What I Hate About Oregon Wine - Gripes from a Fan

Jim_Anderson · June 15, 2016, 3:41pm

Without getting too much into the math of wineries the simple answer is that we cannot afford it. Medium sized wineries are dicey propositions. We make enough wine that we have fairly decent sized distribution networks (we sell in about 23 states depending on how you look at a couple of endeavors we have that are on the less serious side), we generate enough revenue through all sales avenues to pay for winery help, admin/tech and for tasting room/retail/club staffing at a small sort of level (we sort of don’t have a tasting room). We don’t however generate enough revenue to pay for rep(s) to travel. Those are actually decently compensated jobs. They also, in our sort of scenario as a winemaker driven winery, are not as effective sellers on the road as myself or Patty. Most wineries do 1 of 2 things. 1) Stay smaller and focus on in state and retail sales or 2) if they get to say, our size, look to double or triple production and sales so as to deal with the issues I outlined above. That does involve changing, in my mind anyway, the nature of the winery and at least 1 principle owner’s relationship with what they are tasked with on a daily basis (basically someone has to become the president of the company). I get why things are how they are and am, at this point, accepting of the situation at hand. We are still totally hands on and get to mostly make the wines we are desirous of making even if the practicality of it comes in on the lower end of the business model scale.

While I agree with almost nothing Roy Piper said in his post up-thread the subtext to what he is talking about is economically sound. We don’t have the sort of direct sales we theoretically could simply because we are where we are. If we had a higher percentage of direct sales we would be in a different economic situation entirely even without changing anything regarding the winery’s size or wine production sensibilities. I’m neither attempting to be braggadocio or disparaging of folks in CA (it is actually a nod to their success) but if this winery were in CA we would generate way more revenue. We would have much higher expenses for a large variety of things as well but there are simply more people who spend serious money on high end wines that travel regularly to that part of the world. Oregon is hopefully and maybe likely never going to be that place. I’m more than fine with that.

We are definitely keeping on with our hard to decipher from the outside sort of program (two more brand new Pinot Noirs in 2015 and very likely a whole other one in 2016) so don’t worry. We are still keeping it real.

Michae1_P0wers · June 15, 2016, 3:46pm

Obviously I meant that as rather tongue in cheek. I’m sure that some wineries are hurting. Lots of businesses fail, not just wineries. Lots of restaurants fail. That doesn’t mean that they should all be McDonald’s (or even some less offensive comparison), or that they should try to be. I was really just taking issue with the “one of the things hurting them.” The implication is that Oregon winemakers don’t know what they are doing and are mucking up what should be a very profitable enterprise by making the wines they want instead of making California style wines, and I found that rather absurd.

Dennis_Kanagie · June 15, 2016, 3:55pm

Jim Anderson:

Without getting too much into the math of wineries the simple answer is that we cannot afford it. Medium sized wineries are dicey propositions. We make enough wine that we have fairly decent sized distribution networks (we sell in about 23 states depending on how you look at a couple of endeavors we have that are on the less serious side), we generate enough revenue through all sales avenues to pay for winery help, admin/tech and for tasting room/retail/club staffing at a small sort of level (we sort of don’t have a tasting room). We don’t however generate enough revenue to pay for rep(s) to travel. Those are actually decently compensated jobs. They also, in our sort of scenario as a winemaker driven winery, are not as effective sellers on the road as myself or Patty. Most wineries do 1 of 2 things. 1) Stay smaller and focus on in state and retail sales or 2) if they get to say, our size, look to double or triple production and sales so as to deal with the issues I outlined above. That does involve changing, in my mind anyway, the nature of the winery and at least 1 principle owner’s relationship with what they are tasked with on a daily basis (basically someone has to become the president of the company). I get why things are how they are and am, at this point, accepting of the situation at hand. We are still totally hands on and get to mostly make the wines we are desirous of making even if the practicality of it comes in on the lower end of the business model scale.

While I agree with almost nothing Roy Piper said in his post up-thread the subtext to what he is talking about is economically sound. We don’t have the sort of direct sales we theoretically could simply because we are where we are. If we had a higher percentage of direct sales we would be in a different economic situation entirely even without changing anything regarding the winery’s size or wine production sensibilities. I’m neither attempting to be braggadocio or disparaging of folks in CA (it is actually a nod to their success) but if this winery were in CA we would generate way more revenue. We would have much higher expenses for a large variety of things as well but there are simply more people who spend serious money on high end wines that travel regularly to that part of the world. Oregon is hopefully and maybe likely never going to be that place. I’m more than fine with that.

We are definitely keeping on with our hard to decipher from the outside sort of program (two more brand new Pinot Noirs in 2015 and very likely a whole other one in 2016) so don’t worry. We are still keeping it real.

Most of this post is the reason you see small namesake-winery owners selling out to big corporations. Once they hit a certain level because of their popularity, they’re competing with the Big Boys who have every system in place already. As already stated, stay small or sell out is the choice a winery faces. Hopefully, the buyer lets the winemaker continue on with the least amount of compromise possible.

Marcus_Goodfellow · June 15, 2016, 8:31pm

[quote=“Roy Piper”

"If I were making a Pinot in Oregon, I would go directly AFTER Sonoma. Forget Burgundy. I’ve been to Bergstrom and Beaux Freres. I’ve had Antica Terra, which I think is great. My verdict? They are so successful because they are NOT Burgundian. Both are ripe and each can compete blind with Sonoma Pinot with their fruit and still have some flavor components that Sonoma Pinot often do not. That is why they sell from $75-100+ each. I suspect this is why Jackson Family is buying everything in sight… they have a plan. And it isn’t to make Burgundian-styled wines, I promise you. My guess is they will drag Oregon wine country where it needs to go.[/quote]"

Roy, IMO, you are 100% right. People do like fruit.

More people own Katy Perry albums than Coltraine albums too. It’s all in how you measure success. Jazz musicians play clubs, not arenas. They don’t get to do the halftime show at the Super Bowl.
However, people who know the art of music will still be listening to Coltraine when Katy Perry is just footnote on the Billboard website.

When I die, I don’t care if I have dialed in the recipe for making popular wines. I get one chance per year to take a phenomenally complicated process and do something far more magical than produce an alcoholic fruit beverage. Learning the truth in the process, without resorting to the fear-based chemistry driven influence or the “natural wine” (insert profanity of choice here) takes real chops and real risk. If that means I live a modest life, so be it. At least I will continue to love the opportunity I have carved out for myself.

Richard_T_r_i_m_p_i · June 15, 2016, 8:44pm

Marcus, that’s a big reason why you continue to get my whole-hearted vote. It does help that I love the direction of your wines and many of the results…but to this consumer, there’s more to it…and the story, philosophy, connection, values, and people behind the wines make a difference.

RT

John_Osburn · June 15, 2016, 9:00pm

So what we need around here is a publicity gimmick. Got it.

I suspect this is why Jackson Family is buying everything in sight… they have a plan. And it isn’t to make Burgundian-styled wines, I promise you. My guess is they will drag Oregon wine country where it needs to go.

If they intend to try, I hope their business model collapses.

Finally, Oregon can’t sustain the Sonoma resort model (nor is Oregon well-suited for the resort-hopping set, in many ways) and it will never be permitted on a land use basis alone.

Scott_Everson · June 15, 2016, 9:12pm

All this talk about competing with or emulating California … Heck, up here, we’re just happy if we can find someone to marry that we’re not related to

Marcus_Goodfellow · June 16, 2016, 1:53am

Just my $.02:

The biggest thing creating problems for Oregon wineries right now is that our REGIONAL marketing is lagging behind the vineyard and winery growth in our region.

There is tremendous enthusiasm for Oregon wines right now, but the growth in people’s $$$ that are satisfying their Oregon desires by planting vineyards and building wineries is outstripping the number of people investing their $$$ in buying cases of Oregon wines.

This is where CA outstrips Oregon, their region, as Jim noted, gets more visitors. They also charge and receive higher prices for their Pinot Noirs. For some of these wineries, the $70-80 they get for Pinot Noir is buttressed by Cab based wines that get $100 and up. Add in that many of the major media personalities live in San Francisco and New York, and Oregon winds up a media afterthought. So when, KJ, Dr. Roy, Jadot, Meo-Camuzet, ELV, Larry Stone, and a host of others join the fray with vines in the ground and bottles in the pipeline before we get around on elevating Oregon’s awareness and perception with the mainstream audience, the situation won’t be great for anyone. It’s definitely better for the very small wineries and the very large wineries than it is for the mid-sized producer, but everyone is working harder for sales than we would be if there was more moderate regional growth(except perhaps John Thomas).

…and while I do agree with Roy that we could spread sales faster if we all made more fruit driven wines, it should be noted that 2012, 2014, and 2015 gave everyone the opportunity to produce as fruit driven a wines as they wanted. Many wineries have done well with that type of wine but are still struggling financially because it takes so much investment of time and resources to sustain sales.

I recently asked a wine shop assistant why he thought Oregon wines were expensive, especially compared to Burgundy and California, and his honest answer was that Oregon was a novelty to him. He liked the wines but somehow didn’t feel the region was “a serious wine growing region”. He meant no disrespect and enjoyed Oregon wines very much, but my feeling was that enjoyable or not, to him we were Triple A and not Major League.

His mistake for sure…but it illustrated the conundrum of our current situation. As we increase awareness of the quality of the region, we become attractive to everyone from wine purists to the vanity projects. The land is undervalued, especially to someone accustomed to producing wines in CA or Burgundy, so even tepid sales don’t really challenge their desire to be a part of Oregon now.

Don’t think I am too cynical, deep down I believe many of the new players are getting in because of a love for Pinot Noir grown here as well as seeing a developing regions possibilities.

john_stimson · June 16, 2016, 1:55am

Jim Anderson:

Peter Kleban:

Jim Anderson:

PGC. Quite possibly the definition of a mid-sized winery in Oregon right now due to the size of the 2014 and 2015 harvests. Lots of work at all ends of the winery. I have traveled extensively this year for the winery (Pinot Days in SF this weekend) and grind every day at the winery when I’m in Oregon. It is anxiety inducing. Stay smaller or get big. This is the danger zone.

Jim, from one (very) satisfied customer: whatever you do, please don’t change the style and quality. That’s what makes your wines so good!

One (no doubt bonehead) suggestion from someone who knows nothing about the business side of wine: what about getting someone else to do the traveling, or most of it? That can get really tiring really fast, IMO.

Without getting too much into the math of wineries the simple answer is that we cannot afford it. Medium sized wineries are dicey propositions. We make enough wine that we have fairly decent sized distribution networks (we sell in about 23 states depending on how you look at a couple of endeavors we have that are on the less serious side), we generate enough revenue through all sales avenues to pay for winery help, admin/tech and for tasting room/retail/club staffing at a small sort of level (we sort of don’t have a tasting room). We don’t however generate enough revenue to pay for rep(s) to travel. Those are actually decently compensated jobs. They also, in our sort of scenario as a winemaker driven winery, are not as effective sellers on the road as myself or Patty. Most wineries do 1 of 2 things. 1) Stay smaller and focus on in state and retail sales or 2) if they get to say, our size, look to double or triple production and sales so as to deal with the issues I outlined above. That does involve changing, in my mind anyway, the nature of the winery and at least 1 principle owner’s relationship with what they are tasked with on a daily basis (basically someone has to become the president of the company). I get why things are how they are and am, at this point, accepting of the situation at hand. We are still totally hands on and get to mostly make the wines we are desirous of making even if the practicality of it comes in on the lower end of the business model scale.

While I agree with almost nothing Roy Piper said in his post up-thread the subtext to what he is talking about is economically sound. We don’t have the sort of direct sales we theoretically could simply because we are where we are. If we had a higher percentage of direct sales we would be in a different economic situation entirely even without changing anything regarding the winery’s size or wine production sensibilities. I’m neither attempting to be braggadocio or disparaging of folks in CA (it is actually a nod to their success) but if this winery were in CA we would generate way more revenue. We would have much higher expenses for a large variety of things as well but there are simply more people who spend serious money on high end wines that travel regularly to that part of the world. Oregon is hopefully and maybe likely never going to be that place. I’m more than fine with that.

We are definitely keeping on with our hard to decipher from the outside sort of program (two more brand new Pinot Noirs in 2015 and very likely a whole other one in 2016) so don’t worry. We are still keeping it real.

Jim, I’m pretty sure you do have a tasting room, as I think I may have actually been there. Although I couldn’t be sure, as I don’t think there’s a sign anywhere. The only sign I remember was “women taste better” or maybe it was “the wrong people are everywhere”. Catchy, but will it sell? Maybe you need a big-ass sign down by the road and you’ll get more direct sales? (although maybe you have one now, but the place can be a bit hard to find for those who don’t know where they are going.)

Jim_Anderson · June 16, 2016, 3:23am

If I knew how to post pictures or would bothered to learn I could post one of the big sign we have at the bottom of the road. Still, tasting room in name only.

dsGriswold · June 16, 2016, 4:17am

Now you let the cat out of the bag!

Rolf_Winterthur · June 16, 2016, 5:04am

Try Bend.

Patrick_Duffy · June 16, 2016, 7:08pm

Heck, if Jim put up a “big ass sign” and had a Sonoma like tasting room, the next thing you know, his lower lot would be full of wine country tour limos, with drunk 30-somethings falling down the hill, talking about how Balcombe Block is a real estate project in Northwest Portland. Then we’d be complaining about how Jim had sold out, yahda, yahda, yahda.

ToddHansen · June 19, 2016, 5:24pm

Hi Bob - you have tangentially touched upon one of MY personal pet peeves about Oregon pinot noir! There seems to be this pissing contest to see who can sell out of a vintage the fastest - the attitude seems to be, “If you still have the 2012 vintage, well, then, there must be something wrong with it!” But you know what? My 2012s are just now starting to show well. I have distribution in only a few states because I don’t want to sell through my wines “before their time,” and I actually worked to slow sales of my 2012 vintage because the 2013s weren’t ready for market. I don’t think the best wines necessarily are the most precocious wines, and as most of my distribution is to on-premise accounts who don’t have deep cellars (after 2009, only a few restaurants keep wine), I want the wines at least to be somewhat approachable when they are served.

Right now everybody wants the 2014 vintage, but I can tell you mine will be drinking much better in two years. Perhaps in the mind of a lot of consumers, a wine that doesn’t sell out quickly must be overpriced. Or perhaps it is just because people always want the latest and greatest - “frist!” But if you read the tasting notes on the Patty Green Berserker Cuvee everybody talks about needing to let them rest a while longer. That is fine if your customer base understands this and PGC has done a good job of training their customers to hold on to their wines. But I’m just flabbergasted when I walk into a wine section and see mostly 2014s, a few 2015s and some hold-out 2013s. Good grief. We aren’t doing anybody a favor by selling wines so young. I worry that we lose consumers because they bought a few Oregon pinots and they were backwards or just too darn young.

Oh, and the couple dozen cases of 2011 I held back are only now showing their potential. I regret all those bottles that were consumed in 2014, and that I had to work extra hard to sell them because they simply weren’t ready.

That said - a sincere thank you for being an ambassador for our wines (especially those without marketing budgets) to the entire country - you are great to work with and I do agree with much of what you wrote.

John_Davis · June 19, 2016, 6:21pm

We were at the Allison earlier this year. I agree, it is an excellent place. We had a great time and the restaurant is very good, too. We “won” a trip there at a charity wine auction. So, someone else set up all the tours/tastings. They did a great job and both my wife and I are much bigger fans of Oregon wines than before. I would very much recommend a visit to Oregon for any wine lover/geek.

JD

dsGriswold · October 3, 2016, 9:52pm

I just got confirmation from the Lacroutes that they have sold WillaKenzie Estate to Jackson Family. Ronni has been supporting the arts like crazy, so it is not all negative.

JeromeHan · October 5, 2016, 5:02am

As I am very new to Oregon Pinot, (aka never had one except the 2012 Evening Land Vineyards Pinot Noir Seven Springs Vineyard I plan on drinking sometime in the next few months), I am wondering which Oregon pinots are more representative of what Oregon Pinots are? Yes Yes, I understand the warnings I am about to get about how there is no such thing as typical, but… you know.

dsGriswold · October 5, 2016, 5:19am

Ask Richard Trimpi for an unbiased East coast opinion if such a thing exists.

Marcus_Goodfellow · October 5, 2016, 6:12am

Ayres, Brickhouse, Belle Pente, Beaux Freres, Crowley, Cameron, Patricia Green, J. Christopher, Drouhin, Evesham Wood, Grochau Cellars, Vincent, Thomas, Walter Scott, Love & Squalor, Colene Clemens, Cristom, Eyrie, Westrey, J.K. Carriere, and Goodfellow/Matello(I make these wines).

There’s a lot of really good producers I haven’t named here as well. These are just some of my faves.

JeromeHan · October 5, 2016, 5:49pm

Marcus Goodfellow:

JeromeHan:

As I am very new to Oregon Pinot, (aka never had one except the 2012 Evening Land Vineyards Pinot Noir Seven Springs Vineyard I plan on drinking sometime in the next few months), I am wondering which Oregon pinots are more representative of what Oregon Pinots are? Yes Yes, I understand the warnings I am about to get about how there is no such thing as typical, but… you know.

Ayres, Brickhouse, Belle Pente, Beaux Freres, Crowley, Cameron, Patricia Green, J. Christopher, Drouhin, Evesham Wood, Grochau Cellars, Vincent, Thomas, Walter Scott, Love & Squalor, Colene Clemens, Cristom, Eyrie, Westrey, J.K. Carriere, and Goodfellow/Matello(I make these wines).

There’s a lot of really good producers I haven’t named here as well. These are just some of my faves.

Thanks!