Well, here’s a fun family for you!
Alright. Time to come clean.
Last September while I was living on B.C. wine country’s charming Naramata Bench I’d visited my friend Christine Coletta, who was just in the midst of launching her Haywire Winery over in Summerland. I wrote at length about my afternoon spent across the lake, but there was one thing I’d left out of my post. I wasn’t even particularly sworn to secrecy, but a major project we discussed that afternoon was in the midst of its genesis, so there wasn’t really anything official to tell at that point. What I did know of it by the end of the day had me quite excited, and I’m glad to see it’s gone from conception to execution. Even better than the concept itself are the people involved with it, some of the best and brightest in our local wine industry, many of whom I’m happy to call friends.
The concept is summed up in three simple words, but the stories and possibilities beyond those words are endless:
So there you go.
Now what is it?
Well, let’s hop right to the press release, shall we?
Okanagan Crush Pad Winery Launches for Custom Crush
A new Okanagan Valley custom crush facility opens its cellar in Summerland for crush 2011
| Christine Coletta and Steve Lornie are pleased to announce the formation of a custom crush winery, Okanagan Crush Pad at their 10-acre Switchback Vineyard in Summerland, BC. Construction is underway on a new 7,750-square-foot facility, which will be ready for the 2011 harvest. Winemaker Michael Bartier will head cellar operations aided by internationally renowned consulting winemaker Alberto Antonini and wine advisor David Scholefield. Okanagan Crush Pad Winery will ultimately have the capacity to produce 25,000 cases annually. The licensed winery has been designed to facilitate production of multiple small lots of wine from many different sources. In addition to being the home of Haywire Winery, Okanagan Crush Pad is home to a new wine, which is a partnership between Bartier and Scholefield and set to be released in June 2011. Okanagan Crush Pad’s first client is Rhys Pender, a Similkameen grape grower, wine instructor, and Master of Wine, who will be using Okanagan Crush Pad to make the first wine from his Cawston vineyard. |
| Okanagan Crush Pad clients can choose from a shopping list of services ranging from vineyard management and winemaking to branding, marketing, media relations, and sales distribution. Bartier notes that Okanagan Crush Pad welcomes both grape growers who wish to try their hand at making and selling small lots of wine, and wineries seeking to use the facility’s specialized equipment. “Our services are flexible and we look forward to the opportunity to work with other winemakers in the valley. Each client will set his or her own winemaking protocol and guide the process to ensure that the finished wine is reflective of his or her own style. This is an exciting new venture for me and what is most appealing is the collaborative nature of the concept.”
“This is a vision I have had for the Okanagan Valley for many years,” remarks David Scholefield. “Our wine industry can never be big, but we can be a lot better at being small. Obviously we don’t have enough vineyard land to compete with the mass producers on quantity or price. But if our potential for greater quantity is strictly limited, our potential for greater quality isn’t. The Okanagan Valley is a very special place for winegrowing, which is why someone like Alberto Antonini is committed to making wine here.”
There is precedent for what Okanagan Crush Pad will offer. Scholefield’s inspiration came from what he saw happening in the early days of the New Zealand wine industry, where wineries were sharing space and equipment and making wine in a facility run by consulting winemaker John Belsham in Marlborough. Similar conditions exist in places like Walla Walla, Washington and the Lompoc ‘Wine Ghetto’ in California’s Central Coast, where there are tremendously inspiring examples of less-is-more winemaking communities producing wines that have a distinctiveness that only truly handmade wines can have. |
It’s certainly due time for a concept such as this to come to British Columbia, where we have so many wine savvy people bursting with ideas, know-how and concepts, but perhaps don’t have the capital to invest in land, grow grapes, build a winery, etc. Something like Okanagan Crush Pad opens many possibilities and extends an invitation for participation in what has until now been a very exclusive playing field.
We’ve known many of the principals involved for a long time, and have written of them individually at length, from Rhys Pender and Christine Coletta to Michael Bartier and David Scholefield.
Everyone involved in Okanagan Crush Pad have had long and varied histories in the British Columbian wine industry. Many of them have worked together in the past, present or are longtime friends. Some are related, and others are newer to the fold. You can see how it wouldn’t be too hard of a sell to bring newer friends to the team. I love how initial inspiration and discussions of such a venture, ideas and talk that could have easily been left at just that, were diligently worked upon while all involved already had such a load on their respective plates, have now finally come to fruition. Not only that, but from a selfish point of view as consumers and peers – we get to reap the many benefits of such a massive undertaking. I couldn’t think of a better bunch of people to assemble for such a project and can only imagine the many great things that will launch from this pad.
Interestingly, I had envy way back in 2009 when Jake had written about Crushpad in San Francisco, wondering why we couldn’t have something like that here in B.C. I guess as the saying goes, good things come to those who wait.
In the photo above, clockwise from top left, Alberto Antonini (Consulting Winemaker), Andrew von Rosen (Creative Design), David Scholefield (Wine Advisor, Public & Industry Relations, Sales), Steve Lornie (General Manager), Michael Bartier (Head Winemaker), Alison Scholefield (Winery Operations, Marketing, Sales), Rhys Pender MW (Similkameen Grape Grower, Client #1, Master of Wine), Christine Coletta (Strategic Planning, Branding, Marketing Development)You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
59 Responses:
March 28th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Definitely exciting. I am going to work up the legalities of this. I think you may still have to own vineyard land to get any of the direct shipping and labelling benefits.
March 29th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Yes, interestingly enough, much of the OCP team is at the Wine Law conference today! The team is happy to reply to any legal questions!
April 5th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
As an owner of an existing small winery in the Okanagan, I note the heavy hype pushing the Okanagan Crush Pad with concern. It raises a lot of important questions that are so far being ignored. The typical rational behind all this hype and blithe acceptance? ‘Well, this is how it works in California.’
Some people evidently believe that BC couldn’t possibly have got it right when the government created the concept of land-based wineries. They point to the way things are done in other parts of the world, ignoring the numerous differences in scale, economics, legalities, history and population that exist here at home. And invariably they cherry-pick one aspect of, say, Burgundy’s wine industry and ask, “Why can’t we do that here?” Forgotten are the numerous, restrictive laws that Burgundy wineries must operate under, and which BC wineries can praise heaven that we will never see.
I take a very different view about wine in BC: the concept of land-based wineries has been an enormous success in our province. The last ten years has given us a 300% increase in the number of BC wineries. We’re averaging 14 NEW WINERIES PER YEAR, and that increase has not slowed down through the recession. It’s not difficult to get into the winery business in BC- the growth we see is ample proof of that.
So what is it that the proponents of “virtual wineries”- wineries without facilities and land- are hoping for? It can’t be an issue of improving competition, because that already exists in spades. It can’t be an issue of improving quality, because BC wines are already good and there’s no reason to think that virtual wineries will increase quality in general- they’re more likely to make it worse. And it most certainly can’t be economic or regulatory improvement, because virtual wineries bring a host of concerns in that department: the risk of bootlegging, the collection of sales taxes, and sale of alcohol to minors being just a few of them.
I’ll put it in terms that just about anyone can understand: if you can afford to own a home anywhere in the BC lower mainland, you can afford to buy sufficient land and equipment to start a winery in BC. No, it won’t be Mission Hill. You’ll be starting out like many of us did: with a small vineyard making wine in a garage or shed using older equipment and doing most of the work yourself.
And you see, the beauty of it is, that’s how you create a real and functional wine industry: real people doing real work with a real vineyard and a real winery, however modest they may be. On the other hand, how do you create a facade of an industry? How do you create a hollowed-out shell that churns out myriad labels and names but does not add value for the consumer and risks undermining what we already have? Three simple words.
April 5th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Hi Richard,
As a brief disclaimer – yes – some of the principals involved in this venture are friends, but I’d like to make it clear that these opinions are my own, and not a simple knee-jerk reaction to defend some pals. In fact, the way we usually become friends with others in the industry stems from an admiration of their work, believing in it and them. This is one of those cases. I like to think of myself as one who doesn’t really support people who are, well, ‘crap’.
Anyways…
I can definitely appreciate your concerns. While it’s worth noting that you’re not the only one who has these concerns, it’s also worth noting that there are many local winery owners who are supportive of this venture.
This isn’t a group of people who’ve been assembled by a board of directors around a table high up in some far-flung city’s skyline. In fact, many of these folks are people who have invested most of their lives into pioneering and creating the B.C. wine industry, laying down the very government blueprint you refer to in our domestic strong point of land-based wineries.
I fail to see how different Okanagan Crush Pad is from, to take one of many local examples, your colleagues and neighbours down the road at JoieFarm, who created their first vintages with other people’s equipment from purchased grapes, only to build toward a land and winery they can now call their own.
Take Rhys Pender, who happily farms his own land in Cawston, growing grapes while constantly enhancing our local industry via education, promotion and further financial/personal investment, raising a young family on his tiny vineyard. He’d like to make a small batch of wine from these grapes, and for him to be vilified for making it with someone else’s equipment, or for those providing that equipment to be vilified for offering a service is kinda harsh.
What are proponents of the project hoping for? It offers opportunity to those who believe in the Okanagan and want to produce something special. I fail to see how in a local industry, robust with “Cellared In Canada” product, LDB strangleholds and bullying – something of this size and scope that helps those with genuine passion and talent can cause such drastic opposition, which seems to be based on mostly assumption and misinterpretation. And if the concern is “a hollowed-out shell that churns out myriad labels and names but does not add value for the consumer and risks undermining what we already have” – shouldn’t something with the grandeur of Copper Moon and/or Sawmill Creek, with their low-quality product and ridiculously large market share be more of a priority of concern?
For many years, I have stepped into the ring for and/or jumped to the defense of the many independent wineries from many a concern in a plethora of arenas. This is one area where I can say with much confidence that, while I see where you may be coming from in having concerns, knowing the life-long investment in the region and industry that these key players have committed, and those of the people they are assisting, when it comes to this project and this time, I really do believe you’re simply barking up the wrong tree.
April 6th, 2011 at 10:53 am
A question for Richard: didn’t Marichel, his winery, get it’s start in the same way: by making wine at another winery facility until his own winery was built?
April 6th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Hi Leeann, as Okanagan Crush Pad is your employer, no doubt Christine Coletta advised you that Marichel’s first vintage was made at another winery. How did she know? Because I told her during a conversation I had with her about OCP’s intentions.
Its both permissible and desirable FOR AN APPROVED LAND-BASED WINERY to have that option at start-up. I also told Christine that if the purpose of the OCP is to facilitate that kind of activity, then in my opinion what she was doing was legitimate and I had no concerns. Why would I? We started out that way, and subsequently went on to help other APPROVED wineries get off the ground by making their first vintages at Marichel.
Why am I emphasizing the “APPROVED WINERY” point? Several reasons, but the most important is this: one approved winery making wine for another approved winery is both lawful and a positive option for the industry to have. However, having a winery making wine for someone without a winery license, or even a prospect of obtaining one? That’s another matter altogether.
What quite a few people seem oblivious to is that it’s not simply a matter of a legal technicality. I conservatively estimate that BC’s existing land-based wineries have invested hundreds of millions of dollars based on the current legal structure imposed on the industry. When a tiny number of those wineries appear intent on doing something that may operate outside of that structure, it naturally raises concerns.
If a BC custom crush facility makes wine only for approved or ‘approval-pending’ wineries, then I think that’s great and I wish them well. On the other hand, speaking hypothetically, if a custom crush facility were to make wine intended for resale for individuals with no winery license and no prospect of getting one, then I have very serious concerns.
So Leeann, as OCP’s designated communications person, could you please explain how OCP intends to operate? Will OCP be making wine solely for approved or approval-pending wineries?
April 6th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Hi Kurtis, whether you’re defending your friends at Okanagan Crush Pad or expressing your personal views, I welcome your opinion. THIS DISCUSSION NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE- not merely between you and I- but in the industry at large. The issues are complex. They do not boil down to a single, categorical view. But I emphasize again that a huge amount of effort and expense has been invested by many people in following the current legal structure around land-based wineries. There’s a lot more at stake than just OCP’s commercial success.
When you get a diverse group like BC’s 200+ winery owners, there is bound to be a variety of views. So I speak only for myself on this topic. I’m not going to make any claim about what other winery owners think.
Nor will I point fingers at some other winery that may have bent or broken the rules during their start-up, as you suggested about one. I say only this: at Marichel we strive to be in compliance with BC’s regulations, and we always will. We likewise encourage and expect our colleagues in the industry to be compliant. And if there’s some shortcoming in the regulations that needs to be addressed, let’s do so in a thoughtful and consensual way- rather than on an ad hoc basis that leaves numerous issues unaddressed.
I must strongly contradict your comment that I have “vilified” Rhys Pender. I like Rhys! At no time did I even mention his name or allude to it. Rhys and I have spoken on a number of occasions and he’s been a guest at our winery. As far as I’m concerned, Rhys makes an honest living in the BC wine industry and contributes to it in many positive ways. The only comments I’ve made were clearly addressed to the general issue of custom crush facilities and virtual wineries, not their employees or their customers.
If, as you state, there’s misconceptions about what the Okanagan Crush Pad intends to do, please clear them up for me. Will the OCP be making wine only for other licensed or license-pending wineries? Or will they be operating in some other fashion?
You said about virtual wineries in general: “It offers opportunity to those who believe in the Okanagan and want to produce something special.”
That’s a pleasantly vague sentiment. BC’s wine industry, on the other hand, has this existing reality: it already provides ample opportunity for people who want to do get into the business and do something special. And many people have done exactly that. Will we enhance what’s already been achieved by eliminating even the minimal threshold currently required to get into the business of making and selling wine? Considering what’s at stake, I think that’s a question that deserves to be looked at very, very carefully.
April 6th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Yes, the land-based winery has had a great run. But I think we now need to expand beyond that. Too many talented people are being stymied by this requirement for a big chunk of dirt and this restrictive 500 case start-up number.
Richard’s earlier note said it all and I cut and paste:
“I’ll put it in terms that just about anyone can understand: if you can afford to own a home anywhere in the BC lower mainland, you can afford to buy sufficient land and equipment to start a winery in BC.”
Exactly. Who the hell can afford a home in the Lower Mainland? People who are already well-off. That doesn’t help me and it doesn’t help a lot of wine people who want to get things rolling. Having theses artificial restraints is like telling an artist, “You must have a studio, a parking lot and produce 50 paintings a year or forget it.”
I wrote a post about this stuff on my blog recently. I’d like you all to go there now and leave glowing comments of admiration. Just use the link on my name.
Richard, this one is something I disagree with as well – “…BC’s wine industry, on the other hand, has this existing reality: it already provides ample opportunity for people who want to do get into the business and do something special.” On the condition you’ve got access to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
April 6th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Bravo, well said Brad!
No offense intended Richard but as a professional winemaker that does not own a winery I feel like I need to chime in on this.
I have been making wine on the Naramata Bench for 16 years now. I have lived and worked and contributed positively, I like to think, for longer than most winemakers or owners in the area.
Short of winning the lottery there is very little chance that I will ever be able to afford to own a vineyard and winery of my own, but thanks to a facility like OCP I would at least be able to have my own label. To be denied that because I am not sufficiently well-off to afford the land, is simply wrong!
Making wine in a garage with old equipment is certainly not a better option in terms of quality than having a good space and great equipment at your disposal.
If Competition is the underlying concern here, it needn’t be. By the time a virtual winemaker pays for their grapes and tacks on fees payable to OCP as well as everything else, there is no way that wine is going to be cheap, so it better be good!
April 6th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Hopefully, the argument doesn’t come down to one solely on the basis of economics between the haves and have nots – historically speaking, that never ends well:)
Personally, as a consumer of BC wine who’s always looking for unique product to write about on my site and as a home winemaker who may want to take the next step one day, I hope the regulations change to make it easier for micro-producers to get into the industry (under 500 cases). Perhaps the OCP is ahead of the curve on that point as the regulations don’t seem to be changing anytime soon.
Great dialogue to follow! Thanks for the industry insight.
April 6th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Wow – it is exciting to see so much dialogue and passion!
Richard, some answers for you: it is true I proudly work with the OCP team and would be happy to answer any questions you have. Please email me leeann (at) ccltd.ca if you want to take this offline. I grew up in the Okanagan and have worked in the wine industry for 14 years, which is one aspect of how I have a working knowledge of the industry in the valley.
I can assure anyone who asks that OCP will be following the spirit and the letter of the law as it applies to the LCLB, LDB and the Wine Authority. There are people in place to monitor our industry, so all can rest assured that OCP is prepared and welcomes this monitoring, especially that which comes with a new initiative such as this.
I also must say from my own perspective that I am so impressed to be working in the same industry of such passionate people. This dialogue is very healthy and helps us all learn and ultimately grow.
I have worked with Christine for 14 years and am proud to be with a team that has helped to pioneer this industry over the years and is now looking to take our industry to its next step. I can say with utmost confidence that the entire team at OCP celebrates BC’s wine industry and their neighbours.
Yes, the envelope might be pushed with a concept like OCP, but every time our industry changes, the quality ultimately goes up, and we all win. If a winery makes quality wine, and its marketing and sales strategy is appropriate, the free enterprise should not scare anyone – we should embrace it and grow together.
Kurtis: I have not had a chance to chat directly with Christine or any of the OCP team on this blog post but will definitely bring this thread to their attention. I invite anyone who has weighed in here to keep the dialogue alive…
April 6th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
to add to the discussion, here are a couple other bits of dialogue about Okanagan Crush Pad
John Schreiner Good Grog Blog post: Okanagan Crush Pad will incubate new wineries – you need to scroll to the March 9 post: http://johnschreiner.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html
Anthony Gismondi at the Vancouver Sun’s video interview: http://www.vancouversun.com/videos/index.html?v=1865818444
April 6th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Hi Bradley, thanks for your comments.
Before I respond to the points you made, could you please state whether you have a personal, commercial interest in seeing the existing rules about wineries change?
April 6th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Hi Garron, I hope things are going great for you and the whole team at Lake Breeze Vineyards. BTW, I welcome your comments- no offence taken at all.
Look: I get it that not every single man on the street can afford to start up a winery. But how is that different than any other business? For instance, even though I used to work for one, I couldn’t afford to start an airline- despite my decades of experience in that industry.
Or restaurants. They face myriad regulatory and economic hurdles before they can even open the doors. Or house construction. Or car repair. Or massage therapy.
In almost any worthwhile career and industry you wish to name, there are hurdles to climb and regulations to observe. And the people that climb all those hurdles and operate legitimately deserve consideration. We all had to do it, and we just got on with the job. We didn’t demand that someone change the rules to make it easier for us personally.
It’s not a failure of our industry or our regulations that every Tom, Dick and Harry can’t open up a winery. That’s just business, and life in general. Not everyone who works in an industry can afford to start a business in that industry. And abruptly sweeping aside the foundations of an entire industry in order to make it accessible to everyone carries enormous risks- both to those who have already ponied up to establish a business in the industry, and to those who currently work in it.
With the greatest of respect, Garron, consider what you’re asking for very carefully. They didn’t make up the story about the goose that laid the golden eggs for nothing.
April 6th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Hi Leeann, again, thank you for your 5:30pm comment. I agree 100% with you that the dialogue on this topic is exciting, desirable and important.
I don’t wish to take any part of the discussion private. I believe that airing the issue openly is the best way to go. Doing so will allow input from all the industry stakeholders, just as two Okanagan winemakers have done above. I welcome their input, and I hope more industry people will offer their opinions.
One point I think worth making, is that everyone should lay their cards on the table. If you have a personal or financial interest in the topic, why not state that upfront so that everyone can judge your comments in that light?
In this matter, the WORST possible outcome is that the issue is dealt with behind closed doors, without a chance for all the industry’s stakeholders to provide their input.
I note your statement that OCP will be following the spirit and letter of the BC wine regulations. But I also note that you did not answer my simple question: Will Okanagan Crush Pad be making wine solely for approved or approval-pending wineries?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
April 6th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Hi Liam @ 4:00PM, thanks for your comment and thanks for stating up front where your vested interests lie.
The is MOST DEFINITELY not a simplistic issue of the “have’s vs have not’s.” It’s a very complex economic and regulatory issue that effects everyone, from the esteemed ‘cellar rat’ to the lowly winery owner like myself. We all have a stake in it.
And to illustrate the point, what about those esteemed cellar rats? How many of them do virtual wineries employ?
I’m just asking. 
April 6th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Richard wrote:
“Before I respond to the points you made, could you please state whether you have a personal, commercial interest in seeing the existing rules about wineries change?”
I have a personal interest in creating great wine and selling it. If the existing rules change it would be of great benefit to me from a commercial perspective. I currently manage a brand (Black Cloud) that will never be a free-standing operation unless I convince investors to pony up the needed funds which would effectively reduce my particiaption back to employee status.
I don’t want to operate a virtual winery forever. I want to start and own a winery. A small, micro-sized winery that may or may not grow into something larger.
April 6th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
A very interesting discussion. Richard, I appreciate your point of view. Long live the vigneron(ne), I say, the one who works their own soil, tends their own vines, picks at the moment of perfect ripeness (of course), and sees the wine all the way to bottle. It gives the complete picture, and when done right, it could be the ultimate synthesis of humans and terroir. Rejoice the biodynamically farmed, natural yeast fermented, unfined, unfiltered, zero sulphur wine lest it be vinegar.
Anyhow, this is part of the reason I am in France (the other part is, I can’t afford a home in the BC lower mainland). We work long, physical hours to eke out what we believe is real wine.
However, I think there is a place for custom crush in the Okanagan, I can imagine there is a demand for it, and with the competent people behind the project I think it will have benefit in the context of the niche it serves. Kurtis covered a lot of these points well, and I think the dividing line needs to be transparency for the consumer. Understanding of where and how the product was made can separate the nature of your wines from OCP wines in the mind of the buyer. Never to say one is better than the other–consumers should act as arbiter of taste–but the information should be available.
To me, an interesting aspect of regulation in France is exactly some of the “restrictive” laws that you mention. Labels in France must denote “mis en bouteille” followed by the legal name and address of where the wine was made and bottled. This is combined with the tax stamp on the capsule (I don’t think exported wines bare this stamp) that specifies whether the wine was made under a negociant or recoltant license.
Yes, these regulations can be a pain, but an attentive consumer can decipher a) if the grapes were both grown and made by the same organization vs made from purchased fruit or must and b) if the wine is a negociant brand/co-op/custom crush product or if it was mis en bouteille à la propriété/domaine/chateau.
While I don’t wish for anyone to have to live with French red tape, some information for the interested consumer to understand who grew the grapes and who made the wine would be ideal. In the New World, vigneron in the traditional sense of the word is unfortunately a rare breed, and recognition of their position by media and consumers is overdue.
Regards,
Kenji
April 7th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Interesting discussion. I think, overall, however, that it does show there’s room for everyone. Also not to be overlooked is the fact that OCP will not be the only operation of its kind, as the Alto Wine Group is already embarking on a similar venture in Okanagan Falls.
I believe that serious consumers will always find out not only where their wines come from but also how they’re made.
The overall exchange regarding ‘virtual’ and ‘land-based’ wineries also makes me think it’s more than time we in BC revisit the broader issue regarding the correct (and more rigorously controlled) use of the terms ‘estate’ and ‘estate bottled’ in winery nomenclature.
From a business perspective, there’s no question that in every region I’ve visited, be it Santa Maria Valley, Paso Robles or Central Otago—all of which boast incredibly healthy wine cultures, the existence of operations such as OCP appear to play a very useful role in helping to grow the industry. And, by the same context, most people—on the local scene at least—seem to know who’s growing and who’s not.
However, I agree with Kenji that a precise label reference denoting, beyond origin, where/how the grapes were processed would be desirable, although nobody wants to be unduly encumbered by more regulation. And I also agree, again, that the consumer is the ultimate arbiter. But the consumer needs to be well informed …
Regarding ‘virtual’ wineries, I have more issues where brand—and the deliberate suggestion that a winery exists when it does not—usurps the truth, as it has (and continues to do) at the hands of major brands in several circumstances. Unquestionably, this kind of deceit has an greater impact on the cachet of the true, land-based winery. Perhaps these big players are more the villains in this case than OCP’s efforts to provide opportunities to people who are not (and might never be) in a position to launch their own bona fide land-based wineries.
By the same context, if we really want to get to grips with things, in a not too distant connection, this debate also underscores the need to move ahead—sooner rather than later—on determining and formally introducing BC sub-appellations, such as Naramata Bench, Golden Mile and so on.
Ultimately, again, it’s all about transparency in labeling.
April 7th, 2011 at 11:38 am
This has been a really interesting dialogue and now I have a few minutes to share my two cents:
I believe that we need to encourage talented people who are passionate about wine to engage with BC’s wine industry. And judging by the phone calls I have received, there are lots of people who find the idea very intriguing. Protectionists might want to see others face the same hurdles (or maybe even higher ones) that they did. And I also agree that the wine industry is a very complex economic and faces many regulatory issues. Wine is alcohol and there are social responsibilities that go along with the making of it. The manufacturing rules are much less onerous than they were in 1985 and I believe these rules should continue to evolve. Nothing stays static. Regulating away competition is not the answer. I’m with Bradley – why the false 500 case minimum?
I support free enterprise. We will operate OCP under the current system and follow the letter of the law. There are lots of regulatory watch-dogs who are in place to make sure OPC does this. And we will. The model is very simple. And as Tim Pawsey pointed out it is already happening at Altos Wine Group where the highly talented and passionate Tom DiBello is launching his new wine. I do not know if Tom owns a vineyard and I don’t believe that land ownership should limit his ability to make his own wine. I am sure his wine will be made and sold under a land-based winery license.
At OCP, wine will be made, marketed and sold under an existing land-based winery license or under our existing land-based winery license. OCP has a total of 42 producing acres of grapes. Our 7,750 square foot winery is being constructed at our ten-acre Switchback Vineyard in Summerland: http://on.fb.me/g5Y5fV . It will be completed and ready to operate in August 2011. We will only crush and process BC grown grapes.
All industries evolve. Our little BC wine industry has evolved and will continue to do so. None of us should spend our energy trying to prevent that evolution. In my capacity as a consultant, I work with many different wine regions. It is profoundly disappointing to me that the BC wine industry gets so easily caught up in crap politics and in-fighting and spins their energy in misdirected ways. As someone who loves the Okanagan Valley, it really saddens me to see this happen….. over and over again, year after year.
Wine is about community. Wine is an expression of art. “Wine is Narrative™” to quote David Scholefield. We should focus on telling our collective story – refining our own narrative and not get side tracked. Okanagan Crush Pad wants to encourage talented people who are passionate about wine – to collaborate with us. Truth in labeling and transparency so the consumer knows what they are buying is extremely important. Bradley, Garron, Kenji, Kurtis – you are all welcome to make wine at OCP. You do not need to own land. You do not need to sell your house to express your art. Sign up here for a case of Cuvee Kurtis 2011.
It’s great if you want to continue to have a public discussion about the Okanagan wine industry’s next phase. This is all I will say for now, as I have some Haywire wine to prep to pre-launch next week at the Vanmag restaurant awards. I hope to see you all there (except maybe not Kenji).
April 7th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
The way it looks to me, a virtual winery more closely resembles the cellared in Canada program, than the OCP. Grapes coming from anywhere in the world say nothing to me about Canadian wine. But, wine produced from grapes grown in BC, whether or not you have a building or land, is much more appealing and relevant. Does that mean that we shouldn’t buy from a negociant
April 7th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Hi all,
Some comments from the consumer peanut gallery, aka your customers:
We recently visited the Willamette Valley and our favorite “winery” stop was, hands down, the Carlton Winemaker’s Studio (CWS), which is essentially a crush pad operation. Why? Simple. After spending a few hours touring the usual Oregon behemoth producers, and paying anywhere from $10-20 for four 1 oz pours, the CWS was a breath of fresh air with intriguing, unique, small production, artisanal wines. I’ll also mention that the tasting fees were about half of the “established” vineyards.
I want to call out a few points. Currently, the Okanagan is a great place to make a bit of money if you have a lot to start out with. When an industry gets to this point, we usually see innovation and experimentation decline. There is little incentive to take risks with the price of entry being so prohibitive. Yet, at the CWS we tasted very unique blends not found at any of the established wineries as these independent, virtual winemakers didn’t have to bet the bank on their hunch. For the OK industry as a whole, YOU NEED THIS INNOVATION to evolve the BC styles and perhaps shed more light on the Okanagan’s niche in the world.
Of course the “old guard” is going to be upset at more competition. However, all your anger/frustration is misplaced. Please focus your energies on all the cellared in Canada shit that is still neck-and-neck with VQA sales. What’s going to happen when the unwashed consumer masses get their act together and reform the LDB? The last thing on your mind will be those “meddling kids” down at the OCP when all that Argentinian Malbec is selling by the case at $9/bottle. Band together, Okanagan. You currently have a great advantage. Don’t throw it away by squabbling about the wrong issues.
As a footnote, we really enjoyed Bradley’s Blackcloud Pinot, and if this type of wine is the result of an OCP, than we’re all for it. Even if it’s not, we’re still all for it.
Cheers,
The folks at Winecouver
April 7th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
The more I think about it the more I can see and (attempt to) understand both sides to this argument. It must be tough to have put in a lot of time and effort (and expense) into building a business following the letter of the law, jumping through many hoops and over many hurdles only to have these hurdles lowered or even removed completely a relatively short amount of time later giving birth to a new, cheaper, option.
But… that’s the train of progress rattling the rails and approaching fast. The evolution of the industry seems inevitable. Still, though, a tough (and expensive) pill to swallow.
I have noticed a trend in the valley that sees many land-based wineries expanding their revenue streams into guess-rooms, restaurants and “tasting experiences”. These are all services a co-op or “virtual winery” will never be able to offer their customers and may help define the difference for the average consumer.
April 7th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Thanks to everyone for their replies and comments: Bradley, Kenji, Tim, Christine, Jackie and Liam.
Replies to each begin below.
April 7th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Bradley, I appreciate your honesty in stating that your underlying motives are commercial. In the context we’re discussing, you and I are exactly the same. We both want to make good wine under our own brand and be paid for it. I hope you get the opportunity to do that… in a way that is fair to everyone.
In my opinion, what’s fair is that everyone works to the same rules. It’s not fair when the rules are ignored or altered just to satisfy a relatively small number of people. All the more so when a large group of people have already paid so much to work under the existing legal structure and remain compliant with it.
April 7th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Hi Kenji, I’m glad to see that someone with experience in the BC wine industry is over there showing the French how to do it.
Yes: long live the vigneron. That’s the guy or girl who plants the vineyard, tends the vines, harvests the grapes and makes the wine. Vignerons are the HEART AND SOUL of every wine industry in every part of the globe. And after planting his or her vineyard, tending the vines, harvesting the grapes and making the wine, if everything goes really, really well: that vigneron may make enough to keep going.
But if the vigneron is so precious to the wine industry, why would you champion a way of doing business that works directly against the land-based concept?
You’ve chosen to go and be a vigneron in a part of the world that provides myriad protections for the small wine producer. The French have always done so. The French even go so far as to subsidize their industry! But we live in BC and have to deal with the reality here. The custom crush/virtual winery concept is of no concern whatsoever to the big wine producers. However, virtual wineries are a direct threat to the viability of the small producer, the vigneron.
Next time you’re in BC, let’s talk about it over a glass of wine.
April 7th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Hi Tim, I share your concern over labeling. It incenses me that a wine made in California, or Chile, or Australia can be imported and sold in Canada under the “Product of Canada” label. In my opinion that is indeed something that detracts from the value of my made-in-BC wine.
But if that is the issue- and I agree that it’s a major one- how does permitting virtual wineries address it? Simply put: virtual wineries don’t address the issue at all; and instead just add one more negative factor that existing land-based wineries must overcome to remain viable.
Here’s the situation. Even though I grow BC grapes and make BC wine, I have to compete against major multinational corporations that can sell imported wine under exactly the same label as I’m permitted to use: “Product of Canada.”
Now you’re saying that while we’re waiting for that problem to be fixed- if ever- we should make it even tougher for our existing land-based wineries to compete by opening the floodgates of competition. Except that the competition will be skewed against those land-based wineries, because they will have many, many costs that virtual wineries will never see.
April 7th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Hi Christine, you wrote: “At OCP, wine will be made, marketed and sold under an existing land-based winery license or under our existing land-based winery license.”
That’s an important point, for a number of reasons. First off, you have to do it that way to remain compliant with the law.
Second, that manner of operating is nothing new in BC. Other people have already done it. Moreover, doing custom crush wine for someone, and selling it under your license, is an option available to every single land-based winery in BC. OCP is not breaking new ground in that sense. Why isn’t everyone doing, then? Read on.
Third, and this is the kicker, is that every single bottle of wine sold in the manner described by Christine MUST LEGALLY BE THE PROPERTY OF THE CUSTOM CRUSH OPERATION ITSELF. Wine (and any other alcohol) can only be manufactured in a licensed facility. The ownership of that wine, and of the brand under which its sold, becomes that of the manufacturing facility. And the ownership of that facility has to be declared and registered with both provincial and federal authorities. A whole lot of responsibilities go along with that ownership.
‘But hold on,’ perhaps some people are saying. ‘If the custom crush facility must legally own the wine, and the brand its labeled under, how is that really helping the little guy who’s trying to get started?’ Good question!
Over to you, Chris.
April 7th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Ok, one last comment.
Once you start tampering with the existing rules, where does that tampering stop?
Let’s say the rules are changed to the way wine is made and sold in BC so that someone who can’t afford to own a vineyard/winery is able to make and sell wine. OCP’s business model appears to be based on facilitating that idea.
But custom crush facilities aren’t charities. They’re commercial enterprises run by business-savvy people. Naturally, they must charge for their services, and as winery owner I can assure you that the costs involved are not insignificant. Those costs have to be passed on to the person they’re making the wine for.
So what about the next category of hopeful winemaker: the guy or gal who can’t afford a service like OCP’s? Naturally they’re going to say, “Hey! You changed the rules to make it easier for those other guys to get in the game. Now you have to change them again so that we can get in. We can’t afford to pay some other company to make the wine and sell it. We want to do that all ourselves. In our townhouse. And sell it out the back door.”
So now what? You’ve already changed the rules to make it easier for some winemakers to get in the game. How do you then refuse the next group of winemakers who want exactly the same thing: a lowered entry threshold to make and sell wine?
Think about it, folks.
April 8th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Whoah! – I just had a quick look through these posts and conclude that Richard has exhausted everyone. Does anyone work anymore? – not me. I’ve a couple quick things to note:
1) declared interest – I have financial interest in OCP
2) other declared interest – I have financial interest in the health of the BC wine industry. If someone drinks a good wine from any winery in BC, there’s a better chance they’ll give one of mine a try next. Opposite effect if they try a lousy wine from BC. Thus, I want good wine in BC – better for my paycheque. Anyone I can help with their winemaking gets it, regardless of whether they pay me or not.
3) A wine made/marketed through a custom crush facility in BC is a brand of that winery, made in that winery, sold by that winery’s designated agent and through that winery’s license. Not sure if the ownership of the name stays with the winery or with the client but I suspect that intellectual property such as trademarks can remain with client. If not, I always revert back to my own personal decision making test, “In this situation, what would PK Subban do?” Well of course he would deal only with someone he trusts and who trusts him. And then he’d take a seeing-eye-pass from Andrei Kostitsyn through a crowd of Bruins and slap a hard shot past Tim Thomas for the game winner. Point being OCP is finicky about who it will deal with for self interest only. Don’t want some wanker putting the OCP license in jeopardy by playing 10 for 1 games or by disgracing the OCP name and reputation with substandard fruit or fruit that is not of origin.
4) Looking through the previous posts, there are references to laws/rules being changed. I don’t believe that any changes have been made or are being contemplated. OCP is operating within the law, – anyone perceiving otherwise should file a complaint with licensing. OR, one could contact their MLA and have the laws changed – I hear the process is very efficient.
That’s it – I have 4 weeks of filtering and bottling to do. Good Blog Kurtis and Jake. Kenji, glad to see you’re well – we miss you!
April 8th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Oh yeah, – another thing. Just met with the OCP architect on some finishing touches issues. We’re going to have a big lab, a beer fridge, and a bitchin sound system. Going to be a very cool place to hang out!
m
April 8th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Interesting discussion. Here’s my perspective on the legal issues. I’ll try to be brief and I’ll try to stay away from the policy issues. First off, in my view, the laws now in effect in BC permit “custom crush” type arrangements so long as they are structured properly. That includes, of course, that the license holder must own the wine, produce it under their licence and sell it. However, there is nothing to stop a licensed winery from entering into a contractual arrangement with a third party to provide winemaking services, marketing services or branding services (or a combination of these) in respect of the wine at issue. Secondly, and importantly, I’d like to point out that the “land-based winery” category is a creation of the LDB via its contractual arrangements with wineries. LBW criteria is NOT law because it is not contained in any statute or regulation …rather it is LDB policy enacted only through contract (and there may well be a question as to whether they sufficient power under the Liquor Distribution Act to do this). The law with respect to wineries is contained in the Liquor Control & Licensing Act, its Regulation and to some extent within the Wine Regulation under the Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act. None of those laws makes any reference to land-based wineries. Hope that is helpful.
April 8th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Our industry is based on change – without change i’m not sure our industry would exist today. Certainly there would be no small wineries. It is not that long ago in wine world terms that they were finaly given approval. At the time there were concerns about their effect on a new industry that was just starting to gain some credibility. Just as there may be some concerns about the changes today. I see OCP has part of a continium of change and not a threat to the industry.
April 8th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Hi Mark, the issue of custom crush pad operations has many areas of concern for the wine industry in BC. The legal side is just one of them, but thanks for offering your opinion in that area.
I quote: “…in my view, the laws now in effect in BC permit “custom crush” type arrangements so long as they are structured properly.”
That comment could possibly be misconstrued. There has been no change- recent or otherwise- to the rules in BC regarding custom crush operations. Every BC land-based winery has always had the lawful option to do custom crush operations, and every BC winery still has that option.
There are only two categories of licensed wine manufacturers BC: “land-based winery” (most of us) and “commercial winery” (a few Really Big Guys.) There is no custom crush category.
The Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation- which as you point out is the law- contains a crucial requirement that’s pertinent to this discussion:
“(6) A licensee must not use the establishment in respect of which the licence was issued
(a) for any purpose other than that authorized under the licence, or
(b) for the manufacture of any liquor, other than
(i) wine owned by the licensee,
(ii) LIQUOR OWNED BY ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS LICENSED UNDER THE ACT, or
(iii) wine that is owned by a winery in another jurisdiction.” (my emphasis)
So, in the context of this discussion, a prospective wine maker can bring his grapes to a custom crush operation and have them turn those grapes into wine. The only problem is, the prospective winemaker can’t own the wine once it’s made. The custom crush operation (assuming it’s licensed) has to become the owner of the wine. Otherwise they’ve broken the law.
I’ll say that again: a prospective winemaker who brings his or her hard-won grapes to a custom crush, must then turn over ownership of the resulting wine to the custom crush itself. Ouch!
That situation doesn’t apply if the custom crush is making wine for an already licensed winery. The ownership of the wine remains in the hands of the licensed customer, as permitted by law.
Yes, in order to obtain their licence BC wineries enter into a contract with the liquor authorities. But as to what a winery can and cannot do, the fact that the contract isn’t statute law is moot. Every BC winery owner, on taking a look at that contract, takes a very deep breath. Why? Because in that contract you must agree that the liquor authorities can pull your license for virtually any reason they wish. And short of the authorities violating the law, your recourse is almost nil if they do.
The short story? The BC liquor authorities may, at their pleasure, issue a winery with a license. They may likewise, in virtually their sole discretion, remove that license. Every winery owner signs a contract to that effect before receiving their winery license. Scary? Oh yeah. Owning a winery is not for the faint-of-heart.
You question whether the BC liquor authorities have the legal power to do it that way. But fighting for the answers to questions like that is how lawyers get rich and winery owners get poor. Most of us would rather get on with the job of growing grapes and making wine.
April 9th, 2011 at 9:46 am
Interesting Discussion
I have known most of the characters at OCP for sometime and as well we ship our grapes to one of the Commercial winery’s.Having said that I feel this discussion has lost site of the fact that at the end of the day this business ( winery’s, grapegrowing and yes OCP ) is all about money.Laws, regulations and äuthority’s ëither aid or get in the way of ones ability to make money.When a industry such as ours who is so young, and growing change and evolutuon is enevuable and often runs up against reguation and law that while appropriate in the past are sadly out of date to meet todays realities.
Change is a continium and is often thought of in the past tense, the near future holds potential changes which will render this discussion of OCP as a foot note of our history.
In 2010 the industry grew app. 22000 tons of grapes yielding app. 14.5 milllion litres of wine.In 2010 app. 9 million lires of 100% B.C. wine was sold.
Given that the winter has been very mild it is estimated that the 2011 crop wil come in at 28000 tons yielding about 18.5 million liters.So where is wine going to be sold and consumed.If laws do not change the B.C. market will be flooded with product , the collateral damage for all us in the industry will be enormous. ( the wine writter’s will have a great time).
I noticed with interest some of the remarks pissing on the commercial winery’s and their cellered in Canada products. It is so easy to forget the fact that if it weren’t for the commercial’s time, money and resources in the early 1990s the industryy would not excist as it is today. It was their money for the marketing and prommotion budgets of the day of our flegging industry to turn the reputation of the past ( plonk) to one of quality.
Only the commercials have the ability to absob the increase tonnage.Of coures they will only take product if there are profitable markets.There is a huge consummer demand in Ontario and manitobia for B.C. product however current interprovincial trade laws and taxation levels do not render these two markets viable.
If the industry as a whole does not embrace change no matter what it looks like the sea of blood on the ground for winery’s and growers will make a full bobyed Cab Sau look real good.
April 9th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
I’ve been reading these posts with interests and wondering why anybody involved in the highly protected and privileged BC wine industry would want to draw any attention to any of the rules that govern their existence. BC wines sales top $380 million last year. The local industry is riding high.
If there are fuzzy rules governing custom crush facilities it is only because it seems historically few if any Okanagan producers ever agree on what’s good for the valley. I visited my first custom crush facility in New Zealand back in the mid-1980s, it was, in their minds, just a co-operative with a modern twist. It wasn’t seen as competition but rather a knowledge centre that was likely to improve the quality of grapes and wine in the region. It was going to be another way to build brand New Zealand or brand Marlborough.
If I was an Okanagan winery I wouldn’t be too worried about any single custom crush facility, as it has been pointed out already, there is more than one, I would be more concerned about the international wine world intervening in Ottawa to level the alcohol playing field in all provinces. From direct delivery to online sales and BCLDB rebates you have far more to lose from those challenges than a tiny custom crush facility that will shine and even bright light on the Okanagan.
While I applaud the discussion this kind of energy would be much better spent defining Okanagan sub-appellations before another vintage goes by.
April 9th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, Rod. For those of you who may not know him, Rod is one of the Okanagan’s biggest independent grape growers, and he sells his grapes to Calona Wines. Calona Wines is owned by Cascadia Brands, which is in turn owned by the huge conglomerate, Andres. Rod’s wife, Marjorie, worked closely with Chris Coletta during her days at the BCWI.
I respectfully disagree with Rod’s claim that the issue is solely about money. To be sure, commerce plays a crucial role. But having said that, a host of issues come along with it, and those issues impact important social and economic matters. Let’s touch on that now.
Does Andres Wines (TSX:ADW.NV.A) (TSX:ADW.B) care about custom crush facilities making wine for every Tom, Dick or Harry? No. A highly successful custom crush of the sort OCP is touting might represent one tenth of one percent of Andres’ output. Moreover, the vast majority of Andres output sells into a different market altogether: the customer looking for cheap, bulk-imported wine selling under a Canadian label. The same is true of Mission Hill, and Jackson-Triggs/Inniskillin which is owned by Vincor-Constellation Brands.
Those companies, and the numerous large wineries they own, could not care less about a custom crush operation. A CCO will never compete against Constellation Brands, which is a huge, multinational corporation. So when a custom crush operation- one that intends to introduce a variety of small-lot wines under a number of different labels comes along- who do they compete against?
The small, land-based winery.
The BC wine consumer will have exactly the kind of wine industry that they are willing to support through economic and regulatory means. And in turn, the kind of wine industry we have will pay back economic and social benefits accordingly. If you want a wine industry dominated by multinational companies like Constellation Brands, you’ll get what we have now. Or perhaps the consumer wants a “Hollywood-style” wine industry. You know, wineries owned by stock promoters who drop in from Grand Cayman from time to time, and who parachute in international consultants like Michel Roland to tell them how to do it. That too is part of the existing BC wine industry. The viability of neither of those kinds of wineries is in any way threatened by a custom crush operation making wine for all comers.
But in additional to those kinds of wineries, I believe the BC wine consumer thinks there’s ALSO a place for the “vigneron”- the small, licensed land-based winery where a guy or gal lovingly tends their vines, makes the wine in their own vision, and then sells it out the cellar door. And if you want those kinds of winery to exist, you can’t at the same time do things that erode their economic viability.
Do you want tBC’s wine industry based solely on multinational corporations and Hollywood-style operations? Or do you think that the foundations of BC’s wine industry should ALSO include small, land-based wineries? Custom crush operations have virtually no impact on the former, but a big impact on the latter.
Choose wisely!
April 10th, 2011 at 1:46 am
Since Richard is so insistent on a declaration of interests by all participants in the discussion I will say mine is to add levity to what has heretofore been a rather serious discussion. Admittedly, I am rather new to the wine scene, and even more so when it comes to BC, so take my position with a grain of salt, or as a breath of fresh air as you prefer.
From the outset I disagreed with Mr. Roskell’s position based mostly on its likeness to the child who cries, “but it’s not fair.” His earlier arguments centered around the business of the wine industry, and that an operation like OCP would not be fair to those wineries who have been playing by the rules for many years. To those who cite the prohibitive cost of starting a land-based winery his response was that it was merely the cost of doing business. So my response to his crying foul over this new development in the BC wine landscape would be that it is simply the cost of doing business; regulatory environments change, business adapt. And yet, what I have garnered from this thread’s informed contributors is that neither the laws nor the regulations have changed and the OCP will operate within them. So what’s the concern?
Mr. Roskell’s last post however did garner sympathy from me, as it appealed to my emotions. Michel Rolland? I have seen Mondovino and I know he is a bad man! But seriously, and this was something Mr. Gismondi alluded to, the land-based winery makes sense in terms of identifying and building currency in BC for the notion of terroir, appellation, or what have you. Unfortunately, most BC wineries, land-based or otherwise, seem content to obscure terroir through the use of oenological trickery and attempt, with widely varying success, to make wines that taste of anywhere other than BC. (Here I should note that I have not tasted Marichel’s wines, and have only heard good things about them and Mr. Roskell, whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting. The preceding assessment is not a personal slight against any particular BC “vigneron,” but merely my conclusions based on the sampling of BC wine I have tasted.)
I do not wish to see the Okanagan become the Napa of the North with wines made famous solely by their famous movie-directing financial backers. But I am not certain that the OCP is the biggest risk in this regard. We already have wineries that have decided that any Bordeaux-blend they create is worthy of a $40, $50, or $60 price-tag minimum, regardless of quality. This defies all logic and is merely an example of the wine-as-luxury-good mentality, where setting a higher price signals to the consumer that the product is of higher quality whether that is the reality or not. I know that new, small, french oak barriques are expensive and the costs must be recovered, but perhaps consider a larger tonneau. They can last for nearly a century, your accountants will love this longer amortization period. While we’re talking about cost-saving measures, stop paying for those designer yeasts and engineered enzymes, grapes will ferment on their own, for free. Oh, did I mention I was part of the anti-flavour elite? My point is that, once again, it is difficult to argue on behalf of the land-based winery when most have no interest in expressing anything in particular about the land they own.
Personally, I am very partial to a land-based system. By that I mean a system whereby the producer markets their wine based on where it is from, and where, hopefully, the consumer knows what to expect from a given region. The French, and more generally the EU, system is very good. But of course this also means tremendous regulation. I would also caution that such a system, as antithetical as it seems to the paratrooping capitalists Richard warns us of, does not solve all problems. Take any number of French and Italian producers that crowd our shelves; Perrin and Chapoutier in the Rhone, Antinori and Frescobaldi in Tuscany, despite a smattering of different appellations they produce, they tend towards a universal taste. To be sure, they all produce some fine wines, but rarely are any of their offerings the best expression of the places referenced on their labels. Capital begets capital. Whether it’s one brand that sources fruit from all over, or one négociant that produces a myriad of bottlings that taste disappointingly similar, the accumulation of capital by one player is always going to have a negative effect on the diversity of offerings available to the consumer.
Cheers.
April 10th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
My, my. Coletta and Associates is really sending out the heavy hitters now.
Fortunately, Marichel doesn’t submit its wines to Anthony for his box score review. (On principle, we don’t submit to anyone who approaches wine on that basis.) Nor do we advertise on Antony’s website, which appears to be a privilege affordable by only the largest producers. This means there’s no hindrance to either he or I speaking our minds on this topic.
Putting it bluntly, if BC wants a wine industry founded on what marketing consultants and wine celebrities say, then that’s the kind of wine industry you’ll have. On the other hand, if BC wants a wine industry that includes VIABLE, small, land-based wineries, then you should at least be willing to consider the matter from that perspective.
Being immersed in the small, land-based winery business on a day-to-day basis, I’ve raised numerous concerns from that viewpoint. (I’ve chosen to speak forthrightly but diplomatically- a whole lot more could be said, believe me.) The response to those real issues? Generally-speaking it’s a dismissive, ‘Don’t worry. This is something “special.” And it’s how they do it in [insert foreign country here.]‘ And if it does turn out to be a problem? Well, land-based wineries can always cover their losses by selling souvenir spoons and etched glasses made in China, as one reader helpfully suggested above.
My views are not those of a marketing consultant- Chris’ profession- or those of someone in the wine media- Anthony’s profession. My views are those of someone who is actually doing what they only talk about. So after Coletta & Associates’ employees and friends have had their say, I hope the BC wine lover will give some weight to the viewpoint of those who are actually in the trenches, day in and day out. See my comments above for some of that perspective.
April 10th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
That’s some fine levity you injected into the discussion, Justin. Will you be here all week? jk
Many, many people drink wine, and on matters of personal taste I think their opinions are every bit as valid as my own. On the other hand, relatively few people own a small, land-based winery. So naturally, relatively few people have a clear understanding of what it takes to keep one going.
And in some ways, I suppose we have only ourselves to blame on that score. The issues small BC wineries must cope with are generally hidden from the public’s eye, After all, we’re in the business of selling a bit of pleasure- not of airing our commercial challenges, regulatory prohibitions and dirty laundry.
As someone who’s very new to the BC wine scene, I hope you’ll continue to look into what makes it different from other jurisdictions, and what it needs to prosper in our particular environment. The more the wine-drinking public understands about our issues, the better off we’ll all be.
April 10th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
A fascinating discussion. I am a wine peasant – although some of the people above have worked diligently to make that not so.
I live in the lower mainland. I own a house here. I cannot trade it in for a viable plot of grape-growing land. Someone was talking about the well-to-do of the lower mainland, I am a teacher, so I am grateful for my wages but not well-to-do. That said, I can afford to trade into a small property in the South Okanagan and grow grapes in my backyard.
I have delusions of grandeur when it comes to my business acumen – as do many of my neighbours who also own homes in the lower mainland. Great clumps of us come to retire in the Okanagan and look for ways to be productive. Maybe we will make some wine. Maybe we will sell it. Maybe we will design labels on our Macbooks. Is it reasonable that we be able to do this easily?
I don’t know. I have a friend who is playing by the rules and growing Okanagan grapes to sell to an established farm-gate winery. This required planning and financing and negotiation and research and all the things one expects to put into creating a business. Like Richard, I can see the uniquely helpful niche a custom crush facility can play in the genesis of a new land-based winery, however, I do see the potential for a lot of “me”s to enter the arena for a year or two, play around, much about, sell some wine (maybe good, maybe bad) but ultimately without commitment to the concept of BC wine and small wineries in particular. The damage I might do to an industry of people who are committed to the longevity and quality and reputation of BC wine if “I” show up in droves.
And, I’ll tell you, at every table where a glass of BC wine has been poured there is a lower mainland person musing about moving away from the coast, growing grapes, and making wine. A retirement project with the potential impact of any boomer trend.
This peasant doesn’t have a crystal ball but I suspect any local initiative with this much controversy and desire to puzzle through to the heart of all the possible ramifications is an indication of a healthy industry.
April 11th, 2011 at 7:10 am
Well where to start. Thanks for the winemaking advice Justine. I guess I’ll go to bigger barrels now and use wild yeasts. Sounds like that’s the way to go.
On selling your house in Vancouver and buying land in the Okanagan to “live the dream”. This shows the total disregard and disrespect for the farming industry. How would the teacher above feel about me buying a house in Vancouver and starting to teach children with my agriculture diploma? Of course because I’m new and small I will demand a $100,000/year salary with all the perks. Hey Anthony. Tell us what would happen if you bought land Burgundy.
On OCP and other custom crush facilities. (more are proposed) I see this as the 3rd. wave in the new Okanagan wine industry. I was 2nd. wave. I came into the industry when the requirements were dropped from 10 acres to 5 acres allowing me to start my winery. I watched as the first wave tried desperately to maintain the high standards they had set for the industry. A compromise was attained and everyone carried on. Unfortunately this produced animosities that still exist, although time does heal all wounds. Now the 3rd. wave, demanding even lower standards, are being assailed by some of the 2nd. wave. We’ll see where it all settles.
When an industry is controlled as closely as the alcohol industry is, government policy can make or break a business. Changing alcohol policy including entrance criteria for new wineries is a dangerous road to travel. Just ask Rick Thorpe who tried to eliminate the LDB stores.
Established wineries who had to jump through the existing hoops will naturally be frustrated to see how easy it is for the new entrants. I’m certainly frustrated but willing to accept that we haven’t reached a final resting point for policy.
Carry on
April 11th, 2011 at 7:35 am
Oh. One more thing. For those of you who want change to liquor laws. Be careful what you wish for.
April 11th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Caitlyn, that wasn’t muck. On the contrary: thank you! You’re not simply promoting a commercial interest that you want to foist onto the BC wine scene. Rather, you’re willing to look behind the facade and think about what it takes to make the local wine industry work as a whole.
Let me point out that their have been some notable failures in the local wine industry. Chief among those is the collapse of the Holman wine group: that’s seven wineries down the tubes in one flush. And they were almost all on the Naramata Bench, not some marginal wine area.
Now of course, it’s all too easy to imagine that it’s just Mr. Holman and his family that suffer the consequences of an ill-considered business model. But that’s naive. A vastly larger number of growers, employees, suppliers and service providers suffer the effects as well. Not to mention the less than stellar image it gives the public of our wine industry as a whole.
The failure of the Holman wine group didn’t come about because someone raised a caution flag on industry growth. Nor did those seven wineries- along with all the jobs and market for grapes- disappear because someone was trying to grow their business in a measured and sensible way. That enterprise and all it represented to the BC wine scene came about through the unrestrained growth.
So now we have custom crush operations wanting to ply their trade. And what do they say? “I saw this cool business model in another country, and I want to try it here. And you know what? If this takes off, there’s going to be even MORE growth in the BC wine scene than what you’ve seen so far. It’s not going to just be steep linear growth, it’s going to be exponential!”
Oh-kaaay. Call me the canary in a coal mine.
The last I heard, there are some 17 BC wineries for sale. So while it’s not taking place in any kind of an organized fashion, the local BC wine industry is undoubtedly going through a period of consolidation and reflection. We’ve built this amazing thing in just a few short years. (By “we” I mean the industry and public together.) So… where do we want to go from here?
Rather than continuing to grow blindly into the future, I suggest that we’ll be best served by thinking carefully about that question. Thanks for being part of that process.
April 13th, 2011 at 6:33 am
Richard. I don’t think you can make the argument against the OCP based on whether it is economically viable. That is up to the quality of management and the market to decide. The question is whether the business should be allowed based on present rules and regulations that their competition have to abide by. The liquor industry is heavily regulated placing burdens on those that choose to get involved. It is a profitable industry because of the business model and the quality of the product. If someone is working outside the business model required by regulations then something should be done. I don’t think that OCP is silly enough to do this, but I haven’t read the fine print, and frankly I’m not going to.
If you think they are breaking rules giving them and unfair advantage in the market, you should point this out to the LCLB, otherwise, embrace the innovation.
April 13th, 2011 at 7:29 am
From the sounds of this entire discussion, does it mean that OCP OWNS THE WINES of those customers without a license? Why does OCP keep ducking away from answering Richard’s question regarding whether OCP’d be making wine for only approved land-based wineries?
As Richard pointed out,
“(6) A licensee must not use the establishment in respect of which the licence was issued
(a) for any purpose other than that authorized under the licence, or
(b) for the manufacture of any liquor, other than
(i) wine owned by the licensee,
(ii) LIQUOR OWNED BY ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS LICENSED UNDER THE ACT, or
(iii) wine that is owned by a winery in another jurisdiction
Of course, laws get changed all the time. But the fact is, this particular law small wineries abide by has not. So, an even more serious question would be, are there any government officials backing OCP’s illegal intentions?
Richard, I’m totally not with you about pointing out OCP founders are “business savvy” people. Any Undergraduate commerce student knows the basic concept that what works in one market does not necessarily mean it’d work in another market.
From my perspective as a consumer, OCP is moving forward with a business that lacks quality AND simply aims to churn out wines that could seriously damage BC small wineries’ image.
April 13th, 2011 at 7:45 am
It’s true that wine is an expression of art. How is it an art when people simply goes to OCP and churns out some formula to make the wine?
And even better, the OCP gives them a formula answer to sell/market the wine?!?
April 13th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Bill, I understand your point from a pure free-market perspective. But we don’t have that in any industry in Canada, and we especially don’t have it in the winery business. Our line of work is highly regulated, and the commercial reasons for that regulation are just part of it. When you regulate an industry, you have an opportunity to apply regulations which have a positive effect on all sorts of social and economic issues.
I’ll give you just one example: land-based wineries are an ideal way to preserve farmland that is otherwise uneconomic to operate in BC.
Most BC residents are aware that the Okanagan Valley has agricultural land, but few people realize that farmland in the Okanagan is overwhelmingly held in small parcels by small-scale farmers, mostly in orchards. Today, orcharding is in free-fall in BC- at very best it’s a break even deal. However, growing grapes and then adding value by turning the grapes into wine IS viable on a small parcel of farmland- as no one knows better than yourself.
Do we want to keep small-hold farms productive and viable in BC? I don’t think anyone has a serious objection to that notion. Well, small land-based wineries are a fantastic way to do it. Plus, they create tourism and other ancillary activities which bring additional economic benefits.
I’ve repeatedly made the point that custom crush operations are not simply a concern at the regulatory level. While important, that’s merely a matter of law. The Big Picture is what matters most. Small, land-based wineries bring a host of social and economic benefits- from preservation of farmland, to reliable tax collecting, to direct employment, to entrepreneurship and job creation in other industries… the list goes on and on. Custom crush operations, on the other hand, may work directly against the viability of those wineries.
History is full of ideas dreamed up by people looking to make a buck but which did not turn out well for society at large. So no, I decline to blindly embrace this “innovation.” Instead, I think that commercial activities in the custom crush vein- at least as they’re envisioned by OCP- need to be looked at very carefully.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:25 am
All of us industry people here are passionate about maintaining and improving the BC wine industry as a whole. To those of you not in the industry, believe me when I say that, although we have come a long way, there is still a lot of room for improvement. The only criteria that matter, are the quality of the product in the bottle and the source of the grapes. There are still many “vignerons” out there producing sub-standard wines just as there are many non land-based labels making great wines and visa versa. The bad wines drag us all down. Lets concentrate on what is in the bottle!
April 13th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Jenn Bennett notes:
“It’s true that wine is an expression of art. How is it an art when people simply goes to OCP and churns out some formula to make the wine?”
It’s true that AT BEST wine is an expression of art. However the vast, overwhelmingly large percentage of wine produced is nothing more or less than a manufacturing process. But naturally, people making large-production wine love it when they can draw cache from the relative few winemakers who are creating the art.
The Okanagan Crush Pad intends to make wine in their gleaming new 7000+ sq. ft. facility. Just their own winemaking will involve upwards of 200 tons of grapes. How will the small, artisinal winemaker fair amidst that? I don’t know: that issue is really none of my concern. But it will interesting to see how much art gets preserved in the process, should OCP go ahead with their stated plans.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:55 am
FYI, the other custom crush operation in the Okanagan Valley is Alto Wine Group in Okanagan Falls. I’ve spoken personally with the owner-operator and he emphatically assured me that they only make wine for licensed or license-pending wineries.
If that’s the case, then in my opinion Alto is engaging in a legitimate activity that’s permitted by law, and offers a useful service to established and start-up wineries in BC.
However a custom crush operation that makes wine for unlicensed individuals, with the intent to resell the wine, is operating in a highly questionable area that should be carefully scrutinized by the authorities.
As for the claim that making wine for unlicensed individuals with an intent to resell adheres to the “spirit” of the law, I wouldn’t even use that ridiculous assertion as manure.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Garron, I wish it were true that we only need to concentrate on what’s in the bottle and everything will turn up roses. But the reality is, there’s lots of wineries that have made good wine and yet fail at the business level.
It’s a COMPETITIVE industry. The winery owner can’t just pay attention to the cellar. If the winery is to survive, the owner and her employees have to pay attention to myriad details. If some other winery is playing outside the rules, that gives them an unfair competitive advantage. Any sensible winery owner will pay attention to a situation like that.
April 13th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
John Lehman writes: “From the sounds of this entire discussion, does it mean that OCP OWNS THE WINES of those customers without a license? Why does OCP keep ducking away from answering Richard’s question regarding whether OCP’d be making wine for only approved land-based wineries?”
Because that’s the crucial issue as far as the law is concerned, John. If you’re making wine for resale by unlicensed individuals in BC, then you are breaking the law. And that’s not something that anyone is going to freely admit.
You also expressed some doubts about the business acumen of anyone who would import a basic business concept from another country and expect it to work in very different circumstances. So now is a good time to draw a distinction between two alternative classes of businessperson.
Some business people are interested in the long haul. They live the business they’re in, because they love the industry they’re in. They’re simultaneously interested in the long-term viability of the industry- because they love the line of work, they see the benefits it provides to society, and obviously because they have so much at stake personally.
But there’s another class of business people who do not think along those lines- the common name for them is “entrepreneur.” These are people who are interested in starting a business and then selling it at a profit. They LITERALLY go into the business with an exit strategy front and center in their minds. The long term viability of the business and the industry as a whole are not important issues for them. The business is quickly built up, numbers are generated, and then a sale happens not far down the road. The entrepreneur then goes on to look for new opportunities.
Both of those types of business people engage in perfectly legitimate business strategies. But only one of those business models is a foundation you can build an industry on. The other business model is ancillary to the industry; it just comes along for the ride. It adds nothing to the foundation of an industry, but it does have a big impact on the competitive side. (And that can have benefits when entrepreneurs target an industry lacking in competition… which is definitely not the case with BC’s wine industry.)
Which kind of business people are running OCP? I can’t say. But I can say the following with 100% confidence: there are plenty of in-and-out entrepreneurs just waiting to see which way the shoe falls on this matter. And if OCP has carte blanche to make wine for resale by unlicences individuals, then so do they. If that happens, in my opinion the result will be negative for the foundation of the wine industry in BC.
April 13th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Richard, I am not talking about individual wineries here. There are good and bad business models out there and a bad business model will fail despite good wine. However, the image and long-term viability of our industry as a whole depends on consumers wanting to buy a second bottle even though that really good, cheap Chilean wine is sitting next to it on the shelf. In my opinion that decision comes down to just two things. One, the fact that the wine is grown and made in BC and two, quality! Yes, it is a competitive industry. It needs to be! That is what will eventually seperate the wheat from the chaff.
April 13th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
I wish it were as simple as you say, Garron. But from listening to a wide variety of customers, I can assure you that along with quality and a made-in-BC provenance, they are also interested in price. I know of no BC land-based winery that is immune to that factor.
The price a winery can charge for its wine directly affects its viability. It doesn’t matter how good the wine is, if the price is too high for the market it’s in, insufficient sales will cause the winery to fail.
One of the factors that goes into the price a winery must charge is competition. On balance, for the consumer, the industry and society as a whole, healthy competition is a good thing. However, UNFAIR competition that skirts the rules or breaks them? That’s not good. It skews everything, and can make a formerly viable winery into a marginal business.
Even a winery that was making fantastic wine.
April 14th, 2011 at 9:09 am
I love crush pads, for sure some great juice is made from the crush pads. Wine can be expensive to make, flat out, and for the most part there are really only two ways to reduce this cost a) produce volume b) minimize overhead. Volume is usually not an option for the newly initiated into the wine game, thus overhead has to fall in order for the books to work and crush pads are just the trick. Sharing equipment, utilizing available resources as a group, sharing knowledge…these are all good things. There is something very exciting about being able to release the creative “juice” once the restrictive weight of finance has been alleviated. Just thinking about crush pads makes me want to make wine… I wish I was on a crush pad.
I agree that some of the $100 labels coming outta Cali from phanton rogues can be overbearing, but so can the garish temples constructed with ego-glue that dot the wine valleys (anyone seen Darioush?…holy shit) However this is why we have the market place, the market is for weeding out the posers and celebrating the champs.
Will crush pads hurt the estate winery? I don’t think so. If you make great wine, you make great wine. People will find you and drink your stuff, and buy it again.
There is only one way for any industry to maintain success; it must adapt. The industry must be progressive.
Brad Royale