Sat 18 Sep 2010
One tries to cultivate a thick-skin in the business of journalism, especially in the segment devoted to reviewing and criticizing. Believe me, in several decades of reviewing books, wine, art, restaurants, classical CDs, movies and other cultural forms, I’ve had the equivalent of a box-load of dead cats flung at my head, including — regarding a negative restaurant review — a death threat that the newspaper I formerly worked for took seriously enough to provide me with security. (Those were the days!) Still, it rankled my pointy little head to receive the following comment in response to a post on this blog, on May 19, about Kendall-Jackson’s proliferating range of brands and labels:
“I know it’s just a small factual detail (never let the facts interrupt a good story) but Kendall-Jackson is not a company. It doesn’t own anything. Kendall-Jackson is a brand with its own winemakers, etc. just like the other wineries you mentioned. A minor point to you, no doubt, but when assuming the role of informing the public, it is sometimes reassuring to know that the writer has a basic knowledge of the subject.”
This comment came from Hugh Green and it was posted on Sept. 15; I stumbled on it a few days ago.
Apparently, this sentence from that post contained the offending word:
“Though at 5.5 million cases a year in 2009 (according to San Francisco Business Times), K-J doesn’t compete with Diageo, Gallo, The Wine Group or Constellation, the company makes and sells a hell of a lot of wine.”
All right, let’s start at the most basic level. The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition (2005) offers its first definition of “company” as “a commercial business.” Kendall-Jackson — or any other winery or producer, large or small — is certainly that. However they might market the image of wine country, the wine life, elegance, sophistication, connection with nature, hands-on craftsmanship, wineries are in the business of selling wine; if they don’t perform that function, they don’t survive.
On the issue of Kendall-Jackson not owning anything, the point on which Green thinks I have erred so drastically that I have betrayed the trust of my readers, he’s wrong. Soon after the winery produced its first vintage in 1982, owner Jess Jackson started acquiring properties. In 1988, for example, he bought Edmeades Vineyards in Mendocino. In 1994, he purchased Robert Pepi, the winery and vineyards. (Pepi cannot use his name on labels now and makes cabernets under his Eponymous label.) The year 2006 saw Jackson in high acquisition mode; within two months that summer, he took in Robert Pecota and Murphy-Goode and then for $97 million purchased Legacy Estates, which owned Freemark Abbey, Arrowood and Byron, a purchase that included winery facilities, brands, inventory and vineyards, all of these brought under the Kendall-Jackson umbrella. Altogether, Kendall-Jackson owns about 14,000 aces in California. This list is just a selection of Kendall-Jackson’s acquisitions over 25 years and does not include properties in Italy, Chile and Argentina.
A company, however, doesn’t have to “own” anything. Many companies provide services. In fact, these days, a company can consist of nothing more than a person in a room with a computer. Even I could be a company except for the fact that this “commercial business” doesn’t make any, you know, money.
September 20th, 2010 at 12:56 am
I remember that woman who threatened to kill you, Fredric. She used to come into East India Company/Restaurant Raji (which it was called at the time I cannot remember), and complain about how awful you were, and ask how on earth did Raji deal with it. And Raji told her how, but I don’t think it did much good.
September 22nd, 2010 at 9:05 am
Wow…. That’s a strange one. I’m not even sure the point he was trying to make.
Oh and by the way, glad the crazy person didn’t succeed in your demise.
September 22nd, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Thom, I may very well be a strange one, but I wasn’t trying to make any point, just reminiscing about a truly strange character that both Fredric and I came into contact with, although fortunately in Fredric’s case less contact than was feared. I had hoped it was sufficiently clear that I do not share the aggrieved restaurant-owner’s opinion of Fredric, but maybe it wasn’t so plain, which I regret. More to the point, when Fredric first reviewed Raji’s East India Company—perhaps I should make it quite clear here that it was not Raji who threatened Fredric—he had a few criticisms in a largely rather positive review, which criticisms, frankly, riled Raji at first; but when she had given it some thought, she realized that perhaps he had had good reason for those criticisms, and that she might profit therefrom. This was what Raji tried to convey to the woman who threatened Fredric, but, alas, to no avail.
September 23rd, 2010 at 9:23 am
Robert I apologize, I was speaking to the strangeness of the KJ not being a company comment. I didn’t understand the response the poster made. Did he see this as insulting KJ? Was he just ignorant himself of what a large company KJ is.
On the other hand, how anyone could wish FK harm is mind boggling indeed! He and his writing style is always informative, interesting and respectful.
Why FK, is sweet enough to cause diabetes!
September 23rd, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Thom, no need for an apology, except from me for misunderstanding what comment you meant. And yes, Fredric is sweet enough to cause diabetes, and one could say the same thing about LL. Regards.
September 24th, 2010 at 8:38 am
OK, boys, that’ll be enough of that! I prefer to think that I have SOME edge to my character. Tis not all sweetness and light within FK teeming psyche…