Since we sell through about 9,000-10,000 cases direct-to-consumer each year, that’s all the judging we need. We have one distributor in the country and they don’t seem to need scores or awards to sell our wines through either. So, why should we submit our wines for scores and awards? Our egos don’t need them, our customers don’t need them, our distributor doesn’t need them, so nobody cares. Good enough for me.

David

I believe David was speaking for us, not for others, when he said “We’re not above being judged. We just couldn’t care less about scores, awards, or ratings.” It’s hard to get rated, high or low, when you don’t submit your wines to the wine writers and we’re pursuing what works for us.

Cheers! Nancy

Thanks for writing. I agree that the consumer ultimately defines quality, as does our CEO, who indicated this very clearly in his comments above.

What you describe as BS is simply my opinion, to which I have a right. And you have a right to yours. I think we’ve gone back and forth enough that the opposing opinions and the reasoning behind them has been made clear to those who are following the conversation.

The only thing I feel compelled to respond to is this statement: “Nancy, you have essentially argued that quality is immaterial to the consumer because they don’t know or deserve better.” After re-reading the post, I can’t figure out how you reached that conclusion. I have the greatest respect for consumers. Besides the fact that they sign my paycheck, they have been an important and delightful part of my life through all these years. And as I said above I agree that it is the consumer, and that includes you and me, who decides how to define good and great wine. Cheers!

Nancy, you have essentially argued that quality is immaterial to the consumer because they don’t know or deserve better. Your sly criticism of Enologix as mimicry is seated in the idea that your experience somehow supercedes technology and that a good tasting room location/mailing list excuses middling wines.

Downstream information improves the process of winegrowing and allows a more informed approach to creae natural wine. Dictating style is what winegrowers do. Intervention begins when you cut the first tree to take advantage of an improved exposure for your vines. You do accurately point out the fact that no amount of information can replace a superior vineyard. That said I think your frustration is misplaced, Leos’ clients are largely the wineries who are setting the pace for the industry. He has helped Chappellet, Ridge and Joseph Phelps (amongst others) to improve their methodology and practices in order to consistently produce better and better wines. Wines that people want to drink every day. You would be hard pressed to take these players down for a lack of individuality or a cookie-cutter approach.

Why do you employ Bob Pepi: if you are not interested in making wines that are au courant. Does Pepi-Booth suggest when to pick, when to press, what to do with your press fractions and finally your oak choices and blends. Enologix simply expands the universe of choice. No amount of number crunching will replace site selection, planting decisions, deft farming or smart- sensitive winemaking, tasting and blending choices.

What really blows me away is your idea that there is a disconnect between the critics scores and wine-quality. With the explosion of the blogosphere the whole game has changed. Populist wine criticism is the norm not the exception. Isn’t that where you come in?

I pose the question to you, what defines wine quality. It has nothing to do with the marketing vernacular employed to describe it.

It has evrything to do with the wine drinker, who defines quality in the glass.

David Topper
Owner/President & CEO

Who needs me to name names? Didn’t we already talk about staff tastings? I could list the wines we tasted last time, but it’s tedious, plus the tasting before it and the next tasting will be completely different because there are soooo many brands to admire and respect. We do this to educate ourselves and to explore what we like and don’t like about the other brands.

How we manage: We have a winemaker/co-owner with over 20 years of experience. He works in concert with Pepi-Booth consulting to be sure we’re not making wine in a vaccuum.

We have no ambition or hope of driving consumer tastes at 9000 cases/year. We’re pretty happy “flying under the radar” as David Topper, the other partner, likes to say. We’re making our customers happy, having some fun and making a profit. That’s good enough for us.

“Above being judged”? The only reason we don’t submit our wines for judging is it’s expensive and time consuming and, as long as sales are strong and our customers continue to be happy, we don’t find it necessary. Each company has to find its own way and this works for us.

To answer your other questions, being thorougly American, I’m not a big fan of AOC-type regulations. I like to think that ultimately the consumer regulates us: if we over-crop the vineyard or cut corners in some other way it will show up in the bottle and we’ll lose customers.

I’m not sure if you’re asking Goosecross or Nancy about benchmarks, but we certainly have staff tastings and discuss what we like and don’t like about different representations of a particular type. I’m not a winemaker, but besides wanting to know what’s going on with those we consider our competitors, it probably helps our winemaker to hone our house style.

Nancy, wine educator, consumer

Sandiegoman, winemaker.

We have to accept Enologix because it exists successfully, but we don’t have to agree that McCloskey is using his considerable intellect in the way that best serves the industry over the long term.

Thank you for sending the article link. I love the fact that they chose to use the word “mimic” as in: “California consultant Enologix is using algorithms to mimic the chemistry of wines ranked highly by critic Robert Parker. Online advertisers are using math to optimize the efficiency of campaigns. And the National Security Agency uses quantitative means to find patterns in phone and Net traffic to identify potential terrorist threats.”

I guess “mimic” pretty well sums up my concern with this the Enologix approach. McCloskey replied by comparing himself to Picasso. You’re talking about business. You have the right idea–it’s about business. Thanks for writing!

Business Week: 2006 Best and Worst Ideas

Enologix made the “Best” list,

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/12/1207_bestideas/source/12.htm

I guess wine ratings are kind of like movie ratings. We’ve all gone to some movie that was highly acclaimed by respected critics and walked away going “Huh???”

I’ve always thought it’s great that we don’t all appreciate the same things, you know, “vive la difference,” but when it comes to ratings you’re right, it’s confusing. Cheers! Nancy

I think we’re in basic agreement that it’s about consumer preference. All I’ve been trying to say is that it’s too bad that so many consumers allow themselves to be instructed as to what they like by a handful of powerful wine writers. The fact that you’ve developed this software is a testament to the influence of these publications. I wish consumers who rely on the point system would experiment more and trust their palates.

But when there’s software that can measure the breakdown of components that make up a 99-point wine and can help any number of producers to replicate that structure, it begins to come off as something akin to cookie-cutter winemaking or however you’d prefer to characterize it.

You provide a service that helps your clients reach their goal. Nothing wrong there. Others of us have the right to look on with concern for the trend toward homogenization and globalization.

This was just an observation or perhaps a lament. Obviously we see things differently, and that’s what makes the world go around. I’ve been enjoying the point-counterpoint!

It sounds like you are saying that unless a given winemaker sells direct to consumers that winemaker is making cookie-cutter wines. OK, we could reverse the slam and say unless you are making batches of over 2,000 cases, you are not under any pressure to please the consumer and run the risk of being out of touch with fine-wine.

I see three types of fine wine businesses, all divided by size. Size One is the small winery, selling under 2,000 cases. It is also true that many tiny producers make some pretty awful wines, especially those with price points. Size Two is the winery selling single vineyard batches of over 2,000 cases. These wineries are very interested in consumers. They have decided to become consumer action orientated in the vineyards, winery and retail stores. Size Three is the large winery, which sells more than 2,000 cases in a hundred US cities. these companies simply cannot live without pleasing consumers of every stripe.

At the end of the day, I have never heard a professional winemaker say he or she is interested in making cookie-cutter wines.

I propose that California’s fine winemakers are establishing the New World’s benchmarks by which your wines are judged by consumers.

I could name 50 who are my customers.

I can’t resist quoting myself from the original entry, “Great Wine By the Numbers?”: “I think McCloskey would probably say that he’s giving his clients and their customers what they want.”

Absolutely, give the customers what they want. We surely try to do that at Goosecross in our style of winemaking and customer service. I’m glad, though, that we’re small enough to hand-sell our wines direct to consumer (98%), mainly to our Wine Club members, and we don’t have to spend our time submitting wine to critics or to worry about what they say and what it might do to our retail and restaurant sales.

The industry is stuck with the ratings systems, for better or for worse. I just hope it doesn’t take all of the fun out of it by creating cookie-cutter wines.

Why not give consumers what they want?

I hope not to come across as a Luddite or as trying to demonize Enologix, but I think this sameness-of- wine-profile thing is worthy of discussion. And global sameness is a real risk if winemakers knuckle under to a handful of powerful wine writers and rely on metrics to get that sacred 99 and the inflated bottle price that goes along with it.

Enologix can’t be blamed for the fact that the wine writers are so powerful. We have to blame ourselves, as consumers, for being sheep. But I still have a problem with numbers as art when it comes to wine (and most things). My instinct is that it’s more about commerce than art.