Mike Veseth, author of Wine Wars, has checked in with his thoughts on Andrew Jefford’s “The Wine Writer is Dead” that has attracted much attention from wine writers and bloggers. (The full speech is here, and Jamie Goode’s excellent commentary is also worth your time.)
Jefford gave his speech at meeting of European wine bloggers. That’s the context. I read Veseth because he often presents a “sideways” view, with economics often at the center of the conversation (his blog, after all, is called The Wine Economist).
I’m not really worried about whether wine writing is dead or alive. I’m more interested in wine reading, which I specifically do not define as reading about wine exclusively in paid (generally print) publications. Wine reading seems to be changing dramatically and that’s the more interesting trend. Unsurprisingly, I tend to think about this in economic terms.
Economists who study the economics of food choice believe that a key factor in the growing consumption of high fat fast food is cost — fast food is relatively cheap both in terms of money and time, which are strong economic incentives. Even when healthier food is available and consumers understand something about nutrition the economic incentives push and pull them into the drive-through lane on the margin.
I think the economics of readership (and wine readership) works the same way. I’m not saying that writing on the internet is the intellectual equivalent of “empty calories,” but the shift of readership from traditional print publications to electronic media is influenced by economic incentives (as well as other factors of course).
At this point my mind went another direction than Veseth’s essay, thinking instead about how the shift to online information consumption (which may include entertainment, and may or may not take the form of reading) might change beer, or if it makes a difference at all. By beer I mean something beyond measurable changes to what’s in my glass (those still matter) — my overall beer experience.
Quite obviously, it is now cheaper — ah, the economics — and easier to reach a larger audience (and the beer audience is becoming bigger still). One example of how that can provoke change: It’s pretty well understood that Über beers get the bulk of the attention at beer rating sites and therefore promote big beers. However, how much attention would Lew Bryson’s The Session Beer Project have received in an all-print world (OK, with a bit of usenet chatter thrown in)? So there’s one for small beers.
And yesterday there were a couple of hmmm moments. First, a report from Shanken News Daily about how “bars like to feature the newest brewery in town or the hottest brand fueled by social media” created a flurry of conversation on Twitter. Later, Charlie Papazian asked “Do you give a damn about who makes your beer?” and opened online voting on the topic. Of course, I care. That “where” matters (as ingredients, and human involvement, and a few other things) is pretty much the premise behind this blog.
But while I think that MillerCoors should make it clear to consumers that it owns and operates AC Golden Brewing within the confines of its giant Colorado brewery I’m as interested in the rest of the story about the beers being brewed there. Is somebody going to that? How? I haven’t seen it in print. Will I online?
I don’t expect you to share my lifelong fascination with what used to be called “print” or even how stories are told. Although I take particular joy in being able to use words to describe walking in an experimental hop yard with a plant breeder, I understand there’s every chance that photos, a bit of audio, even video might work better for many (OK, most) consumers. These new fangled devices provide the opportunity to create something like The Long Strange Trip Dock Ellis from ESPN.com. Go read. Feel free to insert you own expletive, as [expletive] wow.
The point is not the medium, of course, but the message. The best beer-related example I can point to is Evan Rail’s Beer Matters, which is clearly on message but lacks the Dock Ellis Treatment. It runs more than 6,000 words, longer than you’d ever read in a beer print journal.
It seems it could only exist in this new medium. Of course, the essay costs $1.99 to read. It always comes back to economics, doesn’t it?
I can’t resist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY
“The medium is the message” – Marshall McLuhan
The medium is not the message until we figure out how to serve beer through the computer (or tablet or phone). Another well-worn line, but the best I can do.
I may be a bit nostalgic but the need for story, no matter the medium that delivers it, is universal. This is where craft beer wins out over big beer everytime. And this is what big beer keeps trying to capture but is unable to grasp completely.
In another respect, the ratings sites that are merely celebrating the newest biggest beers are missing that part as well. It is the story of the breweries, of the beers that will continue to drive the movement.
Stan, I think I may dissent a bit on two points. First, I think a lot of stuff works better in print. Well, some stuff. You use the example of the Session Beer Project. Let me offer a counter: your book. Had you loaded the same material onto your blog–or even, say, a blog called For the Love of Hops–it would be used by people number in the dozens or hundreds. Assembled usefully and coherently into a book, an order of magnitude (or more) of people will read it and actually get something out of it.
Then there’s this: “Although I take particular joy in being able to use words to describe walking in an experimental hop yard with a plant breeder, I understand there’s every chance that photos, a bit of audio, even video might work better for many (OK, most) consumers.”
Again, I’ve seen the numbers on photo and video sites. If it’s a very cool tour of a brewery, say, or rare interview with a brewer, you’d expect clicks galore. Rarely. But ask the average beer geek if he’s read Jackson. Usually. Words have obvious limitations, but they have real strengths, too, and I think we forget how many people still rely on them.
The medium is still the message but each demands different levels of resource. Good writing beats the hell out of bad video any day. But good beer writing is far from exhausted, too. The best remains unwritten as of yet. That is part of the message.
There you go, picking on my video skills again. I agree (and love the idea) that there is something timeless about words. You can have somebody like Tom Wolfe come along and muck with language in a particularly wacky way. You can have somebody like Joseph Mitchell use them in a “quieter” but still sublime way.
I think the Dock Ellis piece I pointed to is wonderfully written as well as presented. For me, that the words are exceptional is enough. But if coming up with a way to reach a larger audience – particularly in a way that supports the spirit of the words – means the story gets written that’s a good thing.