Ric, Here is some feedback on your recent series on the problems facing small producers in promoting their wine/ reaching consumers/ getting out from under the Parker Point problem in overseas markets. The following proposal/recommendation has been to Austrade in the USA, the WA Agent Generals office in London and the Western Australian Wine Industry Association.

The Trade show is farouked. Much of what Austrade does is unimaginative. We need a new model. It has to be based on wowing the consumers and the movers and shakers very directly. The problem should be attacked first here, at home, by the generation of ‘shows’ that engage the consumer in the serious evaluation of wine in circumstances where he is respected for the fact that he/she can smell and taste.

I intend to begin the process of generating a model right here. I want to see a rigorous endeavour to explore consumer preferences for a single, closely defined, wine category. Would you like to attend the exercise?

The Plan

Recently I went to Amsterdam to give a talk on making wine without the use of sulphur dioxide. While I was on the go, I took in a couple of wine trade shows. Here are my thoughts on the subject for promoting our wine overseas.

The London wine trade fair

1.        13,500 people attended, with around 27% from outside the UK with 6,398 on day 1,4561 on day 2 and 2,610 on day 3.

2.        There were 1225 exhibitors listed on the catalogue (did not include the 9 Western Australians) and over 300 booth areas on the plan. Most booth areas had multiple producers involved. It is a very large venue. There may have been 3,000 brands and 12,000 wines in total. At most times many exhibitors looked decidedly lonely.

3.        There were a total of 25 wine companies on display on 17 tables in the Australian Pavilion.

4.        At most there would have been 2,000 visitors in the hall at the busiest time of day one, and much less on the other days.

5.        Many exhibitors spent a lot of money establishing their presence with elaborate displays.

6.        Many wines in the hall did not get tasted.

7.        The Australian Pavilion looked second hand and very pedestrian. Much space was wasted providing for a little used lecture venue, where giraffe height bar room seats, overshadowed the benches.

8.        The WA contingent had nine wineries on two tables and the brand advertised was ‘Government of Western Australia’. The company representatives stood in the traffic lanes feeling awkward because only one of them could fit behind the bench at a time.

9.        We had to actively canvass the passers by to get people to taste the wine.

10.     This was a great result for the promoters. However, only with his rose tinted glasses in place could a producer maintain that he got bang for his buck.

11.     Georgia Thomas commented: It is quite clear that WA companies need to be more targeted than ever in promoting their wines into the UK/Europe market. WA is not positioned as a discount wine producer. As such, the premium/super-premium positioning needs to be maintained through promoting our quality wine with a consistently high standard of presentation and events. 

 In general I don't think that Australia does itself justice when it goes to the London Wine Trade Fair with a hand me down Austrade booth and lecture hall model. Others do the job with so much better with design sense and flair. However, even if we doubled our expenditure we would be stuck with the built in disadvantages of such an event, namely a low ratio of tasters to exhibitors. What is the point of being there under such circumstances?

 The San Francisco Promotion

1.        The event involved two dinners and an afternoons tasting split between trade/press and consumers.

2.        At the sit down dinners it would not have been possible for the press to communicate with any anyone other than the producers on the particular table, (and that with difficulty), or to effectively screen the wines. The first was a drinking, socialising event held in the basement of an excellent restaurant. Most of the attendees were exhibitors/local agents and reps. The second, held at the tasting venue, was poorly attended. Again the food was excellent, was prepared by an Australian chef from excellent Australian ingredients. However, as a vehicle to assess wines it did not function.

3.        The tastings were typical of the genre, with producers standing behind tables with large numbers of wines of many different types. It was a nice social occasion for those who attended where they met their friends, drank some wine and shouted at each other so they could be heard. Spittoons were provided but got little use. It was not a suitable format for serious evaluation of product, and few attempted that task. I saw one gentleman who seemed to be trying. Many stood in small groups in the aisles, chatting to their friends. Very few seemed to have much knowledge of product. I was gratified to find that a few knowledgeable types appreciated our Three Hills reds, two of which had won trophies in Australian shows and the third a Gold medal.

4.        A massive amount of wine was left behind. We used about one eighth of the wine provided.

5.        I have no knowledge of the seminars. I believe that they were conducted by Chuck Hayward and involved the wines from the larger players. The seminars may have provided a better venue for appreciating some of the wines available.  

My viewpoint on the above

Both in London and in San Francisco, the seminars were chosen as the vehicle to teach about wine. This may be great for the producers of the wines chosen to be tasted, and even better for the presenter, if they can show themselves to be a dispassionate promoter of products other than their own. It should be recognised that a seminar that utilises a local, non Australian presenter, does not require the presence of the producer. In London the wines presented at these sessions were not the wines/companies with stalls, and the producers were not there. 

In both venues, the fairground approach of setting up all the producers with all their wines failed. In London it failed because of the imbalance between exhibits and tasters. In San Francisco it failed because it was simply not possible for the tasters to effectively screen the product in the time available and under the conditions of access that existed. It may be that the real professionals went to the seminars and I did not see them. If they did, there is an obvious conflict that needs to be resolved. People can not attend both the seminars and visit the booths, when time is so limited.

From my viewpoint as a serious producer of ultra premium wines from a district with the pretension to ultra premium status, the design is wrong. It is of little value to me to spend time at such events. It does little for the profile of the brand or the district. At the end of the day, I will only succeed if people can perceive that I am offering great quality at a great price, and the design of these events precluded them from discovering that fact. 

What does a potential importer want out of a wine that he is presenting to the trade? What are the hooks?

1.      Taste of the wine

2.      Price / value relationship

3.      Brand presentation

4.      Volume expectations

5.      Strength of the business. Philosophy. Consistency. Reliability. Expectations and habits of the proprietor.

6.      Credit terms to be offered

7.      Extra value offered in promotional activity 

These objectives can be satisfied in this way:

Let the winery prepare a fact sheet that covers those parts of the list covering points 2 - 7 above, that will be made available on request to those who are impressed with the taste of the wine. Then, the primary thing they need to do, is to taste the wine.

Let Georgia in the Agent Generals office in London, invite press and trade personnel interested in sourcing Australian wine to attend a tasting set up at Australia House. She sets up three or four tables or shelves around the walls of the room. Wines are set out on the tables/shelves a foot apart. Spirit pourers on each bottle. Price on bottle, business cards in front of bottle. 1 tasting glass per participant. Spittoons provided. Bread. Water. Wine is replaced as required. In a separate room a video is running (or a CD at a computer terminal) with producers talking about their wines. In a third room there are three computer terminals with internet links capable of sending emails exclusively for the use of the tasters. Allow no more than 10 tasters to be in the room at a time (or whatever number is comfortable given the number of wines and size of the facilities).

 Why do it this way?

1.       Recognise that a talking head in front of you, while you are trying to taste wine, is a handicap.
2.       Give the taster enough time to taste the wines. This requires a limitation on the number of wines to be tasted to perhaps 50 wines total. Preferably there should be one or two varietals only. What you have to bear in mind is that most of us are good for about thirty tastes, or an hour at most, before we develop a silly look on our face and start to look around for members of the opposite sex. This has the capacity to destroy the event.
3.        Privacy. No interruption while tasting. Given the nature of the job, it needs to be speedy and requires great concentration. This places a limit on the number of people who can be engaged in the task at one time, and might necessitate a two or three day show and rostered attendance.
4.        Availability of bread to promote salivary flow, especially with full bodied red wines.

5.        Ease of access to spittoons

6.        Ease of access to the wines without waiting.

7.        Regulation pour of 30 ml so the wine goes further.

8.        Clean fresh air.

9.        Somewhere to exit for a breather.

10.     Toilets handy.

11.     Ease of access to producer or distributor details on the table. This could simply be the business card.

12.     Knowledge of wine price at time of tasting. It should be on the bottle in the taster’s currency.

13.     Room to place a notebook on a table to write. Ideally table should facilitate this while taster is standing.

14.     One means of accessing the producer information would be to provide a screen and earphones behind each wine. However, this would slow everything up.

15.     Email, phone or videoconference facilities nearby to enable immediate contact to be made with producers and to provide the desirable level of interaction. In this day and age there is less reason than ever to be present personally. Later, as relationships firm up, there may be a need to meet.

16.     Rewards to tasters. The design of this event enhances the ability of the professional to screen wines and the ability of the producers to get their message across. It services the marketplace better. This initself is a reward for tasters who can better assess the product/ price relationship. Exhibitors are better served as they have their wines tasted by more people, in a professional manner, at an economical cost.

17.     Further suggestion for event promotion: It might encourage attendance if producers/government funded a journalists/buyers trip to Australia based upon outcomes or dedication to the cause, of promoting Western Australian wine.

18.     A vital ingredient: Provide in a separate room, a video or film of each producer in action talking about his wine in his own surroundings. This mode of presentation is efficient in conveying strategic information very effectively. People like pictures. They like to see the man behind the product, not the salesman. When sales are made over the telephone, things often fall apart when the buyer visits the producer and finds that his mental picture is wrong. Doing it this way, that can not happen. This format will have appeal to the buyer, who can begin to assess whether he might like to work with that producer.

19.     In an alternative style of presentation, it might be possible to actually taste the wines in the film theatre, after one sees a presentation by the producers.  It requires many more glasses and a batched operation and is inherently much more difficult, but it suits situations where there are small numbers of wines to be tasted, and high value personnel doing the tasting. It could be a cost effective exercise. However, it could finish up as a chat show between the tasters. 

Costs of setting up are:

1.        Invitations

2.        Any wine purchased as benchmarks

3.        Venue

4.        Salary of organiser and scheduler of tasting times

5.        Incentives to participate e.g. Trips

6.        Film production

 Advantages

1.        This type of tasting has class. It will impress the professionals. It befits our image as serious producers of premium wines. It gives us the ambience of the great Bordeaux Chateau. Ones surroundings are very important. To some extent the clothes maketh the man.

2.        Economy of effort for the trade, the press and the producer. One or two persons could run this show.

3.        Given the low costs of putting on this type of event it could be held several times a year with different varietals and move within the country to different markets.

4.        Advertising succeeds via repetition.

5.        We can use the offices of the Agent General in London, part of Australia House.

6.     ,  Austrade can help. They should have the databases.

7.        There is no travel component.

8.        Pay per wine exhibited is a possibility so as to minimise costs for small producers. We should recognise that small producers make up most of the industry, and most of the membership of the association, and it is their contribution that by and large funds the association. Moreover, they have little time for association affairs and are rarely heard. They have to amortise their promotional effort over a much smaller volume.

9.        We can put this show on when it has a chance of being successful. We relay our message at a time when it can be heard. This is not as part of a very busy Trade Show when we are competing with all the producers in Christendom.

10.     We create an event of unique design and appeal to participants and we take it to them with a minimum of expense and a maximum of appeal.

11.     When we do it well we may begin to charge tasters for the experience.

Note: I strongly believe in the value of creating a video where the producers can spin their pitch within their own environment. They can explain their objectives for the particular wine being tasted, and they have all the props on hand. They are not in an unfamiliar, starched collar and dark suit, strange environment. I saw this done at a place called 'The Big Picture' in Cromwell, Central Otago, New Zealand and it was very impressive. The film changes with the wines, every six weeks. If one customer focussed venue can do that in the remote South Island of New Zealand surely we can do it too. We need that customer focus.

 From Georgia Thomas in the Agent Generals office in London

I would think that it would be very interesting to run this sort of event series in conjunction with Decanter magazine who are very supportive of WA.

In terms of your ideas for the wine tasting events - I for one am thoroughly supportive of such an option. For starters it would make my life much easier and I could have full control over the events and make a real splash for WA in London with a series of events over each year. I could run them in Australia House for very little expense and do some press as well. I could also take delivery of all the wine in my office and reduce storage costs etc.