Part
7
The move from local to global
One of the underlying trends spurring on the growth of brands
is a societal change of scale, with a move from the local to the
national, and ultimately to the global. This trend has been a gradual
one, gathering pace over the last 50 years or so. The driving factor
has been the expansion and increasing sophistication of the media, and
in particular television.
Over the course of a couple of generations, our perception of
the world around us has changed dramatically. In western nations, as
recently as 50 years ago people had a primarily local focus. With the
increasing prevalence of television, suddenly people’s perception of
the outside world became more immediate and vivid. This was aided by
factors such as the increasing popularity and accessibility of foreign
travel, the establishment of the motorway network, and the changing
cultural mix of the population: distance was no longer such an
obstacle; foreign was no longer quite so foreign. The advent of colour
television, and the introduction of commercial TV were also important
steps in shifting the focus from the local to the national – and
even further afield. The emergence of satellite/cable television,
mobile communications and latterly the Internet have all aided the
accessibility of the media, and we have now seen the emergence of
truly global television programming. Thus the pace of change has
intensified still further.
No more local heroes
Let’s use sport as an example illustrating the effects this
shift has had (apologies to non-sporty readers). A generation back,
most decent sized towns had their own football league club, and many
larger cities had a couple or more. It was only under exceptional
circumstances that you didn’t support one of your local sides. The
football world was a more equal one back then. Yes, some clubs did
consistently better than others – Liverpool started a long run of
dominance of the English game in the late 1970s, for example – but
things were much more equal. It was possible, for instance, for clubs
like Nottingham Forest and Ipswich, to come from nowhere and enjoy a
period of great success: the driving force behind these clubs was not
a huge pot of cash, but instead exceptional management combined with a
good crop of young players coming through. It was also possible for
West Ham, a club then playing second-flight football, to win the FA
cup. Today this would be hard to envisage.
Football is very different now. Because of the increased flow
of money into the game, primarily from global television deals, a
winner-takes-all scenario has developed. Youngsters who support their
local club and have local heroes are rare. Distressingly (for a Man
City fan, at least), across the country youngsters are seen wearing
Manchester United football shirts, and most commonly with the name
‘Beckham’ on the back. No more local heroes, just global ones. A
recent report suggested that just half of the UK’s professional
football clubs are likely to survive over the next few years.
How does this relate to wine? Well, it is the historical
local societal focus, aided by a degree of isolation, that enabled the
emergence of ‘terroir’ wines. Look at the diversity of regional
cuisines and wine styles that developed in the classical wine
producing countries. Is this rich heritage merely a historical
artefact? It seems at odds with modern living and tastes. Should these
regional gastronomies be relegated to the role of entertaining
‘foodie’ tourists? That would be a tragic waste: surely it’s a
noble goal to preserve an interesting and diverse cuisine as an
integrated facet of daily life.
The societal shift from local to global has been the prime
driving force behind the shift to brands. The advertising medium that
consistently reaches the majority of the people is television, but TV
advertising is expensive. Large scale is therefore and intrinsic
property of successful brands: because brand building (and
maintenance) is an expensive business, you need to sell a lot of
product to cover these costs. What this local–global shift has done
is to create a ‘winner takes all’ scenario. The biggest and most
visible players in each market take an increasingly large slice of the
cake, leaving just the crumbs for the minnows. This phenomenon was
recently seen in action in the cinema world, where the impending
release of just two blockbuster films, the second Harry Potter film
and part 2 of Lord of the Rings, meant that there simply weren’t
going to be any screens left for other films to be launched in the UK
over this period. These may well be fine films, but this is terrible
for diversity, and diversity is what is threatened by the
winner-takes-all consequences of the local–global shift.
It’s unsurprising, perhaps, that the drinks business has
participated in this societal change. Drinks companies are anxious to
create bigger and better brands. It seems almost futile to resist this
change, and it could be argued that for commodity wines, branding is
no bad thing. But, as we have seen in an earlier section of this
feature, the branders have set their sites on not only the cheap
commodity end of the wine market, but also the premium end –
currently the last refuge of true ‘terroir’ or estate wines. I
think this is a move to be resisted. Wine is different to most other
drinks in that it is primarily an agricultural – not a manufactured
– product. It doesn’t suit brands. Force premium wines into the
branded straitjacket and they will inevitably be compromised.
This brings us back to the theme of this series: the
emergence of the Two Cultures in wine. It no longer seems sensible to
regard wine as a unified whole, considering terroir or estate wines in
the same context as branded commodity wines. [As an aside, I suspect
that wine writers and critics who ignore this dichotomy will
increasingly find themselves in a bit of a muddle.]
On the one hand we have a move to manufactured, branded
commodity wines: consistently made, with clean, fruity flavours and
fashioned from a handful of international superstar grape varieties.
The link with geography and vintage will grow weaker to the extent
that the country of origin may even cease to be an important selling
point. These wines will dominate the major retail outlets:
supermarkets and high street wine shops. They will be heavily
supported by advertising campaigns. Shopping-list-style wine
columnists will have a tough job finding anything remotely interesting
to say about these wines, but there will be such a commercial push
behind them that the critics will manage to say something, I’m sure.
On the other hand, terroir or estate wines will retreat into
a niche. They’re already making a hasty exit from the major retail
outlets; expect this exodus to continue. Fine wine will of course
survive; the casualties will be many of the inexpensive and mid-priced
estate wines from traditional wine producing countries. Whereas there
is currently a market for wines from quality minded small family-owned
estates, their problem will be that there is simply no retail channel
left for them to access non-wine-geek consumers who form the bulk of
their market. The UK’s independent wine merchants are mostly doing a
good job, but they can only carry so many lines. And while the
domestic markets in traditional markets are currently supporting
producers of interesting wines, will this be true in five or ten years
time? What if the brands take over there too? The two cultures isn't
just a UK phenomenon.
See also
Back to top
December 2002
|