Glad to see this in print as it’s something I’ve always believed.
Key take-away:
Despite perceptions that a region is a more valuable communication tool than grape variety, most of the evidence illustrates otherwise. Moving from a process of labeling wine by grape variety, to selling by regional identification leads more frequently to a region’s wines falling into an abyss of market obscurity.
There’s one Rhone, one Napa, Barolo, Bordeaux, Rioja, Tokaj, Mosel, etc., but here’s a fun exercise - how many regions can you name off the top? Just whole regions - I realize that “Bordeaux” includes numerous subregions, but that’s the case all over. I started fading just after fifty. But there are over 200 in the US alone!
On this board, I wonder how many people can name a half dozen areas in Greece. Spain added a bunch of areas recently and the only people who know them are the people who live in those areas. The author was talking mostly about the US, but unless a region was known at some point for great wine, I don’t think regional designation is particularly useful.
The other thing, which wasn’t highlighted much in the article, is that for many of the European regions, there are restrictions on what can be planted, which thankfully is not now and I hope never will be the case in the US.
Very interesting article, thanks for posting. I suspect most producers in new AVAs will put both varietal and AVA on the label, but it’s a great illustration of how a cacophony can overwhelm even good ideas(IMO).
Some AVAs are so small they make ZERO MARKETING SENSE today. And likely NEVER.
Here are several examples in Oregon which have minimal to zero value. All are sub-districts.
McMinnville (Willamette Valley AVA) Red Hill Douglas County (sub ava of Umqua which is a sub ava of Southern Oregon) Elkton Oregon (sub ava of Umqua which is a sub ava of Southern Oregon) Rocks District of Milton-Freewater (sub ava of Walla Walla Valley which is a sub ava of Columbia Valley)
We also have a far eastern Oregon/Idoha AVA from which I have never seen let alone tasted a wine the Snake River Valley AVA.
I have been reaching out to a few Idaho Mourvedre growers and vintners, as the region is testing out a bevy of varieties at this moment. The winter of 2016/17 devastated agriculture around the wine growing area, but it seems to be recovering.
I think we will see more wines of quality emerge from unexpected corners as long as the market will bear growth, and nascent regions find their strengths. As Washington has vineyards that overlap with its neighbors, I remain open-minded.
I will judge Idaho when I get a few bottles in my glass!
Give it time. After a few generations, an AVA will either mean something to people or not. You have to start by giving every area a chance. That’s how evolution works.
I have no problem with small AVAs. We’re talking about how small businesses (generally) get flexibility in marketing, define their brands, and find their audiences. Shouldn’t they get the flexibility, within reason, to control their own brand? Let them take responsibility for themselves, and own whether their brand/AVA choices lead to success or failure.
Could not agree more. Here in SB County, for instance, most wineries do not understand that the average consumer 2 hours south of us really doesn’t understand that we are ‘wine country’. They ALL have heard of and know where SB is, but I would say less than 3% know where the Santa Ynez Valley is (and this was confirmed by one of the marketing guys at the Chumash, who spend Millions each year to try to get folks up here). If they don’t know where the SY Valley is, they certainly are NOT going to know where Los Olivos is, so the idea of them understanding the new Los Olivos District is slim for now . . .
Conjunctive labeling is a must for our area, and hopefully we’ll see this become a reality soon.
Rich - I don’t have a problem, I just don’t think it’s useful, and the article seems to point that out. It’s hard to compete with brands, which is what people are most used to. So something like the Prisoner can really be from anywhere and it’s worth a lot of money. Some of those wines from the Snake River or elsewhere may be exponentially better, and I’m really happy to see things like that happening, but who is going to buy them? Michigan is another - who knows the areas? Traverse City is known for sour cherries but there is some decent wine in the area. Outside of the state it’s sold as a novelty item initially and then a few people return, so now you can buy a couple of the wines in NYC. But labeling by region isn’t going to help when most people can’t even place the state.
Actually, one thing that does seem to work is when producers band together. Wines of Argentina, for example, or Wines of Chile. They do it to an extent with various regions in France, Spain, and Italy as well, and Greece and Portugal have tried doing some branding but I don’t know that it’s gotten them very far.
As you point out, Greg, this is not a ‘quality’ issue whatsoever. It’s the reality of the American consumer - they all know Napa and Sonoma but certainly do NOT know ‘Rutherford’ or ‘Bennett Valley’. That is simply a fact.
Those on this board are totally different - they understand that you can ‘slice and dice’ a region and find sub-regions that are more to their liking than others.
But here’s another thing - why do AVA’s exist in this country? If it is purely geographic, fine - but the idea is that BECAUSE of that geography, there is a ‘uniqueness’ to the wines of that specific sub-region, correct? Shouldn’t that be the ‘guiding light’? And if that is the case, why don’t we have a ‘board’ that tastes each wine that has to be submitted and determine whether it meets the ‘requirement’ for ‘typicity’?
In addition to allowing wineries to market specifics, they provide more information to the informed and discerning consumer. I don’t understand why either of those would be a bad thing. Wineries are free to use the larger parent AVA or the state designation if they don’t want to confuse customers.
But then there are AVAs like ours in the Hudson Valley (Hudson River Region) that cover hundreds of square miles of diverse terrain and contain a myriad of different terroirs and climates (and microclimates) and are meaningless for that reason. I’ve been saying we need subdivisions already; time for a Shawangunk Ridge AVA to show off what all this granitic quartz can do!
How about the possibility that these small AVAs are hardly for the consumer at all, but instead for the producers/industry? Making wine is a tough business - and every employee in businesses want to have a clear identity. Who are we? Why are we unique, special, why do we exist al all? What is the story that we tell ourselves, our distributors, and our customers that keeps us going?
I have no doubt that most consumers of wine, even many real wine lovers, can’t name any AVAs, and only a region or two. Let alone distinguish between, say, Green Valley and Russian River Valley wines. But maybe these subtleties aren’t for them.
The distributors/retailers have a different POV … I’m not sure what the value is for them, maybe someone here has some ideas.
Rich, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Producers believe (and want) to distinguish themselves with any and every marketing tool they can muster. And I’m sure you’re right that even most wine geeks can’t name (or identify on a map) most AVAs. Heck, it took me a long time to learn the difference between Alexander and Anderson Valleys and really only after I’d visited each of them.
I do think there is merit in having AVAs: Bennett Valley is not Russian River Valley is not Alexander Valley is not Anderson Valley. But frankly, in a perfect world where producers weren’t governed by paper-pushing bureaucrats, I’d just let them put whatever they want for location on their label, as long as it’s truthful. Really, look at most winery offerings (that we talk about here) - they’re not selling based on AVA, they’re selling based on a vineyard name, or an imaginary wine name. But then we are not ordinary customers, so maybe AVA has a lot more value to someone browsing a grocery store or Total Wine.
My thoughts are related to the fruit source’s provenance for a given bottle of wine. Short of vineyard-designated bottles, I like to know if a Russian River Valley Zin has been beefed up with Lodi fruit, for example.
Until the label laws require 100% fidelity in the asserted source of the grapes, however, most AVA/variety announcements are short on honesty.
I totally agree. I think if this were done, a large percentage of sub-AVAs in this country would cease to exist. If a designated region can’t be distinguished by what’s in the glass, then I think the designation is pointless.
It truly then becomes a ‘marketing tool’ aimed at getting folks to visit a certain area . . .
I wish it wasn’t so and that ‘typicity’ was taken more seriously - and that goes for ‘varietal typicity as well’ - but these things just don’t seem as important now as they once did.
Here are a few points regarding AVAs from a vineyard owner, grower and wine maker perspective:
The AVA designate improves property value. Therefore, it is more desirable to be part of the AVA than it is to be outside of an AVA.
The AVA is more than just words on a bottle; it is a group of people, committees, etc (for better or worse). This includes joint marketing, signage, events, messaging, education and cooperation between wineries, vineyards and local businesses. Some AVAs are social events for locals in the industry.
Groups of wineries in an area not designated as an AVA will probably seek to form an AVA for reasons previously stated. Thus, AVAs will proliferate as vineyards expand to new territories.
With regard to the “zero value” AVA list posted by someone earlier in the thread: I attended the Oregon Wine Symposium in early 2017; there was a session on Terroir (which I am not a fan of, in full disclosure) and one of the speakers was asked “which AVA has the most distinct terroir?” and he laughed and responded with “The Rocks District”.
Great points - and I totally understand what you’re saying. The ‘reality’, though, is that many wineries in specific AVAs don’t seem to ‘produce wines of distinction’ - and isn’t this the reason why an AVA should be created?
Let’s use as an example the Ballard Canyon AVA down in my neck of the woods. There are some SPECTACULAR vineyards that are in this AVA, including the Larner Vineyard, where I get syrah, grenache and mourvedre from. But if one compares syrahs from the entire AVA, for instance, you’ll find that they range from more meaty, cooler climate ones from those southern vineyards that are more sandy in soil, to very bright fruit forward ones from vineyards that lies on the northern edge - all of about 4 miles away. And even within a specific vineyard like Larner, for instance, some winemakers choose to pick really late, leading to wines that seem to be more about their winemaking style than the ‘uniqueness’ of this specific vineyard.
There certainly is power in numbers - totally agree with that - but in the case of SB County, for instance, our challenge is for more folks to understand that Santa Barbara County IS wine country. This ‘fact’ seems so obvious but it truly is not to the general consumer . . .
