The challenge as I see it really is in trying to make sure the pool of passionate people is large enough to support your business. I fear that we in the luxury wine market try too hard to chase the same group of passionate customers.

Thanks so much for the comment Stratton. The Colgate example is textbook. Good stuff.

I also agree that one of the goals of branding is to leverage this so-called emotional aftertaste, whether created anew or borrowed from another. I also agree that communication platforms (death of network tv as just one cause/example) are fracturing, making it more difficult to reach a wide audience with the same intended message. So, a brand, in order to reach an audience with the intended message, has no choice but to get more specific, both in terms of medium *and* in terms of message.

To bring this back to wine, I’m reminded of a recent podcast at Grape Radio featuring Allen Meadows in which he discussed his decision to focus not only on wines made from the pinot noir grape, but the wines of Burgundy in particular. He did this because he wasn’t so concerned with reaching a large audience. Rather, he wanted to reach a very *passionate* audience. And so his brand is a success exactly because of the conscious choice to be *more specific* in it’s range of reference. In doing so, he confirms the idea that one cannot be both an expert and a generalist.

Mega brands are feeling the same pinch. Take a look at the portfolios of some of the major consumer product companies. They are responding similarly. One of the most interesting recent examples I can think of is the sale of Tom’s of Maine to Colgate Palmolive. CP is not interested in Tom’s for it’s sales volume, which is miniscule compared to their other personal care brands. It’s interested in Tom’s for it’s perceived brand message of environmental stuardship, caring corporate philosophy, and for it’s passionate audience — three things that would take CP decades to earn, if it ever could.