In an era when:

• Unemployment is at historical high levels and has remained high for over two years,
• The lynchpin of consumer wealth (housing) for the American middle class is in a prolonged slump with over 22% of home owners under water,
• The top 1% of the population garners 40% of the wealth – the middle class is shrinking while those in poverty substantially increased,
• Debt continues to spiral out of control,
• It is getting harder and harder for Americans to afford or access quality healthcare,
• Infrastructure across the country is crumbling,
• Trading partner currencies are being manipulated,
• The banking industry continues to exercise policies that could easily cause another worldwide recession,
• We continue to engage in two wars, and …
• Fossil fuel based energy continues to hold long term economic growth hostage,

What does 109 of our fine representatives in congress focus on? You guess it!

The Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act of 2011 (HR 1161)  – introduced by Representative Jason Chavetz (R) of Utah as a follow on to HR 5034 – a piece of legisation that will not solve, rectify or mitigate any of the above.

According to the Statemans Journal, the special interests supporting this bill (the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America), depict this as “an attempt to rescue state and local control over alcohol sale from online alcohol sellers, big box retailers, international alcohol suppliers and professional plaintiffs that want federal courts to allow them to sell ever-larger volumes of alcohol at low or below-cost prices – a trend they see as leading to social ills such as more underage drinking.

Why an oxymoron? An oxymoron is defined as “a figure of speech in which incongruous or contradictory terms appear side by side”. In this case, the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America don’t have a problem in increasing the volume of sales of alcohol or providing pricing promotions where it serves their interests, they simply want to ensure that if volumes and revenues are going to increase it has to flow through them.

The intent of this bill is to unravel the Granholm vs. Heald Supreme Court decision that disallowed state laws that thrash the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution in favor of special in-state treatment of wineries. This bill would ensure that when unfair, special interest state laws are enacted, they cannot be challenged, keeping that the current 3-tired monopoly remains in tact.

One thing this bill would do is decimate the small wine producers who do not produce sufficient volume to get the attention of large distributors and instead depend very heavily on tasting room and wine club sales. This would effectively eliminate out of state wine club sales. So at the very least this bill would increase unemployment for small producers.

I am not going to restate all the facts about this bill – this has already been done on countless sites such as Free the Grapes,  Vinography, Stop1161, Fermentation, as well as countless other sites.

• But I will state the obvious:
  This is a special interest bill that serves a small minority that are desperate to keep a monopoly in place
  It has nothing to do with states rights .. they already have them courtesy of the 21st amendment
  It has nothing to do with keeping alcohol out of the reach of minors
  It has nothing to do with ensuring sales taxes are paid

And just to let you know I am not focusing on any particular party, of the 109 co-sponsors approximately 42% are Democrat and 58% Republican.

My question to the 109 co-sponsors would be:

• Did you read the bill or simply sign based on contributions and/or quid pro quo favors?
• Do you understand the special interest provisions and the harm it can cause to small wineries and consumer choice?

If you haven’t read the bill, dah … read it!

Finally, how about focusing on the real problems facing this nation that are in the best interest of all Americans?

As we approach mid term elections the issue of whether we are over or under regulated is a discussion getting a lot of attention. On the one hand regulation provides much needed protection from reckless behavior or downright greed. On the other, regulation can be overbearing, costly to implement and maintain, and simply a way to ensure some special interest group has their way.  And sometimes… its just plain stupid – it achieves just the opposite of what it is supposed to regulate.

Some of the most talked about issues include the housing market debacle and Wall Street. In both cases one could argue that the proper regulations were either not in place or simply ignored.

Great subjects to discuss, but here I prefer to talk about a different industry, one in which the regulations are outdated, overbearing and in some cases, counterproductive. I bet you know where I am heading  … yes, I am speaking about alcohol regulations specifically in the wine industry.

So let me give a couple of examples. First, a regulation that on the surface seems to make sense, but as with many good intentions, misses the mark. There is a regulation that was put in place in Rhode Island to stop the practice of offering cheap prices during happy hours in order to crack down on drunk driving and drunkeness in general. It would seem reasonable … don’t let restaurants and bars promote 1/2 price or all you can drink offers in order to bring in more business, not because it won’t bring in more business, but because it does. Offers that suggest drinking as much as you can as quickly as you can are in fact not likely in the public’s interest.

So where’s the problem? As they say, the devil is in the details: the regulation also prevents a restaurant from providing a special offer when it comes to wine while dining.

Here’s how it works. A restaurant wants to attract business on slow nights so they have a special promotion – buy two entrees and purchase one bottle of wine at half price. In one particular case, the food is good and reasonably priced. The wine list although not extensive includes a small but  nice selection of low,  medium, and medium-high priced wines (Examples -  David Bruce Petite Sirah, Craggy Range Gimblet Merlot/Cabernet Sauvignon, Chateau Ste. Michelle Indian Wells Merlot, Catena Malbec, and Provenance Cabernet Sauvignon to name a few- $32 – $70). This offer has been going on for some time – the patrons get to try a nicer, higher priced bottle of wine for less and the restaurant draws more loyal patrons (oh yes, and the restaurant will re-cork the wine and seal it for take away – so there is no pressure whatsoever in having to finish the bottle.  Actually … here an example of a very smart regulation that promotes business but helps deter one from drinking too much!)

OK … where was I? Ah, so what’s the problem? They can no longer offer the wine at a reduced cost even though you may only get the discount on one bottle and with the purchase of two entrees. Instead, they can “offer” a bottle of wine for free with the two entrees (so of course they will offer their cheapest bottle). So, help me understand how this has helped to reduce drunken driving or alcohol abuse, which I assume is the intent of the happy hour law? In truth it doesn’t.

Before you had to pay something to get any wine, now you can get it free.  It doesn’t seem like a very intelligent way to administer what would seem to be on the surface a reasonable regulation.  Yes… I can now get what amounts to a $6 bottle of wine for free, but I would much rather pay a few dollars to enjoy a mid range wine that’s worth drinking - the vast majority of  $6 wines are not worth the calories! 

OK .. let’s move on to something much more insideous,  special interest regulation…..

(Let me note here that I do not favor any political party, whether Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, Libertarian or any other. I am an independent and would love to discover any political party that seeks to enact legislation for the good of the American public ……not just the conservatives .. and not just the liberals. Common sense would be so refreshing.)

So thinking of voting for a Republican or Tea Party candidate to thwart those pesky Democrats? Well, have a read here courtesy of WineZag entitled “No Comment on Wine Freedom in H.R. 5034 Response from Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown”.  Here we have a candidate that is going to shake up Washington and get rid of the special interest. Would you like to know his position on H.R. 5034?

I have never spoken, written or otherwise conversed with Senator Brown (and I am not singularly pointing him out … there are many co-sponsors of this bill that could use a long vacation..from Washington), but I know that no intelligent individual could read that legislation and not have a sense regarding  its special interest nature. So my question: has he read the bill?

Or, has he been swayed by special interests to vote for something that is NOT in the public’s interest. In either case, the American public has another potential regulation that reaps great rewards for the wholesaler monopoly (and I assume many politicians as well who receive support from the wholesalers), but hinders job creation and makes it very difficult for small, family owned wineries. It leaves them few options.  If they cannot reach their customers directly, they must try  to place their wine in distribution, which for many wineries is much too costly  (assuming they can find a distributor to carry it at all). And PLEASE, not another bit of nonesense about how this will help reduce underage drinking or ensure alcohol taxes are paid; this bill does neither. It simply seeks to ensure no court can challenge laws that  discriminate against interstate commerce.

Now as stated many times I am not suggesting the dismantling of 3 tiered distribution. On the contrary, for high volume wine, beer and spirits producers it is a necessity. Other means of distribution would be impractical.  This system employs thousands of Americans as well.

But just as other industries have adopted new ways of doing business to augment traditional methods, here too regulation of the wine industry must modernize. Current laws established 75 years ago meant to regulate the sale and distribution of wine are not optimal in 2010. How many other products have different regulations in all 50 states? How can legitimate businesses cost effectively deal with 50 variations when it comes to wine sales and distribution? And lastly, why should any legislator support a law that in no way impinges on a states ability to regulate alcohol as long as they do not do so by discrimination in regards to  interstate commerce?

As stated in a recent New York Times article ”It’s easier to deal in guns than in wine”. Let’s free the grapes.

What a great way to educate the public on wine – how grapes are grown and harvested, how wine is produced, the concept of “terrior”, the history, culture, and dedication of those that produce wine – all by keeping the bottles hidden behind glass doors and providing various snippets to the potential buyer – snippets no doubt written by the distributor that is trying to push one brand over the other.

According to a recent article in the Post Gazette, the kiosks have 4 coolers with … an astounding 53 different wines (let’s see with about 7,000 wineries in the US alone with say an average (being very conservative) 3 wines each, that means the great citizens of PA are being offered about .0025% of what is available in the US, not to mention the thousands of wines produced around the world). How was this selection made? I highly doubt it was selected based on quality and diversity.

In a time when only large producers can hope to secure distribution and only 36 states allow direct shipment, here comes Darth Vader – another attempt to save money while ensuring that access to small producers is kept at bay. Vinography said it well in  “How to AVOID selling wine in Pennslyvania”.  This is an excellent way to hinder sales – just what the wine industry needs after the recent recession.

Now, I am not totally opposed to any automation. In a trip to Madrid I visited a wine shop where you could purchase a card and then use that card to get tastes of various wines of the region. The bottles were displayed along with a full explanation of where produced, which varietals, methods, and tasting notes. There were also employees in the store to provide additional information about the wines and producers.

I understand convenience and certainly agree with keeping alcohol out of the hands of those too young to drink or those that abuse it, but in my opinion this going in the wrong direction. Education and knowledge is key to the enjoyment of wine, and this contraption satisfies neither.

Hmmm….I highly doubt Pennslyvania will be on my priority list of places to visit – at least not unless I bring my own bottle.

This bill was recently introduced in Congress to safeguard the status quo regarding the three-tiered system of alcohol distribution and ensure it remains without challenge even in those cases where the Supreme Court has ruled related state laws are discriminatory.

There are several sites providing a good amount of detail  including Tom Wark’s Fermentation, WineIndustryInsight, Decanter and WineHarlots, to name a few.

As a wine lover I find this attempt by the Wholesale lobby incredibly disturbing at the least . At a time when this country is simply fed up with special interest group legislation, this lobby wants to have their cake eat it too so no one is able to legally challenge them in the future.

To me this is a clear case of self interest and greed; this group wants to make sure that no one can challenge their monopoly. They are getting the support of several State Attorney Generals with the argument that the current justified litigation is too costly – states should not have to put up with it (boy, imagine if the health insurance industry came up with a similar bill and argument: “we should not be bothered with what we consider to be frivolous lawsuits if we unjustly deny coverage to sick people.. it costs too much and takes too much time”!)

Why do I suggest this is absurd?

First, no one is trying to do away with the three-tiered distribution system. From a logistical viewpoint, there are many large wineries that need the current system just to get their product to market. So even after 70 years there is still a place for the system itself.

Secondly, the current challenges in the courts are not based on anyone challenging the state’s right to regulate alcohol, they are challenging the state’s rights to implement laws that clearly discriminate between in and out of state wineries and retailers. Yes… they are reeling against anyone that might challenge them from implementing self interest laws that are clearly in conflict with laws regulating interstate commerce.

So what are the salient arguments?

My interpretation:

“The three-tiered distribution system has served us well since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. If this system is circumvented it will lead to underage drinking, more alcoholism, loss of taxes and loss of jobs. Further, the cost of defending current laws is becoming expensive and the States should not be burdened with such lawsuits.”

Let’s take these one at a time:
1. The three-tiered system has served the industry well in terms of an orderly transition for a decimated industry at the end of Prohibition. With that said, so has regulations regarding telephone service, television, radio, and many other technologies and processes. However, most all of these have gone through their own transitions based on changing needs and demand. Imagine what things would be like if everyone still only had only land lines to work with, or needed to use cash for all transations. The bottom line is that needs change and most industries and businesses change with it. Actually, the three-tiered system has changed. It now includes a much smaller number (albeit much larger size) of distributors, many who control vast amounts of the industry – from the vineyards, to the wineries to distribution. So there is now a lot on the line for these mega distribution companies (hence… lot of money being spent at the State level to keep these laws in tact).
2. I would like someone to point out to me how the current system has fully curbed underage drinking or alcoholism. This lauded system still has many cracks in it. I would also like someone to prove that direct shipment would drastically increase either of these. If that were the case, every state in which direct shipment is available would have drastically higher rates of underage drinking and alcoholism, which is not the case. (I am not saying there are no alcohol issues as that would be naive. What I am saying is that allowing direct shipment does not translate into either of these assuming well identified safeguards are implemented.)
3. Direct shipment states collect taxes and fees from wineries that wish to ship into their state. Tax collection is not an issue.
4. The next one is loss of jobs. I look at this issue much the same as under age drinking. There is no basis for there being a loss of jobs. The three-tiered distribution system will still have plenty to sell. The issue here is simply allowing those that want access to wines that are not currently offered to be accessible. These are not the high volume wines currently in mass distribution, but rather, small volume winereies that often can’t get representation in the current system. This saves jobs not the way around.
5.Lastly, let’s look at the absurd argument that States should not be bothered with lawsuits to refute laws that clearly discriminate between in state and out of state wineries. Again, this is akin to saying after the most recent catastrophe in West Virginia that mining companies should not be held accountable for safety because the cost of litigation is too expensive. If its wrong its wrong.

My advice to States:  Don’t draft discriminatory laws and you won’t have to deal with related lawsuits!
In my opinion, this is clearly a bill that should not see the light of day. It serves one purpose only – to safe guard a monopoly initially implemented 70 years ago. Time we updated our laws to reflect the demands, capabilities and promise of the 21st Century.

If you feel the same way I do, I encourage everyone to write to their representatives to reject this well crafted, special interest bill that is an affront to all wine lovers. Here’s a link to help you make your voice heard (courtesy of Free the Grapes)

As Tom suggests: Kill bill – HR 5034.

Having just returned from a business trip, I needed to go through my mail. Now .. what do you think I found?

A letter addressed to “Resident at” and my address. So what was in the letter?

(contents)

“Dear Resident:

About a week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly.

Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Groves

Director, U.S. Census Bureau”

Then in six languages “Go to 2010census.gov for help completing your 2010 census form when it arrives.”

OK … that’s great. I have no problem with the Census or filling out the form.

What I have an issue with is the stupidity of spending approximately $125 million (say 250 million letters at .02 for the paper, .o5 for the envelope and .43 for postage – conservative estimate) to send me a letter to tell me I am going to receive something in the mail (keep in mind that there are countless ads on the television right now as well as website doing the same thing at likely several additional millions of dollars). Why couldn’t this message have been sent with the Census itself?

Help me understand Census Bureau … what is the purpose of the letter? What did you think spending an additional $125,000,000 to send this out would accomplish?

Wouldn’t it be better to save $125,000,000 and instead distribute that to various states to provide a “fair share for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs”?

Certainly only a small amount, but at least a good start.

What did the letter accomplish? Absolutely nothing … no value whatsoever. What did it cost? Minimum $125,000,000 not counting labor.

For a country that is struggling to find ways to provide healthcare to its citizens, it sure seems like a dumb thing to do.

Sorry for the interruption .. back to wine next blog.

This is a fairly heated issue at the moment. Here’s a view on the subject from the retailers perspective from the Queens Chronicle – Liquor Store Owners Face Grocery Clash.

This actually is a second attempt to allow wine sales in grocery stores after a first attempt failed about a year ago.

What’s at issue?

There are actually five competing perspectives on the matter:
1. The State of New York wants to increase revenues
2. Grocery stores want to sell wine to  increase sales
3. New York State wineries would like to see more shelves dedicated to selling their wines
4. Consumers would like to be able to shop in one place for their food and wine
5. Current liquor stores want to keep the status quo, and/or are concerned over what this might do to their business.

All the markings of a great debate! As of 2/12 at 12:28 there were about 71 responses. Now this does not reflect 71 individuals. Rather, it represents a much smaller number of people who are either dead set for or dead set against the enactment of this law. (The count is up to 77 as of 2/20)

As I peruse the responses, it is clear that there are passionate arguments for and against enactment. The current store owners do have reasonable concerns particularly where current law includes many restrictions on their business. Namely, dozens of laws enacted before and after Prohibition that likely make little sense in 2010. On the other side are those that are passionate about changing things for the better (their perception) and are arguing strongly in favor of moving away from the laws set as a result of the lifting of Prohibition in 1933 to more reflect the realities of 2010.

Debate is good. No one is completely right or wrong, even if some of the arguments are either protectionist, in error, or simply self serving.

Tempus fugit. Some laws are timeless, but many need review and change over time. For instance, there is a law in Massachusetts that does not allow financial support to parochial schools. Now, I do believe in a separation of church and state. However, the reason for this law goes back to the 1900s when a group (Know Nothing Party) were determined to do whatever needed to stymie those emigrating from Ireland. There is debate now that the law is getting in the way of providing children a better education.

So laws do need to be reviewed, and lively debate is needed to ensure the best results are achieved. Business also must evolve. It wasn’t that long ago that General Motors fought for years against regulations that required safety glass in cars, only to find the Japanese and others investing in engineering instead of lawyers. Times change and require laws and businesses to adapt.

I simply can’t help believe that if each of the concerned parties took a position that said “let’s make things better for the citizens of New York”, a compromise could be identified that:
- Helped increase revenues for the State of NY
- Allowed consumers to do one stop shopping
- Allowed grocery stores to sell wine
- Increased the shelf space dedicated to wines produced in the State of NY (3rd largest wine producing state)
- Changed or did away with laws that restrict current liquor store owners from evolving their business to exist profitably in spite of wines sales in grocery stores (where in 35 other states grocery stores and liquor seem to be able to co-exist)

The only thing I can hope for  is that after pondering the stupidity and inability of our current legislative bodies in Washington to work together for the betterment of the American people, that the interested parties in the State of New York will reflect on what is before them, see this as an opportunity – not a win or lose situation – and act responsibly for the sake of all concerned.

OK .. with that said, don’t forget to bookmark Dr. Vino. Kimchi anyone?

• As an example, a very high percentage of production of wine from California is controlled by a small number of global organizations (won’t list them here… you can easily identify them in the report).
• I must also acknowledge that these same organizations do in fact fund lobbyists across the nation (and I assume abroad as well) to try and keep the status quo from changing. This of course is also done by powerful organizations across all types of business as a way to support continued growth and profitability – not perhaps humane, fair or reasonable, but still legal.
• Again I have to agree that these large corporations are not only wine focused, but are usually also well invested in beer and spirits.

So where do I differ with the report?

As with any facts, the key is in understanding the background and the numbers to the degree that one has an accurate picture by which to evaluate. In this case, the facts are presented from one point of view; that is, from that of an “Alcohol Industry Watchdog”.

So my humble perspective:

• Yes… alcohol in general is controlled by a few very large corporations. This is true today and it was true at the turn of the century in America, one reason why wine was included within Prohibition. In both instances the main focus is and was on profitability. However, wine is produced also by hundreds of dedicated grape growers and winemakers who have a passion for their craft and who are firm believer’s as am I that wine is and should be a part of your everyday life – not as a beverage with which to binge, but as an integral part of a healthy diet.  Yes… there are huge conglomerates in the wine industry, but there are dozens and dozens of family run wineries that are under constant financial pressure due to the economy and the difficulty of getting their product to the consumer under the current 3-tiered system.  These are very hard working individuals and families who are not wealthy, take great pride in their work, and also provide employment, pay taxes, and produce a quality product.
• Yes … these very large corporations do fund lobbyists .. but not fully as the report suggests. While these large corporations own the majority of production, they are also distributors of the product.  High volume production in any industry requires tiered distribution to support the large volumes that must flow from producer to consumer. Small producers are often shut out of distribution since there isn’t sufficient volume to interest the large volume distributors. So yes there is large scale funding and lobbyists, but not to support direct shipments or alter 3-tiered distribution. One of the issues before Prohibition was the fact that the producters (yes.. again very large scale corporations) controlled the flow of alcohol, often putting pressure at the retail level to the point of exclusivity as a way to stymie the competition. The system put in place after Prohibition (3-tiered system) was engineered to avoid this from happening again. However, over the last 70 years since the repeal in 1933 the situation has changed whereby distribution is now the controller not the producer. I will leave it up to the reader to determine which is better.

In reality, the United States has been debating the role of wine since the mid 19th Century when Nicolas Longworth worked to make wine a part of daily life (keep in mind drinking water at the time was very hazardous to your health with the alternative mostly distilled liquour) and Samual Carey, a strong advocate of temperance, insisted wine was no different than any other alcohol.

As with many aspects of life, the “truth” for the majority of people likely lies in between.

QUICK UPDATE:  According to Linda Reiff, executive director of Napa Valley Vintners, “The strength of the family business is evident in Napa Valley — 95 percent of our appellation’s wineries are family owned. And, yes, 70 percent produce less than 10,000 cases annually and 60 percent less than 5,000 cases annually.”

For more on Napa Valley, its wineries, and the last 10 years, read “Wine Tales of the Decade”.wine

Why? Because the three tiered distribution system in the United States doesn’t work very well for smaller wineries whose output and/or reputation cannot compete very well against large, high demand brands. If a winery finds itself on the outside of the system, there are few options to selling their product except locally, which may not be feasible or profitable.

In an article today by Wine & Spirits Daily entitled “Why Amazon Quit: Is it Wholesalers?  it  got me thinking about why it is so very difficult to change the wine shipment laws in this country. Is it the wholesalers? Well … yes.. there is a monopoly established in which they benefit greatly. But it isn’t just the wholesalers.

As suggested in the article, there really are now many entrenched interests in keeping the status quo:

• state regulators
• control state executives
• public health advocates
• industry policy wonks
• anti alcohol organizations
• …to name a few

The reasoning: ”vested interests in  preserving a system they contend has worked well for 75 years”

To some this statement is true. But to many others the system works well only to a point: It does not support freedom of choice for law abiding wine enthusiasts, it harms an industry with thousands of smaller brands that could otherwise employ more people, and it often hinders interstate commerce.

Progress continues to be made, but the battle for freeing the grapes will not be short term.

In previous recessions the “status quo”  returned, and then moved upwards. So is the current economic situation simply a normal cyclical pattern that once we have a recovery everything will return to normal and then start inching upwards again? Or has this recession, the worst the world has seen since the 1930′s, changed wine buying habits?

Certainly those that still have very large disposable incomes and are partial to wines that are in short supply at astranomical prices, will continue to purchase those wines. But unlike past recessions, there are questions about whether the same degree of “wealth” and disposable income will return to the middle class, those that have become wine drinkers and have been purchasing more expensive, non-cult wines.

Are wine drinkers “stepping down from what they used to spend per bottle, to a lower outlay”? This was a statement from one of the more recent articles from Reuters entitled “Wine drinkers lift glass to law of supply and demand”. There have been numerous articles on the subject including those from wine country itself such as the North Bay Business Journal’s  Wine: As consumers seek value, wineries adjust. All of these are suggesting this is not your normal cyclical pattern.

It is with this background that I setup a survey with a few simple questions. Now I can’t consider the survey a definite indication of what will happen since the response numbers were not significant enough to come to that kind of conclusion. However, I can at least share with you the response that I did get as follows:

Background Questions:

I first asked the participants to indicate their gender, age and location.  77% of the respondents were male and 23% female. Of these, 38.5% fell into the age group of 21 – 39 and 61.5% in the age group 40 – 59.

In terms of location, 38.5% indicated they resided in the Eastern US, 23.1% resided in the Western US, 15.4% resided in the Southern, US and finally, 30.8% resided in Europe/Middle East/South Africa.

Wine Purchase Questions:

The first question asked was “In the last 12 months has the number of 750ML bottles you purchase increased or decreased?” The response was that 67% have increased the number of bottles purchased and 33% have decreased the number purchased.

I then asked a question regarding purchasing pattern before the recession – “Before the recession in what price range did you buy everyday wines and special occaison wines?” The response was 38.5% purchased everyday wine priced $5 – $15 for a 750ml bottle, 53.8% purchased everyday wine priced $16 – $25, and 7.7% purchased bottles between $26 – $50 for an everyday wine. No one indicated purchasing wines for everyday consumption over $50.

For special occaisons, 7.7% indicated they purchased these between $16 – $25 per 750ml, 38.5% at between $26 – $50, and 7.7% over $50.  (Please Note: This was a single question with  multiple responses so that percentages will not add to 100%)

I followed the previous question with “Since the recession I now buy wines ….”. The response was that 69.2% are buying everyday wines in the $5 – $15 price range and 38.8% are now buying in the $16 – $25 range. None of the respondents indicated purchasing wines for everyday consumption beyond $25.

In regards to special occaison wines, the response was 30.8% are buying in the $15 – $25 range and 23.1% purchasing in the $26 – $50 range. None responded purchasing above $50 for special occaison wines. (Again, numbers will not add up to 100% due to multiple answers)

In order to keep the survey brief I asked only two additional questions:

The first was in regards to future purchasing plans following the recession. 30.8% said they would likely return to their purchasing winesas they did before the recession and 69.2% said they would continue purchasing the way they have during the recession.

The final question simply asked whether the respondents had any additional comments. Four of the respondents had additional comments as follows:

• “I think prices have increased as well with high cost of logistics from producer to open markets.”
• “My wine buying strategy is mainly influenced by vintages. As an Italophile this year the release of ’04 Brunello and ’04/’05 Barolo and Barbaresco kept me buying at roughly the same level/slightly increase. With the great ’06/’07 vintages comming up next two years, I’ll expect to be buying at a slightly higher level.”
• “People are now looking at lesser known regions and less well known varietals. This is all good as it will expand on wine knowledge in general.”
• “I have been more mindful of every dollar I spend – there are many good wines in the lower price point”

The data suggests that wine buying patterns have changed. This is consistent with many other industry articles as well as data collected from wineries, distributors and retailers. The question remains whether these buying patterns are temporary or permanent. At the very least these data would suggest that buying patterns will not quickly return as they have in the past, and for some buyers, may have changed permanently.

Case in point, a change suggested to Massachusetts law by Sen. Jamie Eldridge D-Action that would allow Massachusetts wineries to sell and offer a tasting of their wines at farmers’ markets in the state.

What’s the problem?

According to a report from WBZ News:

“The bill is strongly opposed by liquor store owners, who also led the resistance to a 2006 ballot question that would have expanded the sale of wine in supermarkets in Massachusetts. Voters defeated that measure by a 56-44 margin.

Frank Anzalotti, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of Package Stores, said Eldridge’s bill is “fraught with peril” because there would be no guarantees that workers at farmers’ markets are properly trained to weed out minors.”

Now one would think this “concern” can be easily rectified and/or soothed:

1. Assuming the wineries are using the same employees that pour at the winery itself, there is no issue as these people are trained – and just as competent to pour as those in a liquor store (in some cases they are family members that have a lot more to lose than a hired employee at a retail store).
2. Assuming the wineries decide to hire new employees  and/or contract for a particular event, the bill could stipulate that anyone selling or pouring must be trained.

I can’t think of any small winery in Massachusetts that would put their license in jeopardy in order to move some bottles at a farmers’ market. I also doubt there would be a huge drop off in sales at liquor stores around the state as many do not carry or only minimally carry locally produced wine.

Let’s be honest: allowing the tasting and sales of locally produced wines at farmers’ markets of an by itseld will not drastically increase sales. I would think that most people would buy one or two bottles, not walk away with several cases. However, what it will do is allow more people in Massachusetts to become familiar with and hopefully interested in locally produced wines.

What is the benefit?

• Massachusetts wineries would have the opportunity to get their wines seen and tasted by those who may be totally unfamiliar with their wines.This could mean immediate incremental sales at the farmers’ market or equally as important, new repeat customers of the winery direct through a wine club or similar, or perhaps by purchasing these wines where available at a local retail liqour store, resulting in increased sales for the store(s) and the wineries.
• As stated, local retail outlets could now find a local interest in purchasing Massachusetts wines. They would have the ability to stock more of these wines and increase their sales.
• The State of Massachusetts would benefit by helping to grow a nascent industry that based on growth would now be paying more taxes and perhaps hiring additional personnel (who will pay more taxes).

Bottom line: if we can allow guns to be bartered and/or sold at events without requiring the normal waiting period or background check, I think having a small taste of wine, and then subsequent sales to adults is not only quite reasonable, it makes good business sense.

Distribution (sales or bartering) of automatic weapons to unknown individuals makes me “fraught with peril”, and is likely less deadly than a sip of wine.