American Association of Wine Economists AAWE
Wine and Food Economics Blog
Wine Economics

Time to Invest in Wine?

May 24, 2009 by Mike Veseth (University of Puget Sound and The Wine Economist). Originally posted on The Wine Economist on May 21, 2009.

October. This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August, and February.” — Mark Twain, Pudd’nhead Wilson (1894)

I wonder what Mark Twain would say about speculating in wine in October, May or any other month? I expect he would be suspicious of the idea. Mark Twain was a great author but a lousy investor. His cautious attitude toward investment was based upon his own disastrous financial experiences.

I was reminded of this quote this morning when I opened the New York Times “Special Section on Wealth & Personal Finance.”  The cover features a half-page color image of an exploding cherry pie (or maybe it’s strawberry — what do you think?). I am not really sure what it means.

What Time Is It?

But the theme of the special section is pretty clear — time to consider alternative investments and investment strategies.  And on page 4 I found the article that got me thinking about Mr. Twain’s investment advice: Investing in Wine: Now May Be the Time by William L. Hamilton. It’s an interesting article — click on the link to read it.

The idea, of course, is that wine prices have been falling, so this is an opportunity to buy in at the market bottom. The Times article reports that

“It’s a great time to buy wine, the best time in a decade,” said Charles Curtis, who is in charge of Christie’s North American wine department. “People we’ve never heard of are jumping into the market, taking advantage of the lull to get into collecting, now that they have access.”

I am naturally a bit suspicious of buying advice given by people with an interest in the sales.  They always seem to think that now is the time to buy.  Rising prices? Buy now because they can only go higher.  Falling prices? But now before they rise again.  Mr. Curtis may be right, and I’m sure his recommendation is honestly given, but he might be wrong, too.

Uncommon Times

These are uncommon economic times and market changes are unusually hard to predict, which makes investing even in fine wines feel a bit speculative. Alfred Marshall, the great Cambridge economist, argued that markets are generally as stable and predictable as an apple in a bow. Prices fall when there is a surplus until the excess supply is gone. Prices rise when there is a shortage until the shortage disappears.  The movement towards stable equilibrium is quite strong and predictable.

But wine markets today look a bit more unstable — more like that exploding pie now that I think of it.  Here’s another quote from the New York Times article.

Though falling prices kept many collectors from selling, reducing the amount of wine on the market, returning prices in the last four months have produced an uncomfortable volume of wine to sell, said Charles Curtis of Christie’s.

The first part of the sentence describes how a market responds to surplus  — falling price causes sellers to pull some goods out of the market.  The second part describes a market in shortage — the opposite condition — where rising price brings sellers into the market. This is not a combination of forces that you expect to see in the same paragraph much less the same sentence.

There are a number of supply-demand changes that could account for this (Econ 101 students — do your stuff), but one distinct possibility is what economists call over-shooting, which is a characteristic of some financial markets and especially foreign exchange markets and maybe now wine markets.  When over-shooting occurs, prices don’t drop smoothly to equilibrium like an apple in a bowl. Rather they over-shoot the equilibrium and then shoot back up. Back and forth, sometimes in increasingly unstable cycles. Market equilibrium and the “true market price” are hard to determine.

It is difficult to know where prices will go next in a market like this and the difference between “investing” and “speculating,” at least in the short run, is not completely clear. I don’t give investment advice (or rate wines, either, which makes this an unusual wine blog), but I’m not planning to rush into high end wine markets just yet.

Investors vs Collectors

But then I’m not really a wine investor.  In my reading I find the terms wine investor and wine collector often used as synonyms, but I’m not sure they should be.  A wine collector buys what he or she wants to own (and, presumably, drink). It’s a personal thing. A wine investor should buy what other people will want to own, which might have nothing to do with personal taste.  I have known only a few real wine investors but lots of wine collectors who  justify at least some of their purchases as investments, but don’t manage them as they would a real investment.

In today’s market, however, both groups need to realize that there is a significant speculative element to their wine purchases and keep Mark Twain’s 115 year-old warning in mind!


The Santa Margherita Syndrome

April 12, 2009 by Mike Veseth (University of Puget Sound and The Wine Economist)


Many articles have appeared recently advising wine consumers on “trading down” strategies for the recession — where to find the best values and bargains as the market slump continues. (Thanks to my crack team of research assistants — Michael, David and Tom — for your tips on this topic.)

One of the best pieces I’ve read comes from Dorothy J. Gaiter and John Brecher at the Wall Street Journal: 10 ways to save money ordering wine at restaurants. All their advice is timely, but rule #6 really caught my eye:

6. Never order Santa Margherita Pinot Grigio. We don’t mean to pick on Santa Margherita. We know many people like it and that’s fine. But because so many people like it, it is routinely one of the most outrageously priced wines on the list.

Nothing personal, Dottie and John said, it’s just supply and demand plus a certain bandwagon effect that seems to afflict wine drinkers when confronted with a complicated and uncertain set of choices.

We note it here only as a classic example of this: If you stay within your comfort zone, ordering only wines you already know, you will be punished for it, price-wise. In addition, no wine is going to seem like a good value to you when you know you could buy it at a local store for half the price or less. That’s why it’s so important to focus on labels or kinds of wines that you wouldn’t otherwise see. …  Remember: There is value in tasting something new.

Sensible advice, although not always easy advice to follow in practice given the high cost of restaurant wine. Everyone wants to find that delightful unexpected bargain, but no one really likes paying the bill for a wine experiment that disappoints.  So restaurants and wine consumers alike seem to find themselves drawn to a small set of “usual suspects.”

Demand and Supply

Wine & Spirits magazine surveys restaurants each year to try to discover  trends both in general and in specific segments of the market. This year’s poll (see the April 2009 issue) provides early data on how the recession is affecting wine sales and some of the strategies that restaurants are trying to deal with this increasingly serious problem.

W&S provides a lot of information about what successful restaurants are doing to cope with the weak economy.  One unexpected implication of the survey seems to be this:  Always try to sell customers Santa Margherita Pinto Grigio.

The W&S editors do not advise this, of course (they are very careful in this regard — they just report the findings); it just seems to be restaurant conventional wisdom.

W&S asks restaurants to identify the wines that they offer by the bottle or serve by the glass and then publishes the names of the most-reported products.  The most listed wine-by-the-glass, for example, is Sonoma-Cutrer Russian River Chardonnay (11.1 responses per 100 restaurant replies), which sold for an average price of $12.67 per glass in 2008.  Santa Margherita Pinot Grigio was #6 on the list (number six again … spooky), reported by 6.7 per 100 restaurants.  It sold for an average price of $14.40 per glass in 2008.

A quick internet search reveals that Santa Margherita often sells for around $20 per bottle retail, which suggests a wholesale price of $14-$15 — suspiciously close to the $14.40 average per glass tariff.  You can begin to see why it would be a popular restaurant choice.  And why Dottie and John’s number one rule is …

1. Skip wine by the glass. Restaurateurs like to make enough on a single glass to pay for a whole bottle, which is great for them but not so great for you.

W&S lists Santa Margherita as the number one wine in both the Pinot Gris/Pinot Grigio and the Italian wine categories.  The average per bottle restaurant price was $52, which indicates a somewhat higher mark up over wholesale than the usual restaurant rule of thumb.  All of which makes me think that wine consumers need to become a bit better educated about wine economics because it is pretty plain that restaurants have been hitting the books on how to use demand and supply to preserve profit in these unsettled economic times.

What Should I Order?

So where are the values on restaurant wine lists?  The simple answer is that there is no simple  answer (apart from Dottie and John’s good advice).  The W&S poll asked restaurants to list wines under $25 per bottle and the most frequent response was Cooperidge White Zin and Chardonnay, $24 average price.  Cooperidge is a Gallo restaurant brand.  Interestingly, it appeared in just 1.9 per 100 responses.

The number two and three bargain wines were both Ste Michelle Wine Estate products from Washington State — Chateau Ste Michelle Riesling ($24 / 0.7 responses per 100) and 14 Hands Columbia Valley Cabernet Sauvignon ($21.50 / 0.7 responses per 100).

No very strong conclusions can be drawn from this data but they do suggest that (1) there is no one wine or brand that restaurants consistently go to for the value-seeking customers, so you will have to explore the wine list carefully to find what you are looking for, but (2) it might be smart to include Washington State wines in your treasure hunt.


Fast Food Restaurants and Obesity

March 12, 2009, by  Karl Storchmann (Journal of Wine Economics)

Do we buy SUVs because we are talked into them? Or do GM, Ford and Chrysler build SUVs because we want them? These questions have been as old as the field of economics.

 

Here, we are not dealing with SUVs but with wine  -- and food. After all, the American Association of Wine Economists also has a food department, the Association of Food Economists (AFE). And one of the most pressing food-related question deals with fast food and its unhealthy consequences.


We all know (or hope) that obesity and wine consumption are natural enemies. In fact, a simple correlation between the fraction of the obese population and per capita wine consumption on a state level (as of 2007, see table) yields a coefficient of r = -0.62.  So far, that is good news. 

But how about our kids?



Back in 2002, The New York Times reported about two teenage girls that sued two Bronx McDonalds franchises they frequented for damages related to their obesity (here is the link).  Their lawyer said the chain's billion-dollar advertising campaign encourages children to find their inner glutton. “Young individuals are not in a position to make a choice after the onslaught of advertising and promotions.'' The lawsuit was dismissed as frivolous.

 

In 2004, the House passed the so-called Cheeseburger Bill saying that overeating is a problem for individuals, not the courts. This has bared people from suing restaurants on the ground that their food makes customers fat (NY Times link).


Meanwhile, the prevalence of obesity has been growing steadily and children and teenager are particularly affected. Not surprisingly, obese children and adolescents are more likely to become obese as adults. For example, one study found that approximately 80% of children who were overweight at aged 10–15 years were obese adults (CDC link).

The CDC reports that obese children and teens have been found to have increased risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD), including high cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and abnormal glucose tolerance. In a population-based sample of 5- to 17-year-olds, almost 60% of overweight children had at least one CVD risk factor while 25 percent of overweight children had two or more CVD risk factors. Some consequences of childhood and adolescent overweight are psycho-social. Obese children and adolescents are targets of early and systematic social discrimination. Less common health conditions associated with increased weight include asthma, hepatic steatosis, sleep apnea and Type II diabetes.


Progress toward reducing the national prevalence of overweight and obesity is monitored using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Glancing over the the trends of the last last 30 years is daunting. The most recent NHANES data (2003–2006) showed that for children aged 6 –11 years and 12–19 years, the prevalence of overweight was 17.0% and 17.6% respectively. This is about three times as high as in the late 1970s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide more informative data on obesity at http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/Obesity/trend/maps/index.htm

 

The American Association of Wine Economists just posted a new Working Paper (AAWE Working Paper No. 33) entitled “The Effect of Fast Food Restaurants on Obesity” by Janet Currie (Columbia University), Stefano DellaVigna (UC Berkeley), Enrico Moretti (UC Berkeley) and Vikram Pathania (UC Berkeley). Drawing on an enormous data set, the authors analyze how the supply of fast food affects the obesity rates of 3 million school children and the weight gain of over 1 million pregnant women.  The full paper can be accessed here (#33); it's free.

This is a solid paper and their findings are amazing. Among 9th grade children, a fast food restaurant within a tenth of a mile of a school is associated with at least a 5.2 percent increase in obesity rates. However, there is no discernable effect at .25 miles and at .5 miles.

Among pregnant women, their results indicate that a fast food restaurant within a half mile of her residence results in a 2.5 percent increase in the probability of gaining over 20 kilos. The effect is larger, but less precisely estimated at .1 miles. In contrast, the presence of non-fast food restaurants is uncorrelated with obesity and weight gain.

The authors did some additional consistency checks. For instance, the proximity to future fast food restaurants is uncorrelated with current obesity and weight gain, conditional on current proximity to fast food. The implied effects of fast-food on caloric intake are at least one order of magnitude smaller for mothers than for school children, which suggests that they are less constrained by travel costs than school children.

What do we infer from that? Clearly, supply and demand are interdependent. But why do we expect that kids make the right choices? This is easily understood with respect to alcohol. In the U.S., we don't allow anybody younger than 21 to touch a glass of wine or beer. Since teenagers and 20-year-olds underestimate alcohol's bad impact we need to shield them. Why does this logic not apply to fast food?

For the authors of our paper, the political implications of their findings are evident. They state them on page 1:

“Our results imply that policies restricting access to fast food near schools could have significant effects on obesity among school children, but similar policies restricting the availability of fast food in residential areas are unlikely to have large effects on adults.”

How Reliable are Wine Descriptions? It Depends!

March 3, 2009 by R. Pete Parcells (Whitman College and Western Regional Science Association and AAWE

The Western Regional Science Association  (WRSA)  just recently (February 2009) held its 48th Annual Conference.  The conference was held at the Silverado Resort in Napa, California.  Founded in 1961, the Western Regional Science Association is an international multidisciplinary group of university scholars and government and private-sector practitioners dedicated to the scientific analysis of regions.

Plenary Opening Sessions at the Annual Conference usually provide an analysis, an overview, or an event, that is dedicated to the local region where the meeting takes place.  Two years ago, the Annual Conference was held in Orange County, California and the Plenary Session included a talk entitled "The O.C. Economy: Myth vs. Reality."  Last year, the Annual Conference was held in Kona, Hawaii and the Plenary Session included a talk entitled "Riding the Wave: Transformations and Cycles in the Hawaii Economy."  This year (2009) the Annual Conference was held in the Napa Valley in California and the Plenary Session included a talk entitled "Why Napa."  Following the talk, a wine tasting was held in a large adjacent room. 

The new President of the WRSA (50th - 2009-2010)  is David W. Holland of Washington State University.  I had a discussion with David about doing something for the 48th annual meeting that highlighted the wine industry (for which California and Napa are well known).  Since David and I are both from Washington State and I am a member of the American Association of Wine Economists, we thought a tasting of California (Napa) and Washington (Walla Walla) wines might be appropriate.  

David Plane, the Executive Secretary of the WRSA, was very supported of the idea of a tasting and was very helpful in providing the support, logistics, and room in the program for the event.  The event I finally organized was experimental and turned out to be very interesting and informative as I will outline below.  My idea for the event was hatched at a similar event (Allied Social Science Meetings) I attended that was organized by Karl Storchmann (my colleague at Whitman College) and the American Associaton of Wine Economists (AAWE). 

The Napa - Washington Wine Taste-Off

The wine tasting was billed as a "tasting" of California and Washington wines but there was a twist. The descriptions of the wines were provided but there was not any other information about the wines available other than that they were Napa and Washington red wines.  Informational sheets were made available to all participants and on each side of the sheet, space was made available for participants to match the wines with the descriptions and then to rank the wines according to personal preferences.  The final setup consisted of four "stations" with the wine at each station numbered but the bottle (and hence the label) covered in foil.  Tasters were to select a wine from each station (in any order) taste it and then put its number (1, 2, 3, or 4) in the box next to the description that seemed to match. After all the wines were tested, participants were to make their preferences known by ranking the wines from most favorite to least favorite.  Water was made available (as were spit buckets) and there were nuts and snacks to cleanse the palate.

The Forms







The Wines

The group of participants numbered approximately 150 but collected forms (there was a "ballot box" made available to deposit the forms when completed) totaled 89.  Not all forms were filled out completely.  Some couples only filled out one form, some individuals tasted and tasted and tasted and did not fill out the form, and some of the forms appeared (my personal observation) to be filled out and then folded neatly and placed in a pocket.  I suspect the description of the wines was going to be stored for later use. 

The wines were all poured by hotel staff who were instructed to pour about 2 ounces into each glass.  There was no way to monitor how many "repeat" visits were made to each wine except for the fact that near the end of the tasting, the wine at station number 4 ran out.  The ballot box was collected at the end of the tasting (there was a social function following the tasting) and the numbers were to be tallied for announcement at the Conference Luncheon several days later.

The wines used in the tasting consisted of two Napa, California wines and two Walla Walla, Washington wines.  The descriptions of the wines were obtained from promotional documents, discussions with others, and finally, my own notes from my own prior tasting which I carried out in advance to confirm the descriptions that were provided.  The wines and their station numbers are listed below:

Station 1 - Napa County, 2006 - Cabernet Sauvignon, Kirkland, Geyserville, CA

Station 2 - Blue Parrot, 2005, Cab Sq - Cab Sav (97%), Cab Franc (3%), Garage Wine, Walla Walla, WA

Station 3 - Beringer, 2006, Cabernet Sauvignon, Knights Valley, Napa, CA

Station 4 - Cougar Crest, 2005, Anniversary Cuvee - Cab Sav, Merlot, Petit Verdot, Walla Walla, WA

Expectations Based on Random Choice

The sample space for a random matching of the wines with their appropriate numbers consisted of the following (thanks to Art Getis of San Diego State Univ.) 

Votes           Percent  Approx number (of 89)

0 correct          38%          34    
1 correct          33%          29
2 correct          25%          22
3 correct            0%             0
4 correct            4%             3

The Voting

The matrix of outcomes for the personal preferences follows.  Remember, there is an interesting mix of individuals in this group.  Interesting in that there were sophisticated wine drinkers, unsophisticated wine drinkers, spirit drinkers, beer drinkers, nondrinkers, and even the one individual who was a big drinker and questioned (somewhat loudly) the small quantities being poured (he also declined to fill out a ballot but I noticed he mostly drank from station 4 which ran out).  

Most Favorite               Second Most Favorite               Third Most Favorite               Least Favorite

#4 (41 Votes)                     #1 (24 Votes)                                #2 (30 Votes)                          #1 (26 Votes)
#3 (20 Votes)                     #2 (21 Votes)                                #3 (25 Votes)                          #2 (22 Votes)
#1 (15 Votes)                     #3 (19 Votes)                                #1 (20 Votes)                          #3 (19 Votes)
#2 (11 Votes)                     #4 (18 Votes)                                #4 (10 Votes)                          #4 (16 Votes)

(Thanks to Ms. Susan Kaleita of the Univ. of Arizona for doing the tallies)

At the Banquet Luncheon before the serious awards (Annual Springer Prize, Charles M. Tiebout Award) were handed out, I was given the microphone and I spoke briefly to the crowd about the wines and announced the "winner" of the tasting experiment.  Even though a random selection of the wines would have led to approximately 3 correct ballots, only one entry had all 4 wines correct.  The winner's ballot was one of the few on which the entrant had neglected to put his or her name.  When this situation was announced and I asked "who correctly selected the wines but forgot to put their name down," only Keith Schwer of the University of Nevada Las Vegas raised his hand but he was ignored (something about his being a friend of mine and sitting next to me before the announcement was made) and so the prize (a bottle of wine of course) was presented to the organizer - me! 

Results

So what were the results of the wine tasting experiment?

  1. A good time was had by all - some had a better good time than others as evidenced by the volume of consumption.
  2. Only one correct ballet (random selection would imply 3 were correct) meant my descriptions may not have been as illuminating as I had hoped.  To quote Jim Lapsley (who gave the "Why Napa" opening talk) about the wine descriptions- "One of the funniest parodies I have read in awhile." 
  3. Interestingly, going by just the Most Favorite ratings, the ranking was consistent with the market price of the wine (considering the "garage wine" was "free.")  Beyond that, it was hard to see consistency in the rankings.
  4. Lastly, blind wine tasting is an experiment without a predictiable outcome (see "How Reliable are Wine Judges? Not at All!  on the January 27th, 2009 AAWE blog).  It apparently doesn't matter if the tasters are wine experts or regional science experts!

 

How Many AVAs are Enough?


February 27, 2009 by Michael Veseth (University of Puget Sound and The Wine Economist)

“How can you govern a country with 246 cheeses?” Charles De Gaulle.

The US Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau recently approved the Snipe’s Mountain American Viticultural Area (AVA) designation — the tenth AVA in Washington State. There are nearly 200 AVAs in the US (click here to see the list), most of them in California. Not as many AVAs as French cheeses, but we are gaining on them.

This news provokes some thoughts on the meaning of AVAs and the obvious question, how many AVAs are enough?

Staking a Claim

AVAs are geographic designations — they tell us something about where a wine comes from. They “stake a claim” as the old prospectors used to say, in a particular patch of dirt (although it might be a pretty big patch, as the map indicates).  Prior to the introduction of AVAs, American wines mainly were labeled by state — California Zinfandel, New York Riesling.   These very broad designations are still used for wines made from grapes sourced from several different regions within a state.

A Zinfandel made from equal amounts of grapes grown in Sonoma, Mendocino and Lodi (three different AVAs) must wear the generic California designation rather than a more specific geographic indicator. At least 85% of the grapes must come from a particular AVA for its name to be used. Wines that blend grapes from different states are simply American and I’ve seen this designation from time to time — most recently on a California-Oregon blend.

The evolution of American AVAs is complicated, but I think it is fair to say that they generally began with relatively broad classifications and have in recent years become increasingly specific.  In Washington, for example, the first AVA was Yakima Valley (1983), followed the next year by a much broader designation (Columbia Valley — see map above) that encompasses most of the state’s major vineyard areas and essentially replaced the “Washington” designation plus a second relatively narrow one (Walla Walla).  Both the Columbia Valley and Walla Walla AVAs span the Washington-Oregon border, showing the vines and state lines don’t always align.

The Yakima Valley AVA has been partitioned by subsequent AVA claims and now includes three sub-regions: Red Mountain, Rattlesnake Hills and the new Snipe’s Mountain AVA.  There are now seven AVAs within the Columbia Valley appellation, with an eighth (Lake Chelan) on the horizon.  If Washington’s AVAs are this complicated, with AVAs and sub-AVAs, you can only imagine what the California map must look like.

Appellation Wars: AVA versus AOC

In America we talk about AVAs while the French and others speak of AOCs (or their equivalents) and you might assume that the concepts are the same even if the names are not.  But you’d be wrong.

AOC stands for Appelation D’origine Contrôlée, a system that began as a simple geographic designation like America’s AVAs, but has developed into something more complicated and, well, more French.  Originally AOCs were all about fraud prevention — protecting the reputation of honest Champagne winegrowers, for example, by making it illegal to put the Champagne label on a wine made mainly from grapes grown in other regions. This assurance, it was believed would give the Champagne regional “brand” greater value.

And it did, but this led to a different kind of fraud.  Some producers cut corners, over-cropped and so forth, making cheaper, poorer wine that could legally wear the geographic designation because of the grape’s origins.  The only way to protect the region’s reputation (and the value of its brand) was to regulate both  where the grapes were grown and how the wines were made.  And so the contemporary AOC system was born.

AOC regulations start with a defined geography and add detailed rules regarding wine making.  They are meant to assure that the wines are made to a particular recognizable standard and are typical, in both type and quality, of the region.

(As we know from the Super-Tuscan controversy, winemakers don’t always agree believe that the AOC standard wine is the best wine that can be made — typical is not necessary superior.  Super-Tuscans are wines, frequently excellent ones, that do not satisfy the AOC rules because they use non-standard grapes and non-standard winemaking techniques.)

AOC in USA: Coro Mendocino

There is only one AOC in the US as far as I know. A voluntary association of  Mendocino, California wineries have created a wine standard they call Coro Mendocino.   Coro means chorus in both Italian and Spanish and refers to both the harmonious group of winemakers behind this program and, I suppose the designated blending of grapes.  You can read the production protocol here. The SipMendocino.com website explains that

  • Coro wines must be made exclusively from Mendocino fruit
  • Zinfandel is the dominant varietal and represents 40-70% of the final blend.
  • Second tier varietals may not exceed Zinfandel as a majority component and are limited to Syrah, Petite Sirah, Carignane, Sangiovese, Grenache, Dolcetto, Charbono, Barbera and Primitivo.
  • A “free play” of up to 10% of any vinifera source may be used for fine tuning if desired.

Coro Mendocino is a typically American solution to the problem of setting a standard.  It is a voluntary association built around a shared commerciall  brand — the labels of wines from different makers all employ a standard design so that they are recognized first as Coro Mendocino and only secondarily as the product of a particular winery.  Coro Mendocino reminds me of the better known and quite successful  Gimblett Gravels initiative in New Zealand, which is essentially a privately-sanctioned AVA within the Hawkes Bay region.

Too Much Information?  Or Too Little?

Appellations are controversial at every level of analysis.  In Europe, for example, the existence of hundreds of tiny regional subdivisions is seen by some as a roadblock to effective wine marketing.  The wine market is being rationalized by the new EU initiatives and simplicity is the order of the day.  Local winemakers are outraged, however, because they fear the consequence when their local appellation “brand” is merged into a less distinctive (but perhaps more marketable) regional appellation.

On a local level, I have heard many winegrowers grouse about whether a new AVA really has a distinctive  terroir or if it just had enough money and political clout to get its designation.  And of course the drawing of lines is controversial, since who is in and who is out can be pretty arbitrary at times.

From the consumer standpoint the existence of AVAs does potentially provide information.  Theorists say that information is any news or data that reduces uncertainty.  In wine, information would reduce the buyer’s uncertainty about what’s in the bottle and so increase confidence in the buying decision.  Sometimes AVA or AOC designations do this, but not always.  Buyers need to know what the appellations mean and this can be problematic if the regions are very large and diverse in a geographic sense and if the producers make wines in very different styles.

And, of course, too many AVAs can produce a sort of ungovernable confusion of the sort that De Gaulle bemoaned in France. Uncertainty increases with the number of AVAs at some point.

I will be interested to see how the reputation of the Snipe’s Mountain AVA develops.  It certainly is a distinct geologic feature of the Yakima Valley (check out this map), but the reports that I have read stress its historical importance more than its terroir. Snipe’s Mountain was the site of one of the first important plantings of vitis vinifera grapes in Washington State.

Wade Wolfe, who knows Yakima Valley maybe better than anyone, has made wine from Snipe’s Mountain fruit and thinks it could have a bright future with the additional attention the AVA designation draws.  If so, then one more AVA is will not be one too many.

This blog post was originally published at  The Wine Economist.


Fair Trade Wine

February 4, 2009 by Michael Veseth (University of Puget Sound and The Wine Economist)

A Sam’s Club purchase provokes some thoughts on a new wine movement.

The Economics of Ethical Consumption

Fair Trade products attempt to use globalization to offset some of the negative potential effects of globalization.  Global market forces can sometimes lead to the exploitation of natural resources and unskilled labor, for example. The “sympathy” that Adam Smith thought would condition market relations breaks down when producer and consumer are separated by thousands of miles and multiple commodity chain links.

Fair Trade products and other ethical consumption goods seek to create a global market for products that provide more benefits to those at the first stages of the global product chain.  Some consumers are willing to pay a bit more for such products once they are aware of the problem and even a small slice of a global market can have real economic clout.  Global markets for ethical good thus have the potential to offset somewhat any “race to the bottom” forces and to educate consumers in the bargain. You have almost certainly seen Fair Trade coffee and I think Fair Trade chocolates are pretty widely available, too. Look for Fair Trade roses on Valentine’s Day.

Enter Wal-Mart

Sam’s Club, the membership warehouse store arm of Wal-Mart, is currently selling a Fair Trade wine called Neu Direction.  It is a 2005 Malbec from Argentina and I think it illustrates the potential of Fair Trade.  It is a very nice wine, much more interesting than its $9.99 price tag would lead you to believe.  It was judged the best Fair Trade certified red wine at a competition organized by The Independent of London in February 2008. Sam’s Club is the exclusive U.S. distributor.

According to their website,

Neu Direction Malbec benefits the local farmers of Viña de la Solidaridad (Vine of Solidarity), an association based on preserving the rich, cultural heritage of the contratista-landowner relationship.  Ten small vineyard owners and nine contratistas make up the association.  The contratistas lives on the land with their families and are paid a percentage of the grape harvest by the vineyard owners.  The association currently owns 200 acres of vineyards with about a third certified organic, with plans to convert more over the coming years.

The association members receive a guaranteed minimum payment for their grapes and revenues are also channeled to community development projects such as schools.  2008 was the first year of the U.S. Fair Trade wine certification program, which is administered by a NGO called TransFair.

Neu Direction makes the positive case for Fair Trade wine very well.  It is, first of all, an excellent wine at a good price and so can attract buyers on these merits alone.  It is distributed in about 450 Sam’s Clubs across the U.S.  and benefits from the built-in market that Sam’s Club members represent.  Sam’s Club (and Wal-Mart) gains in some small way through its association with “ethical” productions (Fair Trade, sustainable and organic products) and so has a reason to promote them.

Leigh Barrick, one of my students who has studied both Fair Trade coffee and Fair Trade wine, argues that wine may be well suited to Fair Trade markets because consumers are often better informed and more interested in the origins of and production conditions associated with wine than for most other consumer goods.  Wine enthusiasts are thirsty for information about where wines come from, who made them and how.  Fair Trade provides this information in a way that informs, educates and potentially produces social and economic change.  A good fit, Leigh says, and I agree.

A Case of Trade-offs

But Fair Trade wines aren’t automatically going to be winners.  First, not every Fair Trade wine is likely to be as good or as inexpensive as Neu Direction - or to have the Wal-Mart distribution system behind it.  More important, however, the Fair Trade system itself is full of trade-offs.

Fair Trade certification is necessary, it seems, to prevent the designation from being exploited or debased. But certification is often expensive and time consuming (this problem applies to organic or biodynamic certification processes, too) so many small producers may be unable to bear the cost. The benefits of Fair Trade wine are therefore likely to be unevenly distributed and may required financial sacrifice in the short run to achieve gain in the long run.

That’s not to say that Fair Trade isn’ta positive force,  just that it is not a panacea. It is just one new direction — a progressive one– among many in the world of wine today.

Photo by Michael Morrell, my chief inexpensive wine research assistant.We’d like to thank Michael and Nancy for their hospitality during our stay with them in Tucson.

How Reliable are Wine Judges? Not at all!

January 27, 2009, by  Karl Storchmann (Journal of Wine Economics)


“The California State Fair Commercial Wine Competition is the oldest and most prestigious wine competition in North America and is open to California bonded wineries selling retail. Each year, thousands of California wines are entered into the competition for the chance to win one of many coveted awards, such as the Best of Show Red, Best of Show White, and Best Value Wine from the State Fair’s panel of expert wine judges. For over 150 years, the California State Fair has recognized the best wines of the state and the dedication of wineries and vintners in the Golden State’s viticulture and enology industry. Award winners truly are the best of the best!”

This is the introduction on the website of the California State Wine Fair. It goes on as follows. “In 2008, a remarkable 649 wineries entered 2,917 wines into the annual judging contest. The winners are determined by the distinguished panels of judges which come from a wide range of diverse backgrounds and are reviewed before they are permitted to evaluate the wines.”

How reliable are these judges? Robert T. Hodgson examined this and his analysis, entitled “An Examination of Judge Reliability at a major U.S. Wine Competition,” is published as the lead article in the new issue of the Journal of Wine Economics (JWE, Vol 3, No 2). We made the article public and it can be accessed on our website (click here). A nice report was published in Wines & Vines today.

In the spring of 2003 the author contacted the chief judge of the California State Fair wine competition in Sacramento, proposing an independent analysis of the reliability of its judges. The following questions were asked. Why is it that a particular wine wins a Gold medal at one competition and fails to win any award at another? Is this caused by bottle-to-bottle variability of the wine? To what extent is the variability caused by differing opinions within a panel of judges? Finally, could the variability be caused by inability of individual judges to reproduce their scores?”

Between 2005 and 2007, Hodgson conducted the following experiment. Each panel of four expert judges received a flight of 30 wines which included triplicates poured from the same bottle. Between 65 and 70 judges were tested each year. Judges were asked to provide letter scores for each wine, i.e., Bronze, Bronze+, Silver-, etc. Letter scores were later converted to numerical scores ranging from 80 points (No Award) to 100 points.

The following graph shows the deviations for identical wines. Look at the line entitles “maximum range”. The median judge (at the 50% line) in 2005 deviates by as much as 10 points. This equals a range from Silver- to No Medal. In fact, only 10% of all judges can replicate their assessment within one medal rank, i.e., 90% cannot.

Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Range and Maximum Range
2005-2008

But that is not all. Even the reliable judges are not reliable over time. The best judges in 2005 were not the best in 2006. Hodgson provides the following scatterplot showing the deviations in 2005 and in 2006. One would expect that a small deviation correlates with a small deviation in 2006. But that is not the case. In fact, the correlation between performance in these two years is r=-0.01, i.e., not existent.


Scatter diagram of pooled standard deviation for the 26 judges who participated in 2005 and 2006
Correlation = -0.01

This is fairly amazing and shows us that the Wine Competition Results are seriously flawed.

Readers of the Journal of Wine Economics will recall Orley Ashenfelter’s very entertaining interview with Bruce Kaiser entitled “Tales from the Crypt: Auctioneer Bruce Kaiser Tells Us about the Trials and Tribulations of a Wine Judge” , where he reports about his experience of being a California State Wine fair judge. Having read this, Robert Hodgson’s results seem little surprising.

However, it is surprising that the California State Wine Fair Board lets us publish Hodgson findings. Clear-cut, they are seriously interested in solving rather than concealing the problem which is a very productive attitude (and hard to find nowadays). They might get rewarded and end up with new ways how to conduct the wine competition; maybe have a more reliable wine assessment than others. After all, the judge-reliability problem is not confined to the California State Wine Fair. We face this almost everywhere. Hodgson is already working on statistical ways to mitigate the issue.

Wine, Recession and the ALDI Effect

January 22, 2009 by Michael Veseth (University of Puget Sound and The Wine Economist)

Aldi stores are about to expand in the United States, drawn here by the recession according to an article in today’s Wall Street Journal ( “Aldi Looks to US for Growth” ).  I wonder how this will affect the wine market? 

A Tough Nut to Crack

Aldi is a German “hard discount” store chain.  A “hard discounter” sells a limited selection of house-brand goods at very low prices in small, bare-bones outlets.

Hard discounters are a niche, albeit a growing one, in the U.S.  Wal-Mart is a successful discounter, of course, but not a hard discounter because it still features many mainstream branded products, its prices are higher and its stores a bit more plush.  Aldi and other hard discount stores drove Wal-Mart out of Germany, according to the WSJ article, but the U.S. market has been a tough nut for the hard discounters to crack. American consumers are primed to buy brand-named products and they like lots of choice, marketing experts say, and so tend to resist the house brands that hard discounters feature, which has limited their penetration here.

Germans are more willing to sacrifice brand names for low prices, apparently.  Aldi and other hard discounters are dominant powers in German retailing. The WSJ reports that 90% of German households shop at Aldi stores and 40% of all grocery purchases are made in hard discount outlets.

Divide and Conquer

Interestingly, there are actually two Aldi store chains in Germany (with similar but different logos — see illustration above).  Aldi is short for ALbrecht DIscount. The Albrecht brothers  who founded the company after World War II fell out over the issue of tobacco sales in their stores.  They divided the German market between them (Aldi Nord and Aldi Süd) and then, eventually, split up the world market too.  Here are links to Aldi USA and Aldi International websites if you want to learn more about this retailer’s local presence and international reach.

Aldi Süd has been in the United States since the 1970s.  The corporate website tells the story this way.

The ALDI way of shopping has been continuously honed and refined since our first store opened in Southeastern Iowa in 1976. Committed to bringing food to customers at the lowest prices possible, our early stores set up shop in small spaces and introduced shoppers to the limited-assortment concept, carrying only 500 private-label items. Compared with other supermarkets, our stores seemed tiny. But ALDI found a niche with Americans hungry for real value, and the chain grew rapidly.

Over time, more products were added, including more refrigerated and frozen foods. ALDI also began experimenting with Special Purchase items, to great success. More recently, Sunday hours were instituted, and ALDI began accepting debit cards.

Today, there are nearly 1,000 ALDIstores in 29 states, from Kansas to the East Coast. And today’s ALDI store carries about 1,400 regularly-stocked items, including fresh meat, and, in certain locations, beer and wine. Though the original ALDI concept has been modified somewhat to accommodate our ever-changing tastes and preferences, the core concept remains: “Incredible Value Every Day.”

The German origins of the store are apparent in this description, from the traditional Sunday closing to the very limited selection.  Your local upscale supermarket carries at least 10 times as many products as a typical Aldi.

Wine is an important product in Aldi’s German stores, as you can see from the wine selections featured on their website.  I believe that Aldi is the largest single retailer of wine in Germany.

Since Germans are rich and Germany makes great wines, you would think that Aldi must sell mainly fine wines, but you would be wrong.  Aldi’s median  German wine sale is red not white, imported from a low cost producer, sold  under a house-brand name, packaged in a box or TetraPak and priced at around one euro per liter.

You could say that it is Two Buck Chuck (TBC) wine, but in fact TBC is more expensive.  TBC is to Aldi wine as Wal-mart is to Aldi itself. (Note: Wal-Mart now has its own brand of two dollar wine, which makes this comparison even more appropriate. It is called Oak Leaf Vineyards and is made for Wal-Mart by The Wine Group.)

The Aldi Effect

Aldi figures that the recession is its moment to press more vigorously for U.S. market share.  Data indicate that consumers are much more cautious now, so perhaps they won’t be so picky about brand names and will, like their German cousins, be willing to trade down for a lower price. The Financial Times reports that Aldi sales in Great Britain are up 25 percent! Aldi plans to speed up store openings in the U.S. and to expand into New York City. New York!  If you can make it there … well, you know.

This may be Aldi’s opportunity in wine, too. Most but not all Aldi stores in the U.S. (damn U.S. liquor laws!)  sell beer and wine. Aldi’s U.S. website boasts that

ALDI believes that life’s little pleasures should be affordable for everyone. In many of the countries where ALDI calls “home,” we’re known for exceptional values in wine and beer. And now, we’re bringing that tradition to the United States.

Thanks to our global reach, we’re able to partner with winemakers and brewers around the world, to bring you exceptional beers and wines at remarkably modest prices.

Our wines come from all of the world’s best wine producing regions: Germany, France, Spain, California, Argentina, and Australia. Our beers are sourced from Holland, Germany, and Latin America. Some carry our private labels, others carry the labels they wear in their native lands—but all are exclusively ours in the U.S. So now you can raise a glass to “Incredible Value Every Day.”

The good news here is that Aldi’s U.S. push may also help drive wine deeper into the U.S. consumer mainstream.  You can say all you like about the quality of Two Buck Chuck but it sure did help expand the wine culture in the U.S. and some (but not all) my TBC-drinking friends have moved upmarket for at least some of their purchases. The wine may not be very good (a matter of taste), but its market impact has not been all bad.

Will Aldi Succeed?

Will Aldi’s drive be successful?  There is reason to think it will be. They seem committed to tailoring their hard discount operations to local market conditions, which is important because markets have terroir as much as wine.

But there is a more important reason.  Both German Aldi chains are present in the U.S. now, although you are probably not aware of them.  Aldi Süd operates on under the Aldi name, of course, with the same logo as in Germany.  The owners of Aldi Nord invested years ago in a different chain, based in California and intentionally tailored for thrifty but upwardly mobile U.S. consumers. It’s an upscale Aldi Nord and it has been very successful here.

Perhaps you’ve heard of them.  They have limited selection, smaller stores, lots of house brands, and low prices.  They even sell a lot of wine.  The name?

Oh, yes.  Trader Joe’s!

Can you take home your own wine from a BYOB?


January 16, 2009, by  Karl Storchmann (Journal of Wine Economics)


"If I bring my own wine to a BYOB in New York State, eat a full course meal and then want to take home my own only partially consumed bottle in a sealed doggy bag ---- is that legal?"

(see also the blogs on "Can You Take Wine Home from a Manhattan Jazz Club?" and "Wine Gift Bags in NY State Liquor Stores")


An Associate Attorney of the New York State Liquor Authority answers this (by email) with a clear NO! (read the paragraph under partial consumption)


In addition, in order to avoid "excessive consumption" caused by wine brought to the restaurant by the customer, the New York State Liquor Authority deems it prudent for the restaurant to stipulate a rule disallowing a patron to bring into the licensed establishment his own bottle of wine. (read the paragraph under excessive consumption)


Here is his email:

Wine brought onto the licensed restaurant premises by the patron.


Although a licensed restaurant operator may permit a patron to bring wine onto the licensed premises, granting such permission carries risks which argue against granting such permission.

Partial consumption.

If the patron is only able to partially consume the bottle of wine he has brought into the licensed premises, the patron will want to take the partially consumed bottle of wine with him when he leaves.

In New York State, a patron who departs a licensed on-premises establishment with a full or partial bottle of wine appears to establish, at first blush, a violation of ABCL § 106 (3), which forbids the licensee to sell wine or liquor for off-premises consumption. A police officer who observes such departure may refer the matter to the State Liquor Authority, or make an arrest (ABCL § 130). In either event, the licensee may become entangled in legal proceedings based upon the perception that he sold wine for off-premises consumption.

As a condition of permitting a patron to bring in a bottle of wine, the restaurant operator might reasonably require that the bottle of wine, once in the licensed establishment, does not leave the licensed establishment.

Excessive consumption.

The patron may consume to excess, and, because the patron owns the bottle, it will be difficult for the restaurant operator to attempt to remove the bottle from the patron.

Nevertheless, in court it might be found that the restaurant licensee is legally responsible for the patron’s self-intoxication while in the licensed restaurant. ABCL § 65 (2) provides, in relevant part: “No [licensed] person *** shall permit *** to be *** delivered *** any alcoholic beverages to *** any visibly intoxicated person.”

If the restaurant licensee permits a patron’s excessive self-delivery of wine, the restaurant licensee might be found responsible because the licensee is forbidden to permit such deliveries.

In addition, the presence of an intoxicated patron on the licensed premises may result in a complaint to the police or to the State Liquor Authority, since another patron being bothered by the intoxicated patron may assume that the patron was served to excess by the restaurant operator.

Should the patron who has become intoxicated on his own wine become involved in an automobile accident upon departure from the licensed establishment, an injured third party may well sue the restaurant licensee for over-serving the patron.

In connection with such a lawsuit, it not unlikely that the intoxicated patron, in order to avoid complete liability for the third party’s injury, will assert that he purchased the bottle from the restaurant licensee, and that the accident was, in part, the licensee’s fault for not discontinuing service.

Prudence suggests that the interests of a restaurant licensee might be better served by enforcement of a rule disallowing a patron to bring into the licensed establishment his own bottle of wine.

The procedures found at ABCL § 81 (4) [meaning that you can take home partially consumed wine in a tamper-proof doggy bag] are available only where the wine has been PURCHASED at the licensed restaurant premises.

Can You Take Wine Home from a Manhattan Jazz Club?

January 10, 2009, by  Karl Storchmann (Journal of Wine Economics)


Okay, things have improved in New York State. Since September 9, 2004, you can take home a partially consumed bottle of wine from a restaurant. See, for instance, this article in the New York Times.

Great. A few days ago we went to the Village Vanguard, a jazz club in Manhattan. We ordered a bottle of Sauvignon Blanc, drank half of it and wanted to take the rest home. The waitress said "no, that is illegal." Didn't she know that the law has changed? But she insisted, it is illegal, period. That was a bummer. But it did not help, we could not take the bottle and gave it to the guys at the neighbor table instead.

Back at home, I looked up the infamous ABC law. And sure enough, the waitress was right. You can take home a partially consumed bottle of wine only if each of these conditions are met:

(1) Restaurant License Required

A partially consumed bottle of wine may be removed only from an establishment which has received from the New York State Liquor Authority a restaurant wine license or a restaurant liquor license. The plan of operation and other representations submitted by the license holder in connection with the license application will
establish whether the establishment is a bona fide restaurant. “Restaurant” is defined by subdivision 27 of section 3 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in the following terms: "Restaurant" shall mean a place which is regularly and in a bona fide manner used and kept open for the serving of meals to guests for compensation and which has suitable kitchen facilities connected therewith, containing conveniences for cooking an assortment of foods, which may be required for ordinary meals, the kitchen of which must, at all times, be in charge of a chef with the necessary help, and kept in a sanitary condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for keeping of food on said premises and must comply with all the regulations of the local department of health.

(2) Full course meal required
A partially consumed bottle of wine may be removed from a licensed restaurant establishment only if the bottle of wine was actually purchased in connection with a full course meal, and only if a portion of the wine contained in the bottle was actually consumed with the meal. “Full course meal” is defined by subdivision four of section eighty-one of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in the following terms: For the purposes of this subdivision the term "full course meal" shall mean a diversified
selection of food which is ordinarily consumed with the use of tableware and cannot conveniently be consumed while standing or walking.

(3) A dated receipt for the meal and the bottle of wine must be provided
At the conclusion of the meal, the restaurant patron must be provided with a dated receipt which indicates both the purchase of a full course meal and the purchase of
the wine. A receipt which is undated does not satisfy the requirements of the statute. A receipt which fails to indicate that the wine was purchased in connection with a full course meal is insufficient, because the statute requires that the wine be purchased in connection with a full course meal.

(4) Sealing required
Before a restaurant licensee may permit a partially consumed bottle of wine to leave the restaurant, the restaurant licensee or an agent of the restaurant licensee must:
• securely reseal the bottle of wine;
• place the resealed bottle in a one-time-use tamper-proof transparent bag, and
• securely seal the bag.
The one-time-use tamper-proof transparent bag must insure that the patron cannot gain access to the bottle while in
transit after the bag is sealed.



(5) Only one partially consumed bottle of wine may be removed from the restaurant
The purchaser of the full course meal and the wine may remove only one partially consumed bottle of wine.

More details including possible penalties can be found here
.

Clearly, the Village Vanguard is not a restaurant. That alone makes it illegal to take your wine back home. The waitress was correct.
However, New York State is no exception. The following list reports the respective laws in the remaining 49 states and the District of Columbia. Most states stipulate that a full course meal is consumed and the wine is placed in a sealed doggy bag. (http://www.winedoggybag.com/statelaws.htm)

One can now imagine numerous cases in which it is illegal taking home partially consumed bottles in New York State. It seems as though the following case applies. You bring a bottle of your own wine to a BYOB, eat a meal but don't finish the wine. Can you take it home? No, since you don't have a receipt for it.

Blog Software