Photographs by Richard Perry/The New York Times

We are all familiar with Gary Vaynerchuk and his gen-crazy style of marketing and wine tasting. But the truth is, the guy is incredibly successful. He is a tour de force in the wine world, gathering more new wine lovers than any other wine critic or writer in the world, I’d dare say. The following is an article in the New York Times. Check it out.
The Pour – This Wine Critic Can Drive People to Drink – NYTimes.com

One of my favorite episodes contained this description, which is also mentioned in the NYT article.

[W]hen he talked about another pinot noir from the Sonoma Coast, a 2006 Kanzler, he seemingly went off the deep end in describing its flavor:

“You hit a deer, you pull off to the side of the road, then you stab the deer with a knife, cut it, and bite that venison, and put a little black pepper and strawberries on it and eat it, like a mean, awful human being. That’s what this tastes like.”

I’ve got to love his ingenuity, his uniqueness, his passion. Gary Vaynerchuk makes me laugh: bottom line. And for that reason, I will continue to support his crazy antics. And I can guarantee that I’ll learn something along the way.

Lodmell Cellars
Adamant Cellars
Trio Vintners
Stephenson Cellars
Dunham Cellars
Trust Cellars
Chateau Rollat Winery

That’s quite a line-up for a Saturday afternoon. While friends and I planned on visiting Trio, invited by Steve Michener (one of the three), we had not accounted for the crowds brought into town for a Whitman College event weekend. So rather than wait outside Trio, we ventured next door to Lodmell.

Lodmell is new; their first release was in May 2008. Planning on staying at or below (currently well below) 1,000 cases, they are a small lot winery to watch. They have a 2006 Sauvignon Blanc ($22), 2006 Chardonnay ($22), and 2005 Estate Merlot ($43) on the table. All fairly small lots. All able to age more before consumption. The whites each have a beautiful nose, bright and citrusy. High acidity. The merlot is tight. I’d like to try it in a year. Everything seems to be present; it just needs to loosen up. It could learn something from the blonde three-year-old running about the winery in her tiny blue dress and training pants, laughing no matter what.

Trio was still packed so we moved another door down to Adamant. The first thing to catch my eye at Adamant was the art on the walls. Appearing like sketches on canvas, there are images of hands and birds. Birds taking flight from an outstretched hand, or perhaps dancing a flirtatious routine in relation to the hand. I have always loved the aesthetic of sketches and these pieces are no exception, extended marvelously to canvas. Hanging against the blue wall they are expansive. Broadening. Creating a feeling of space, breath, grace.

What about the wine, you say? The wine, of course, is related to the art. As we discover, Debra, the owner who was pouring for us, is the artist as well. She’s working on a new show for Barrel Tasting: “naked men… and umbrellas.” Got my attention!

The first wine was a red blend, Columbia Valley, 60% Cabernet Sauvignon, 40% Merlot. Good solid blend. But the 2006 Winemaker’s Select ($30), a 50/50 Cab/Merlot Walla Walla Valley blend took my fancy. And it wasn’t just the gold patina-finish label. It was elegant (yes, I used that word). It was slightly less tannic than the first blend and had a more balanced mouth feel. The syrah was lively and lovely, but my top vote was for the 50/50 blend.
They’re selling wax top magnums of the Winemaker’s Select for $61. Classic good looks. I do still recommend their 2006 Syrah, on which you can find more press. And keep an eye out for their next Rosé – Ruby Ruth No. 2. The 2007 was a doozy and sold out fast, so be ready for the 2008.

Speaking of rosés… We did eventually make it to Trio Vintners, where I spoke with Denise Slattery and Steve Michener (who had invited me to come tasting in the first place). More on that to come, but I would be remiss if I did not announce immediately that Trio Vintners has opted to increase their donation to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation from 10% to 20% for all 2007 Trés Rosé sales. Fantastic! Pink wine with a pink ribbon. I never knew I could love the color pink so much.

Seriously, folks. Did you catch that?! You can buy this rosé, drink this rosé, and help cure cancer! You better believe I bought the wine.

(Images from lodmellcellars.com, adamantcellars.com, triovintners.com)

Some questions might never be answered, like:
Does Expensive Wine Taste Better Than Cheap Wine? This is the topic of a recent post on Vinography. As with most of my favorite posts, the comments that follow and the ensuing discussions are almost as interesting as the initial article or post. In this case, Alder Yarrow points readers to a working paper, published this month by the American Association of Wine Economists (AAWE) in which researchers share the results of over 6,000 blind tastings.

“Our results indicate that both the prices of wines and wine recommendations by experts may be poor guides for non-expert wine consumers.”

Wait, wait. What?! Then how will I know whether a wine tastes good or not? The above quote is what they open with in the abstract. And after presenting a highly academic report of their findings, they conclude with these words:

In sum, in a large sample of blind tastings, we find that the correlation between price and overall rating is small and negative. Unless they are experts, individuals on average enjoy more expensive wines slightly less. Our results suggest that both price tags and expert recommendations may be poor guides for non-expert wine consumers who care about the intrinsic qualities of the wine.

So what are the “intrinsic qualities of the wine”? Can we list them? Can we name them? What is it that the “non-experts” are enjoying? Are the experts truly looking for something beyond the wine itself? Are they suggesting that the experts care more about the price than non-expert consumers?

The pleasure we get from consuming wine depends both on its intrinsic qualities such as taste and smell and external attributes such as price and presentation.

Well, there you have it. Apparently the experts do care more about price and presentation. And why is this?

One may argue that the former [taste and smell] influences our subjective appreciation through a bottom-up process, where the sensory apparatus plays a key role, and that the latter [price and presentation] works through a top-down process, where beliefs and expectations about quality are important determinants.

(Note: Top-down = from the general to the particular. Bottom-up, then is moving from the particular to the general.)

As the footnote points out, these beliefs and expectations “might depend on ulterior motives such as status concerns.” Can expensive wine be a “positional good?” I’d take Jay-Z as a prime example of using wine as a positional good or status symbol. When asked about wine in an interview he mentions a $20,000 bottle of Petrus 1945 he’d had in the Bahamas. I’d expect a hell of a lot from a bottle at that price. I expect a lot from a $75 bottle! But I think it’s worth noting his comments on the wine itself:

Oh, it was definitely full-bodied. Incredible. You could almost taste the barrel. It was one of those things where you say, “Come on, how good could it be? What’s the difference?” But you really could taste the difference. It was damn near like smoking weed. It was a high.

Well, I don’t know that I’d expect a weed experience, but if only I could tell people that I had spent $20G on one bottle. And I don’t think it was a Jeraboam, either. Just a good ol’ 750ml bottle. (Does size matter? There’s another question…) But would Jay-Z be talking about the wine if he hadn’t spent so much on it? Would he remember it? What would an fMRI (as discussed in the AAWE paper) show of Jay-Z’s experience of the same wine in a blind tasting?

The debate amongst readers seems to be about issues of education, appreciation, and some stereotyping of “non-expert” tastes. But in the end, I agree with Alder Yarrow that a little education can go a long way. As one reader commented, perhaps education and appreciation go hand in hand. And although I just enjoyed a $10 bottle of 2005 Felline Albarello Rosso Solento (smells like cinnamon rolls with raisins), I know that the Seven Hills 2005 Malbec ($30) sitting on the kitchen counter, tempting me, is much more satisfying to my tastes. More complex, multi-dimensional, and simply richer. I don’t classify myself as an expert, but I do know what I like, what tastes good to me. I strongly encourage everyone to follow their own tastes, and if what you love happens to be inexpensive, well then, I guess you’ll be happier for less expense. Unfortunately, I like high quality–which I agree can be subjective–even if it does cost more sometimes.

Interestingly enough, at a recent syrah blind tasting here in Walla Walla, the Pepperwood Grove 2004 California Syrah won the favor of the majority. Weighing in at $7 it’s a decent wine. Would I have liked it more if I had thought it was more expensive? I don’t know. You can read my review.

In the end, I’m afraid you can’t buy me love; you can buy me a cheap wine, but I can’t promise I’ll love it. I might, but no promises. Now, maybe if you told me you paid a lot for the wine… I’d thank you for the gift, and still have to taste it to know if I liked it or not.

My little sis brought over a bottle of $7 wine the other night to open up while we sat down for a long overdue chat. Now, I’ll admit it; I’m spoiled by some of the pricier wines I’ve had recently. But I’ve decided of late to expand my horizons and remind myself of those totally affordable every day wines. Plus, my bank account is getting mad at me.

So I picked up the bottle. California wine… But I only drink Washington! — Don’t I? Ya, right. I have to give Washington wines context.

Clean label. It actually reminds me of an old Sony Vaio commercial. I wonder if this will make me as happy as it made my friend Nadia to have a new Vaio back in the day? This isn’t a label for my grandma. That’s for sure. A bit too trendy and perhaps not traditional enough to be trusted. But I like clean lines. And clean wines. (Clean seems to be coming up a lot.)

So here we have a Pepperwood Grove 2004 California Syrah. Synthetic cork. Oh my. I’m not going to get into this argument with anyone. Then I pull the cork out. And I am such a sucker for “green” marketing. Here’s what I saw.

And I thought, clever. Because I was sucked in by that little green triangle at the bottom that means I can toss this in my recycle bin and clear my conscience by reducing my carbon footprint.

I know this might not make any sense, but I’d almost buy this wine just so I could feel better about myself by taking out this “neocork” and recycling it. Silly? Absolutely. Except the wine isn’t bad. It has an earthy nose. Dark berries, some dark chocolate, and a bit of pepper to taste. I got some other spice on the end. Clove maybe? Finish was a bit metallic. But for $7, I was pleasantly surprised.

Now what about this neocork business?

This is what Don Sebastiani & Sons, the makers of Pepperwood Grove have to say about their nifty conscience-soothing closures. Hmm…

It certainly appeals to the growing conscientious consumer market–which is rapidly expanding. For that I give them kudos. And although I wouldn’t necessarily buy this wine again (even considering the joy of recycling the cork), I certainly wouldn’t turn down a glass.

I read Tom Wark. He’s a social networking friend, and I like his blog. What I read this morning, however, made me a little nervous. Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog: This Wine is Gay

Tom wrote the article meaning to discuss marketing. But he succeeded in offending people–including my sister’s boyfriend. He writes about Pansy!, a wine made for and marketed to the GLBT community. The trouble starts when we begin discussing the “gay palate.” Perhaps comments of Erica Crawford (co-founder of Pansy!) are taken out of context:

“We didn’t want to make a winemaker’s wine. The first one we made was 4 grams RS (residual sugar); I’d like it bone-dry but it’s important to make wine for your consumers, not for yourself.”

But Tom seems correct in his conclusion that what the GLBT community is being hit with is not just a pink product, but a sweet product. And why is sweet gay?

Does one’s palate become particularly attuned to sweetness once it is determined they are gay?

Or is this just another case of “speaking” to the Gay community in a liquid language that they would recognize?

If this is a case of speaking a liquid language recognizable by Gays then we are witnessing a really intricate form of marketing. It would be a case of recognizing that the sensation of sweetness on the palate is not just a physiological experience whereby sweetness is detected by “G protein” receptors found on tastebuds. It would also be a recognition that “sweetness” experienced on the palate can act as a language that gays can “read” and comprehend as specifically applying to them.

Of course, there is backlash in the comments. And Tom replies, “I find the idea of identifying particular styles of wine that are capable of communicating a complex idea utterly fascinating.”

In order to determine whether or not this idea is sound, you have to buy into the notion that groups of people are compartmentalized by similar ideologies and tastes, creating marketing bulls-eyes over a set demographic. “If you can communicate this (not-so-)complex idea in the general direction of this group, they’ll be yours.” I know its been done for ages, but I hate it. With all this Web 2.0, Wine 2.0, World 2.0 talk, arent we getting the notion that people want to be treated as individuals? Of course we look for commonalities, but we have to acknowledge diversity withIN communities. Don’t hand me a glass of Pansy! and try to tell me this is a wine for ME. Oh wait, I’m not “Gay”. I’m lesbian. But still, it’s a wine for a stereotype.

If you want to find out which wines can and perhaps do communicate certain complex ideas, great! I mean it. But don’t over-generalize. And as for post-modern, I’m not so sure. I don’t think post-modernism allows people to be so readily broken down to clichés and old stereotypes.

My god, what would happen if we made products we believed in, wine we loved, and found people to share it with? Or do we believe that were so different from “Them”, whomever they may be, that we have to sacrifice our own enjoyment of our creations to please the neatly-compartmentalized niche market? Come on, Erica. Don’t you want the opportunity to sit down with you consumers and share the joy of your wine? Do you really want to sell stuff you don’t like? Why would we choose this way of living?

More details of Pansy!’s origins can be found in this article from Australia’s The Age: “A Gay Old Wine”.

And before I wrap up this post, I would like to say that Tom Wark is not an idiot. He just hit a nerve. It’s a touchy topic that, to be fair, I’m glad he raised. For more on his perspective, read “Is Wine Gay?” at “Food and Wine for the Gay Palate” blog.

In the last couple of weeks I have had many emails from this guy. Russell Brunson. I came to his website through a link from Jason Henderson’s blog. And it’s all about the 12 Month Millionaire. What??? Come on, folks. Haven’t we all moved beyond that? Haven’t we learned that if something sounds to good to be true… it is?

Well, this is the deal. I’m a sucker for marketing info. I can’t help it. And I wanted to see what this cocky kid was all about, so I checked out Russell Brunson. Why have I not heard of this guy before? He’s got a great six hour interview with none other than Vince James giving total insider secrets into how he (Vince) made $77 million in one year! Mind boggling? Perhaps. True? Absolutely. Crazy stuff.

My grandfather was a good man. Smart. Successful. Loving. He moved to Dillingham, Alaska in the 1950s to run the small hospital. From there he started his own medical practice which he ran until he retired after his 80th birthday. Everyone knew him as Doc Libby. So what was he right about?

I read a blog post today about the most common mistakes made by entrepeneurs. Nitromarketing.com has just started the post series. Today was about avoiding future spending and remembering taxes.

Future spending is defined as spending based on what you expect to make in the Future rather than present reality. “But I have to focus on my goals!” you say. And I don’t disagree, but I think it is such a common mistake for people in all areas of life, not just entrepeneurs, to spend based on what we want to make, what we hope to make, rather than our actual financial status. For those who believe in the law of attraction and positive thinking, I want to point out that no one said to throw caution to the wind and do whatever you feel like with no action focused on reaching your goals. Just because I want to live the life of financial abundance does not mean I can sit back on the sofa and buy whatever I want and fairly expect that the universe will pay for it. I have to take action to reach my goals. My grandpa always said to practice. Practice takes focus. Focus strengthens energy. And with practice I become better… at whatever I am practicing.

Grandpa also warned me about taxes. I know he helped out his own children when they miscalculated what they’d have to pay early in their adult lives. His advice to me was the same as to them. Don’t wait until the end of the year. Steadily put money aside for taxes so that at tax time you don’t have to stress about how you’re going to pay them. He said to expect the unexpected. That applies to taxes as well as future spending. Things change. That is a guarantee. And at our commercial fishing camp, working on a Honda three-wheeler with my grandpa, I realized he might know a thing or two about it. We hadn’t expected to need a new sparkplug and fuel line, but here we were, fixing the machine instead of mending nets and racking pull lines. But it was all okay. Grandpa had made sure he had enough time for those “unexpected” tasks, like teaching me about mechanics, future spending, and taxes.

For the full post from Nitromarketing.com, visit: The 13 Top Financial Mistakes Entrepreneurs Make

What a great site! Thanks to friends for stumbling upon this blog.
Are You Afraid to Dream? – Fearless Dreams

It’s so important to dream our own dreams, be willing to explore what it is that we truly want, to dream big, and also to care about the dreams of others. A good reminder for me. That’s all.

So I’ve been doing Simpleology 101. I came across it through a long chain of unusual events, the kind of thing that no longer surprises me. For anyone who is not familiar with Simpleology: The Simple Science of Getting What You Want, it is a fantastic program. Mark Joyner is really onto something here. As an educator myself, I’m particulary impressed by his methods. And the great thing is, it’s free! No, I’m not paid a cent for mentioning it on this blog. I just think it’s cool. And Simpleology has helped me to feel more focused, be more productive, and feel better about my life.

There’s a funny thing that happens with word of mouth marketing. If it’s forced, people just don’t really buy it. I remember. Fresh out of high school I worked for a company that swore it wasn’t MLM, but it was so close it’s not worth differentiating. (I’m sure people who knew me then are gasping as they read that sentence.) I got involved through a well-meaning family member. There is this strange pressure to tell everyone you know, hoping they’ll get involved and you’ll reap the rewards. I’ll tell you right now, that is the furthest thing from my mind. I remember losing friends who felt betrayed, pressured, awkward. And that sucked.

Disclaimer: By mentioning Simpleology I get nothing. Zip. Zilch. It affects my financial wellbeing not at all if you visit the site or not, and I recommend it nonetheless.

And for those of you folks interested in marketing and business, I’ve found Mark Joyner to be an invaluable resource. Actually, he’s the expert coach on the first episode of The Next Internet Millionaire. But back on his own site, he’s doing this cool 12 month program right now. (One time only!) It seems like corporate espionage. I call it genius. It almost feels like cheating. He and a “student” (head of a multi-million dollar company) are broadcasting their live training sessions over the course of a year. They call it Word of Mouth Transformation. It’s pretty cool getting to listen in on the private tutoring/consultation sessions. Don’t they say if you want to make it big, look at what the top dogs are doing and copy them? Well, maybe not everyone gives that advice, but I think it makes sense. My parents may have encouraged me to get a job with a good company, be safe, get benefits. I’d rather feel passionate about what I’m doing and follow in some bigger footsteps. How about you?

So for the day to day inspiration and focus, I appreciate Simpleology. The coolest part is, it’s absolutely free. And I swear, there are no hooks — at least none that I’ve found. For those of you interested (and I know my friends might be ready for me to stop talking about it, but I’m just so excited) check out www.simpleology.com and sign up for 101. It will change your life. In a good way.