Questions The Wine Institute Found Un-Tenor-able

Below is the complete email sent to the Wine Institute who objected to the “tenor” of with the questions and said it would  not answer or cooperate. I had sent the initial questions in hope of getting a response and following up with further questions.

The first of a series of articles can be found here: Wine Institute Facing Changed Industry Climate

---

From: Lewis Perdue
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 10:40 AM
To: Nancy Light
Subject: Profile On The Wine Institute

Nancy,

I’m writing a profile of the Wine Institute because people keep asking me questions that I cannot answer.

Most recently, I had a phone call earlier this week from a former UCLA student of mine who is now at the Washington Post. He asked me to bring him up to speed on the Wine Institute as part of an article he is exploring about lobbying and industry associations.

He saw me quoted in the News York Times a couple of weeks ago on the background about the Napa murder/suicide and thought I might be able to help him on his article.

I was taken aback at what I did not know. Including 2014 wine shipment and related statistics. Yes, the TTB has a stats page, but like so many government efforts, it’s hard to wade through and easy to misinterpret.

That’s what made me realize that other people in the wine industry were probably in the same boat with me.

Thus the profile I am now writing.

Some of my questions are below:

(1) Why did WI kill the wine/health/research & education effort in 2006?

My understanding from talking with a number of current and former directors is that it was dropped over concerns that the FDA might begin to regulate wine.

(2)Why do you think the percentage of California wineries who are members of the WI is down?

Not counting associate (non-winery) members, in 1998, WI had about 400 of the 1011 bonded wineries (36%) Today there are more than 4,000 wineries and the WI has 814: roughly 22%.

FYI, I have heard from a number of the small wineries who are members that they believe they get their money’s worth and plan to remain as members.

(3) Could the WI have done more to stanch the loss of California wine’s U.S. market share?

In 1995, 72.9% of all wine sold in the U.S. was from California. in  2013, it was 57.2%

I realize that most of the market share was lost to imports. And that exchange rates have a great effect.

(4) The 2009 booklet on the WI’s 75th year stated: “In 1996, the alcohol research institute of the National Institutes of Health awarded the first of 15 grants totaling more than $10 million to research projects that would investigate the health effects of moderate drinking.”

Were all the grants made? Were they all published? Is there a listing of publications?

(5) The 2009 booklet on the WI’s 75th year stated: “The industry generates significant employment, revenue and sales, annually creating $61.5 billion in economic activity for the state and generating more than $121.8 billion for the U.S. economy.”
What is the source of those numbers? Where can I obtain a copy? The  number for the US economy does not seem to have changed since then.

(6) I know you have said “no” in the past, but will you share the use of proceeds from the USDA MAP grants?
Best regards,

Lew

And now … The Rest Of The Email Thread

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:	RE: Profile On The Wine Institute
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:19:00 +0000
From:	Nancy Light <nlight@wineinstitute.org>
To:	lperdue@ideaworx.com <lperdue@ideaworx.com>

Hi Lew,

 

Feel free to  refer your former student and others coming to you with questions about Wine Institute to me or Gladys.

 

Based on your on-going negative references to our organization and the tenor of some of your questions below,  I don’t believe it’s in our best interests to assist with your profile since it’s unlikely to be a balanced piece.

 

If you would ever like to meet for coffee or a glass of wine to discuss why we’ve had a difficult relationship over the years,  please let me know.

 

Best,

 

Nancy

---

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:	Re: Profile On The Wine Institute
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:06:22 -0700
From:	Lewis Perdue <lperdue@ideaworx.com>
Reply-To:	lperdue@ideaworx.com
To:	Nancy Light <nlight@wineinstitute.org>

 

Nancy,

 

A few thoughts:

I have no animosity toward the Wine Institute. But WI seems plenty hostile toward me regardless of what sort of contact is made.

Getting any sort of data or information — of any kind is like pulling teeth — like the 2014 wine export numbers that I asked Gladys for a couple of days ago … that said she didn’t have and didn’t have the time to prepare.

Sadly, the WI is not accustomed — or prepared — to handle the same sort of scrutiny that the media give to other companies, associations or institutions.

I do not go put of my way to be tougher on WI than any other subject of an article. WI is big, prominent and how it does its job affects the entire US wine industry. And few people in the industry — including a large number of your directors I gave interviewed — actually knows how it works or how well it does its job.

It is frustrating when the data on your site is old and incomplete…especially in contrast with what DISCUS, The Beer Institute, NBWA and others provide.

Those associations also offer a level of transparency, cooperation, congeniality, and responsiveness that the Wine Institute never has: not now and not when I owned Wine Business Monthly back in the 1990s.

That said, you are flat out wrong when you say “I don’t believe it’s in our best interests to assist with your profile since it’s unlikely to be a balanced piece.”

Here’s how “balanced” works: I ask a question or request data. You answer and provide data.

I make sure the answers are accurate and in context. I am doing my side of that equation. If your answer or data are incorrect, incomplete or “spun” and If i find out about that, then I state that. That’s balance too.

That’s what I did when I covered Congress and the White House and the federal bureaucracy for Dow-Jones, the Washington Post, Jack Anderson and others. That is what I do now.

I also have been on the answering side of that balance equation when I was press secretary for the U.S. Senator who is currently the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

So, here we are again.

If there are inaccuracies in my articles about the Wine Institute, then those inaccuracies are because Wine Institute failed to respond when it had the opportunity to do so.

If inaccuracies show up, I will correct them. But, when I do, I will surely let my 22,000+ trade subscribers (covering most of your members) know that I asked you first and you would not respond.

I would far prefer to get facts, answers, perspectives and context from Wine Institute to make the articles accurate, complete and in context. But failing to get that does not stop me from writing.

Lew

---

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:	Re: Profile On The Wine Institute
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:10:05 -0700
From:	Lewis Perdue <lperdue@ideaworx.com>
Reply-To:	lperdue@ideaworx.com
To:	Nancy Light <nlight@wineinstitute.org>

 

a final thought:

WI seems to have a fundamental insecurity. It can’t stand to have someone ask what it’s doing or how well it’s doing its job.

And it’s my job to ask those questions.