Patrick Campbell points to lessons we learned - Forecast

Proposition 134 went down in flames, and the collective sigh of relief from the California wine industry is still being heard' round the world! To many small wineries operating on the margin of profitability, Prop. 134's defeat signals a new lease on life. California's huge price-sensitive wineries will continue to sell their products without massive percentage increases in shelf price. And the premium wine industry, already charging close to what the market will bear for its wine, will not have to absorb hefty price increases.

It might seem to us in the wine industry, basking in the afterglow of victory, that a message has been sent to the nation that California's voters will not tolerate outrageous fiscal threats to their native industry. And it might seem that coalition of strange bedfellows has put the country on notice that consumers, doctors, teachers, police, vintners, and brewers will stand united against bad legislation and unfair excise taxation.

It might seem so, but only an idiot would believe it.

Whatever message has been learned from the defeat of Prop. 134, it certainly is not that we in the California wine industry have been delivered from the threat of further taxation rises. Special interest groups and the federal government are no less committed to scoring big at the expense of wine. Nor are we likely to see any slackening of industry regulation by the self-appointed custodians of the public morals.

What we have gained with the defeat of Prop. 134, however, is some very needed breathing room as well as a boost to morale. Perhaps more importantly, old battles were put aside for the common good. While far too many wineries went about their business as usual, oblivious to the maelstrom of Prop. 134 and federal tax increases swirling around them, most of the wine industry, nevertheless, pulled together as never before. National coalitions were established, small and large wineries worked side by side, retailers and restaurateurs got the message out to their customers, and even the unholy alliance of growers and vintners achieved a level of unaccustomed mutual toleration.

Bonds forged in time of war are, as any old soldier can attest, the most durable of all. We have learned that what is good for us all is good for us individually. And if, having learned that lesson, we begin to put our house in order, our suffering over the past several months will not have been in vain.

It is therefore imperative that the key industry groups (AAV, Wine Institute, NWC, and AWARE) meet to decide both on what the national wine industry poliey should be and what groups should undertake what parts of the policy. The wine industry certainly does not need another organization, nor do we need any duplication of effort. I for one would hope that a summit conference of these groups would convene at the earliest possible opportunity.

But industry organizations alone cannot do all the work that needs to be done. An interesting story emerged from the recent budget hearings in Washington, D. C. A small winery in Illinois had made the effort to stay in touch with their congressman, Dan Rostenkowski, over the years. On the eve of the final vote of the recent budget, Rostenkowski, chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the nation's most influential player in matters of taxation, contacted the owner to see if the tax package was acceptable to him. That's the same Rostenkowski who didn't return the calls of virtually every lobbyist in the United States during the budget proceedings. And that's the sort of grass roots effort we need, as individual wineries, to become accustomed to undertaking.

A successful grass roots campaign does not stop at the legislative level, however. We find ourselves at risk as an industry because we have been lax in educating the consumer and the American public about the virtues of our product. Lobbying efforts without broad-based support from the American populous will be a continual effort until wine comes to be viewed in a positive light by the public. Naturally, re-educating (don't forget, they once knew our message) the public is easier said than done. But just as the threats to us have not been built up overnight, so must our response to them be viewed as a long-term task and investment.

What we in the wine industry must learn is that individuals and wineries speaking loudly and persistently can have a major influence over public policy. It is well past the time when we can hand over plenty of money annually to a trade organization and assume our problems will be taken care of. We must recognize the enormous latent clout we have, and use it to our own advantage. We are a $30 billion industry; we are a solution to the problem of alcohol abuse, not a part of that problem; we are viewed as a "simpatico" industry; we have history, tradition, and the founding fathers on our side; we speak the truth.

And we have the sort of constituency other groups can only dream about: educated, affluent, politically aware, articulate, and in love with us. Furthermore, we know to a large degree who this constituency is, because most wineries have mailing list customers with whom they are accustomed to communicate. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS ELEVATE THESE ALREADY ESTABLISHED CONTACTS TO A NATIONAL AND COORDINATED LEVEL.

We need to relentlessly send our message out to our mailing lists, retailers, wholesalers, restaurants, school boards, talk shows, newspapers, etc. Every winery should seize every opportunity to disseminate our message, whether it be through wine box stuffers, compelling BATF to allow positive counter-messages on our wine labels, letting no slur to our industry go unchallenged, promoting informed wait-staff and tasting room servers, and perhaps above all, recruiting the aid of our customers.

We don't need an expensive public relations firm to carry out this sort of grass roots campaign. Nor do we need a separate industry organization. What we do need is a well-placed staff person who's tied into the national winery network and can alert every winery to legislative, medical, and moral threats to our industry; and who, on the positive side, can provide us with the innumerable data that support our claim that wine is the socially-beneficial beverage.

The Association of American Vintners has proven itself to be most effective at grass roots politicking of this type. And any discussion of the matter should begin with their input.

There is absolutely no reason that we cannot begin to shift the center of gravity in our direction once again. At that point perhaps we shall even remember Prop. 134 fondly-as the impetus to a new beginning.

(Campbell is owner-winemaker of Laurel Glen Vineyard in Sonoma County.)

COPYRIGHT 1991 Hiaring Company
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group