The article starts off quite mildly, with some very sensible ideas, followed by some good data collecting. The data are then explained in terms of possible causes. Then the article finishes by going completely off the rails. The bottom line is expressed as:
Women are significantly under-represented among US wine drinkers who spend $15 or more on a bottle. Could they be the next growth opportunity?Other people have already commented on this article (eg. Tom Wark: Expensive wines, men v women, and peacock feathers), but I wish to focus on something rather different.
The data involved in the report is discussed like this:
One finding ... was that women generally spend less money on wine than men. This finding held for all 6 markets we studied for the report (US, Canada, UK, Japan, China, Australia), but was especially true in the US market, where the female share of wine drinkers spending over $20 in off premise fell to 35% (vs 50% incidence in the monthly wine drinking population).
Our US Premium Wine Drinkers 2019 report in July also showed this lack of female participation in premium wine in general (defined as typical spend of $15+ in off premise) – at this level, the gender split is a very similar 64% male and 36% female.So, the data indicate that there are fewer women than men among purchasers of premium wines. To me, that seems quite sensible on the part of the women, since I am generally absent from that end of the wine market, myself. Value for money plummets as value increases, as I have shown many times in this blog (click on the Value for money search link under Labels For Posts at the right of this page). Under these circumstances, I can get some very good wine for $US 12-20, certainly enough to match the amount of wine I drink. So why should I pay more, except for special circumstances?
So, we do not need to look very far for an explanation for the gender imbalance; and Ms Halstead quickly finds it, too:
One clue may come from differing gender attitudes to money in general ... A study of [the] US customer base published in 2018 ... suggested that women were more cautious and sensible with their money, and less tolerant of risky or aggressive investing strategies. A similar study in 2019 among UK private investors also reported very similar findings. Various academics ... have also put forward similar theories regarding men’s impetuousness in spending their disposable income and financial risk-taking.So, the women are more sensible than the men. Has any woman ever doubted this? Unfortunately, Ms Halstead then concludes:
So in life, so, it appears, in wine. Our US data on wine drinker attitudes consistently shows that, while women appear to know as much about wine as men, they are significantly less confident in that knowledge. As such, they gravitate towards reassurance and safety in their wine choices, and will often opt for a cheaper, tried-and-tested wine over a more expensive and unknown product.Now, hold on just a cotton-picking minute! It is a long way from wine being <$20 to wine being cheaper. We are talking about value-for-money, not cheapness or untestedness. The conclusion here does not actually match the data (the inference does not follow logically from the premise).
Sadly, it gets worse. The final conclusion is:
So, as we consider the absence of women in the US premium wine consumer base – out of 22 million, 14 million are men, so theoretically to match the monthly wine drinking population we are missing 6 million or so women – it’s clear that we need to work a bit harder to convince my gender that expensive wine is worth buying.In other words, there are 6 million sensible low-risk-taking money-wise women in the USA who should be actively encouraged to start behaving more like the men, and spend unnecessary amounts of money.
I see this is as being as sexist as anything I have ever heard. Why should we make the women more like the men? Why not, instead, make the men more like the women? If the women are behaving sensibly, as Ms Halstead suggests, then surely the latter would be a much better idea for society as a whole.
It is time for people to stop thinking that men are always the enviable ones. We will never get rid of gender bias, let alone discrimination, if we always see an apparently male-preferred role or behavior as the default, and thereby think that we need to modify an apparently female-preferred role to match it. The men are not necessarily the best role models! Instead, we should think about what sort of society we want to live in, and then try to adjust whichever behavior is at odds with this.
It is totally unsuitable to place marketing dollars (designed to increase alcohol-based profits) ahead of societal good. That is, we should not encourage people to spend more money, when their own behavior currently indicates that they think this is unnecessary. If the wine industry wishes to be seen as a responsible part of society, then it must realize that profiteering is a very different thing from education. Teaching people to value high-quality wines is one thing, but encouraging them to pay excessive money for it is another thing altogether.
I will finish with an alternative, but closely related, example. If you go into any poker room, in any casino or sleazy back-street dive, anywhere in the world, you will immediately notice that >95% of the participants are male. Indeed, gambling is generally carried out by men (but not all men!), with the major exception being the purchase of lottery tickets, which is more gender neutral. Does this really mean that we should be encouraging women to acquire a (potentially financially ruinous) gambling addiction, just to make poker unbiased? I hope not; but I have actually seen this suggested, as well.
Lifting a quote from the Wine Intelligence report press release:
ReplyDelete"Among the myths we busted was one about objective knowledge. It turns out women have, on average, the same wine knowledge levels as men – though this is often masked by the fact that men appear less inhibited about sharing the knowledge they do have. . . ."
This portmanteau has recently entered the American vernacular:
Mansplaining
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining
Wine has historically been a male-dominated hobby.
A review of the English language wine magazines shows a disproportionate percentage of men as general interest article writers/columnists/rating critics.
Jancis Robinson MW was arguably the first female wine writer/wine critic to come to the attention of U.S. wine enthusiasts through "mass" media.
(I recall being introduced to her through her wine course that aired on my Los Angeles public television station in the late 1980s or early 1990s.)
Today we have a more proportionate percentage of female MW-es and MS-es and writers who have taken up the pen in celebration of the grape.
Indeed, gender bias has always been obvious in the wine world, both in production and in consumption. The blog post argues that there are two ways to address this, and trying to sell more expensive wine to females is only one of them.
DeleteMotivated by composing the above comment, last night I ordered through Amazon a copy of Jancis Robinson MW's "Wine Course" that came out as a two disc DVD set circa 2004.
DeleteIt should be fun reminiscing my first viewing from decades ago,
(Am I the only one who still remembers "physical media"?)
The U.S. gender wage gap can also help explain the lower retail price point for wines selected by women.
ReplyDelete"The Narrowing, But Persistent, Gender Gap in Pay"
Pew Research Center - posted March 22, 2019
URL: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/22/gender-pay-gap-facts/
Excerpt:
"The gender gap in pay has narrowed since 1980, but it has remained relatively stable over the past 15 years or so. In 2018, women earned 85% of what men earned, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers in the United States. Based on this estimate, it would take an extra 39 days of work for women to earn what men did in 2018.
"By comparison, the Census Bureau found that, in 2017, full-time, year-round working women earned 80% of what their male counterparts earned.
"The 2018 wage gap was somewhat smaller for adults ages 25 to 34 than for all workers 16 and older, our analysis found. Women ages 25 to 34 earned 89 cents for every dollar a man in the same age group earned.
"The gender gap in pay has narrowed since 1980, but it has remained relatively stable over the past 15 years or so. In 2018, women earned 85% of what men earned, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers in the United States. Based on this estimate, it would take an extra 39 days of work for women to earn what men did in 2018.
"By comparison, the Census Bureau found that, in 2017, full-time, year-round working women earned 80% of what their male counterparts earned.
"The 2018 wage gap was somewhat smaller for adults ages 25 to 34 than for all workers 16 and older, our analysis found. Women ages 25 to 34 earned 89 cents for every dollar a man in the same age group earned."
Yep, gender bias is still widespread, not least in the workplace. The wine world is part of a bigger world. If wine purchases are related to income (as they surely are), then solving the bigger source of bias should have flow-on effects for wine consumers.
DeleteOn Joe Roberts's 1WineDude wine blog titled "Holy Sh*tballs! (The US Wine Market’s Impending Hangover)" . . .
ReplyDeleteURL: http://www.1winedude.com/the-us-wine-markets-impending-hangover/
. . . I "floated" a theory on how U.S. core wine drinkers assign a budget for their weekly wine bottle purchase.
Let me cite it here:
"With a nominal 40-hour work week here in the U.S., most consumers have a 'comfort zone' for spending on a bottle of wine each week: the monetary equivalent of one hour of their wage.
"Citing Bureau of Labor Statistics data:
" 'Wages in the United States increased to [an average of] 23.70 USD/Hour in October [2019] . . .'
URL: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wages
"$23.70 covers a lot of wine options."
But that $23.70 won't get you many Napa Valley Cabernets.
(Second part of my 1WineDude blog comment follows . . .)
An interesting (and quantitative) theory. One hour may not be the exact number, but it is surely in the right ball-park. At least, I base that conclusion on my own wine budgeting.
Delete[Second part of my 1WineDude blog comment]
ReplyDelete"Citing the cover story titled 'California Cabernet Sauvignon: Napa’s Stunning 2016 Vintage' in Wine Spectator magazine (November 15, 2019):
" 'Sticker shock remains a problem for Napa Cabernet lovers, however. Of the wines in this [nearly 600 submissions Cabernets Sauvignons and blends] report, more than 50% cost more than $100 per bottle. That trend is here to stay . . .'
"With pricing equal to multiples of a consumer’s equivalent hourly wage, Napa Cabernet Sauvignons and blends are pricing themselves out of the weekly household food and beverage budget of the majority of the 16% core wine drinkers and the 84% non-core wine drinkers.
"Sonoma and Washington producers can exploit their lower pricing to take market share away from Napa."
The price of Napa wines is a whole other thing. I think that there will be a fallout soon, because the producers have saturated the ultra-premium market. Trying to get 6 million women to move up-market may seem like a solution, but it has no long-term benefits.
DeleteOther than the weird conclusion about lack of confidence, I don't see how the author is wrong. QPR is not the same as value, otherwise we'd all be wearing $20 jeans and driving used Hondas. I also don't see it as sexist or irresponsible to try to upsell a large, well-educated customer segment.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the blog post is that trying to "upsell" in a gender-specific manner is not a good idea in the modern gender-neutral world.
Delete"I see this is as being as sexist as anything I have ever heard. Why should we make the women more like the men? Why not, instead, make the men more like the women? If the women are behaving sensibly, as Ms Halstead suggests, then surely the latter would be a much better idea for society as a whole."
ReplyDeleteThe original article was speaking to the wine business not sociology. It would be bad for the wine business if men starting spending less on wine and good for the wine business if it is able to get women to start spending in a similar way to the men. I'm not really sure how this is controversial.
Sexism is sociology — the unnecessary assumptions about gender roles. However, you are right — what is best for society may not be best for the wine industry, which is only a small part of that society.
ReplyDeleteLooking over the horizon to the release of the 2018 vintage Napa Valley Cabernets, the "glut" of high quality grapes might lead to relative bargains in the retail marketplace -- perhaps under secondary brands by name recognition wineries . . . or by California "negociants."
ReplyDelete[Advisory: this newspaper article may not reproduce if accessed by blog readers from Western Europe, due to possible noncompliance with the General Data Protection Regulation . . . acronym GDPR).]
From the Napa Valley Register Online
(posted November 24, 2019):
"A historic harvest and a changing market: Napa's growers navigate grape glut;
This year saw some Napa Cabernet Sauvignon grapes sell for a fraction of the market rate. Here's why."
URL: https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/a-historic-harvest-and-a-changing-market-napa-s-growers/article_147ff98b-f600-5aa9-aceb-316c508028dc.html
Just a editing note- you may want to update the title of the article; it seems as though an auto correct happened. Oh, and in my experience selling wine for 20 years, it’s all about the person, not the sex, on what the spend level is.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the editing note. And, yes, person to person selling can be quite different to surveys.
Delete