Everyone wants to be loved. Everyone wants to be understood. And everyone wants to be acknowledged - to stand out from their peers.
The paradox is that to get the third thing, you need to put the first two in jeopardy.
Chateau Petrogasm, a blog that reviews wine using only a single picture, is doing the third thing very well. Among wine review sites it’s unique.
Below are its two most recent reviews. Taken together they’re edgy. They have the potential to offend someone other than just the wine producer, which is an interesting switch. But enough talk, have a look for yourself:
2001 Domaine Drouhin, Le Montrachet, Marquis de Laquiche ($370)
and then:
2004 Sequoia Grove Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley ($35)
Now, after you choke down your guilty little chuckle, appreciate what Ben and KIH (the respective authors of the posts) have achieved here. There’s some humor, sure, but unlike some of their other work the messages here are instantly recognizable and understood. They’re powerful.
I’m pretty sure regular folks have become numb to written wine reviews. You can only hear “aromas of strawberries and sour cherries” so many times before it loses its meaning. Not only are Chateau Petrogasm’s good reviews different enough to cause you to pause, they’re written in the universal language of images. And what I like best about this pair of reviews is that they’re self-referential. Knowing about the first makes the second even better.
I think wine producers and wine marketers should pay pretty close attention to pictorial reviews and what they’re doing at Ch. Petrogasm.
To explain why, let’s take a trip down memory lane.
Some Historical Context: The Evil Cigarette Marketers
There’s a marketing cycle for products, and cigarettes are probably the perfect case study to understand it. When cigarettes were new, the marketing focused on features and enjoyment - how the coffin nails tasted. The pitch focused on direct benefits.
Then, when the people grew tired of hearing about features, they switched to “mechanisms,” or points of differentiation.
Cigarette marketers even tapped into the growing trend of women smoking and did their part to tip the scales, helping make it socially acceptable for women to smoke with the famous line “Blow Some My Way.”
These ads were more focused on image, something for people to identify with, rather than persuasive copy.
Or my favorite:
Yes, the headline reads “Blow In Her Face and She’ll Follow You Anywhere.” Madness.
Finally, they moved to ads without any words at all. Using motivation research, they discovered that by using visual identifications they could say things that would be impossible to effectively convey using copy. They gave us the Marlboro Man.
They made millions. But even this got tired after a while, and the cycle started all over again with direct claims about flavor and satisfaction.
There’s a twist though. After years of seeing the Marlboro Man marketed at them from magazines and billboards, citizen-marketers started to use the Marlboro Man image as a weapon against smoking.
These bits of anti-marketing are the strongest of all. We got as smart as the advertisers.
So, What’s All This Have to Do With Wine?
In a lot of ways the product marketing cycle described above has been done for us (the wine producers) by professional wine reviewers. We’ve got Parker and Wine Spectator pitching wines on taste and the 100 point “mechanism.” We’ve got Allen Meadows focusing on tradition and the terroir angle.
Since we can’t legally talk about the health benefits of red wine (though media reporting helps), we’re left with flavor, terroir and lifestyle. Pictures of vineyards and blurbs from wine reviewers. But people have seen all this before. I need a new way to get their attention, and so do you.
That’s why images like those at Ch. Petrogasm could potentially be so powerful. Strong imagery is easily understandable, and highly marketable. If you get a positive AND creative review from them, it’s like having Leo Burnett working for you, for free. Minus the sleeze.
Check them out. They’re doing some very creative and interesting things and could use your support.
I particularly liked the Sequoia Grove picture description. That one is brilliant.
Josh, I think this is the second recent post with a heavy advertising influence. You’ve got to pick up Olgilvy on Advertising by David Olgilvy. It’s the bible. Personally, I majored in advertising and never did a thing with it post school, but I’ve always been interested.
Good post.
Jeff
Josh,
I added the Ch. Petrogasm RSS feed a while ago, and at first I was really excited about a new way of conveying wine sensory information. I think some of them are really interesting and informative. What better way to convey a “powerful” or “awkward” wine than to put up the corresponding image. I do think, however, that pictures are not always worth a thousand words. For example, how does the review at http://chateaupetrogasm.com/2008/02/08/2006-sauvignon-la-pointe-domaine-ricard-touraine-20/ give any more information than saying “It tasted like blood oranges”
or
http://chateaupetrogasm.com/2008/02/05/1967-chateau-latour-pauillac-france-315/ tasted like “pencil shavings” (as if many of us have ever actually put pencil shavings in our mouths).
I like the concept overall, but they visual images need to be more than just a visual representation of a few words to be an exciting form of wine writing.
I find this kind of funny. Me and my friends turned to the world of wine blogging years ago because we wanted the truth. We were worn out by wine being marketed by measures that tend to exceed actual meaning or any real use. It was struggle for objectivity.
And now a picture of Obama next to a $400 bottle of wine is the future of this genre? My reactions to that are many, but I’ll start by saying that I think you don’t give enough credit to what the Marlboro admen actually did. I could make wine at home and call it of the ilk of Ch Pavie too. It might suit my tastes but it lacks judgment.
Jeff,
I’ve been on an advertising/direct marketing kick since I realized that blogging is great for PR and growing a mailing list, but what happens when you have to actually send emails out to the list you’ve developed? At that point you’re blatantly selling, albeit to a group who’ve given you prior permission to do so.
So I figured I needed to re-educate myself on this topic, and I thought I’d share my thinking along the way.
Greg,
I’m right there with you re: the misses. I subscribed to Ch Pet early on and watched the reviews for the past few months. I thought that they were either the type you describe, basic and to the point, or often they were a bit obscure. The two I highlighted were a revelation for me though. Like I said, the fact that one plays off the other really sold the concept for me.
Marcus,
I understand your point. But were you really expecting to find the Truth, or just trying to get unfiltered opinions? I think that aggregating unfiltered, biased opinions is the best way to get at the truth when it comes to something subjective like wine, and Ch Pet is just one voice to consider. Its just that it’s a very unique one with the potential to connect with a wider market.
What do you mean re: the Ch Pavie comment? I agree that if I or another winery tried using the cigarette industry’s techniques we’d fail miserably. I wouldn’t even want to. I think advertising is mostly sleaze. Thankfully the world has changed, for the better. Me saying my wine is great long enough and loud enough, well, simply isn’t enough anymore.
I’d be extremely interested to hear your other reactions as well. Comment here or on your blog, please. I’d love to read them.
Thanks for the comments guys!
As one of the folks who have posted some of the recent misses, I felt almost obliged to comment :-).
The good, bad, and ugly of this type of expression is that the images will almost never fully match what’s in our heads as wine reviewers. This leaves the images open to some interpretation - sometimes it will work (I’ve received great feedback on some of these ( http://chateaupetrogasm.com/2008/02/10/nv-perrier-jouet-fleur-de-champange-epernay-france-108/ and http://chateaupetrogasm.com/2008/02/09/2006-misterio-malbec-argentina-7/ are examples), and others not-so-great (see Greg’s post above :-).
In a big way, this is post modern expression - reuse of the art from others for a new purpose, and seriously involving the spectator into the art.
I guess what I’m saying is, I’ll take the misses for the chance to hit the home runs. And a miss to some might be interpreted as a home-run by others.
Greg,
You are right to point out that some of our reviews are simple and direct. While it might be easier to say “this wine tastes like blood oranges.” That alone doesn’t necessarily convey the idea that the reviewer was trying to get across with the image. The way the oranges are sliced, the quantity of them, the background and contrast, all of these effect one’s reaction to the image and thus the wine. To this reviewer, saying “blood oranges, sliced, on a table” wouldn’t be nearly the same as showing it with an image.
That said, it is very easy to carelessly post a review. But, at the same time, it is very difficult to come up with a great review. When a reviewer gives a lot of thought to picking or creating an image, it can carry incredible weight and meaning to which people react with far greater passion and excitement than any Parker or Spectator score.
Marcus,
First, it is not “Obama next to a $400 bottle of wine.” It is that specific picture/representation of him next to the 2001 Drouhin Montrachet. I could have chosen a picture where he looks goofy, as he so often does. But, I chose this particular image for a reason. It is not just “Obama.” It is the potential that Obama represents. He might someday be great, he speaks with command and force, he is young, he stands out, sometimes he can be a little disappointing. Granted, if a republican were to see this review it would mean something completely different. But, that is the cool thing about this style of review.
Thanks for all the input (we do like to read criticism too).
Brilliant article Josh . . .
Cheers!
Benjamin
I like the idea, however what one considers to be a universal image may not be that universal or meaningful to me. An example is the picture of Obama which does not suggest anything in particular that I can relate to. But now we are deliving into philosophy (as in “noone sees green the way I do”) and also there is the psychological impact of a persons face and its appeal (”eye movement” research)…
I think that the selection of image would be the most crucial decision in making a fair representation of the wine…
Phew. Tough choices - and looking through the site, they have not always got it right.
Shane,
But, as you mentioned yourself, there is no way to get wine reviews “right.” Even written reviews fall short in this respect.
That said, thanks for checking us out!
Cheers,
Ben