Has the Evolution of Wine As a Hobby Created Barriers to Entry?

I came across an interesting internet blog post from an economist on the way people’s engagement in their interests/hobbies has changed over time.

Here it is: http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/narrower-deeper-older/

The title is the observation: “Narrower, Deeper, Older.” One note: by narrower, he means number of people engaged in activity, not focus.

The hypothesis is that the internet plays a big role in the change – it’s a “matching technology.”

The article doesn’t mention wine (and I hesitated posting in Wine Talk for a moment), but it rings true for wine too, at least to me. I suspect that, compared to enthusiasts of 40 years ago, wine enthusiasts today drink and discuss wine more often exclusively with fellow hobbyists, and it is more difficult for the wine enthusiast of today to enjoy drinking wine socially among non-enthusiasts. Likewise, I suspect that the breadth and depth of knowledge possessed by the wine enthusiast today (especially among many who post here) suggests to most people considering wine as a hobby that it would require too much of a commitment.

Interested in the thoughts of others… especially those who can truly speak across the decades.

Interesting article, Jay. I don’t have decades of experience for comparison, but I do have a few thoughts. Overall, I think there are often, maybe even usually, specific factors relevant to each area of interest that trump the whole “matching technology” idea. I do see the internet serving to help people become really dedicated to their interest by creating a group that shares that interest.

It’s hard to know to what extent, if at all, it has the effects #1 (narrower group interested) and #3 (older age group), but those ones really fall apart with wine and with the author’s examples. With wine, I think it’s safe to say that in the US, there’s a far broader group of interested enthusiasts than there were in past generations, and that the average age of that group is now younger. That has a lot to do with generational changes and trends, but it contradicts the expectation laid out in the article. I do think there’s some segmentation as you mention, Jay, in that there’s a group of really fanatically devoted enthusiasts who view wine differently than more casual enthusiasts do, but I still see both types at a lot of the offlines I attend. I guess it depends on how you define the more casual group. Maybe they’re so casually interested that they would never attend an offline, but either way, there are a lot of people like that. As far as #2, deeper, I do believe those who are engaged in wine are generally more knowledgeable than in the past, which is partially because of the much larger group of intensely dedicated people, and largely because of the internet, so that part seems true.

Without getting into a discussion of each one here on a wine board, I will point out that interested groups in the author’s examples other than Israeli folk dancing: bridge; baseball; and religion, are all changing for a lot of reasons besides “matching technology”. It seems like that factor is not nearly as relevant as several others in every one of those three cases.

I love drinking wine among non-enthusiasts…as long as I bring the wine! I know I’m like a lot of people here, though, who’s more likely to order a beer or liquor drink at most restaurants, which is then tough to explain to people who know me as a “wine guy” without sounding pretentious.

I guess a legitimate case could be made about the “narrowing” based on the increasing amount of money required as well as the top wines only being available to those with sufficient funds. But anecdotally, the number of wine retailers in my area has increased dramaticly in the last 10 years, not to mention what can be acquired online. I would think it pretty clear that both interest and participation are strong to support the ever increasing number of sellers. But there is no denying the trend towards informality and casual, social interest of things in general. The current interest in wine might have as least as much to do about social contact as it does about wine itself. Not everyone who decides to learn to play the guitar has the desire, time, or the ability to become a concert musician. So I would not be surprised if the younger people who are enjoying wine are less concerned about learning about it, and more concerned about what circumstances and settings in which they are having it.

Really well put

There have always been barriers. If anything, barriers have broken down. There’s always been a snobby, elitist portion of wine enthusiasts. Sure, much of that end is evolving. It’s also vastly expanding, which is why prices of certain wines have skyrocketed, and the number of high-end wineries is greatly increased. At the same time, there are more paths to get into wine, it’s been made more accepting, less intimidating. There are more, better exciting affordable wines than ever.

No barriers to entry, but ample barriers to the upper end of the hobby if someone wants to explore what used to be explorable.

Not criticizing, just actuarializing.

I find the narrowing concept particularly interesting. Do those emmersed in the hobby really want to associate with those not as engaged or with similar levels of enthusiasm?

I’m inclined to think that it probably has more to do with the caliber of wines on the table.

probably true, although my comment was assuming all things being equal.

It was easier to know a lot about wine when I started in wine - in the 70s and early 80s. Mostly it was Bordeaux and Burgundy. In Bordeaux, all you really needed to know was what classified wines were good (no worries about some wines being traditional style and others being modern) and a handful of wines that were not classified that were good (Chasse Spleen, Gloria, Meyney and a few others). Then, there were a few good vintages every decade, buy those, forget the rest.

In Burgundy, mostly you needed to know the names Faiveley, Jadot, Drouhin and a couple of other negociants. Yes, there were a few growers around, but nothing like today.

California wine was a handful of names. There were Inglenook Cask and BV Private Reserve. Then, if you were cool, there were some new names like Mondavi, Jordan, Ridge and Phelps. Much easier than today.

German wines were tougher because, like today, you had to learn that the great estates of the Rheingau (raved about in all the books) made horrible wines and to stay away from them. But, then you could have Prum, Grunhaus and a few others and you were set. The Pfalz, for example, was mostly Burklin Wolf.

I really did not pay any attention to Italy or the Rhone. Or Austria (which was associated with antifreeze). And, what was Australia, Oregon, South Africa, etc.

And, everything was affordable.

To be a wine geek today, there really is a lot more to learn and you have to be a lot richer.

Because there are so many wineries today, and prices are so high, I think people specialize more and get into areas like Oregon, the Loire, Jura, Campania, Sicily, etc., that people just did not deal with when I was young. With 1979 Leoville las Cases and Pichon Lalande at about $14 a bottle and 1982s like Chasse Spleen and Gloria at $5-7 a bottle on futures, why care about Chinon?

This is what I think too. For 95% of people getting into wine, it’s easier these days than it’s ever been. For the 5% who had access to mentors, opportunity, access and information to be buying 1974 Napa cabs and 1960s First Growths for $10-20, they had it the best, but most people back then had little or no way to get into the wine hobby.

Similar enthusiasm, yes. Or perhaps open to becoming enthusiastic. Not necessarily similar bank rolls. I’d rather drink with someone who finds 20.00 a splurge than some wine ennui dope who wants to talk points and drink 300 dollar bottles.

This sounds noble an I don’t doubt your sincerity, but we both know that after you’ve been at this for awhile, there isn’t a lot of stimulation to be had from the majority of $20 bottles that are readily available.

I think most of my wine buddies enjoy a mixture of settings - tastings with knowledgeable wine enthusiasts, drinking casually with friends in social settings, mentoring and introducing people getting into wine, drinking alone, all of it.

I agree, but, a charming companion is priceless.

If I could afford 1945 Mouton, I would be pleased to drink with you given your enthusiasm, even if you could only bring Screaming Eagle. Or even a 35 dollar Clos du Val! Or, if you didn’t bring anything but liked wines!
I hope that was properly complimentary. It was meant as praise.Part of this is ‘wine evangelism,’ I really like altering people’s interpretation of wine, sharing an enjoyable experience, and ‘ruining palates.’

This past weekend, we went to a friend’s birthday party.

Wines ranged from Trader Joe’s finds to Bev Mo shelf talkers to The Prisoner (me no likely, but I like the person) to some Williams Selyem pinots and Carlisle zin and it was fun watching opinions form and unform, and next time, we will see an evolution.

Love that, perfect!

I think it’s a bit of both. Years ago the “top” wines were cheaper and there was less to know regarding regions and grapes, and there was a lot less science. In the thirty years that I’ve been interested more than casually, regions have come on the scene that were once scorned, prices for the established “top” wines have essentially gone out of reach for many casual drinkers, and all kinds of people who have a few glasses of wine decide to get some kind of certification. I just read an interview with a woman who was doing something or another in tech, watched a bunch of those somm videos, and decided that she had to be a somm within a year, so dropped everything and became a wine expert.

First, you don’t become an expert on anything after a year and secondly, the idea that like running a marathon, learning about wine is a personal challenge involving sweat, focus, and pain, is extremely off-putting. So to some degree I agree with the article.

But that’s a small percentage of people. There are many who just want something liquid and acceptable.

More importantly, you don’t need to be expert or master of anything to enjoy wine. You can have a great wine life without ever tasting a Napa cult wine or a first growth Bordeaux. There are many levels of appreciation and none is inherently better than another. As for drinking with people who have less enthusiasm than I - it’s nice to drink with people I can learn from. But I’m not picky - I’ll drink with anyone who doesn’t pick his nose at the table or chew with his mouth open.

As for baseball, who knows. We used to play all summer long as kids. Today kids aren’t supposed to do that - they have organized play dates. While the world is safer than it’s been since the dawn of time, we are all aware of every bad thing that happens anywhere on the planet, so it seems a frightening place. So it’s easier to sit inside collecting trivia about ball players. That level of tedium has forever destroyed baseball for me. In the same way, the person who talks about soil types can ruin a wine experience. Whatever’s the equivalent of a pick-up ball game is a good wine experience.

I like Arnold Kling a lot generally (was on a panel with him once), but I don’t buy this hypothesis. The most logical explanation for the pattern he observes is just a generational one – the hobbies he liked as a young guy have aged along with him, so that the people who like them are older and the people who stuck with them are more committed and expert. But he’s probably not familiar with the hobbies the kids are into these days, which would skew newer/younger/shallower.

I’ve enjoyed the responses and agree to a certain extent with the criticism/push-back against the link’s hypothesis. A few additional thoughts:

1. I probably should have up-fronted the obvious potential problem with applying his hypothesis, which is the fact that wine is much more widely consumed today than it was 40 years ago. I’m not so sure most of that is by hobbyists, however, and I think I’m still comfortable making a distinction between hobbyists and casual drinkers for purposes of the link’s argument. Wine does seem to be more accessible to casual drinkers these days. Wine as a “hobby” may not be.

2. I think Howard’s post above and GregT’s comment (subject to the distinction I make in #1) get at what resonated with me in the link I posted. Wine like a lot of hobbies has taken a turn toward the technical and has even transitioned to a field of knowledge dominated by professionals with formal training. That transition provides a lot of opportunity to “nerd out.” It also makes wine enthusiasm less about aesthetics, which is kind of weird when you think about it.

3. Marcus’s post immediately above very well may be right. Playing devil’s advocate, however, Marcus might not be identifying anything other than a truism. In other words, brand new hobbies that have recently been invented and are enjoyed by young people are by definition “younger” and maybe, at least initially, “wider and shallower.” But that doesn’t mean that they won’t develop differently today than they would if they were a young person’s hobby 40 years ago. I’m relatively young. I know lots of young people. Some of them are into newer hobbies like snowboarding. Talk to a serious snowboarder sometime. He most likely knows a lot of about some really technical stuff potentially involving kinesiology, physics, chemistry, and applied materials science. He probably researches the latest gear online and has a pretty sophisticated understanding of how to pick the right gear to match his desired performance characterics. My dad, on the other hand, was a semi-professional skier in the early 70s. He was a great skier, worked a lot on his technique and fitness, and had the best gear available. But compared to top skiers today, he knew next to nothing about his gear from a technical standpoint (neither did the manufacturers), didn’t have a very sophisticated understanding of kinesiology, and probably had a laughable fitness and nutrition regime. Achieving his relative level of expertise as a skier today (i.e. standing among his peers) I suspect would require a lot more work, a lot more knowledge, and a lot more focus on skiing to the exclusion of other activities.