Wine Conversations: How Do We Get More People Interested in Wine? (I)

The not-so-short answer? Active education, meeting people where they are, transparency, inclusivity, and innovation.

Welcome to our very first "Wine Conversations", a new feature spotlighting a wine-related topic and transforming it into an evolving conversation between multiple wine writers across the whole of Substack.

This is Part 1 for this month's topic, with Part 2 coming from

Maria Banson

of

Brunello Bombshell

- so look for her response to drop soon! Each entry will include that wine writer's take, while also responding to points made in previous entries.

If you are a wine writer on Substack and would like to take part in this or a future Conversation, DM me and let me know. And note I’ll be reaching out to many more writers for future Conversations regardless!

This month's topic is one of the pressing for the wine industry in 2025, given the ongoing decline in consumption, sales, visits to wineries, and as the alcoholic beverage of choice for most Americans and younger generation consumers:

How Do We Get More People Interested in Wine?

---

THIS is the kind of crowd we want to see!

The most common response I've heard to today’s topic is a depressingly defeatist shrug:

"People will discover wine in their own time, if they're going to at all."

Aka: we do nothing different or difficult, and see what happens.

This is an understandable mindset in terms of not wanting to deal with a thorny, complicated issue. We are also, most of us, long-time wine lovers. We were surrounded by wine or wine culture growing up, so had that "a-ha moment" with fine wine.¹ Which tends to be the crux of this defeatist view: that wine is unavoidably complex and can't be "simplified" or "demystified," it and just has to be present for folks to have this "a-ha moment" and then want to learn more, all on their own steam.

But to that, I have to ask: for a group whom understands how something can be unavoidably complex, why do we insist on simplifying wine's lagging sales and popularity, including a slight decline followed by projected flattening of sales in the premiumization category?

And if we do nothing to make certain people are coming to wine in the first place, how exactly do we believe this "a-ha moment" is going to occur?

A Few Observations

People of drinking age of course *aware* of wine. They know it exists. They've probably had a glass or two (or three) yet it's also true that:

• Wine is complicated. Most do not know the difference between different bottles, different grape varieties, different styles, or different places where the wine is made. Even folks who like "Natural Wine" would be hard pressed to define that term. They simply do not know what they're drinking.

• (Good) Wine is expensive.

• Wine has a short shelf life once opened.

• Wine has an "image" in most people's minds, and that image is one of high culture, bordering on if not tumbling into pretention, "snootiness", and intimidation.

The value judgments about wine in terms of its cost and short shelf life (once opened) aren't something we can do much about. But the barrier to entry in terms of drinkers *wanting* to drink wine over other beverages - essentially turning folks into the "wine curious", and luring the wine curious into believing they can and should enjoy themselves and feel good about themselves if they do choose wine - on these fronts I think we can do an awful lot.

People Are More Interested in Wine Than They Think

My day job (currently) is teaching a "wine blending class" at The Blending Lab Winery to people who are, on balance, casual wine drinkers, or at best occasional wine country travelers. We even have participants, on the regular, who don't drink wine beyond Stella Rosa, dragged along by their more wino'd significant other, friends, or family.

My class has folks blind taste three single variety wines, breaking each one down by acidity, body, and "sweetness" (on the palate, they're all fully dry wines.) I walk them through how to test and determine each of these attributes, with hints of true-blue wine education in terms of how maceration and fermentation work, decisions made in the vineyard and then in the cellar, etc. The participants then score these elements individually in terms of how much they like each, so that when we begin blending trials they can determine which "pieces" of each wine they most want in a final blend. Each person ultimately goes home with their own custom blend of the three wines (and occasionally, when they can't find a blend better than one of the wines on their own, just a half bottle of that.)

By being an active participant in a process of breaking down wine and determining its attributes *for themselves*, they remain wholly engaged (even as the alcohol starts to muddle their higher modes of thinking! :P) I cannot begin to tally how many times these people have told me that this was the most informative, educational, fun thing they've ever done in terms of wine. The ones who have done tastings before, point out how tastings, and just talking about the vineyards and the grapes, never really got them to understand what they were drinking, or why they tasted what they tasted, or why they might like one vs. the other.

I recently went to another wine shop's "blind tasting" event, and it was plainly geared toward those already taking levels of the WSET or CMS. It was somewhat fun, for me, a decade-old wino, wine podcaster and writer, and recent WSET Level 3 student. But even *I* mostly sucked at it. (There was a WSET Diploma student next to me who aced it.) I can't fathom anyone else having much fun at this, or learning that much, or feeling particularly revved to learn more about wine after suffering through how little they could blind taste accurately according to the set-up.

It's probably true that few will ever want to devote themselves to high levels of the WSET or CMS, but I have gobs of evidence that most folks really *do* want to understand wine at a fundamental level, even when that entails grappling with a certain level of complexity.

As with all education, active education will forever be more effective than passive. And I'm not sure that tasting, alone, is "active" enough to count. It's a start, obviously, it's the start of anything regarding food and drink, but to truly bring people to a place where they feel confident in their wine knowledge and wanting to explore more, we need to give them more. Ted Talks about vineyards and winemakers and simple tastings aren't that magic bullet that will reach most consumers. Let's find ways to sneak in the education in ways that are active and more personal.

Tannic Panic!

recently wrote about "Post-Bottle Blending", which would be an excellent way to engage and walk tasters through why wines taste the way they do and how they change each other. (Also, built-in bonus - a wine shop would sell TWO bottles rather than one to anyone wanting to repeat the blend at home!)

Tannic Panic! Issue #88: Alchemy or Blasphemy?

Vicky Hampton

also wrote about taking a different, more personal approach to tasting notes and how wine bars or wineries can have more fun with descriptions on their menus. All excellent ideas, though only a start.

“Mindful Wine”

“The grape that made us fall for Turkish reds”

I've heard and read a lot about wineries embracing "Experiential" events as the new big thing. These seem to be, theoretically, what I'm talking about here - events where the guests "experience" something more robust than a standard tasting. But I also see some unfortunate approaches to this: blind tasting where it's about guessing the wine (what can this actually teach the uninitiated?) or painting while sipping wine (cool and all, but again, where does the wine curious go from there?)

We as an industry seem well equipped to keep the wine educated and wine obsessed coming back and enjoying themselves. Where we seem to have a massive blind spot is that "wine curious" category - people who would like to know more about wine, whether they fully realize it or not, but aren't sure where to start and feel ill-at-ease in taking first steps.

Simplify, but Don't Demystify

One of the most combustible phrases in the wine industry right now is the call to "Simplify" or "Demystify" wine. As with most catch phrases meant to incapsulate a broader, more complex thought ("Defund the Police," anyone?), the debate quickly zeroes in on the word choice rather than the issue that impelled the phrase into being.

"You can't simplify wine, it's unavoidably complex!" we say, and we're not wrong. But we're missing the point - even if wine is unavoidably complex, the phrase being bandied about is telling us that we don't have an obvious on-ramp. People are begging for a "simplification", something that can get them truly started, and from there the rest is *optional*.

So for example, how do we initially talk to someone who is a casual wine drinker? Who has supped de Stella Rosa and then gets dragged to a small family winery by their friend or family member? How do we get them started? Comfortable with a baseline level of knowledge that they don't *have* to expand upon unless they want to?

When people come into my tasting room (when I'm not teaching the blending classes I also serve flights and by-the-glass wines for the winery), there's a moment where you have to read the room. I have a short version of each wine being tasted, usually naming the variety and style with a fun fact about it and/or the winemaking involved. Not everyone seems intrigued, and it's important to let folks just sip wine and let the nerd-gasms go. But I'm regularly surprised to find out how many people stop me and ask for further clarification, for example "Wait, what's a mutation?" (when I pour our Grenache Blanc or Grenache Gris) or "Wait, what's an *orange* wine?" or "You said Paso Robles, I have a question about Paso..." and so on. I'm always ready to talk at length about anything regarding wine, but I never *assume* it's desired. Talk some, give them some info to intrigue, let them tell you how interested they are from there.

So, in essence, "Simplify" how you talk about wine to someone who isn't a fellow industry expert. Slowly complicate matters as they seem interested, but always have the next cut-off point to keep them from overload and mentally fleeing. And on that point specifically, I do think part of what people like and respond to is the *mystery* of wine.

When things begin to enter classroom educational level of information, when they start to ask you "How do winemakers know what to plant, in a specific place, to get a specific wine flavor and quality 3 or 5 or even 8 years later?" You can tell them a bit about soil types and grape genetics, but ffs, the ultimate way in which a vineyard and winemaker evolve together over time, how a blend is constructed year after year, as nature and climate dictates, this is a perfect place to emphasize the "mystery" of wine. It's a LOT of information. More than they actually want. There's an alchemy and "mystery" to it all, and it's okay to run with that, to call it that, and not dive deeper down that rabbit hole when someone's just there to sip some wine.

In my anecdotal experience, people love this. They love having a break-off point, where it's just "mysterious", and they can revisit and dive further some other day. Maybe. God knows, I have my own cut-offs, too, where the fine details of winemaking and tasting and how any given wine ages and whatever, I have to tell *myself* that it's all a mystery. Because some of my life needs to not be dedicated to gd wine.

So simplify wine, as the moment dictates, but don't demystify it. Mystery is your friend. It's your "Get Out of Pontification Free" card.

Be Transparent With Label Laws

One critical addendum to “Simplify” is also be transparent. Some parts of the current wine world are very much avoidably complex, and they have no need to be.

Simon J Woolf

has written about a number of instances where label laws have hidden information from consumers rather than reveal them. There’s the story where a Natural winemaker had to remove the grape variety from the label because it did not tate “varietally correct”.

Austria's Love Hate Relationship with Natural Wine

And now the Collio DOC in Italy is preparing to disallow orange wine producers from calling their skin-contact whites “orange” if the color isn’t within a literal range of “orange-ness”.

Old world regualtions that are about telling the consumer a truth (where grapes were actually grown, which grapes, which producer, what style, etc.) are useful. They offer transparency. But many are about hiding information. Refusing to say that a wine grown and made in a place in actually from that place if it’s the wrong grape, or wrong blend of grapes. Refusing to allow the grape on the bottle label at all.

This is avoidable complexity. This is politics that has nothing to do with quality, and it’s a deifnition of “terroir” that services the traditional at the expense of all else - it outlaws innovation, it obfuscates without benefit to the consumer.

Transparency must come to all wine. Labels need to be clear, and information-driven, not the opposite. The move to add QR codes with ingredient information in EU was a step in the right direction. Now they just need to re-evaluate which regulation serve a purpose beyond protectionism of the purely traditional.²

Introduce People to the Unfamiliar

I often see the question of what to bring to a party, to a dinner where you're the biggest wine nerd. And, again anecdotally, in my own experience, I find that this is a perfect time to introduce folks to a grape or location that they haven't heard of.

Don't force it on them: open the bottle, pour it, let them drink it. Some of them will ask what the heck it is because they love it. Maybe you mentioned it in passing earlier, but don't go into wine-nerd mode right away: much like with "simplifying but not demystifying", just tell them the basic answer - it's Sagrantino. It's Furmint. What have you. Maybe add "it’s Hungarian". Then leave it. Let them taste it. Wait for the curiosity.

It also helps that 70+% of the younger generations, according to polls, say they are most interested in trying new wines they've never tried before - a pretty sudden shift from previous generations!

Unfamiliar wine is an excellent conversation starter. If the drinker enjoys it, and wants to know more, I guarantee they'll never forget that particular wine. Bring a quality but odd bottle when you can. It's worth the risk of it being ignored or rejected. When it hits home, it really hits home.

Inclusivity and Innovation in All Things

Lastly, beyond the above - 1) finding ways for active education, 2) simplifying without demystifying, 3) being transparent with labeling, and 4) exposing people to the new and odd - wine would benefit from being less knee-jerk resistant to all things new.

I wrote at length about my frustration with the wine industry pushing back and pretending that Orange Wine was some new-fangled thing, even after history proved that to be false. But this is indicative of a tradition-based industry at its core: a fundamental inability to change gracefully or to distinguish between beneficial change vs. questionable change.

For example, wine is in an enviable position in regards to NoLo wine - unlike spirits, de-alcoholized wine uses the same grapes, the same vineyards, it doesn't have to lose business or sales to people wanting to drink non-alcoholic and moderate their alcohol intake. Yet currently, we've left this for new brands and companies to capitalize on. The rare exception, such as Oceano Winery, has seen their alcoholic wine sales rise alongside their non-alcoholic, when they introduced their new NoLo category (the first vintage of which has now completely sold out - at $55 per bottle!!!)

Natural wine suffered the same knee-jerk pushback, and still does. Orange wine the same (and was somewhat bundled into the Natural Wine resistance.) New World wine suffered the same, back in its day. Instead of seeing the potential upsides to expansion and growth and new categories, instead of saying "okay, this has potential, but needs work" there is pushback from the establishment. Dismissal and rejection of what tends to become the next big thing, which established winemakers then do not benefit from.

More to the point, it alienates the audience that IS interested and curious about a new category. Pure "Natural Wine" shops open up, serving nothing but. Non-alcoholic shops do the same. These become new industries unto themselves while traditional wine remains in place.

(And yes, I have no doubt that Natural and Sobriety advocates can be...a lot. But have we looked in a mirror lately?)

So in summation, let’s keep more open minds. Let’s try new things, make moves to open the minds of drinkers, too, embrace the new categories (and help them get better!) as they arise. It’s okay to call something liek it currently is - say it’s not quite there yet, but also ackowledge how infant it is and how far it might have aready come. We can assist it pushing the new forward, while benefitting from its rising popularity. The new never outright replaces the old, there’s little need for protectionism. Instead, let the industry grow. Let it expand. And I sincerely believe the audience for it will expand along with it.

1. I personally did not grow up around wine, or food, neither farm culture nor restaurant culture. So I came to wine late in life, in my mid-30’s, and I also never had an “a-ha” moment. I decided to try to get into wine for personal reasons that is a story all its own, but I started with Trader Joe’s <$10 wines, and every tier I upgraded to was hard won - I never liked more expensive or “fine” wine until lI drank a LOT of it. It never hit me instantly as worthwhile, or better, or anything like that. I just had faith that my palate would evolve, and it did. Looking back, there was nothing in the wine world that assisted me in this, nothing that drew me in, nothing that kept me there. It was simply something I was determined to do and only later did I find podcasts and writers and events that I had context for, but only after I had self-educated myself up to a certain point. This will never happen with enough people to make wine a better indstry financially, so we shouldn’t bet on it.

2. This is a very multi-faceted issue, that will likely get its own post someday soon. But for now, in general, more information = more transparency = better.