The Good & The Bad

The issue of direct shipping brings out the best and the worst in folks, no doubt about that. But I also think the Direct Shipping issue is the kind of topic that can demonstrate the power of online media and the power of blogs.

First the good in people. Alder’s post on the Stings has resulted in a remarkably coherent and well thought out set of comments on the issue. I can tell you that people are reading them too. In the past few days I’ve been interviewed by upwards of 8 different media outlets on the issue and what it means for retailers in general and to direct shipping in particular. But I want to bring you back to this issue of bringing out the good. Consider the comment on Alder’s Vinography by one Emily & Stephan of It’s at the bottom  of the comments. If you want to see a comment on a blog that not only sets the issue in context, but also delivers an appropriate rebuke, is amazingly articulate and actually takes action by putting their money where their mouth is, theirs is the comment to read.

More than anything you have to congratulate Alder for having what is clearly one of the most involved and well spoken readership anywhere.

But then there is the Bad that this issue of direct shipping brings out. I simply must highlight a comment I received on the post just below this. It is in fact the kind of comment I like to see if only because I know they are reading Fermentation. But it also highlights what this issue of direct shipping can do to people who are personally engaged in the issue. "The Big Boys" had this to say:

The last thing this world needs is
a presumptuous prick like you telling everyone else that a system thats
worked great for 70 years is corrupt.

You think you’ve got this figured out don’t you. If there weren’t
any wholesalers you and your faggy California vintners would be up shit

You think drinkers and your precious SWRA will win against
distributors then think again. You don’t stand a chance and it’s not
cause of few mllion doallars. Its because no one wants to buy 100
dollar bottles of wine ovr the Internet. And it’s because states don’t
want kids ordering booze.

Why don’t you take your shitty blog, your shitty SWRA and leave the work to the big boys."

The issue of and its stings will eventually fade away and we will all be on to another topic and another conversation. But the fact that the issue was unwrapped by bloggers and blog readers and by those that comment on wine bulletin boards will be remembered by, "The Big Boys" and all those in the media and the simple wine lovers that found introduction to the issue online.


15 Responses

  1. Thomas Pellechia - January 9, 2008

    What we need, Tom, are Supreme Court judges who blog or read blogs. 😉
    I love it that the “big boys” comment you got was anonymous. It’s the same tactic that distributors have used since 1933–do everything you can to hide who and what you are. What kind of people feel the need to hide their identities?

  2. Jeff - January 9, 2008

    In the event that any readers are reading this post AND NOT going to to read the Winemonger comment, I must ask you, dear reader, to stop what you are doing and read it it:
    That’s as fine of a “Dear John” comment as you’re going to find. ever. seriously.

  3. Alfonso - January 9, 2008

    if it is anonymous, why assume it was from a distributor? There is no provenance to the comment, hence, for me,no validity.

  4. Tom Wark - January 9, 2008

    Alfonso is absolutely correct! Who knows who left the comment?

  5. Brian Zucker - January 9, 2008

    Ahhh… the post from “the big boys”… just when I start to think the entertainment value of this issue is starting to decline we get another dose of pure genius. Big Boys – grow a pair and let us know your name. Until then you’re still a little boy to the rest of us.
    WineMonger – great post on Vinography. Thanks for stepping up.

  6. Thomas Pellechia - January 10, 2008

    Alfonso and Tom,
    Maybe it wasn’t a distributor person, but those who post anonymously must feel they have something to hide.
    Maybe it was a Supreme Court Justice! 😉

  7. Marco - January 10, 2008

    Whoever The Big Boy is, he/she should learn to use spellcheck. I should talk. As Alfonso said, it could be anyone. The anonymity factor on the web is just that. It could be the vino CIA-police or the ghost of Peter Sellers. That aside, the issue has exploded all over the internets. That’s what’s important. SWRA, my paypal donation is on the way.

  8. Matthew Apsokardu - January 10, 2008

    faggy? for serious?

  9. Mary B. - January 10, 2008

    Yes, who can know who really left the note? Whoever it is, he/she is clearly unaware that there is thriving internet commerce for bottles that cost well over $100 . . . I think anyone in sales would be very aware of that fact.

  10. Thomas Pellechia - January 10, 2008

    I’ve got a few bottles I’ll sell for well over $100…damn, can’t. Not licensed anymore. Best to drink them instead.
    Marco, the scatology, and poor syntax and grammar was either a ruse or a reason for anonymity.

  11. winehiker - January 10, 2008

    I would contend that “Big Boys” is a coward, but no, he’s just a cow.

  12. Marco - January 10, 2008

    Drink up Tommaso, the hour is late.

  13. Christina - January 11, 2008

    I think the term ‘big boys’ gives it all away. ‘Big Boys’ meaning those that gave 50 million to politicians over the past seven years.

  14. Catie - January 11, 2008

    It’s been my personal creed that if you can’t sign your name and have to float under the name of “anonymous, then you must be ashamed of your comments.

  15. Joe - January 12, 2008

    Keep it up, man. It’s only by calling attention to the unconstitutional monopolies that we’ll be able to fight them.

Leave a Reply