Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kiona Vineyards's avatar

From a strategic perspective, it's always made sense to us to make sure that the "selling points" of a wine are fully within our control and circle of influence. How the grapes are grown? We can control that. The cuvée? Our choice. Weight of the bottle? We buy in truckload increments.

Something that is *not* in our circle of control is how a critic receives a wine. So it doesn't make sense, at least to us, to make **the reason** why someone should buy a given wine something that we cannot control. Sure, a nice accolade can be the 8th or 9th selling point down the list, but we think it's a tactical error to make it **the reason**.

Now, we fully understand that that's a biased perspective as a producer that tends to live in the 89-94 range, decidedly one tier lower in scoring than Washington's "regularly rounds up to 100" producers.

We've seen wineries with the best pedigree and reputation score "low" by their standards (93? 94?) and find the sales of the wine slow dramatically, to the point where members are calling up and cancelling their allocation before trying. That's not a situation we'd want to find ourselves in.

Expand full comment
Bruce G's avatar

Great observations, Paul. There may be a bit of behavioral economics going on with an $800 price tag, too--having that on the listing makes $150 seem a lot cheaper, psychologically. Plus, some consumers with lots of disposable income are ready, willing, able to pay for that (hopefully) super-premium bottle. I'm with you 100% on the despising the big bottles. I've had a couple of Napa cabs with bottles so big and heavy I was tempted to hold onto one in case I had to bang a burglar on the head...

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts