Seldom does an industry have a chance to show how intelligent it is and, even more seldom, does it have a chance to do it twice in a short period of time. But that’s certainly the case now. Probably by the time you read this, those opportunities will have passed, so let’s look into the crystal ball toward the past this time. Those two opportunities are: pass a conjunctive labeling law and renew the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission.
Long-time readers are familiar with my stance on both of these critical issues, but a bit of history for you newcomers and those with short memories might be in order. More than 20 years ago, Richard Kunde and myself attempted to get a grape growers commission established by Sonoma County growers. The commission would allow an assessment of a given price per ton produced (if more than 25 tons) and be used for selective purposes such as marketing and research. Thanks to grower (farmer) attitude, which always wants less government and has the attitude of “I know what I’m doing and I don’t need help,” we were shot down faster than a clay pigeon at a skeet shoot.
Meanwhile, the Lodi Grape Growers didn’t have their head wedged in the same set of cheeks, and quickly established their own commission. What they did with theirs still stands as the epitome of what can be accomplished when you work together. They took an unknown area with average quality fruit and turned it completely around, so that today, they’re in the best possible position in this current economy. Great product, fair price!
It took many years before a Sonoma County commission vote was again brought up and, finally, thru the efforts of many, including the multitalented President Nick Frey, it passed. With a built-in, five-year limit, it now needs to be renewed. With all the great work it’s done in the last five years, it’s beyond my wildest imagination that it could be defeated. But, then again, I could be overestimating the intelligence of the local growers. In these very tight times, it might be hard to vote to assess oneself, but $1 or $2 per ton won’t break you, and can very certainly help times get better.
Will intelligence win over stubbornness? One of the best marketing aids that’s developed has been the combining of the Sonoma County Vintners, the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau and the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission. There’s certainly strength in numbers, and by combining funds, a much bigger egg is available. This affiliation has been dubbed, very cleverly, the Sonoma Trio. It’s allowed the spending of more than $4 million in promoting the Sonoma brand.
The commission has also allowed the formation of the Presidents’ Council. This is all of the individual AVA group presidents working together—how unheard of is that? AVAs (American Viticultural Areas) are each of the areas within the county that think they’re better than anyone else. Basically, they’re the products of egos getting together: “The world knows where Bennett Valley, Chalk Hill and the other 11 areas are, so why bother to work together to promote Sonoma County when we only care about ourselves?” Which brings me to item number two.
I’ve explained the meaning of conjunctive labeling several times in the past while I’ve been ranting and raving about local wineries that are ashamed to put Sonoma County on their label. Since common sense doesn’t seem to prevail, maybe it’s time to take some action. At long last, the Sonoma County Vintners (wineries) have decided to pursue a law that would mandate the use of Sonoma County on the label. I’ve yet to hear any argument for not putting Sonoma County on their labels that makes sense. There’s no other appellation that’s more recognizable that’s put on a label. Wineries that believe consumers countrywide and/or worldwide recognize their own little isolated AVA have their heads buried in sand or some other brown substance.
The major objectives of the labeling act are: to “build brand equity for Sonoma County wines and preserve and strengthen our position in the world wine market,” and to “increase sales of wines produced from Sonoma County grapes.” Growers need to support this issue, since the more Sonoma County wines that sell, the more grapes the wineries will need. Boy, am I not a genius? That’s so complicated, I hope growers can understand it when their support is needed to get it passed. Wineries may have to put their egos aside and instead use common sense, a commodity seldom seen but hopefully there. It’s only been about 15 years now that I’ve preached this, and it’s been “studied” by the various organizations, so maybe it’s time. Other areas that have already seen the light are Napa Valley, Lodi, Paso Robles and Bordeaux. They’ve long ago determined that the average wine consumer’s grasp of geography is very limited. You mean the whole world doesn’t know where the Russian River and Alexander Valley are? Horrors! How dreadful.
Probably the biggest eye opener is the recently conducted research by Wine Opinions. This market research “makes a strong case for the value and benefit of conjunctive labeling for Sonoma County, while dispelling several of the key concerns wineries have had in the past,” according to Honore Comfort, executive director of the Sonoma County Vintners. How can anyone think their own little hole in Sonoma County is equally or better known than Napa or Bordeaux?
I can only pray that before you read this, both issues will be resolved favorably and we can get back to work, get our great wines moving off of the shelves again, and we can return to profitability, so when we say, “Sonoma County is going green,” we mean we can still afford to keep vines in the ground in lieu of houses and more concrete. Is it that serious? It is if you look for an alternate agriculture crop and come up with zip, zero and nothing. Remember, if you do your homework with Sonoma County wine, you’ll help out considerably and feel good about it!
