted on the creation and passage of state and federal laws that impact their access to wines.
• Wine consumers ought to have the legal right to have shipped to their home or place of work wines they legally purchased in-state or out-of-state.
• Wine Consumers ought to have the right to carry with them or ship home a reasonable amount of wine they’ve purchased and legally own after visiting an out-of-state wine region.
• Wine Consumers and their interests must be accounted for equally alongside those of producers, wholesalers and retailers when legislation and alcohol policy is considered.

Specifically for Colorado residents, consider the following that it is illegal for you to receive a shipment of wine from an out-of-state retailer, you are not allowed bringing your own bottle of wine to your favorite restaurant and only one location of a chain grocer is allowed to sell wine. Some people feel that allowing grocery store sales would hurt the small, boutique local wineries, but I personally (not in any association with my employment with the State of Colorado) think that the ability to deal with fewer buyers rather than a different buyer for ever licensed retailer might help local wineries with distribution. Retailers also have to buy wine from a wholesaler (luckily CO wineries can operate as their own wholesaler) and cannot buy directly from West Coast wineries; further restricting what wines you have access to. A few things have slowly started to change in the Centennial State. Only in the last few years has Colorado allowed sales on Sundays and we can now bring unfinished bottles of wine home from a restaurant!

But we still have a long way to go to catch up to much of the rest of the country. The AWCC is determined to make consumers' voices part of the wildly secretive and out-of-date system that determines how, where and what we can drink.

So, consider joining and supporting the American Wine Consumer Coalition. Then, help by spreading the word on Facebook and Twitter. You can follow the AWCC at @wineconsumers and Facebook.com/AmericanWineConsumerCoalition.

Cheers!

Wine as a cocktail ingredient

There has a been a fair bit of media coverage of late about ingredients used to make wine. I haven't seen too much attention to wine itself as an ingredient. Mimosa: Sparkling wine and orange juice. Everyone knows that. Sangria: recipes vary, but generally wine, brandy, juice or soda and fruit. Two of my favorites also come from the Iberian peninsula, but are not so common as their punchy cousin. Kalimotxo is red wine and cola. Tinto de verano (this sounds great right now in this record Colorado heat...) is red wine and La Casera Limón (any lemon-lime soda works). In most cases, the cheapest wine possible is used. Yet, does that need to be the case? Should it be?

Deep, honest thoughts are always soulful (the importance of words)

Earlier this week, I was part of a twitter discussion about the use of figurative language in wine writing sparked by Alder Yarrow's description of wines as being "honest, soulful." What is an honest wine, you ask? Well, of course it is a wine that doesn't try to be something it isn't. Is describing wine in that way really useful? The honesty of a wine is purely subjective, but then again any description of a wine is subjective. Even the most objective part of a review, the numerical score, is subjective bullshit. Do you know what 93 points tastes like? I don't.

Now, I'm not saying that tasting notes are bullshit, but some of the words you may find in them are. Take honest, for example. David White took Alder's description as meaning "a bit flawed." Others might take "honest, soulful" to mean a pure expression of terroir. Me, it means nothing, but it makes me think about it. Is a mass-produced wine honest? Sure. Lots of mass-produced wines don't pretend to me artisanal. Is a 16.5% 2007 Châteauneuf-du-Pape dishonest because it is pretending to be wine when it is actually a liqueur? Or does it honestly taste like 100 points?

I get the reason why writers try to write colorfully about wine. There are only so many things that wine tastes like. You can only read about mocha, currants and tobacco in cabernet sauvignon so many times before you tune out. And consumers don't really want to read about methoxypyrazine, monoterpenes or ketones. pH and titratable acidity only matter to a small group of nerds like me (and probably you). Numbers just taste bland. Do abstract terms have real meaning. No. But, bullshit terms like honest and soulful actually make people discuss wine. And that is a good thing.

Colorado vs. Virginia with Terroirist.com (Red Blends edition)

Last month, I found myself in Washington, D.C. for a work trip. On one of my free nights, I got together with David White, founder of Terroirist.com, and some members of his local tasting group for a Colorado vs. Virginia wine blind tasting. We opened 28 different bottles of wine from Colorado and Virginia, with a few ringers thrown in. We started the festivities with a flight of viogniers (12) followed by a slightly larger flight (16) of red blends. Today, I will post the results from the Red Blends flight. You can find the results for the viognier flight on yesterday's post.

All wines were wrapped in foil and randomly numbered. We poured two at a time, in no particular order (I've listed them here sequential for clarity). The group discussed each wine as they were tasted, but the identities were not revealed until all wines in a flight were tasted and voted on. The results revealed that while both regions have some work to do to be consider "world-class," they both produce some pretty good wine right now. The notes that follow are my own, though I do note the wines that were determined to be the best as voted on by the group. While I did take brief notes during the tasting, I somehow managed to not write down the vintages for the wines. C'est la vie!

Colorado vs. Virginia with Terroirist.com (Viognier edition)

Last month, I found myself in Washington, D.C. for a work trip. On one of my free nights, I got together with David White, founder of Terroirist.com, and some members of his local tasting group for a Colorado vs. Virginia wine blind tasting. We opened 28 different bottles of wine from Colorado and Virginia, with a few ringers thrown in. We started the festivities with a flight of viogniers (12) followed by a slightly larger flight (16) of red blends. Today, I will post the results from the Viognier flight. Check back tomorrow for the red blend results.

All wines were wrapped in foil and randomly numbered. We poured two at a time, in no particular order (I've listed them here sequential for clarity). The group discussed each wine as they were tasted, but the identities were not revealed until all wines in a flight were tasted and voted on. The results revealed that while both regions have some work to do to be consider "world-class," they both produce some pretty good wine right now. The notes that follow are my own, though I do note the wines that were determined to be the best as voted on by the group. While I did take brief notes during the tasting, I somehow managed to not write down the vintages for the wines. C'est la vie!

Five social media personalities to whom Colorado wineries should be listening

A few weeks ago, I spoke about social media at VinCO 2012 in Grand Junction, CO. I was supposed to provide a broad introduction into social media tools that wineries can use. My talk consisted of a summary of Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Yelp, CellarTracker and WineBerserkers.com, but due to so many questions I was only able to get through the Facebook part and a rushed 2-minute primer on Twitter. My goal next year for the conference is to have a full day of social media workshops where each session is dedicated to only one platform, but that is a topic for another day.

Social media isn't just about how wineries can get their brand in front of consumers' eyes, it is about building relationships. One of the best ways that wineries can build relationships is by listening. Listening is important to find out what consumers want to hear, what critics are saying and simply gaining a broader knowledge of the industry as a whole. Most of the winery owners in Colorado do not have an extensive wine background. None are as knowledgeable about wine as they could be (some may think so, but are not...). The biggest reason I dove head first into the social media realm of the industry is to learn things from those that know more than I. Wineries should do the same. So, today I am offering a list of the five most important social media personalities (other than myself, of course) to whom Colorado wineries should be listening. They all share a commonality, too. See if you can guess what it is.