




Fermentation:
The Daily Wine Blog



Eminent Domain Used To Usurp Wine Label Real Estate


 I was disappointed, though not surprised, to see that today a conjunctive
labeling law dictating that "Sonoma County" be placed on every label on wines
produced from grapes grown in Sonoma County was unanimously passed by the California Legislature . Pushed as an
effort to promote "Sonoma County" wines and a consumer education effort, the new
law instead forces vintners to needlessly sully their package and undermines
their own marketing efforts. Yet, the law does nothing to educate consumers.
Passed unanimously out of the California Assembly and Senate, AB 1798 now awaits
the Governor's signature, which it will surely obtain. According to Noreen
Evans, an Assembly sponsor of the bill, this new conjunctive labeling law
"requires that any wine labeled with an American Viticultural Area (AVA) located
entirely within Sonoma County - – like Russian River Valley or Dry Creek Valley
- must also include the word "Sonoma County" on the label, starting in 2014.
There are 13 AVAs in Sonoma County."
The problem, of course, is that by placing the words "Sonoma
County" on a bottle of wine that is made with grapes grown in "Russian River
Valley", "Dry Creek Valley", "Sonoma Valley" or any other AVA in
SonomaSonoma County" have any single distinguishing feature derived from the
fact that they were grown inside the borders of Sonoma County.  County,
consumers learn absolutely nothing about the wine in the bottle. There no
evidence that grapes grown in "
Assemblywoman Evans concludes, "By improving consumer education on each bottle,
conjunctive labeling will unleash the full potential of our delicious wines to
represent Sonoma around the world."
She's correct. Beginning in 2014, "Sonoma County" will receive a tremendous boost
in recognition due to the conjunctive labeling law that forces vintners to add
more wording to their labels—whether they think the words "Sonoma County" help
or hurt their marketing efforts.
Frankly, if I was making high end wine from the "Sonoma Valley", "Sonoma
Mountain" or "Sonoma Coast" AVAs that depended in part on the quality
recognition that comes wtih these AVAs, I'd be pissed that I'm forced now to put
a place-name on my label that told my buyers nothing of real value about the
wine behind my label and, in some cases, demonstrably lowered its perceived
quality.
Honore Comfort, Executive Director of the Sonoma County Vintners Association and
an outstanding representative for Sonoma County wines noted this: ". "This
moment ...marks the beginning of a stronger Sonoma County brand for generations
to come."
Proponents of the new Sonoma County Conjunctive labeling law like to point to a
similar law that demands "Napa Valley" be placed on all wines that are made from
grapes grown in that appellation, rather than simply using a sub appellation.
They point to the prestige that the "Napa Valley" designation carries. But this
prestige has nothing to due with the law that demands "Napa Valley", in addition
to simply "Rutherford", be placed on these wines. It has to do entirely with the
promotional effort that has gone into making "Napa Valley" a place associated
with great wines.
Such an association will not be made with "Sonoma County"
wines...ever. The vintners in Sonoma County simply can't make a case for
"Sonoma County" having any meaning or for a region as vast as "Sonoma
County" delivering any degree of quality to the grapes.
Why is it important for someone making "Sonoma Coast Pinot Noir" or "Sonoma
Valley Zinfandel" to help promote "Sonoma County", a designation that has no
ability to define the quality or character of the wines in my Sonoma Coast Pinot
Noir or my Sonoma Valley Zinfandel?
This is an example of a County usurping the private label real estate, and it's
very valuable real estate, for the sake of promoting something that is of little
use to private commercial interests. Ask yourself...If putting the words "Sonoma
County" on one's wines was such a great thing, why don't more vintners who make
"Dry Creek Valley", "Russian River Valley", "Alexander Valley" or "Sonoma
Valley" wines already put these words on their label? They legally could...if
they wanted to.

The new Sonoma County conjunctive labeling law is the equivalent
of the State of California and the County of Sonoma claiming imminent domain
over the labels of hundreds of vintners.




Comments

 Nick Perdiew said... I love it Tom. You found a way to tie this in nicely.
This is a case of over-reaching government regulation, costing business
unnecessarily and burdening them with more regulations. It's just
unnecessary.
 It also is a 'social promotion' in the sense that great Sonoma wines that
now are forced to use "Sonoma County" will be giving some of their
credibility to their lesser neighbors. Shades of wealth redistribution as
well. :-) Ew, ew, ew. 
 August 30, 2010 at 11:44 AM 


James McCann said... How many hundreds or thousands of labels will have to be
re-submitted to the TTB between now and 2014? 
 August 30, 2010 at 11:59 AM 


John Kelly said... "...I'd be pissed that I'm forced now to put a place-name
on my label that told my buyers nothing of real value about the wine behind
my label and, in some cases, demonstrably lowered its perceived quality." 
 Exactly, Tom. And I am really pissed. And so is every other producer I have
discussed this issue with. I still don't know whose interests are being
served by this useless piece of crap legislation. I completely agree with
you when you state: "Such an association will not be made with 'Sonoma
County' wines...ever." Duh. 
 I've got real skin in this game. We are going to have to totally redesign
our front label to make room for "Sonoma County" - and so far every mock-up
is cluttered and decreases the impact of our brand. 
 Our best option looks like we will go to "North Coast" or "California" for
our front label appellation, and discuss the grape source, vineyard name and
meaningful AVA on the back label. 
 Who is going to compensate me for this? I estimate the value to be in six
figures, and we are a small winery. For a larger winery with a
better-established brand the value is much higher. 
 Eminent domain is exactly right - this is nothing less than governmental
"taking." The legislators who backed this should be ashamed. They should
also expect to lose my vote for them next election. 
 August 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM 


Hardy Wallace said... Thanks Tom-- This law is such BS. 
 August 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM 


JohnLopresti said... I put in 1+ decades in trade coursework, and several
branches of the industry. I support the new labeling requirement. 
 Sonoma county always was the sheep ranch joke in the era of Napa's
well-deserved, early, global fame. Sonoma county now is as good or better
than those early Napa vintages. Together we have led the world into modern
viticulture, with the help of UC Davis, and in some pretty good company from
other regions. 
 I suppose the new law is all Sacramento hype. But I think it will improve
northcoast revenue and dignity. I admit I have voted for the bill's
authoress. 
 When I was a kid in a county called Solano (not too famous for wines or
AVAs) people sometimes would happen by our place asking where rte 37 was,
where was Black Pt.; people always were confused how the somewhat
neighboring counties had such similar names. Now after several decades in
Sonoma county I have learned to appreciate its uniqueness, for its
viticulture and other industries. 
 The town of Sonoma is on a typical route people follow driving from Solano
County to Sonoma County. The ambience in the town Sonoma is only an enclave;
it is rightfully proud of its heritage as a village, and for its
viticultural traditions. But Sonoma county encompasses much more territory,
and other AVAs within the county are starkly different from the
characteristics of Sonoma valley and the town of Sonoma. 
 Aint many people still overseeing vineyard blends. Vive la nouveau Sonoma
County. 
 August 30, 2010 at 01:24 PM 


Nick Perdiew said in 
 to JohnLopresti... John, Good of you to comment and good to have dissent.
What do you make of the fact that vintners *already* are free to put Sonoma
County on any label they want? Govt. cannot mandate marketing effectiveness
anymore than it can mandate perception of quality. If it were effective,
wouldn't you already see it virtually everywhere? I admit, I don't see the
reasoning of your argument here. The issue of the costs to vintners is
non-trivial too as you can see above. 
 August 30, 2010 at 02:04 PM 


Bill Cadman said... Tom-- I wonder what the response would be in Napa and
Sonoma if the vintners in Fresno convinced the state government to require
"California" be put on all labels of wine made within California? 
 August 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM 


JohnLopresti said... These past few years, 'eminent domain' has become a
libertarian property rights flashpoint, since the Kelo v New London, CT,
case concerning urban renewal polemics. I can see Tom W's concerns, too. 
 There was a counterpoint in the label world after some court cases resulted
in a company's revising its grape sourcing to comply with tightened
requirements for 75% in-county fruit in order to remain legal in designating
the wine as from "Napa". One rambling article's author counted 16
occurrences of the word Napa on the newly designed label of a famous budget
wine producer's 2005 Napa cabernet sauvignon. 
 August 31, 2010 at 02:04 PM 


JohnLopresti said... The links for @2:04: 

Kelo">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-108">Kelo 

http://citizensvoice.com/arts-living/2.212/2.213/fred-franzia-wine-s-archie-bunker-with-a-dose-of-donald-trump-1.564510?
localLinksEnabled=false 
 August 31, 2010 at 02:06 PM 


fredric koeppel said... what business is it of State government what
terminology goes on wine labels? those concerns belong to the federal govt
and the TTB, which already mandates, in fairly exhaustive detail, what goes
on front and back labels. and how can the state legislature single out two
counties (first Napa, now Sonoma) for this treatment? are they going to go
through the wine-producing counties one by one? 
 August 31, 2010 at 02:23 PM 


JohnLopresti said... vive la OIVV OIV_Wine_Labelling_Standard_EN_2006 
 re at Fredric K's BTYH website there is a review discussing MacRostie pinot
noir. I had thought of the kiltman with respect to a new AVA in Yorkville
highlands, thinking the Scot might have interest in playing the bagpipes in
the uplands. Then, at Steve's site there is an interesting discussion of his
current ongoing efforts with blends from Carneros and Sonoma Coast. It's
easy to get lost in nomenclatures, when one is striving for new concepts. 
 In a way, all this tries to approach terroir from a slight distance; plus
the historical distinctions between the two premium distinctive varietal
regions, Napa county and Sonoma county. Winkler heat summation datapoints
also clarified several decades ago some of the plant physiologic
underpinnings of why Napa county and Sonoma county were the natural leaders
in premium winegrape production. There are many reasons why the new labeling
requirement makes sense from all these perspectives. 
 September 01, 2010 at 04:22 PM 


JohnLopresti said... sorry, I keep forgetting the Fermentation site's html
protocol; here is the OIVV label guideline link again:
http://news.reseau-concept.net/images/oiv_uk/Client/OIV_Wine_Labelling_Standard_EN_2006.pdf 
 September 01, 2010 at 04:25 PM 


El Jefe said... OK, so here's the real requirement: 
 "Any wine labeled with an American Viticultural Area established yada yada,
that is located entirely within yada yada, shall bear the designation
"Sonoma County" on the label in a type size not smaller than two millimeters
on containers of more than 187 milliliters or smaller than one millimeter on
containers of 187 milliliters or less." 
 If I recall correctly, this is almost exactly the same as the requirement
for the government warning type size. 
 So the answer seems pretty clear to me: just add "Sonoma County" to the
government warning. 
 September 01, 2010 at 05:00 PM 


Johnonwine said... "They [Honore Comfort and the Sonoma County Vintners]
point to the prestige that the "Napa Valley" designation carries. But this
prestige has nothing to due with the law that demands "Napa Valley", in
addition to simply "Rutherford", be placed on these wines. It has to do
entirely with the promotional effort that has gone into making "Napa Valley"
a place associated with great wines. 
 Such an association will not be made with "Sonoma County" wines...ever. 
 Tom, I would suggest that all Napa wineries, good and bad, benefit from
having Napa Valley on the label; it is indeed a great example of marketing -
what you describe as promotional effort. 
 Perhaps the proponents of the law are not doing the job they were hired to
do, perhaps the SCV needs a more passionate communicator on their marketing
team, putting together the quality promotion you suggest is impossible. 
 Sonoma County, with roughly half of the wineries of Napa County, wins
roughly twice as many gold medals in national and international wine
competitions. That, the fact that their wines cost less on average, and the
wineries are friendlier, less snooty is a compelling story to get out to the
public. 
 Heck, if folks knew all that, maybe folks would be seeking out bottles with
"Sonoma County" on the label. 
 You suggest that this is a bad law, that Sonoma County will never be
associated with high quality wine in the way Napa County is. I disagree, but
I am eternally hopeful, optimistic that the Sonoma County Vintners will
inject a little passion and not more of the same old staid and boring in
their marketing communications. I have confidence they will change, retool,
improve, live up to their responsibilities. 
 I worked selling and marketing Sonoma County wines, I won awards for my
marketing efforts. The story is simple. People are receptive to it. Selling
the magic of Sonoma County wines is easy. 
 That's my take anyway, I don't aim to be contrarian, but I don't mind being
the sole supporter of the law - as a Sonoma County born and bred wine guy. 
 September 03, 2010 at 08:21 PM




