At a recent lunch hosted by Petaluma’s Brian Croser and attended by a number of wine writers, I must admit I said something that caused more than the occasional critical eyebrow to twitch. It was actually a question I directed at Croser and it came after an interesting few minutes discussing the viability of wine companies in today’s rather crowded and price-sensitive market. ‘What are you going to do to get the price of Petaluma Chardonnay up and over $45?’ was my question. The startled looks shot across the table at me from several well-known scribes instantly suggested that I had jumped ship from being an advocate for the consumer to becoming an apologist for the producer. After all, don’t people want to drink the best possible wine for the cheapest possible price? And shouldn’t it be the role of the wine journalist faithfully to propel them in the right direction to do so? While I entirely agree with the notion that those who provide quality for a fair or cheap price should be encouraged and promoted, there’s a rule in life that only the mutually rewarding relationships survive. I’ve been told that Petaluma’s Chardonnay, which I am very happy to rate as one of my ‘Perfect 1s’ in the Australian Wine Annual, has recently been sold for under $30 at retail. Even given its usual retail price of around $35 per bottle, you have to wonder how long this can go on for. While I’m aware that this does constitute one of the larger production runs of top-class Australian chardonnay, a quick peep at what the competition is charging reveals Moss Wood at around $53, Cullen at $46, Leeuwin Estate at $75, Bannockburn at $47, Pierro at $60 and Rosemount’s Roxburgh at $45. Petaluma looks a comparative bargain against wines like Katnook Estate at $30 and Mountadam at $35. The danger with a wine like Petaluma is that its ‘new’ owners, Lion Nathan, have very little experience in managing the profile and image of such a brand. Not only do they need to maintain a healthy price so not to tarnish its image and reputation, but if it doesn’t produce an adequate return on investment their toecutters will surely get to work. No brand that doesn’t return value on its investment is immune from being sold, scrapped or downgraded. The point I was trying to make is that if this ever happened to Petaluma, it would be to everyone’s detriment. While I don’t condone over-charging for an instant, we should all recognise that a wine needs to be sold at a fair price for all involved, including those who made and funded its making. Only then can we be confident it won’t be compromised.
