Thu 1 May 2008
You read that right.
KoeppelOnWine.com, which I launched on Dec. 12, 2004, is going inactive. The demands of constantly keeping reviews and commentaries going in six categories on that website plus keeping an ongoing stream of chatter, commentary, rudeness and
reviews going on this blog, BiggerThanYourHead (as well as attending to a real full-time job at the newspaper), has for many months been producing pressure, stress, guilt and a tendency toward voluminous martini consumption.
I started KoeppelOnWine with high hopes, as if anyone inaugurates a project with low hopes, but despite the brilliant design (by Lucas Bond and Katherine Carr in Denver: bondcarr.com & boardpusher.com) and my efforts, readership never took off. And the site’s small subscription component never attracted many subscribers, though the few I had were very loyal, and I thank you for that, and I’ll be pro-rating your membership fees. On the other hand, PayPal, through some technical glitch, was bad about not letting people renew their memberships.
At this point, and for the past few months, hits on KoeppelOnWine have averaged about 1,100 a month; hits on BTYH average about 21,000 a month. (No, it ain’t YouTube.) It doesn’t take my high school math teacher, Miss Bridger — could she have had a first name? we didn’t think so — to figure out where my attention should focus. Since considering the demise of KoeppelOnWine, I have consulted with friends, relatives and colleagues, with marketing and PR people, asking their advice, and the answer has consistently been the same: “Go with the numbers.” So that’s what I’m going to do.
I’ll be moving the “Wine of the Week” from KoeppelOnWine to BTYH. I’ll be doing more reviews and commentary on the blog, offering more information and opinion (perhaps even wisdom) about wine and spirits, eating and drinking.
Regrets? Hell, yeah. KoeppelOnWine was a great site, a beautiful site, and it made me proud and happy every time I looked at it, but we have to grow and adapt and embrace change, right, at least that’s what everybody says.
Ruth, that’s what is was. Miss Bridger’s first name was Ruth.
wines, as I usually do, I offer 15, but, you will notice, these are not all positive reviews. My philosophy is to warn you away from the bad as well as urge you toward the good, rather like a preacher of the fire ‘n’ brimstone school. And I wonder, as I always do, why bad or mediocre or just generic wines exist? How, for example, could a producer, Washington State’s Stonecap, in this case, offer a
terrific riesling (for the price), an undrinkable chardonnay and a bland cabernet sauvignon and sell each one for $11? Why do the wines, especially reds, in the $10 to $12 range of Australia’s largest producers — Penfolds, Lindemans, Rosemount — all taste so similar? Does that case have something to do with the fact that these once independent concerns are all owned by the giant Foster’s conglomerate? What’s interesting here is that Penfolds “Koonunga Hill” line, intended to sell for $11 or $12, I find merely average to forgettable, while the Penfolds “Thomas Hyland” line, priced at $13 to $15, offers far more authenticity and integrity. Should two dollars more make that much difference?