I get it…TOTALLY. But where CC fees, etc. go to a businesses bank account and used for whatever…the gas pump one really makes me pissed…especially when my debit card has REAL money attached to it…as opposed to a CC card.
this 1% absolutely goes to benefit the region. No gov’t hand…no % of that money funneled to them whatsoever. We have a plan to educate consumers and visitors. We want folks to know that when they pay this 1%, they are 100% responsible making our region thrive! This has been integral in our planning. Especially to me. I think consumers will get it if you have short conversation.
I know people in the wine industry view themselves as a collective. But what if every one did this? Every restaurant in my town bands together to market how great their food is. If every movie theater raises prices because we need to market how great the seats and screens are at our theaters. The list could go on forever.
I don’t like additional fees. You won’t be able to convince me otherwise that this is a good thing. If you want to get together and pool your funds to market your wine, be my guest. But when you need to tell people they are paying for your marketing… nah.
Scott, I totally get it…but let’s use me as an example. I was NEVER into wine until 2006. After marrying my wife, Rachel, her parents took us up to Sonoma & Napa for our first trip together after the wedding. Her parents were really into wine back then. Their lifelong friend (former Robert Parker forum star) took us to wineries. My epiphany moment happened when I met Erich Bradley. He was making wine at Audelssa back then. After that tasting, I was ALL IN! My wife and I had no money back then, but we would drive or fly from San Diego whenever we could…but it was getting waaay to expensive and time consuming to get up there. We literally were laughed at when visiting Napa tasting rooms. I was unreal.
Rachel suggested we go to Santa Barbara County. I was reluctant, back then, it was all about Napa cab & chard. But we went. I INSTANTLY fell in love with area…from that moment…I wanted to be in SBC every single moment. I was a Deputy Sheriff back then, working in all the jails in San Diego County. This place was my salvation. I would drive here anytime I could (and before having kids…I’d do it ALL the time).
SBC provided me the access I desired. meeting winemakers, tasting in barrel rooms, small wineries, beautiful places.
More and more, I developed the outlook you mentioned above and was in the vacuum.
But as I turned my attention to working for the region and promoting it, I threw that outlook away. Every single person that comes to this region can be like me and turn into a total fanatic and ambassador. As I mentioned above, people reach out to me ALL THE TIME to help organize their trips. I’ll leave my family just to drop in and say hi to them, give them a map, talk the region, see if I can hook them up with anything else. I see these epiphany moments in real time…all the time. And before you know it, they are coming multiple times a year, talking about us on their social accounts, coming to our events, etc.
So as the representative of the region, I absolutely cannot think like that anymore…it’s actually quite rejuvenating to see new faces and show them around.
I don’t think anyone disputes that 1% could benefit the region. But you haven’t really addressed why the customers should bear that cost. As someone pointed out up thread, you are having customers pay to be marketed to. Not interested. in the fee or the marketing.
If this is a benefit to the region, the members should bear the cost and it should not be passed on to customers directly or indirectly. After all, the increased sales should offset that 1% right? It’s not like the wineries will take that increased revenue and offset it with lower prices. More likely prices go up either due to increased demand (whether for the wines or for land/grapes).
I mean, all costs are passed on to the customer through product pricing. Whether you see it or not. At least if you see it, they’re not going to mark it up 30%.
Max, I’m afraid you are absolutely right. This is just SOP. As a nonprofit, we are not trying to gouge.
@J_e_s_s_e_C, unfortunately, this is the way. As mentioned above, we are being up front and transparent about the BID/charge.
The majority of our wineries are really small. Folks like to throw, “Big v. Small” around in our region. Truth of the matter, our largest winery is a mid level winery in Paso…even smaller compared to Napa. A lot of them cannot afford our dues. They want to join, but can’t even afford the $150/month tier we have. That’s an old school cable bill…or a few streaming services. We hustle and work to promote them the best we can with our budget since we might be their best marketing vendor. This is what keeps me up at night…wanting to do as much as possible.
This is why we want visitors/consumers to know that they are crucial in making us succeed with this BID. As we say in the nonprofit industry, “A Rising Tide Floats All Boats”. Tell our valued customers, as well as our new ones that YOU are making this region succeed. So yes, we are putting it on the consumer, but that happens even without the BID. Consumers are helping us pay for our efforts to market to them, others, and realize we are here for unreal experiences.
You asked our opinion, and it seems the majority have spoken.
We hate - and sometimes get angered - by add on fees. We hate them from airlines. We hate them from hotels. We hate credit card surcharges. We hate, well, you get it.
Charge regional wineries, and let them increase the cost of wine 1% to compensate for it. It’s the same total cost in the long run, but consumers HATE added fees. We much prefer hidden extra cost.
This, If the winery really feels the value, they will subscribe, absorb, or perhaps bake it in. As a consumer, I’m not going to assume it has value nor follow it up. Honestly, to me these things are like Advertising fees for buying a car which I summarily beat on as much as I can.
They are making a conscious decision not to join. And it’s important to ask some who could why they would choose not to if they could afford it - and I asked that question above but we have not heard yet . . .
Well yeah, he quoted that one region saw 18% growth, but that’s the whole region. It might be interesting to see how that was distributed because it’s certainly not even.
When you have an ambassador for a region how does one equally promote each winery? It’s easy to imagine why some might not be as excited about the whole thing as others.
Are you assuming that some winieries benefit more from this BID concept than others? The 18% quotes is the only benchmark that have - but that’s impressive with many other regions seeing declines during that period.
And the Association is set up to help all - some will do better than others with increased traffic, especially those that are more well known like Liquid Farm.
As both Phil and I said, the rising tide concept is hopefully what’s at play here - then it will come down to individual wineries doing as good a job as possible to capture what they can.
Is it an 18% increase after the implementation, aka, after the worst part of the COVID travel slump?
*Edit to add, just throwing out 18% without more information about how the number was derived isn’t helpful, but I’m sure other regions have done homework.
Look, it’s clear how this surcharge helps you. It’s not so clear how it helps me, who already knows a lot about your winegrowing region. Where’s the ROI for me?
I didn’t realize wineries were non profits now. Why are we, the paying customers, supposed to raise the tide for the businesses who are charging us? All these extra costs are exactly why domestic wines are becoming less and less of a value proposition considering what’s in the bottle.
I agree with Chris and Jesse. Let’s be real: the American wine industry (and particularly mid-range California wine) is in serious trouble right now. Adding an involuntary surcharge/tax/fee to fund some bureaucracy that many producers would not choose to fund of their own volition is the wrong move at the wrong time. But hey, take the shot and let’s see how things work out 3-5 years from now. I think the prudent person would take the under on that bet.
