I remember the first time I saw an inniskillin bottle of ice wine - proudly displayed front and center at the duty free store in Changi Airport in Singapore. It was exquisite - a long sensuous vial of liquid gold with an equally goosebump-inducing price tag. I was a teenager then, and this was probably about a decade ago. We couldn't really afford it then, but my dad had received it as a gift not long after and we drank it one evening. Hardly exposed to wine as a family, we loved it - it was sweet and fruity and an accessible (taste-wise) delight to the unsophisticated.
After reading the case, one question that came to mind: is there a material difference between naturally and artificially made (artificially frozen) ice wine? If there isn't, there should be some rationale in promoting efficiency and thus lowering the price point of ice wine, and making it more accessible / affordable. In this scenario, Inniskillin would have to solely rely on brand to survive. Yet if there is a difference, how subtle are the differences in taste, and will it matter? Provost was worried that new consumers would be turned off by the poor impression and be forever lost - will they? (how bad can sweet dessert wine taste?) In a market that has multiple ice-wine producers and brands at different price points, this might not necessarily harm Inniskillin. Price discrimination can increase accessibility and thus enlarge the market, thus ultimately benefiting Inniskillin as the top-tier ice wine brand, no?
No comments:
Post a Comment