Sunday, September 17, 2017

Two Umbrellas



To me, a healthy cider industry is one which accepts the delineation between Modern-Industrial and the Traditional-“Hand-Made” without insisting that they fall under the same umbrella, “Cider.” Recognizing the hypocrisy, a mature producer wouldn't attempt to be both. And at the larger level, a mature cider industry will let each path run it's separate course toward respective horizons without restraining the two in the middle-ground. (The same tethering effect, btw, is occurring on the agricultural side of this industry.)

But for now you won't find much talk of separation at trade associations, in its' marketing, or even at the customer level in restaurants and in stores. "No siree", says the industry, "We don't exclude anyone," and I continue to take flack for suggesting the customer is being mislead. The problem, I think, is that many new producers view cider and apple farming from the vantage point of immediate needs and pressures -the Modern perspective -and effecting every decision is the misguided belief that this is a "new industry." It's within this perspective (and this perspective alone) that the hypocrisy can exist. Here, both the industrial producers and mom-and-pop craftsmen are just making variations of the same thing. Something "new" needs to develop, and we all benefit from development, right?

Let me provide some background. For many years now American cider producers, the small and the large, have been jockeying among themselves to establish respectability and to carve out pocket niches. No one will argue this. But all-the-while, the same producers, the large and the small, have been using each other to increase visibility within the larger beverage industry. Not every small producer has colluded but enough have that they became part of the formation of all-inclusive state and national trade associations. The blurring occurred, the large and the small now share marketing programs with the goal of increasing "all cider" sales. And even though this non-congruity ought to alarm the customers who believe they are drinking cider from one of two traditions (i.e., a mom-and-pop farmhouse creation or an industrially produced canned cider) there is now a conscious effort to degrade those assumptions in the market place. "The same body is capable of both origins," now say producers on both sides of the aisle.

My writing here may seem theoretical and unnecessary. The market is what it is and producers will do what they need to do. That's fine, and I agree my point is not all that important. Except for one thing: It really bothers me (and many others) that companies misrepresent themselves and products. As an insider I can see what's going on and I know what is being intentionally withheld. Trade association information campaigns (or misinformation, depending on your viewpoint) about the farms and companies behind the creations has infiltrated the industry so deeply that now many new producers honestly believe they can be both artisan makers of small, "hand-crafted" batches, and owners of exponentially growing businesses making, like beer, a cheap drink from a limitless resource. They might say one project funds the other but they will not say that one devalues the other.

This cake-and-eat-it-too strategy would seem an obvious approach from the big-guy perspective. We know now that customers are weary of corporations these days. A walk through Wholefoods will show this. From Mondavi to Remy to Four Roses, the trick is to look like a hand-crafted product while enacting the very same industrial measures the customers were trying to avoid. But smaller producers are vulnerable of thinking like a big guy too. Not only might they adopt the "new industry" premise but there are many examples of small companies being bought-out by larger ones. This sudden pay day is like a carrot that eats at the presumed integrity of smaller craftsmen.

But it is still possible to escape that window and to view cider from the traditional viewpoint. One suddenly remembers this is NOT a new industry at all. It's been around for thousands of years. It's only the Modern-industrial way of making cider that is new, and it's only they who have to figure out where they belong in relationship to cider. In contrast, the age-old tradition goes on without the same economic pressures to keep up with. Traditional small producers make a living, just not a killing. And without lofty economic ambitions as the great equation (or specifically "limitless economic growth") there are no worries about cider: No need for a trade association, no identity crisis, and NO NEED for development.

Viewing cider as a "new industry" excuses non-congruities and bold experimentation in the same way Freshman during their first months at college behave inconsistently. It's at these highly insecure times that people tend to reach for the nearest group for companionship and security. But the same group won't still be their circle of friends come Junior year when they have found their suitable clique. My hope is that when "the new cider" industry moves beyond this awkward Freshman state and into something more confident the smaller producers will act as smaller producers again, focusing on the life of the product and not economic growth. This might mean the bigger producers and the self-proclaimed hybrids (who are actually just industrial producers too) will make off with all the money. That's fine. Their "new industry" will be secured just as wine-coolers have with wine. And as with wine, two production traditions will have zero association with each other. Chateau La Croix Davids does not sit down and conspire with Yellow Tail.

I hope I made it clear I'm not opposed to big cider or hybrid small-industrial cider. I'm not opposed to them any more than I am Wholefoods or fast food. They can exist, I'm fine with that. I can even be friendly with their owners and employees but I absolutely won't support them. I'm opposed to the association they deliberately make with with an unrelated product and tradition.

A mature cider industry will one day resemble the wine and art world where business-minded entrepreneurs find it hard to penetrate. They will try and fail to glom-on to the traditional producers, but meanwhile the artists and lovers of tradition (and horticulture) will accomplish for themselves different fetes. Call these fetes personal satisfaction or moments of beauty, the delineation comes down to motivation. Money-people can't see this. They sit in another window viewing the world from another perspective. But all accomplishments are not, as economists insist, powered by financial reward. There are other reasons for action. And two people walking toward two different horizons can not share the same umbrella.

---
Disclosure: In addition to my "Homestead" label I started selling cider in 2010 with the now-retired "Ginger Cider" and active "Appinette". Both of these ciders were made from big-farm apples, mostly Northern Spy and Golden Russet which were decidedly NOT grown as cider fruit. Yes, those two ciders helped fund my operation but I contend this was not the goal. I was just making original wines and had no intention of mass-producing them.Yet I can see how this might put me in the same boat as the cake-and-eat-it-too camp, a boat I'm happy to torpedo. I regret any instances during my Freshman years when I helped mass-producers of cider and apples use the traditional approach to advance their initiative. But this post is about a different topic. Re-read the intro paragraph if you need to.

2 comments:

  1. I get your frustration - there is no downside for the 'modern-industrialists' to be associated with producers like you, so it's not that they don't see harm in blurring the lines because they actively want those lines blurred. They get all the cachet of the authenticity that is so central to your business without actually having any of their own. Marketing materials will much more likely show bucolic pictures of orchards, apples, and production methods you (and producers like you) use, but there won't be any pictures of high-density orchards being sprayed mercilessly, tankers full of AJC being delivered to industrial factories, or scientists adding 'natural flavors' to insipid juice. So there is almost no incentive for them not to want to include you. And for producers like you, the downside is losing customers to much better funded operations and dilution of your 'brand'.

    My only issue is with the idea that money doesn't matter to the traditionalists. It absolutely does! How can you survive without earning a living? How can you attract anyone new to this profession if there's no financial reward? Or said better, how can you attract anyone that is not already financially stable? It's not an accident that the artist and lovers of tradition and horticulture tend to be disproportionately white and well off.

    -Jeff Harner
    Maryland

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ Jeff Harner, that was insanely well put. In fact, one of the more eloquent bits of reasoning I've read on this subject. I hope no one stumbles on your very last line and takes off in another direction (although what you say is true and important, it's needless after making your point about making a living in an industry of artificial) We now operate in an industry bursting with artificial growth, artificial ingredients, artificial money (funding), and most of all: artificial marketing. It's becoming impossible to present oneself as honest! It's likely that without the ability to make a living off of cider, the authentic (or original) version will return to America's poor mountain cultures, areas where apples are abundant and free, where prohibition went ignored, and where it's always better to make something for nothing than to pay even 50 cents per can. And if the adventurous want to find this version of authentic center they will have to pay a higher price while simultaneously wading through marketing bullshit.

    ReplyDelete