The concept of authenticity has come up in several of our class discussions and it seems to me it highlights the issue of whether wine making is art or science, tradition or business.
Christine Wente spoke about how important it was to Wente that they had been continuously owned by the same family for 5 generations and that the history and tradition associated with that makes Wente more authentic than many other wine producers who either have changed hands several times or have been purchased by a big conglomerate but maintain the image of a small, artisan producer. While the 5 generations of continuous ownership and passion for wine making is a great story (and I have to confess I eat it up myself), do we really think that if someone else bought Wente, continued in the same practices and continued to celebrate the history and story of the winery it would be less authentic? If the wine were the same quality, the visiting/tasting experience still felt personal and special, what does it really matter who owns it?
Prof. Hannan touched on this in his discussion of the Barolo wars and the tension between the old style and the new style. Part of his argument was that it was not an "authentic" Barolo if it tasted like a French wine and was drinkable in only a few years. But really, who is he to tell young producers of Barolos who want to innovate that any change from tradition in "inauthentic"? If it had been a rousing success and changed the whole region for good would it still be considered inauthentic? Or would it then be considered innovation?
Seun also touched on this in her post on Inniskillin and their pricing strategy for the Gold line for DFS. Is it inauthentic to work backwards from the price and margin that you need to achieve and then figure out how to produce the product? In many industries that would simply be a smart business move. But because there is this element of art, tradition and authenticity in the wine making world, are producers of wine held to a higher standard? And should they be?
Christine Wente spoke about how important it was to Wente that they had been continuously owned by the same family for 5 generations and that the history and tradition associated with that makes Wente more authentic than many other wine producers who either have changed hands several times or have been purchased by a big conglomerate but maintain the image of a small, artisan producer. While the 5 generations of continuous ownership and passion for wine making is a great story (and I have to confess I eat it up myself), do we really think that if someone else bought Wente, continued in the same practices and continued to celebrate the history and story of the winery it would be less authentic? If the wine were the same quality, the visiting/tasting experience still felt personal and special, what does it really matter who owns it?
Prof. Hannan touched on this in his discussion of the Barolo wars and the tension between the old style and the new style. Part of his argument was that it was not an "authentic" Barolo if it tasted like a French wine and was drinkable in only a few years. But really, who is he to tell young producers of Barolos who want to innovate that any change from tradition in "inauthentic"? If it had been a rousing success and changed the whole region for good would it still be considered inauthentic? Or would it then be considered innovation?
Seun also touched on this in her post on Inniskillin and their pricing strategy for the Gold line for DFS. Is it inauthentic to work backwards from the price and margin that you need to achieve and then figure out how to produce the product? In many industries that would simply be a smart business move. But because there is this element of art, tradition and authenticity in the wine making world, are producers of wine held to a higher standard? And should they be?
Reading the case, I couldn’t help wondering about the reaction of other Canadian vineyards when Vincor began large-scale production of Icewine. Of course, there isn’t an enormous legacy of Canadian wine production, not compared to Old World wines (one can only imagine what would happen if a Burgundy winery announced they were making icewine… I’m guessing the AOC would disband them for failing to follow regulation). So it’s hard to imagine other Canadian producers accusing Iniskillin of being “inauthentic” for making icewine. You can’t be accused of flouting tradition if tradition isn’t that deeply entrenched. Yet what about the Austrian and German producers—did they protest that the Canadian icewine was inauthentic, since they had been making icewine first?
ReplyDeleteAnd what about the issue of flash-freezing grapes versus letting them freeze on the vine? (If you go to the Jackson Triggs website, it proclaims that their grapes are frozen “only the natural way”). Is icewine only authentic if the wines are frozen naturally? Would a Costa Rican icewine be inherently inauthentic, since it’s not what the vines “want” to do there? Or is a Costa Rican grower making icewine just a clever innovator?