Unfiltered Wine?

[Randy Caparoso]

The point I was making last, Bucko, is that EVERYTHING is indeed a marketing tool when it suggests quality. "Napa Valley" is a marketing tool; so is "B.V. Private Reserve," "Robert Mondavi," "Lytton Springs," "Cardinale," etc., etc. But to a much larger extent, such designations are basically statements of fact (I mean, what are they supposed to say?). And in virtually all cases, the quality implied has been hard-earned by the years of work and craftsmanship put into the product contained within.

"Unfiltered," of course, is a statement denoting methodology; and a large extent, philosophy. The consumer is not meant to hoodwinked, but to make a purchasing decision based upon whether or not he agrees with this methodolgoy and philosophy. It's similar to "barrel fermented." Lots of people believe barrel fermented wines are best, and lots of people really don't care. If a winery states on a label that the wine is barrel fermented they are obviously making a statement of fact while banking on the possibility that many consumers will respond favorably. But decision to barrel ferment, 99% of the time, starts with a winery's belief that barrel fermentation is indeed better and, in fact, something to brag about -- whether or not other wineries and consumers agree with this. So what's wrong with selling a wine as "barrel fermented" if you really believe in it?

Ask any winemaker who puts "unfiltered" on their labels (not really a lot of them, anyhow). Chances are they'll tell you that it is indeed quality designation that is also meant to sell. What quality designation doesn't? Since when should a consumer be "beware" of the truth? Fact is, in the final analysis factors such as graphic design, bottle shape/packaging, price positioning, retail discount programs, etc. are far more obvious, and potentially lethal, means of enticing or even deceiving the consumer.

[This message has been edited by Randy Caparoso (edited 03-22-2000).]