Ted Hall nails it (again). As consumer behaviors shift, the agile wineries will survive and thrive. Less adaptable ones will wither away like vines w/o water.
Napa is completely out of touch with reality. The “wine” tastes the same, it’s way overpriced for the times, people are turning away from alcohol. It’s a luxury. People can’t afford it. As you have pointed out, inventory tells the tale. Bulk wine and older vintages are going to be thrown away according to recent reporting.
Treasury took a $1 billion hit to their bottom line mostly due to their U.S. operations. Why is that?
Napa needs to sell what people want, not what they imagine. It’s not $150 commodity wine.
Ted Hall makes more sense than a lot of the various marketing natter, though some of that thought is essential as well. As another responder noted, there are around 500 wineries in the Napa Valley now (I forget how many members of the Napa Valley Vintners) plus another thousand brands associated with Napa. Someone besides a salesman needs to spend some time walking down supermarket and wine shop aisles and check out the booming number of new created brands and labels on the shelves. Took a drive around the valley last week with a visiting friend and I laughed at the number of spots where I had no idea who was behind the winery/brand or owned it, and I’ve lived here close to 40 years and started visiting more than 55 years ago when there were maybe two dozen and we knew who they all were and what their then very separate stories were. Now it’s a blur with a handful of exceptions.
Heading out of Pittsburgh tomorrow for a few days in Napa and a few in Sonoma. We belong to three clubs and really can't afford more. The Napa tasting fees are about our budget, may buy a bottle here and there. More likely to buy some in Sonoma where a few still waive the tasting fee with a purchase. Makes it harder to resist IMO.
The repetitive nature of a formal, guide-led tasting experience itself can be a turnoff during a multi-day trip to Napa. Some wine drinkers much prefer just to walk in and order a glass without the need for an educational tasting.
For example, Inglenook offers a "bistro tasting" where you can order by the bottle or glass with no tour or discussion other than friendly banter with the server. We split a bottle of Rubicon and the ladies ordered a glass each of white and it was one of our best experiences. The beautiful weather, the historical setting, the camaraderie of a shared bottle were all we needed.
Ted, Jim here ‘70. Your blog/commentary/etc is fascinating. No comments are startling but all are insightful and rigorous analyses. Having dinner with Steve and Pula in a couple of days, Les and Judy later. The consumption of wine has fallen off the cliff here over the past five years and good wine is the fringe. We still have lots of good stuff but the crowd eschews it. How about some Lancers? Why not. No more than a dozen folks who care a jot in the entire facility. The consequences of the MEDIAN age stabilizing at 87 (I hope to make 87 and still enjoy the good stuff. I LIKE to share it with friends, but not those who have treasured bottles of Paul Masson. We still have a few ‘66, ‘82 and ‘90 Bordeaux among others. Even Latours fade after 60 years. I guess we’ll pop them soon and hope even without co-conspirators they’re palatable. Antiquity does not benefit OBGs, even with excellent storage (oldies but goodies). Sorry for the diatribe. Realistically our aged Grands Crus are the dead last of our problems. Want to come down to Palo Alto to help polish off the buggers? Jim
Ted, you may not wish to hear this and it is delivered with constructive intent: the exhaustive use of AI tools here hurts your argument. As silly as it is, obvious use of ai tools and tropes hurts delivery. While some do not mind, others have a visceral negative reaction. I have been sent many of your articles and even recommend to others, but always with the disclaimer “no seriously keep reading and cut some slack”
One issue that still confuses me is how to realistically differentiate amongst all the wines/wineries in Napa/ Sonoma. I know this is what you write about.
On one of my recent wine tours (using a local tour bus) the proprietor at one winery apprised us that there were 500 to 600 wine wineries/estates on the valley. He noted that they each produced somewhere between five and twenty different wines a year and that every year depending on the weather and their individual goals the wines would be different-with some years/wines (much) better than others.
So, doing the math in my head, (500 wineries x 6 wines on average each) conservatively produces 3,000 different wines EVERY year. In my mind there is no way a person can wade through this avalanche and, other than by happenstance, get a reliably good/ great bottle that THEY like and continue to drink. As a member of a few wine clubs, I see the variation on an ongoing basis.
Further complicating this, is that Napa (and Sonoma) can produce so many different varieties of good wines (Thanks to UC Davis analyzing and teaching how to make good and great wines) that Napa and Sonoma aren’t “known”, like most other wine regions for a particular wine.
Yes, I am familiar with the “over-concentration” on Cabernet Sauvignon, but I am not sure this is actually a problem in that perhaps Napa should focus on becoming “the place” on this continent/world for just a couple of types of wines and the experience that goes with it. (Realistically, being a free market I don’t ever see this happening).
As background, I grew up in the Bay Area and my first Napa visit was with my family in the ‘70’s and included a visit to Mondavi-where they even gave me (a teen) a small taste after the winery tour. Now I am in Arizona and visit Napa/Sonoma in the off-season usually in January for a week. It’s great without the crowds.
One issue that still confuses me is how to realistically differentiate amongst all the wines/wineries in Napa/ Sonoma.
On one of my recent wine tours (using a local tour bus) the proprietor at one winery apprised us that there were 500 to 600 wine wineries/estates on the valley. He noted that they each produced somewhere between five and twenty different wines a year and that every year depending on the weather and their individual goals the wines would be different-with some years/wines (much) better than others.
So, doing the math in my head, (500 wineries x 6 wines on average each) conservatively produces 3,000 different wines every year. In my mind there is no way a person can wade through this avalanche and, other than by happenstance, get a reliably good/ great bottle that THEY like and continue to drink.
Further complicating this, is that Napa (and Sonoma) can produce so many different varieties of good wines (Thanks to UC Davis analyzing and teaching how to make good and great wines) that Napa and Sonoma aren’t “known”, like most other wine regions for a particular wine.
Yes, I am familiar with the “over-concentration” on Cabernet Sauvignon, but I am not sure this is actually a problem in that perhaps Napa should focus on becoming “the place” on this continent/world for just a couple of types of wines and the experience that goes with it. (Realistically, being a free market I don’t ever see this happening).
As background, I grew up in the Bay Area and my first Napa visit was with my family in the ‘70’s and included a visit to Mondavi-where they even gave me (a teen) a small taste after the winery tour. Now I am in Arizona and visit Napa/Sonoma in the off-season usually in January for a week. It’s great without the crowds.
Great article. I have a crazy thought (essence of sarcasm) - maybe wineries should offer tasting OPTIONS like maybe a BAR TASTING in addition to their 2+ hour, $150 per person wine and food experience! More butts in seats across the valley would be nice to see again...
Ted Hall nails it (again). As consumer behaviors shift, the agile wineries will survive and thrive. Less adaptable ones will wither away like vines w/o water.
Napa is completely out of touch with reality. The “wine” tastes the same, it’s way overpriced for the times, people are turning away from alcohol. It’s a luxury. People can’t afford it. As you have pointed out, inventory tells the tale. Bulk wine and older vintages are going to be thrown away according to recent reporting.
Treasury took a $1 billion hit to their bottom line mostly due to their U.S. operations. Why is that?
Napa needs to sell what people want, not what they imagine. It’s not $150 commodity wine.
Ted Hall makes more sense than a lot of the various marketing natter, though some of that thought is essential as well. As another responder noted, there are around 500 wineries in the Napa Valley now (I forget how many members of the Napa Valley Vintners) plus another thousand brands associated with Napa. Someone besides a salesman needs to spend some time walking down supermarket and wine shop aisles and check out the booming number of new created brands and labels on the shelves. Took a drive around the valley last week with a visiting friend and I laughed at the number of spots where I had no idea who was behind the winery/brand or owned it, and I’ve lived here close to 40 years and started visiting more than 55 years ago when there were maybe two dozen and we knew who they all were and what their then very separate stories were. Now it’s a blur with a handful of exceptions.
Heading out of Pittsburgh tomorrow for a few days in Napa and a few in Sonoma. We belong to three clubs and really can't afford more. The Napa tasting fees are about our budget, may buy a bottle here and there. More likely to buy some in Sonoma where a few still waive the tasting fee with a purchase. Makes it harder to resist IMO.
The repetitive nature of a formal, guide-led tasting experience itself can be a turnoff during a multi-day trip to Napa. Some wine drinkers much prefer just to walk in and order a glass without the need for an educational tasting.
For example, Inglenook offers a "bistro tasting" where you can order by the bottle or glass with no tour or discussion other than friendly banter with the server. We split a bottle of Rubicon and the ladies ordered a glass each of white and it was one of our best experiences. The beautiful weather, the historical setting, the camaraderie of a shared bottle were all we needed.
Ted, Jim here ‘70. Your blog/commentary/etc is fascinating. No comments are startling but all are insightful and rigorous analyses. Having dinner with Steve and Pula in a couple of days, Les and Judy later. The consumption of wine has fallen off the cliff here over the past five years and good wine is the fringe. We still have lots of good stuff but the crowd eschews it. How about some Lancers? Why not. No more than a dozen folks who care a jot in the entire facility. The consequences of the MEDIAN age stabilizing at 87 (I hope to make 87 and still enjoy the good stuff. I LIKE to share it with friends, but not those who have treasured bottles of Paul Masson. We still have a few ‘66, ‘82 and ‘90 Bordeaux among others. Even Latours fade after 60 years. I guess we’ll pop them soon and hope even without co-conspirators they’re palatable. Antiquity does not benefit OBGs, even with excellent storage (oldies but goodies). Sorry for the diatribe. Realistically our aged Grands Crus are the dead last of our problems. Want to come down to Palo Alto to help polish off the buggers? Jim
Ted, you may not wish to hear this and it is delivered with constructive intent: the exhaustive use of AI tools here hurts your argument. As silly as it is, obvious use of ai tools and tropes hurts delivery. While some do not mind, others have a visceral negative reaction. I have been sent many of your articles and even recommend to others, but always with the disclaimer “no seriously keep reading and cut some slack”
Ted,
One issue that still confuses me is how to realistically differentiate amongst all the wines/wineries in Napa/ Sonoma. I know this is what you write about.
On one of my recent wine tours (using a local tour bus) the proprietor at one winery apprised us that there were 500 to 600 wine wineries/estates on the valley. He noted that they each produced somewhere between five and twenty different wines a year and that every year depending on the weather and their individual goals the wines would be different-with some years/wines (much) better than others.
So, doing the math in my head, (500 wineries x 6 wines on average each) conservatively produces 3,000 different wines EVERY year. In my mind there is no way a person can wade through this avalanche and, other than by happenstance, get a reliably good/ great bottle that THEY like and continue to drink. As a member of a few wine clubs, I see the variation on an ongoing basis.
Further complicating this, is that Napa (and Sonoma) can produce so many different varieties of good wines (Thanks to UC Davis analyzing and teaching how to make good and great wines) that Napa and Sonoma aren’t “known”, like most other wine regions for a particular wine.
Yes, I am familiar with the “over-concentration” on Cabernet Sauvignon, but I am not sure this is actually a problem in that perhaps Napa should focus on becoming “the place” on this continent/world for just a couple of types of wines and the experience that goes with it. (Realistically, being a free market I don’t ever see this happening).
As background, I grew up in the Bay Area and my first Napa visit was with my family in the ‘70’s and included a visit to Mondavi-where they even gave me (a teen) a small taste after the winery tour. Now I am in Arizona and visit Napa/Sonoma in the off-season usually in January for a week. It’s great without the crowds.
Ted,
One issue that still confuses me is how to realistically differentiate amongst all the wines/wineries in Napa/ Sonoma.
On one of my recent wine tours (using a local tour bus) the proprietor at one winery apprised us that there were 500 to 600 wine wineries/estates on the valley. He noted that they each produced somewhere between five and twenty different wines a year and that every year depending on the weather and their individual goals the wines would be different-with some years/wines (much) better than others.
So, doing the math in my head, (500 wineries x 6 wines on average each) conservatively produces 3,000 different wines every year. In my mind there is no way a person can wade through this avalanche and, other than by happenstance, get a reliably good/ great bottle that THEY like and continue to drink.
Further complicating this, is that Napa (and Sonoma) can produce so many different varieties of good wines (Thanks to UC Davis analyzing and teaching how to make good and great wines) that Napa and Sonoma aren’t “known”, like most other wine regions for a particular wine.
Yes, I am familiar with the “over-concentration” on Cabernet Sauvignon, but I am not sure this is actually a problem in that perhaps Napa should focus on becoming “the place” on this continent/world for just a couple of types of wines and the experience that goes with it. (Realistically, being a free market I don’t ever see this happening).
As background, I grew up in the Bay Area and my first Napa visit was with my family in the ‘70’s and included a visit to Mondavi-where they even gave me (a teen) a small taste after the winery tour. Now I am in Arizona and visit Napa/Sonoma in the off-season usually in January for a week. It’s great without the crowds.
Great article. I have a crazy thought (essence of sarcasm) - maybe wineries should offer tasting OPTIONS like maybe a BAR TASTING in addition to their 2+ hour, $150 per person wine and food experience! More butts in seats across the valley would be nice to see again...