California Losing Market Share to Imports

[Brad Ballinger]

Full article here.

Two studies of the U.S. wine market this week found that California was losing out to foreign competitors in both market share and consumer perception.  A study by the Wine Market Council found that consumers liked foreign vintages for two reasons: taste and price.

[Busboy]

I'm not surprised. I find most inexpensive California wines (and I mostly drink inexpensive wines. Dammit) to be bland, insipid, and often downright nasty. And "good" Californians are often ruinously expensive. If I'm buying cheap, I usually look for something Spanish or South American, and if I'm going a little upmarket, I like the Aussies and even some French (Alsace, Rhone, Languedoc).

Of course, if people are leaving behind California for that Kagaroo swill, it's clearly all about marketing and perception and not at all about the wine.

[melkor]

Looking in cellertracker at what I've bought over the past few years - Domestic producers were #1 in 2003, #2 in 2004 behind France, and last year they ranked behind France, Germany, Portugul, and Italy in 5th place by revenue. I'd agree with the article that for the price foreign producers are offering vastly better wines.

[Brad Ballinger]

Looking in cellertracker at what I've bought over the past few years - Domestic producers were #1 in 2003, #2 in 2004 behind France, and last year they ranked behind France, Germany, Portugul, and Italy in 5th place by revenue.  I'd agree with the article that for the price foreign producers are offering vastly better wines.

←

And you're not even the wine consumer mentioned in the article. I think this article is about Joe and Jane Averwagewinebuyer who've probably never heard of cellartracker or this forum.

[JohnL]

Full article here.

Two studies of the U.S. wine market this week found that California was losing out to foreign competitors in both market share and consumer perception.  A study by the Wine Market Council found that consumers liked foreign vintages for two reasons: taste and price.

←

The results as noted in the piece indicate this is very close.

Especially on taste.

I would be careful drawing any conclusions from this study.

That said.

I wonder if the price/quality/ taste results for california are a result of the cost of producing interesting wine to sell at a low price point.

We are talking under ten bucks a bottle.

Taking Italy for example--do they have more beneficial terroir (vinyard sites) under vine wherein a low cost wine --of relative higher quality (a result of the terroir) can be exported (under ten dollars a bottle retail)--compared to California where much of the low price wine is produced in less interesting vinyards thus demanding more "wine maker" manipulation????

I guess what I am getting at--

Does Italy have more capability to produce a basic low cost white wine that is more complex and with more character than does California?

I have noticed--with some measure of disappointment--that a lot of the more interesting California wines are priced higher and higher--possibly a result of the overhead to make these wines--especially the cost to plant vines in the best terroirs california has.

Ironically--if my theory is correct--Italy has great potential to make good interesting wines that well sell for under ten dollars--all they need do is make the most of their many good sites by cleaning up their wine making. (there is evidence they are doing this) while california simply does not have interesting terroirs and has for years relied on wine making to produce their inexpensive wines.

I believe that California can compete with the world in higher end wines--but are they in trouble at the very low end?