Guest Post: Why Tasmania Does Not Need More GI’s

 

In response to my piece last week arguing for a more formal carving up of regions within Tasmania, Paul Smart has penned the below counter-argument. Paul is a viticulturalist and winemaker at Pressing Matters (www.pressingmatters.com.au) in Tasmania.

 

I have been making wine now for 15 years in various places around Australia, with the last 7 years based here in Hobart, Tasmania, and with no wish of ever moving away.  Tasmania is a great place to live and a great place to make wine.  I will be here for a long time and as such I take a great interest in the future of the industry, not only for my winemaking wife and I, but also for our son.

I am writing this post in response to several views that been expressed about Tasmania needing to be split up from its current one GI (it actually is not a GI, but a State, technical difference) to multiple GI’s.  This could involve 4 GI’s based on the Wine Tasmania Touring Guide: North West, South, East and Tamar Valley, or even more to include other areas (eg. Derwent Valley, Upper Derwent Valley, Coal River, Huon, etc.). So why do we not need to carve up the State?

The first point is that the State is small, not in grand size, but in terms of wine production and area planted.  We currently sit 15^th place of a crowded marketplace of 43 GI’s.

	Region	2010 ha		Region	2010 ha		Region	2010 ha
1	Riverina	20,154	16	Heathcote	1,245	31	Granite Belt	331
2	Riverland	20,009	17	Geographe	1,181	32	Swan Hill (NSW)	308
3	Barossa Valley	9,763	18	Adelaide Plains	880	33	Tumbarumba	254
4	Murray Darling - VIC	8,339	19	Pyrenees	874	34	Gippsland	235
5	Murray Darling - NSW	6,533	20	Rutherglen	853	35	Macedon Ranges	224
6	McLaren Vale	6,490	21	Swan District	784	36	Southern Highlands	202
7	Langhorne Creek	5,957	22	Bendigo	771	37	Henty	183
8	Margaret River	4,894	23	Mornington Peninsula	752	38	Sunbury	129
9	Clare Valley	4,801	24	Perricoota	671	39	Peel	96
10	Swan Hill (VIC)	3,869	25	Geelong	515	40	The Peninsulas	93
11	Adelaide Hills	3,861	26	Grampians	506	41	Kangaroo Island	89
12	Hunter	3,450	27	Hilltops	484	42	Beechworth	57
13	Great Southern	2,804	28	Southern Fleurieu	414	43	Shoalhaven Coast	40
14	Yarra Valley	2,440	29	Gundagai	408
15	Tasmania	1,251	30	Strathbogie Ranges	369

Should we carve up into 4 GI’s, then we would be around the size of the Granite Belt, Swan Hill or Tumbarumba, regions that don’t have as much brand presence as others larger than Tasmania.  Carve it up even more and we become even less significant. 

Second point is that we are the only GI in Australia that is actually a State.  This means we have one entire State Government promoting and supporting one entire GI.  Should we split up, then each GI would compete with each of the other GI’s for the same source of funding and support. 

Third point is that to split us up, we would need to create multiple organisations to run them, each trying to promote Brand “insert GI name”, instead of how we are all currently focused, Brand Tasmania.  This splitting of resources would create inefficiencies and wastage, and would dilute the excellent job that Wine Tasmania is doing.

Fourth point is the marketing angle.  The argument that “if we can create separate areas, we can market better” is invalid.  A lot of producers are using local identifiers already, or Sub GI’s, such as Pressing Matters stating on their front label Coal River, Tasmania.  This works for high involvement consumers who want a more technical story.  But the majority of consumer don’t have a high involvement, and only remember large wine regions (ie. Barossa, Margaret River).  Dr Armando Corsi of the University of South Australia Marketing School has research that shows that “brand loyalty comes with greater share of the market”.  That can extend to Brand Tasmania loyalty, carve our share into multiple pieces and carve up the loyalty.

Fifth point is that Tasmania is a very hard place to grow grapes with multiple challenges. Some years some areas can get wiped out.  But by drawing lines through the State you are limiting individual companies from buying fruit from elsewhere in dire times. 

Sixth point, how do you draw the lines?  Can you just draw willy nilly on a map?  What about delineating by style?  There is no distinct, consistent style similarity within areas, nor a style difference between areas. This carve up process would divide people and create ill will within a small industry. 

So in summary I don’t think we need to be talking about this until we grow four fold.  I think we should keep pushing the wheelbarrow of Brand Tasmania, as collaboration is much better than division.  The current system of using local identifiers works for high involvement consumers, and maybe we could formalise some Sub-GI’s in the future (cost?). Tasmania has a bright future, and I can’t wait for the ride!