Although I don't blame you, sounds like you're having a hard time resigning yourself to the fact that lowest common denominator wines have always driven the wine industry. Mostly in New World countries, but also in Europe. It's a shame, but personally, I take solace in the fact that overall wine quality has, in fact, slowly but surely increased over the past 50 years, which is as long as I've been in the business. If you hate the commercial wines of today, you should have tasted them in the '70s and '80s. They were wretched.
In any case, there are most certainly movements afoot indicating consumer resistance. There is no hiding the fact, for instance, that domestic sales of wines under $12 have drastically fallen. A small but growing number of consumers are resisting "Sysco" wines.
In the end, it's consumers, not pundits or wine magazines, who will determine the direction of the wine market. They have to vote with their wallets, or rather purses (since women still buy most of the wine, at least in our country). I think "good taste" is bound to happen. I have faith in consumers. Complete resistance to artificiality may not happen in our lifetime, but it eventually will, and I'm sure the production industry will respond accordingly. Meanwhile, let us all continue to write about good, honest wines while politely declining to write about the nasty ones, and do our part to hasten the process.
I didn't get the sense that this article was intended to provide commentary on the relative quality of corporate wine. I read it rather as a condemnation of the systemic promotion of homogeneity and mediocrity in service of corporate profits and at the expense of good, honest wines, passionate producers, intrepid vendors, undiscerning diners, and happy hour houseguests. This is to say nothing of the diabolical exploitation of struggling restaurants and retailers by multi-billion dollar corporate parasites.
To the extent that "homogeneity and mediocrity" are considered negatives, the article does make a judgement on quality. It goes without saying, though, that to many consumers commercialized wines are plenty "good." To them, that's "quality," and it's why they buy them. Therefore, I can't 100% agree that this is "exploitation." For the most part, consumers know what they are voluntarily buying, and their purchase reflect that taste. But we already know tastes change, and they can change drastically. Not too long ago, for instance, light, fruity White Zinfandel was the most popular wine on the market. Today, no longer. Chardonnays used to be soft as butter and as sweetly fruited as tropical fruit. Today, Chardonnays are a little dryer and crisper, as are Sauvignon Blancs and Pinot Grigios. Out of necessity, the industry *does* make adjustments as time goes by. Therefore, I wouldn't characterize the consumer/industry dynamic as "diabolical." It's more a matter of adjusting to market realities, still driven by consumer demand.
well written. the ethos of drink what makes you happy is probably correct. but equally correct is the fact that adulterated mass market wines and canned cocktails are being force fed to the general public. It is also my belief that these poorly made and - lacking in joie de vivre products - are helping to cause the downward trend of appropriate drinking in the US and turning away the younger generation from wine as a yummy, appropriate, healthful and joyous part of a meal.
Bravo well stated! I do cringe at wine lists as there are so many good ones out there. I would love to see more insight to music venues, casinos and sports areas that carry bad wines that I cant drink most of those wines anymore although at one time I did and liked them. Dark Horse and St Michelle both have great reasonable wines that are still better values that could be served. The Prices are outrageous on these wines as well at venues.
While I agree that that consolidations and homogenization of the wine industry is not a good thing I have a problem with denigrating the idea that people should drink what they like. I work at a tasting room in California. Am I supposed to tell people “Drink what you hate”? I’ve seen the look on people’s faces when they sip a wine they really don’t like. I’m not going to try to sell them something they find unpalatable. What I try to do is to get folks to try — and like — better made wines. Doesn’t always work but sometimes it does.
Thank you for shaming the Chloe bringer. Any wine in the aisle at Walgreens pharmacy makes my skin crawl. That includes wine brands owned by the Wonderful Corp that makes pomegranate juice.
Jason, this is a great piece! Can I share it on my wine shop socials?
Although I don't blame you, sounds like you're having a hard time resigning yourself to the fact that lowest common denominator wines have always driven the wine industry. Mostly in New World countries, but also in Europe. It's a shame, but personally, I take solace in the fact that overall wine quality has, in fact, slowly but surely increased over the past 50 years, which is as long as I've been in the business. If you hate the commercial wines of today, you should have tasted them in the '70s and '80s. They were wretched.
In any case, there are most certainly movements afoot indicating consumer resistance. There is no hiding the fact, for instance, that domestic sales of wines under $12 have drastically fallen. A small but growing number of consumers are resisting "Sysco" wines.
In the end, it's consumers, not pundits or wine magazines, who will determine the direction of the wine market. They have to vote with their wallets, or rather purses (since women still buy most of the wine, at least in our country). I think "good taste" is bound to happen. I have faith in consumers. Complete resistance to artificiality may not happen in our lifetime, but it eventually will, and I'm sure the production industry will respond accordingly. Meanwhile, let us all continue to write about good, honest wines while politely declining to write about the nasty ones, and do our part to hasten the process.
I didn't get the sense that this article was intended to provide commentary on the relative quality of corporate wine. I read it rather as a condemnation of the systemic promotion of homogeneity and mediocrity in service of corporate profits and at the expense of good, honest wines, passionate producers, intrepid vendors, undiscerning diners, and happy hour houseguests. This is to say nothing of the diabolical exploitation of struggling restaurants and retailers by multi-billion dollar corporate parasites.
To the extent that "homogeneity and mediocrity" are considered negatives, the article does make a judgement on quality. It goes without saying, though, that to many consumers commercialized wines are plenty "good." To them, that's "quality," and it's why they buy them. Therefore, I can't 100% agree that this is "exploitation." For the most part, consumers know what they are voluntarily buying, and their purchase reflect that taste. But we already know tastes change, and they can change drastically. Not too long ago, for instance, light, fruity White Zinfandel was the most popular wine on the market. Today, no longer. Chardonnays used to be soft as butter and as sweetly fruited as tropical fruit. Today, Chardonnays are a little dryer and crisper, as are Sauvignon Blancs and Pinot Grigios. Out of necessity, the industry *does* make adjustments as time goes by. Therefore, I wouldn't characterize the consumer/industry dynamic as "diabolical." It's more a matter of adjusting to market realities, still driven by consumer demand.
well written. the ethos of drink what makes you happy is probably correct. but equally correct is the fact that adulterated mass market wines and canned cocktails are being force fed to the general public. It is also my belief that these poorly made and - lacking in joie de vivre products - are helping to cause the downward trend of appropriate drinking in the US and turning away the younger generation from wine as a yummy, appropriate, healthful and joyous part of a meal.
Bravo well stated! I do cringe at wine lists as there are so many good ones out there. I would love to see more insight to music venues, casinos and sports areas that carry bad wines that I cant drink most of those wines anymore although at one time I did and liked them. Dark Horse and St Michelle both have great reasonable wines that are still better values that could be served. The Prices are outrageous on these wines as well at venues.
While I agree that that consolidations and homogenization of the wine industry is not a good thing I have a problem with denigrating the idea that people should drink what they like. I work at a tasting room in California. Am I supposed to tell people “Drink what you hate”? I’ve seen the look on people’s faces when they sip a wine they really don’t like. I’m not going to try to sell them something they find unpalatable. What I try to do is to get folks to try — and like — better made wines. Doesn’t always work but sometimes it does.
this is a fair point from someone who clearly didn't read the article.
Speaking of Sysco, they have officially partnered with the Michelin Guide as the official sponsor of North American events.
Thank you for shaming the Chloe bringer. Any wine in the aisle at Walgreens pharmacy makes my skin crawl. That includes wine brands owned by the Wonderful Corp that makes pomegranate juice.