Customer Dis' Service

I had an interesting discussion about wine stores with some friends the other night. It seems that the general consensus concerning wine stores in New York City is that customer service has gone out the window right along with dusty bottles of Blue Nun and Riunite. (Ok, ok, I am dating myself but just because I remember the so-called “wines of the ‘70s” doesn’t mean I was old enough to drink them — thank god!)

The conversation started with a simple enough question regarding favorite neighborhood wine stores. For starters, everyone, including myself, had a difficult time coming up with a definitive answer on the spot. What followed was not a cheery list of recommendations but a litany of complaints. Although there were a few stray “the store is unorganized” and “the prices are too high” the vast majority of grievances centered on the lack of customer service.

This is not to say that there are no good wines stores in this city because there certainly are. It is just a shame that more retailers don’t get it right when the key to success seems to be as simple as making their customers happy. It is easy to lose a customer for life if you leave them feeling helpless and ignored as soon as they amble through your door — particularly if they announce to you that they have money to spend, which was the case in more than a few tales of woe.

Our neighborhood wine stores may be catering to a sophisticated New York clientele but they shouldn’t waste their time touting their eclectic selections, namesake proprietors or sleek new locations if they are going to finish short.

You know things are bad when...

As reported in the Independent this weekend, uber-wine corporation Constellation felt that controlling most of the known wine world was not enough tried to game the system for the JD Wetherspoon's 650 pub house wine contract by trying to convince employees to purchase their own wines back and expense it to the company.

In an email, leaked to the Bristol Evening Post, the higher-ups at Constellation noted the dismal sales of their wine (versus other would-be contract holders) and encouraged employees drink up on the companies tab.

Now, the winemonkey, does not give a twit about the dealings of Constellation and the obviously superior wine products they could not even get their own emplyees to drink (for free mind you). We live in a capitalist society and do what you need to get ahead I say (although this crosses the line a bit, but in the best sense of irony has backfired right in their faces)

What I am thinking is how can these guys not realize that if you are going to game the system; YOU DO NOT WRITE AN EMAIL ABOUT IT.

Enron anyone? Wall Street trading scandals anyone? I realize this is across the pond but come on people. At least they got what was coming to them.

Wine with a Gender?

In case you haven't noticed, there has been a recent onslaught of wines marketed to consumers on the basis of gender. Grape lovers no longer have to settle for nonpartisan wines when the shelves are stocked with bottles of White Lie, The Mad Housewife and Ray’s Station “Hearty Red Wines for Men”.

Women seem to be at an advantage here as most marketers, it seems, are working under the assumption that wine in general appeals to men. Arguably the most intriguing of the wines marketed specifically to women is White Lie from Beringer Blass. The premise of this “early season Chardonnay” is almost as insulting as its marketing. The labels and corks for White Lie highlight “little white lies” such as “but it was on sale”, “my hair is naturally this color” and “I never eat dessert”. Nothing like playing on women’s neuroses to get us to plunk down $10 on what I can only imagine is a tasteless excuse for Chardonnay. White Lie even has less alcohol and fewer calories for those diet fanatics that simply can’t hold their alcohol. Brilliant!

On their website, Rainier Wine, producers of The Mad Housewife, lets women know that they “get it” by posting this thought provoking paragraph: “Rainier Wine recognizes that wine should never intimidate, make you think too hard, or create a new line item in your budget”. I would critique this sentiment but I wouldn’t even know where to start.

Before all you men out there start chuckling into your glass of 15% alcohol Zinfandel, realize that you are not safe. Some companies, such as Ravenswood, are simply marketing their wines with tag lines such as “No Wimpy Wines”. Other companies, such as Ray’s Station, were born out of the belief that “red wines are for men”. Ray spares no trick to get you boys to buy into his “bold Cabernet’ and “hearty Merlot”, from galloping stallions on the label to ad campaigns depicting men doing manly things like fishing and hunting.

What is the point of all this? Perhaps I am a little inebriated from the glass of full-alcohol Chateau Neutral Cabernet I just threw back, but I think we would all be happy with a well-made, great tasting wine to sit back and sip without having to worry whether it has too many calories or is macho enough.

Cheers!

Oh, cry me a river

So, after coming a bit a late to the game. I had to touch on a most humorous wine dialog. Mark Fisher, author of the blog Uncorked and a writer for the Dayton Daily News, recenty commented on the apparent absurdity of the Wine Spectator's "dining awards" not actually measuring the dining. Now, Mark usually just posts his point and let's the public slog it out, but this time he profferred his most recent piece to Marvin Shanken before publishing it.

Marv, as many of you know, is the head of all things Spectator and in only what can be called an error of ill judgment decided to respond in kind from his own hand instead of passing this on to a more objective plebe in the organization.

What follows is Marv's response to Mark's excellent piece of blog-dom:

I won’t belabor the fact that 26(?) years ago we started the awards program to both encourage and recognize those restaurateurs that were willing to make wine an important, in fact integral part of the total dining experience. NO ONE ELSE WAS DOING THIS!!!!!!!!!!! We underwrote all the costs for the first 20 years at considerable expense to us. The program became so successful, with thousands of entries, that we were going under water with it. Staffing, processing, travel, etc. One of our editors suggested that it was quite legitimate to charge for the service as the restaurant was getting the benefit — and attracting many more patrons. So we started charging and the rest is history. It keeps growing because it continues to be a great service to the dining and wine worlds. To personally inspect the 4,000 entries from around the world would cost an additional $40 million. We talked about it, then decided it was just a little more then we wanted to spend this year. Maybe next year though. Have a good summer, Marvin P.S: Our editors have traveled around the world many times to inspect candidates for the Grand Award. Half the time they don’t pass the inspection. Should I send the bills to the Dayton Daily News? Please advise.

Aaahhhh, what? Does this man really run one of the most powerful wine media outlets? Did he get his 12 year old niece to do this? And why hasn't this crybabyness been picked up by the wine media at-large?

In any case, let's also not belabour the facts. Wine Spectator does charge an application fee and they rate a restaurant on the merits of the wine list. That is the award's nuts and bolts. Next, no one is realistically going to argue about the admin fee. I mean, come on we get it, it costs money to run the program. But also, let's all agree on the absurdity of calling it a "dining" award, when no dining actually occurs.

So, what is going on here other than a rant and some bad accouting? ($10,000 for a trip to rate a restaurant- Get me on one of those Grand Award trips- sheesh)

Well it has to be because of Spectator's grand plan to invade the entire lifestyle genre. No, not by duping people into dining in sub par restaurants after perusing a winelist but by forcing people to read about the annual Pig issue when they buy the magazine to see what is going on in the wine world.

This calls into question, yet again, Spectator's position on where it stands in the wine world as it moves itself into the greater lifestyle genre and why so many of the former wine flock have lost the faith. Is it that a magazine begins by appealling to a niche few, makes money, expands, loses focus of why it exists and trys to appeal to a larger and larger audience in attempt to make even more money? I think we are getting closer to the truth. Call it the MTV effect. (Have you seen a video lately?) But who can blame them when they are raking it in.

Perhaps Marvin should stop counting his money long enough to turn off his CAPS LOCK and realize that by trying to appeal to everyone he will end up losing his core audienece and most probably appeal to no one.

But I still want to go on one of those $10,000 restaurant trips.

Winemonkey Returns!

Welcome all! The sands of the hourglass have turned and yet another wine blog hits the ether after a temporary hiatus. Look forward to comments and sarcasm on all things wine. Read up and comment away.