Really good article from the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat on the debate over the proposed Wine Improvement District for Sonoma County. IIRC there have been some posts here about a similar debate in Santa Barbara County I believe.
What I don’t understand is why the tax/assessment is applied on bottles sold at the winery. I already get frustrated when I visit a winery and they’re selling bottles at a higher price than any other store. It also seems to benefit wineries that focus on distribution more than those that rely on direct-to-consumer sales. Is there not a way to apply something like this to, say, each barrel produced instead?
I’m also not quite sure what a tourism campaign funded by the tax would do. People already know Sonoma basically almost as well as Napa. This kind of campaign might make sense for a lesser-known area (or a specific AVA), but unless you’re changing taste buds to reject Napa-style Cab Sauv (which I’d be fine with, but I don’t think is realistic) it’s unclear what the impact will be.
Marketing costs should never appear as a line item to customers.
We all know on some level at the cost of products we buy are affected by the marketing costs for those products, but nobody wants a “Flo From Progressive TV Ad Campaign” surcharge line item on their car insurance bill.
But that’s exactly what you see when you stay at most hotels - it may not be spelled out as such . . .
With the wine industry, it won’t say ‘marketing’ - in the case of those who are adding it in Temecula, it’s being called the * TVWAHD Assmnt; in Santa Barbara County, it’s SBCWP or Wine Preserve . . .
The proposal is to surcharge all CA taxable sales, whether or not the customer visits the winery. The level they were talking about in early July was 2%! Voting to be weighted according to production volume rather than likely ‘contribution’ to the funds collected…administration of said funds is still fuzzy.
We would also have to pay the fee on wines from appellations outside of Sonoma County if they are sold DTC. The assessment is also on events, food, and merchandise.
The Sonoma County wine industry ranges from giant conglomerates to boutique producers and from impressive visitor facilities to planks laid across a couple of barrels in the cellar. In my view, a “one size fits all” approach to funding and promotion will cause - rightfully - plenty of controversy. Unless there is a careful, considered approach to both funding and implementation, this could get ugly in a hurry.
Great points - and I really think this comes down to how much $$$ they plan on raising on what specifically they will do with it. IF they come up with a plan that aims to increase traffic at your winery, would you be in favor of it?
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but under new SB 478 in California, you have to include everything beside tax and tip into a total price.
Except at restaurants, I think, who got an exemption right after the law was passed. And would this be considered a tax under SB 478?
Thus, I guess whether you listed out the marketing charge or not for the customer to see, the amount presented to customers has to include it. If you say XYZ Sonoma Pinot $45, you can’t add a $3 charge for this thing on top of it (subject to the caveats in my second paragraph).
This is a ‘fee’, not a tax, and perhaps that’s the difference?
Also, the ‘fee’ needs to be paid, but it does not specify that the customer has to pay it. IF the customer is not paying it, it is not listed and just comes out of the winery’s pocket, which is what I am doing here in SBC (first payment just went out)
This really makes little sense as structured, given that the industry is already struggling, and the use of the funds really only favors those with robust hospitality programs.
Many - I’d say most but haven’t proven that yet - of the small wineries here in Sonoma County are opposed to this effort. We’ve started a petition about this detailing our concerns (I won’t post here as I don’t know if it is allowed)
The stated goal of the WID on the Sonoma Winegrowers Page is “Our industry is facing challenges like never before. We must reverse the decline and grow the overall wine category now. To do this, we will want to make our wine more accessible, find new wine fans to increase visitation to Sonoma County, and drive sales at the assessed winery businesses.”
As wineries, we simply don’t believe that charging the consumers more money will make wine more accessible, find new wine fans, or drive sales.
Share the same thought with you Bob…
The free-tasting or even 2 for 1 is long gone…
with the traffic/cost…I really do not see the reason to visit Napa for wine tasting no more, except maybe stop by Yountville for some brunch. Sonoma is catching up now and I would hate it end up like Napa…
Say, is your profile picture taken from Ridge MB? (Forgive me if I am wrong)
There certainly has been a concerted effort to lower tasting fees at some properties in the Sonoma area - but yep, fees have become higher than many folks are comfortable with in many wine regions. Not sure that that alone could ‘turn the tide’ as the cost to eat, stay, etc has also risen precipitously, but it would help . . .
My point has more to do with a significant segment of my colleagues than just my own winery’s traffic. There are lots of small wineries here that do not have tasting rooms to drive traffic to, yet they still sell a lot of wine DTC shipped in CA to customers that did not visit which would be subject to the fee.
If anything, cellar door purchases would be more equitable than including remote sales. But then you get into the scenario of someone from out of state visiting, tasting and purchasing to have the wine shipped to their home state. I’m still not sure I like the idea of 2% regardless…that’s a large proportion.
There are already a number of growers and vintners organizations in the county that address the common concerns of the very different slices of the industry. We are free to join, pay dues, participate and attempt to shape their efforts. For example, I’ve been a part of the RRV Pinot Forum for years. This organization and event brings awareness of the area and neighborhoods to sommeliers across the country. While members are primary beneficiaries of this effort (since we are present with the guests), and Pinot Noir is the primary focus, we intend to also benefit all growers and wineries and all varieties in the Russian River Valley as well (members or not), as formalized in the bylaws. This is our choice.