Has the cork industry given up on solving the TCA problem?

"Winemakers also criticise cork producers for failing to eradicate cork taint, the mould found in corks that can spoil a wine. Rick Kinzbrunner of Giaconda winery said most bottle shop customers wanted screw caps because they did not want to risk cork taint.

"Paul Bradbury, of Whybin TBWA/Tequila, the agency behind the campaign, said: "We'd lose if we were to mount a rational argument so the emotion that surrounds the environment plus the heritage of the industry is really all we've got.""

From "The Sydney Morning Herald" on a new grassroots ad campaign for cork closures.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 33837.html

"Winemakers also criticise cork producers for failing to eradicate cork taint, the mould found in corks that can spoil a wine. Rick Kinzbrunner of Giaconda winery said most bottle shop customers wanted screw caps because they did not want to risk cork taint.

"Paul Bradbury, of Whybin TBWA/Tequila, the agency behind the campaign, said: "We'd lose if we were to mount a rational argument so the emotion that surrounds the environment plus the heritage of the industry is really all we've got.""

From "The Sydney Morning Herald" on a new grassroots ad campaign for cork closures.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 33837.html

From what I see of wine journalist trips over there, most recently Tom Cannavan of wine-pages, no, there seems to be plenty they're doing about cork taint (less true about cork failure to maintain a seal).

What I guess still disturbs me is the (perceived) level of funding for critics to travel over there and hear the spiel (and not a dig at Tom for doing so). I have a deep distrust of marketing budgets....

"Winemakers also criticise cork producers for failing to eradicate cork taint, the mould found in corks that can spoil a wine. Rick Kinzbrunner of Giaconda winery said most bottle shop customers wanted screw caps because they did not want to risk cork taint.

"Paul Bradbury, of Whybin TBWA/Tequila, the agency behind the campaign, said: "We'd lose if we were to mount a rational argument so the emotion that surrounds the environment plus the heritage of the industry is really all we've got.""

From "The Sydney Morning Herald" on a new grassroots ad campaign for cork closures.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 33837.html

The cork industry appears to have been making a major [though belated] effort to reduce and ultimately eliminate TCA in their corks through better harvesting, research and investment in new cleansing [e.g. Diamond and ROSA] and testing processes and facilities and upgraded quality control procedures. They also appear to have recognised that their arrogance and complacency over many years has fuelled a major challenge from many alternative closures and have reasons to be concerned about the success of some of these - screwcaps in particular.

However for every claim about a winemaker saying they are dropping cork for screwcaps there are others from wineries confirming their preference for cork - particularly for top end wines that need age.

I cannot understand why the cork industry would employ an ad agency that could make such a stupid statement although the geographic location may go a some way to explaining such a mistake i.e. screwcaps have made a major breakthrough in Australia and NZ because of larger than normal, particularly longstanding, problems with TCA in corks supplied to the wine industry down-under.

Nevertheless seeking support for cork by publicising some environmental benefits [much smaller carbon footprint for cork versus the screwcap and highlighting the loss of flora and fauna and further potential CO2 debits if the cork forests are forced into decline] without allying those somewhat peripheral messages to cork's core strengths revitalised by new processes and procedures seems nuts to me.

If an agency is so devoid of ideas - "We'd lose if we were to mount a rational argument" - of how to persuade its target audience that cork is a first rate closure with its main fault now under control, what chance could there be for a campaign that appeals solely to environmental considerations?

"Winemakers also criticise cork producers for failing to eradicate cork taint, the mould found in corks that can spoil a wine. Rick Kinzbrunner of Giaconda winery said most bottle shop customers wanted screw caps because they did not want to risk cork taint.

"Paul Bradbury, of Whybin TBWA/Tequila, the agency behind the campaign, said: "We'd lose if we were to mount a rational argument so the emotion that surrounds the environment plus the heritage of the industry is really all we've got.""

From "The Sydney Morning Herald" on a new grassroots ad campaign for cork closures.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 33837.html

The cork industry appears to have been making a major [though belated] effort to reduce and ultimately eliminate TCA in their corks through better harvesting, research and investment in new cleansing [e.g. Diamond and ROSA] and testing processes and facilities and upgraded quality control procedures. They also appear to have recognised that their arrogance and complacency over many years has fuelled a major challenge from many alternative closures and have reasons to be concerned about the success of some of these - screwcaps in particular.

However for every claim about a winemaker saying they are dropping cork for screwcaps there are others from wineries confirming their preference for cork - particularly for top end wines that need age.

I cannot understand why the cork industry would employ an ad agency that could make such a stupid statement although the geographic location may go a some way to explaining such a mistake i.e. screwcaps have made a major breakthrough in Australia and NZ because of larger than normal, particularly longstanding, problems with TCA in corks supplied to the wine industry down-under.

Nevertheless seeking support for cork by publicising some environmental benefits [much smaller carbon footprint for cork versus the screwcap and highlighting the loss of flora and fauna and further potential CO2 debits if the cork forests are forced into decline] without allying those somewhat peripheral messages to cork's core strengths revitalised by new processes and procedures seems nuts to me.

If an agency is so devoid of ideas - "We'd lose if we were to mount a rational argument" - of how to persuade its target audience that cork is a first rate closure with its main fault now under control, what chance could there be for a campaign that appeals solely to environmental considerations?

Nigel,

I don't know about England, but here in the colonies "green" message marketing is all the rage...

I'm not convinced that corks represent a smaller carbon footprint than screwcaps.

-Paul W.

I'm not convinced that corks represent a smaller carbon footprint than screwcaps.

-Paul W.

Well even if you were convinced about the carbon footprint message would it have any chance of persuading you to keep using or turn back to a product that had so frustrated and irritated you that you had led the charge to find alternatives and having apparently decided, in large numbers, that the screwcap is best?

Particularly if you had read the quote from the ad agency that "We'd lose if we were to mount a rational argument"?

Seems unlikely to me to say the least regardless of the importance of environmental considerations.

If, and that's a big IF, they ever get rid of TCA issues, they still have an issue of consistent seal to resolve, which they can never achieve given the product.

If, and that's a big IF, they ever get rid of TCA issues, they still have an issue of consistent seal to resolve, which they can never achieve given the product.

OK but TCA has been THE issue that created the environment for the search for alternatives for top end wines, particularly those made for aging - and cork has been making major efforts with claimed success in that regard.

And the argument about consistency remains just that with claim and counter claim as research is presented and then demolished e.g. the alleged x1000 difference in batches of cork. Other research claims to show that cork can produce a very 'consistent' seal.

IMO TCA remains cork's primary problem and if the cork industry can continue to make progress, while admitting to arrogance and complacency in the past when there was very little choice of alternatives, cork still has plenty of support from ongoing research - and from important winemakers including others that have switched back having 'gone to the dark side'

Some claim that the 'consistency' of screwcaps is causing persistent reduction faults and that the growing use of copper fining to counteract the problem is a threat to human health - or at least can push copper levels in wine above European max regulations.

However, back to the origin of the thread, the statement allegedly made by the ad agency spokesman to support their environmental hook [unsupported by anything addressing the prime issue] of the new campaign IMO simply undermines cork's case.

In partial defence of Mr Bradbury, what he said is probably true. People seem to respond more to emotional rather than rational argument. He could of course have chosen to make a rational environmental case. And I could equally make an emotional case for not using corks - I find the waste of TCA affected wine very sad, particularly when it is a good wine that has had a lot of effort put into it and has been stored carefully for decades.