Has A Cut In Tourism $$ Really Set WA Wine Back 10 Years?

That's the spurious claim in an article just posted in Drinks Business

Every once in a while a wine-related article in a major publication really requires some comment, and this is one. So here is my personal opinion about the claims being made in this article.

According to a Ste. Michelle spokesperson, the article reports, if consumers are more aware of wines from Oregon than from those of Washington, it has nothing to do with the wine. The real reason, says this report, is that 15 years ago Washington state cut its budget for tourism. And so, we are asked to believe, the state’s reputation for fine wines has since plummeted, while Oregon’s reputation is on the rise.

There’s more blather which you can read for yourself, but let’s just parse that overriding assertion. First of all, by “Washington wine” the article is really just referring to wines produced by the Chateau Ste. Michelle conglomerate. Granted, Ste. Michelle is the largest and most influential producer in the Pacific Northwest and granted, their fortunes have taken a serious tumble. To begin with, they are under new ownership, distant management, and have seen a revolving door at the CEO position.

I don’t have current sales figures for their multiple brands (they have refused my repeated requests for access to their press releases) but it’s fair to say that sales are down across the board.

This has little or nothing to do with the failings of Washington state to muster up a tourism budget. Walla Walla, where I live, has thriving tourism. Wine tourism statewide is amply supported by the Washington Wine Commission and various smaller entities such as the Walla Walla Wine Alliance.

The rise in Oregon’s reputation worldwide has a great deal to do with the state’s focus on Pinot Noir and more recently Chardonnay as its emblematic grapes. I’ve covered both states for decades, and have noted many times that Washington’s ability to make good and even great wines from many different grapes is a blessing and a curse.

Now having been immersed in Oregon coverage for the past decade I can assure you that Oregon winemakers are just as diverse and their wines just as eclectic. The difference is that they know a winning horse when they see one (hello Pinot Noir) and they ride it to the finish line.

The article concludes with this timeworn chestnut: “When you think of the American wine landscape, it’s predominantly California. Once we introduce people to the idea of the Pacific North-West then we can start to break it down and explain the typicities of different states.”

Wow, there’s a stunning revelation. Of course, this could have been written 30 years ago. Or 20. Or 10. California makes 90% of the wine in America. That hasn’t changed. Upping Washington’s tourism budget isn’t going to change it either. When you make most of the wine, you’re going to get most of the attention.

And last but certainly not least - many Washington wineries are making great wine. As I’ve written here and on my website, stunning wines from new AVAs, new wineries and new vineyards are upping the game statewide. The same thing is happening in Oregon. If there is a marketing challenge it is that the most innovative and cutting edge wines in both states are frequently coming from boutique producers who lack the marketing/distribution muscle to make a dent globally. Nonetheless Oregon seems to be meeting that challenge. A handful of mid-size Oregon producers such as King Estate and Willamette Valley Vineyards are doing a splendid job of building up the image of all the state’s wines with the help of the Oregon Wine Board, some regional associations and iconic events such as IPNC.

I don’t know (apparently no one does) what Ste. Michelle’s owners are planning longterm. But if there is genuine concern about the reputation of Washington wine –and you are by far the biggest producer – a good place to start looking is what critics are saying about the wines in your own portfolio.