#and it can either end up consuming that being and fully converting into an angel or end up in a somewhat stable mix of the two

[myxineye]

angels refs for a personal project, the remnants of a former god who inadvertently created these giant monsters from their desire to reclaim their world again

[kamari333]

I had to actually look back to see if I made any tumblr posts about these guys. I couldn’t find any??? So I guess this is my oppertunity to scream about these absolute fucking bastards.

Now. Um. Forewarning: I don’t actually know a lot about the original dreamtale. Or, I don’t keep up with it, at least. I read the first origin comic (and a bit of the cream ship comic) one time a while ago and... i dunno. found it lacking? I liked the premise but there was something distinctly missing in it for me. So these headcanons are more like an AU (an AU of an AU, surprise surprise, I’m on my shit again XD) that I thought up to help me enjoy the concept more when writing it. I’ve been calling it ‘Dr33mtal3’ in my head, but a friend named it ‘Dryad Dreamtale’ so either of those names work.

So. Dream and Night are tree spirits shaped like skeletons, born of the tree of duality to be its guardians. They were made to be more like monsters to better protect the tree and put its power to use.

Now, plants and gods (and especially god-plants) have very different ideals, morals, and expectations than mortals and humans and monsters. Dream and Night are half plant/god, but they are also half monster/mortal, so they cannot relate entirely to their tree mom or completely understand her. Likewise, she could not completely understand them. Thus, the twins understandably had a stressful, dysfunctional childhood and have long lasting mommy/daddy issues.

They also suffer from significant other kinds of trauma inflicted on them by their villager guardians.

So they are both psychologically fucked up.

They both have “wings” and “tentacles” but Night hides his wings and Dream hides his tentacles. Night’s wings are smaller than Dreams.

they aren’t actually tentacles though. they are roots and vines. because they are tree spirits. using those roots/vines, they can directly soak up energy and water. likewise, the “feathers” on their wings are actually leaves (except near the base and ridges, which are more like flower petals). they use these leaves to breathe in ambient emotions.

when injured, they bleed resin. that goop on nightmare? excess sap/resin he’s overgenerating thanks to consuming so many apples.

usually only strong internal emotions would make them do that. its only because of such strong internal emotions that nightmare continues to do that even after a thousand years.

i think that, being plants (which are terribly spiteful and innovative creatures) night and dream can control the consistency and nature of their sap and resin. dream keeps his sweet and sugary at all times, but nightmare switxhes between spicy-like-ghost-pepper-in-the-face caustic and rubber, and mild maple syrup, depending on his mood and how much he wants the person he is touching to hurt.

i think that dream is both terribly selfish and painfully selfless all at once, both kind and cruel. i think he is a very seelie fae who will never break a promise, but will not let you go unpunished for breaking yours. i think he has no problem breaking your legs if it means saving you from something else. dream will happily beat someone within an inch of their life, then nurse them back to health, if he thinks for a moment it is for the greater good.

nightmare goes to great lengths to make people hate him. at the end of the day he is as disgusted with himself as anyone else, but he does it and will keep doing it because if no one fears him, they will destroy him. nightmare is a terrible unseelie fae, but he will never speak an untrue word or break an oath once struck. it is not in his nature. he will rule with an iron fist, but he is just as capable of selflessness as he is of cruelty.

i think dream is so concerned with the big picture he sometimes forgets little details. i think he is the type to take in strays before he has a home to keep them in. he befriends ink and ink makes him a multiverse home to keep his people safe in. dream then takes it upon himself to make sure it stays operational, despite eventually accumulating a city’s worth of people in what was originally a 4 bedroom townhouse. lucky him that ink has his back, continually expanding as needed.

i think nightmare is far more artistic and clever than folks give him credit for. i think he enjoys making things. i think he is the type of man to take great pride in building everything he has himself. his castle is made out of his own power: stone made of his own resin, hardened into amber; wood grown from his own bones; tapestries woven of textiles made from his own leaves, pets, and processed wood. his castle of black amber is constructed of his own blood, sweat, and tears, lovingly handcrafted art for him to live in. all natural. all his. (such a shame he never got around to furnishing all of it, having only enough time and drive to do the first floor with how long handweaving the carpets took; such a shame no one noticed or cared because the fear for their lives overshadowed any awe they could have had upon seeing the delicate craftsmanship of the arching ceilings and looming statues).

i think dream and night both love fresh water and sunlight. they get incredibly sleepy if its too hot or too cold. they are terrified of fire, squirrels, fungi, and insects. they dont like birds much either. they easily get jealous of other plants (comically so, to the point of sassing or threatening or passive-aggressively insulting non-sapient rose bushes or fica or succulents they come into contact with). they are scared of mistletoe (being a plant that eats other plants, kinda).

i hc that dream with faint dead on his feet if he gets too scared, and nightmare screams like a white girl in a horror movie.

i like to think that because they are trees, they have a “season” (like heat, but for trees) where they are very pro-affection. their leaves turn pink and they involuntarily cover themselves in pink pollen that drives nearby creatures’ libido into overdrive. neither brother likes this, so when their season hits they hide away so nobody notices (night because he does not want to seem weak, dream because he does not want to inconvenience anyone else).

i like to headcanon that a holdover from their human attributes means each brother can only formulate one set of sex organs. i’ll give you a hint: nightmare is trans in my hc (be gay do crime). he takes great pains to make sure nobody knows this.

i like to think that both brothers hide all of this, hide all of their tree-ness as best they can, and instead hide behind the aspects of being an angel and a tentacle abomination in order to throw off anyone who might look for weaknesses. so nobody knows what they really are.

These are all superficial HCs of course. The big thing is that i wanted their natures to be... more complicated than simply good and evil. They believe and say that they are guardians of positivity and negativity (and in a way thats true), but only in its most simplistic of forms.

Dream is the aspect of Giving: he radiates pollen and magical influence to embue those around him with his power. He can give them emotions. He eats positivity, thats what sustains him, but his power is to give. He could just as easily give his people bad feelings as good ones (not that he knows this). However, Dream only knows and cares about giving positivity. So he does. He leaves his magic and influence on the souls of anyone who will give him the oppertunity, and once the door is open, he will continually feed them his power to make them happy. He will eat/breathe that happiness, converting it to energy, perpetuating the cycle.

But unmitigated mania has its drawbacks. There is a price to be paid in the end.

Nightmare is the aspect of Taking. He takes and takes, taking the emotions and energy of others for himself. He can even take the entropy out of an injury to heal a wound. Nightmare can take positivd feelings out of others, but for some reason his body doesn’t like him doing that and makes him sick/hurt. He has a much easier time taking negativity, draining away the hurt and fear and exhaustion, leaving a calming emptiness behind. Nightmare cannot process or use everything he takes for himself, needing to expell it as a waste product. He converts negative feelings (and the wasted energy disipated through entropy) into energy, which lets him continue his taking.

You cannot fill a hole that is already filled, after all. You must empty it first.

These two aspects are neither good nor evil in and of themselves. There are good and bad things about them. But these aspects have been oversimplified and misinterpreted by those around the twins that even they themselves do not fully understand what it is that they are.

and i think a story about them coming to understand themselves would be so much more interesting than a simple story of good vs evil.

[mittensmorgul]

So I have a question about 9x14. Bart talks to Cas about leading "an incursion against Raphael and his loyalists." So we can assume he's talking about season 6 stuff. But later, Bart also talks about how Cas was called back to the battlefield because "our leaders wanted those captives killed, and they knew you'd stand in the way of their order." I thought Cas was the main commander in season 6, since he led the rebellion. Why were there other "leaders" that acted against Cas's wishes?

(9x14 Anon here, I know these kind of questions are kind of inconsequential to the overall story but I still like to understand these small things, especially when it comes to Cas. Sorry if that’s not your thing, you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to 🙃)

Hi there! I’ll start by saying that this is EXACTLY the sort of detail I LOVE TALKING ABOUT THE MOST. :’D I love picking at things like this and attempting to find the truth, as much as we can in a work of fiction.

I’ll start by saying I have already asked myself this question, even if I didn’t give myself a fully satisfying answer, back the week before 13.03 first aired, in October 2017.

https://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/166754538920/rewatching-914-i-love-this-episode-so-much

The series of thoughts I posed in this rewatch are:

Who ordered Bartholomew to kill those captives, if Castiel had been the one to leave them in his care? Who other than Castiel had the right to give that order? Just like the demon Crowley left in charge of his own captives, who tortured and killed Crowley’s captives without Crowley’s orders to do so.

It is sort of hand-wavey of s6 as a whole, isn’t it? Then again, s6 sort of handwaved itself in 6.20… Or at least dropped the curtain on all the secrecy surrounding the war in heaven that we’d only heard hints and whispers of until that point. But it also leaves out the entire previous year of events between 5.22 and 6.01, which we only saw in a few occasional flashbacks.

6.20 does kind of give us a vague timeline for events post 5.22, but not really. We don’t know how much time passed between Dean showing up at Lisa’s and Cas watching him rake leaves, for example. Cas only describes the time span as “those first weeks back in Heaven,” so it could be two weeks, or it could be twelve weeks, or more, before Raphael pulled him over and gave him his ultimatum.

We know Cas was building alliances with other angels at that time. They sort of hastily tried to show us the extent of that with Rachel, that Cas had other trusted angels working with him, but we also have been shown since s4 that… angels are difficult to keep in line. Uriel, Balthazar, and of course Cas himself. And a lot of others. We’re left to wonder just how “in charge” of the “rebel faction” Cas actually was in s6, especially when TWO of his closest generals? Commanders? Whatever, the terminology isn’t important here, but their PERCEIVED position of power is. But Cas was BETRAYED TWICE in s6 by angels he was supposedly “in charge” of– Rachel and Balthazar.

But what was the perception of all the other angels that were being told they needed to choose a side in this war? The angels who didn’t WANT to choose a side? Maybe they were fine with the status quo. Maybe they just didn’t want to fight. Maybe they wanted nothing to do with an apocalypse, but Raphael was demanding it, and Cas and his cohorts were trying to stop it. But when Raphael began laying down ultimatums, like the one he issued Cas to basically fall in line or die, I think Cas and a LOT of his cohorts were likely able to win the loyalty of angels who’d otherwise have had nothing to do with Cas, you know?

How many of Cas’s legions were converted to his side, to his cause, by angels loyal to Rachel, or to Balthazar, or to any of the other angels Cas had gathered to his cause? How many of them thought Rachel’s ideas were more compelling that Cas’s? How many of them actually knew about Cas’s ACTUAL plans to take down Raphael, and how many thought this was really a fight between the “foot soldiers” in each faction?

We know, for example, that Rachel was supposed to be one of his closest Lieutenants (THAT’S the word I was looking for earlier… >.>). Rachel… had no real idea what Cas was up to until she began to uncover his larger schemes in 6.18 (i.e. the episode we both meet her for the first time, and Cas kills her for challenging his plan once she begins to understand the reality of it).

But Carver era spent a LOT of time showing us just how little we actually understood s6. I mean, three episodes before 9.14, we hear it from Cas’s own mouth:

SAM [slaps his hand away]: You’re a terrible liar.CASTIEL: That is not true. I once deceived and betrayed both you and your brother.

He’s talking about s6. That season where he spent very little time in Heaven, despite constantly telling the Winchesters that it was Heaven and his troubles there that had been keeping him away from them all season. It sounds very much like his strategy in Purgatory, you know? At least on the surface, how he ran away from Dean to draw off the Leviathan… because that’s what he was doing in the Raking Leaves scene in 6.20, too… everything to keep Dean safe, to keep him out of it.

(meanwhile he’d unleashed soulless!Sam on the world, and didn’t seem to have any qualms getting Sam tangentially involved in his side quest with Crowley… which was his ACTUAL mission during s6.)

Back to the point, which was that Cas was deceiving BOTH his angel comrades in Heaven AND the Winchesters throughout s6. He wasn’t spending most of his time in the nitty-gritty fights in Heaven. In fact, we know very little about what those fights entailed, and really DIDN’T know there were “prisoners” involved on either side of that battle until s9. Well, we knew Cas-as-Godstiel intended to destroy Raphael’s followers, who refused to side with him during the war, but that’s ALL we knew until Bart told us about “prisoners” that had been taken, and apparently executed.

Because what Bartholomew’s little comments to Cas tell me is that Bart… really didn’t know what Cas’s real mission, his real plan, had been all along. The little scrums in heaven were a distraction for him, that he left to play out while he raced to find the power to kill Raphael and end the war himself.

But he apparently did occasionally peek in and lead a “mission,” or a “fight” or a “skirmish” in heaven, but then was sent away– or possibly not SENT away, but went back to his main quest for the Purgatory souls. Perception is everything here, and if Cas just.. left the fight, might Bart PERCEIVE him as having been sent away, right before “alternate orders” to kill the prisoners came from someone else?

Either that, or Cas did take himself out of the direct leadership of the rebel army in Heaven, and DID take orders from someone else while on that battlefield? We honestly do not know, and I don’t know if it’s even relevant now, because it’s all a game of perception.

Now that we know the full extent of Chuck’s involvement in arranging troubles all over creation, could Bart’s description and “recollection” of those events have even been “edited” after the fact? Heck, we don’t even need Chuck to explain this one… how about Naomi? The narrative has honestly never fully addressed it, and I don’t think it will be. Which is part of what makes it so interesting to think about, to me anyway.

Because what really was Cas’s role in the war in Heaven? Was he merely a figurehead who dared to challenge Raphael and then left most of the day-to-day running of the war to his lieutenants? Because that’s how his conversations with Rachel made it seem. And how s6 seems to make the most sense to me overall. Almost as if the war in heaven and those battles that had consumed Bartholomew’s entire perspective of that time… were barely even on Cas’s radar at all. He had so many other more important things to think about.

This is one reason why I found the whole “Cas as Commander” toward the end of s9 so fascinating. Because that was a role he was FORCED into by Metatron, and not something he was comfortable with. He took the responsibility seriously though, but I had seen it at least partly as more of his eternal penance for s6, and a chance to get a do-over on a lot of the things he always felt he screwed up during that time. And Heaven is near the top of that list– not because he directed the wars there, but because he’d neglected them.

The image of Cas as some great Leader Of Heaven’s Armies is just… not and never has been the reality of his character, despite being an incredibly popular fanon interpretation of his character. Even back in early s4, when he seemed to have Authority, he seemed so confident in the Plans of Heaven, seemed so in charge, the reality of that began to crack through by 4.07, and had completely shaken apart by the end of the season. I’ve applied that thematic to essentially everything having to do with Heaven and the organizational system up there ever since.

We like to think of Heaven as a military organization, and angels as soldiers with well-defined ranks and positions within a hierarchy. I think the reality is far more like Heaven is a bureaucracy, and half the people in the organization are scheming to overthrow the other half at any given time, there’s no clear leadership level by level and no clearly delineated pecking order or chain of command. More like a conglomerate of different divisions who each think their group is the one in charge, while getting very little input or guidance from the supposed leadership of the whole organization. A bunch of petty middle-managers scrambling for as much power and control as they could amass.

Heaven was made up of Zachariahs and Metatrons and Naomis, after all. 

eta: after I read the whole thing again :’D

Bart was just another low-level bureaucrat attempting to seize power for himself where he saw an opportunity. And like the vast majority of other angels, he died for it. And there’s now so few of them left and they’re STILL behaving this same exact way-- with Dumah having schemed her way into getting Naomi locked up in s14. I mean, nothing ever changes, right? Even when there’s only a handful of angels left, they can’t let go and work together. They’ll be the death of themselves.

(Except the few that seem to have realized there’s a better way-- like Cas, like Naomi who was at least trying to learn a better way, like Anael who would rather live a sham life on Earth helping people than return to Heaven even after seeing more sides of the bureaucracy than most other angels, and like Metatron who only learned better after he lost his grace and still ended up dying for trying to do the right thing... Chuck really is a jerk, you know?)

[oneweekoneband]

Today’s first guest post is by my friend and fellow The Singles Jukebox contributor Vikram Joseph.

Counting to 15, 20, 30… - Delayed Queer Adolescence and the Songs of Troye Sivan

- Vikram Joseph

On a humid early August evening a few weeks ago, in one of those converted warehouse bars endemic to inner north-east London, I was chatting over drinks with a guy I’d once dated and had last seen in 2014. There was a lot to catch up on, and the conversation ran unexpectedly, rewardingly deep. It became clear that, though we’re both well into our adult lives by any conventional measurement, we’d each changed and grown significantly in the intervening years in a way that films, books and the media seem to suggest happens in your late teens. The idea of delayed adolescence being a common trope for queer people came up, and I’ve been thinking about it a lot since then. Why do those formative years of growth and the exploration of self-identity seem to happen later for us? Is it a delayed phase of development, a prolonged phase, or both? And how is this reflected in the way we interact, the spaces we choose to spend time in, and the art we consume?

***

A recent viral tweet:

“Gay culture is your life being delayed by 10 years because you didn’t start being yourself until your mid-20s.”

At the time of writing, this tweet has 117,000 likes.  Clearly, this is a phenomenon which touches nerves across the spectrum.

To the extent that we can “know” a pop singer through their songs, it seems like Troye Sivan – still just 23, and releasing his second album – has done his growing fairly early on. In just a few years, we’ve heard him go from singing about tentative gay crushes to the fully-realised queer euphoria of his newer songs. And yet, the concept of protracted, stuttering adolescence is crisply, poignantly refracted through his music, and I feel that a lot of his immense appeal to queer people far older than himself can be attributed to this.

***

HEAVEN “The truth runs wild, like kids on concrete.”

“Heaven” deals with the internal struggle for self-acceptance – by no means unique to LGBTQ+ people, but one that everyone who’s grown up on that spectrum will understand intimately, in the form of coming out to yourself. “Without losing a piece of me, how do I get to heaven?” Religion is a useful allegory here, but ultimately a distractor – the duality Sivan is really concerned with here is about happiness. For a lot of us, coming out for the first time feels like a crossroads, where we have to make a choice between one kind of happiness and another, and “Heaven” captures this (false, but very powerful) dichotomy beautifully.

Sivan’s first album, Blue Neighbourhood, hangs heavy with the imagery of suburbia. It’s rich, relatable visual and psychological territory, exemplified in decades’ worth of teen TV dramas and coming-of-age films. Many of us will recognise it as the backdrop to the fraught intensity of that long, tangled conversation with ourselves; the feeling of being on the brink of everything and the precipice of nothing, the intoxicating, paralysing combination of anticipation and dread. Sivan deals with this at 15; for me, I was 20, during university Christmas holidays, back in the dull hum of suburbia. Maybe there’s something about it that gives us the emotional space to plumb the depths of those brave new ideas. “Heaven” conjures this musically as well as lyrically, with a tense two-chord shuffle, close, muffled production, and Betty Who’s guest turn evoking a better angel from the future, reassuring us, beckoning us towards the light. If I’d heard it at 20, or earlier, it would have destroyed me; it might even have accelerated my own journey.

Sivan sings about “counting to 15”, the age at which he came out to his family. There’s something that invariably surprises straight people, when I’ve tried to explain it to them, but will come as no surprise at all to anyone else, and it is this: coming out never stops. Every new environment presents a decision to make and a challenge to face; and while it gets easier (and can often be an incredibly liberating experience), it’s never a formality. The subtler aspect to this is that there is no end-point to coming out to yourself, either. Accepting yourself as a gay person is just the beginning; there follows years and years of figuring out what that means. And I think this lies at the heart of delayed queer adolescence. These are questions of identity that are near-impossible to figure out alone, and many of us aren’t surrounded by other people with the same questions until much later – either due to geography, or opportunity, or not realising how badly we need to be, or maybe all of the above. And so “counting to 15” (or however old we are when we get there) is a countdown to the real start of our lives, rather than to any sort of conclusion.

***

TALK ME DOWN

“You know that I can’t trust myself with my 3 a.m. shadow.”

Queer mental health remains poorly understood and inadequately talked about, both in the mainstream press and in medical circles. Working as a doctor, I’ve witnessed the stigma towards LGBTQ+ patients from other medical professionals – rarely overtly hostile, but often casual, unthinking and pernicious. The mental health charity Mind believe that 42% of gay men, 70% of lesbians and 80% of transgender people experience mental illness; the statistics for gay men are almost certainly an underrepresentation, as men in general are less likely to report symptoms.

Early on in his powerful book “Straight Jacket: Overcoming Society’s Legacy of Gay Shame”, the journalist Matthew Todd runs through an harrowing litany of case studies of young gay people who have lost their lives to suicide, violence and addiction. He then explores the factors behind this, both intrinsic and extrinsic to the gay community, and hones in particularly on the near-universal gay experience of shame (in its many forms) during our formative childhood and adolescent years as a key determinant of depression, anxiety, poor body image, low self-worth, and harmful patterns of behaviour.

On the gorgeous, shimmering ballad “Talk Me Down”, Blue Neighbourhood’s emotional centre of gravity, Sivan sings (possibly from a friend or partner’s perspective) about dark thoughts, struggling for self-acceptance, and, implicitly, ideas of suicide. The accompanying video is high melodrama, but then, so is coming to terms with your sexuality. “I know I like to draw the line when it starts to get too real / but the less time that I spend with you, the less you need to heal” cuts to the heart of the conundrum most young gay people face – desire, and a need to be open and liberated, versus deeply-ingrained feelings of guilt, fear and shame. In his book, Todd argues that these are socially determined but can be overcome, but it’s hardly surprising that it takes a long time to get there – and hence, “normal” emotional development is a protracted experience.

***

YOUTH

“What if we’re speeding through red lights into paradise?”

It’s easy to forget that there are very few conventional pop songs on Blue Neighbourhood. “Youth” (and “Wild”) are probably the closest, but while it might be tempting to read “Youth” purely as a love song, I think its real core lies in escapism, another trope prevalent among (although, clearly, not unique to) young gay people. The imagery is wild and fantastical – “trippin’ on skies, sippin’ waterfalls” – and I distinctly remember writing similar (albeit much worse) songs at 15 or 16, cosmic love songs to no one in particular about things I knew nothing about.

Todd’s “Straight Jacket” has an interesting chapter on how he believes escapism informs archetypal LGBTQ+ tastes in pop, musicals, science fiction, horror and drag. I don’t always agree with the specifics, as I think we’re a broader church than he implies. But it’s hard to argue with the queer impulse for escape, particularly in our years of self-discovery, into spheres where our possibilities are limitless, our own selves freer and more confident, and our fears diminished. It’s maybe a symptom of that delayed development, of more years spent in limbo.  When I listen to “Youth”, it gives me a clean hit of that feeling, particularly in the bridge, with “the lights start flashing like a photobooth” simulated by pulsing, strobe-light synths.

***

MY, MY, MY!

“Let’s stop running from love.”

Bloom, Sivan’s second album, finds him confident, assured and in love. It’s a big step, though not a quantum leap, from much of Blue Neighbourhood, and I’m interested in the in-between.  “Running from love” perhaps gives a little away. It’s hard for us to know how to approach dating, love and sex. Certainly, queer people might feel unconfined by traditional heteronormative conventions or ideals, but equally many of us crave what our straight friends and families have. (It’s important to note that, of course, it’s not one or the other.) I think “running from love” speaks to a queer (and perhaps more universal) anxiety – after what feels like forever waiting for opportunities that feel tantalisingly out of reach, embracing a singular, tangible thing at the expense of all other potential things is terrifying.

Still, this is a dizzy, ecstatic, seductive love song.  The expression “my, my, my” can seem trite in a pop song, but Sivan sells it as breathless disbelief.  Some things are hard-earned.

***

ANIMAL

“No angels could beckon me back.”

And so we come full circle. The religious imagery is no coincidence; on Bloom’s stunning closer, the gorgeous, hazy reverie of “Animal”, we understand the heaven the Troye Sivan managed to reach.

It takes some of us a long time to get there, and the destination is different for all of us. I’m currently reading Michael Cunningham’s classic queer novel “A Home at the End of the World”, in which the character of Jonathan, at 27, tries to navigate the differences between the sort of settled, faintly bleak domesticity of the kind his parents have lived (“the fluorescent aisles of a supermarket at two in the afternoon”) and the often lonely, unfulfilling search for a different kind of home and family in the city (gay literature is fascinatingly fixated on homes and families, albeit often unconventional ones). It resonates with me. As queer people, the usual rules don’t have to apply – the expectations of one milestone and then the next, the pragmatic retreat back into suburbia at 30 – and that presents a different set of challenges.

I believe it’s a double-edged sword. Queer adolescence might be delayed because of our differences in the world, but equally, we are different because of that delayed development.  It informs the way we experience life. Beautiful art is created because of those differences; hell, we might even be lucky enough to create some ourselves. And so, way beyond 15, most of us are still counting, still trying to understand, still discovering ourselves and each other, searching for logical families and people to grow with. No angels could beckon us back.

[wineanddinosaur]

‘Clean Wine’ Marketers Make a Lot of Wild Claims, So We Asked Experts to Debunk Them

Ever since Cameron Diaz and Katherine Power announced the launch of their “clean wine” label, Avaline, the wine industry has been pushing back against yet another attempt to bring the “clean” wellness trend into the wine space. From tracking down details about Avaline to deriding the entire trend, much virtual ink has been spilled on the topic.

Avaline isn’t the only brand in this space, though, and all the so-called “clean wine” companies rely on seemingly compelling claims and marketing mumbo jumbo that, under scrutiny from experts and wine professionals, doesn’t pass muster. So, let’s investigate some of these claims.

Dry Farm Wines / The Claim:

“The authentic wines we procure are exceptionally interesting and compelling expressions of taste and pleasure. When a wine is alive and free from overreaching modern influence, the wine will whisper in nature’s perfect logic and design. The wine will express nature joyfully and perfectly.”

Chris Miller, Master Sommelier, owner and winemaker at Seabold Cellars, Marina, Calif.:

“Well, this statement wins first prize for the most flowery bullshit I’ve ever heard without saying a single thing.”

Margot Mazur, beverage director, Wild Child Wine Shop, Somerville, Mass.:

“These terms are there to paint a picture for a consumer — one that is not necessarily an honest reflection of the wineries, or how the wines are made. These are marketing terms used to convince consumers to make that purchase. Supporting small businesses who have done their research and are committed to serving wines without chemicals, wines made by small farmers, wines that tell a story about their culture and history, is the way to go.”

Jill Zimorski, Master Sommelier, educator at the American Wine School in Chicago:

“By including ‘authentic,’ ‘interesting,’ and ‘compelling’ in their wine description it implies that ‘other’ wines are made inauthentically or are less compelling or interesting. Modern advancements and technology are some of the things that have allowed delicious wine to be made. Period. Modernity isn’t inherently bad. Does this mean that the fermentation takes place in amphorae? Without temperature control? Because stainless steel is a modern technological development and without even researching, based on style and price point alone, I’d be willing to bet many of these wines are fermented in stainless steel.”

Jenn and Brian Patterson, owners, Black Sheep Wine and Spirits, Lisbon, Portugal:

“Wine is either organically produced or it isn’t, it either has a lot of added sulfur or it doesn’t — these things are objective. They may not be perfectly set up for the anthropomorphizing of a fermented beverage, but these are the things that matter to real natural wine lovers. Using language like this, in our opinion, only serves to further make sincere natural wine lovers look like weird fetishists who talk to their wine glasses expecting a response.”

Dry Farm Wines / The Claim:

“Love wine, hate hangovers? … Did you know when wine is naturally created without chemicals or irrigation and allowed to fully ferment – it has no sugar (or carbs) and there are no nasty side effects. Which means you can enjoy wine and feel great the next day!”

Zimorski:

“Oh, this is a landmine. What causes hangovers is an excess of alcohol, which all wine contains, and dehydration. To claim that ‘naturally created’ wines that weren’t irrigated doesn’t cause hangovers is hilarious. I’ll volunteer to be part of a study on this BS. I’d love to see some data about how wines made from unirrigated grapes don’t cause hangovers. This is absolutely absurd. And fun fact, the majority of wines which are fermented to dryness have little to no residual sugar. Which means, duh, few carbs. They can’t claim dibs on the low sugar/carb argument — all dry wines share that.”

Brianne Cohen, DipWSET, wine educator and event producer in Los Angeles:

“I almost can’t entertain this with a response, but I will. Irrigation is not ‘bad’ in terms of making wine and certainly will have NO effect on whether the drinker ends up with a headache or not. Irrigation is used when the region the grapes are grown in does not have enough precipitation. Also, ALL wines have SOME sugar. Unfermented grapes start out with plenty of sugar, though most of the sugar is converted to alcohol during fermentation. To say a wine has no sugar is categorically incorrect as there are some sugars in a grape that are un-fermentable.”

Good Clean Wine / The Claim:

“All of our wines carry certifications listed on the table that indicate how clean the wine is. Symbols and letters on the label indicate the winemakers commitment to the environment, to the grape growing and to the winemaking process. To be classified and certified, both grape growers and wine makers must comply with strict standards regulated by the regions governing agencies. These ensure the quality, tradition and reliability of the wine.

Certifications to look for: CCSW, SIP, PEAS, LIVE, DOC, DOCG, IGT, IGP, AOC, DO, IPR, DAC, QbA, VDP, VT, VR, Landwein, QWPSR.”

Miller:

“This is so patently absurd. Only a couple of these certifications could be even remotely interpreted to denote ‘how clean a wine is.’ It’s like the person writing this copy got their wine education out of a 5-year-old’s coloring book.”

The Pattersons:

“Most of these are standard classifications used by European winemaking regions to tell you what you are drinking and what level of classification it has achieved. Thank you to Good Clean Wine for pointing out the obvious. As to the others, sure, knock yourself out doing research on SIP versus LIVE and let us all know why those were used, when USDA-approved organic certification is right there for the taking.”

Zimorski:

“Some of these are certifications (LIVE), some are acronyms for appellations (DOC, IPR). Some are high quality and specific (DAC, DOCG, AOP) and some are very generic (Landwein, VR). A consumer would have no way to understand or even differentiate between them.”

Cohen:

“Many wines carry these certifications and are not under the Good Clean Wine brand. This is marketing language that means nothing in terms of what’s in the glass. Literally, the rest of the wine world uses these certifications!”

Scout & Cellar / The Claim:

“For a wine to be considered Clean-Crafted™, it goes through two rounds of independent lab testing to guarantee that it’s free of yucky stuff like synthetic pesticides and chemical additives and has fewer than 100 ppm of total sulfites. We also evaluate and review farming and production practices to confirm that they are, in fact, Clean-Crafted™.”

Zimorski:

“Trade-marked Clean-Crafted: This is the first sign of BS.”

Cohen:

“Looks like Scout & Cellar is working on or has trademarked the term ‘Clean-Crafted’ when it comes to wine. They literally made this term up. The problem is that they’re intending for the term to indicate what’s in the bottle and it gives consumers the feeling that there is meaning behind that term. There is not. Producers know exactly what goes into their wines as far as pesticides and additives. This new term is solely marketing lingo trying to ‘clean-wash’ their wines, similar to the green-washing problem in wine.”

Miller:

“The childish language here is just moronic. I’m not even going to speak to anything else regarding this company’s wine philosophies, as it is an MLM [multi-level marketing company]. According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 99 percent of people in an MLM lose money.”

The Pattersons:

“100 ppm is a lot of sulfur. Clearly and squarely in the middle, if not high zone for conventional wine making. Natural wine lovers have coalesced around 40 ppm as being the outer limits for a wine made naturally — many fans prefer a big fat zero in their added sulfur column. Bragging about 100 ppm is like Trump bragging about his intelligence test — just silly.”

Scout & Cellar / The Claim:

“Sulfites are naturally occurring antioxidant and antibacterial compounds in grapes and are utilized to protect the wine from oxygen until it reaches your glass. Because of the slow-crafted, intentional way Scout & Cellar wines are made, they require very little sulfur additions to remain stable. Most have less than 50ppm, all must have less than 100ppm. As a point of reference, the FDA allows up to 350ppm.”

Zimorski:

“What does slow-crafted and intentional mean? It’s a bunch of nonsense words strung together to sound like they mean something. And again, ppm of sulfur is mostly meaningless to consumers unless to perpetrate the debunked idea that sulfites cause headaches.”

Miller:

“Low sulfur is great. Big believer. But the MLM here is purposefully misleading the audience. As a percentage of production volume, most well-made wine in the U.S., for example, is going to have between 75 ppm to 150 ppm of sulfur, and even the huge wine companies that just pump this stuff out usually don’t stray above 200 ppm all that often for anything but the kind of stuff, that — well, if you’re drinking it — just be glad they DID put that much sulfur in it.”

Winc’s Wonderful Wine Co. / The Claim:

“Whenever possible, our wines are certified by an accredited third party (like the California Certified Organic Farmers).”

Zimorski:

“‘Whenever possible’ is awfully vague. I mean, whenever possible I try not to murder people.”

The Pattersons:

“In the U.S., for organics, there really is only one voice that matters and it’s the USDA. They set the standard on what constitutes organic — legally — and a product either is or it isn’t. Being approved by a third party or included in their club is nice, but it’s not really a certification in and of itself.”

Winc’s Wonderful Wine Co. / The Claim:

“Because our wines are low sugar, that makes them low carb as well. Wonderful Wines are tested to ensure they contain 3g/100mL or less of carbohydrates.”

Zimorski:

“This claim is THE WORST. Dry wines (red, white, and sparkling) are low in sugar because most of it has been fermented into alcohol. This is like saying, ‘our carrots are low fat,’ when in fact all carrots are fat-free. It’s just reframing to suit the purposes of the advertisement. Also, most consumers have NO IDEA what 3g/100mL of carbohydrates even means unless they’re tracking macros for a keto diet.”

Miller:

“This fact applies to, I don’t know, about 95 percent of all half-decent wine on the planet? Almost all wines fall into these guidelines, unless producers are specifically trying to capture residual sugar for a sweeter style, are making fortified wine, or some of the ‘bigger’ styles.”

Winc’s Wonderful Wine Co. / The Claim:

“Wonderful Wine Co. uses only plant-based ingredients (no fish bladders here!) because why use animal products when you could just, not?”

Miller:

“I have worked in wine production for almost 20 years and I have never seen a fish bladder in my life. They’re referring to an old-school practice: Still around for sure, but old-school. MOST wines are vegan. Again, this is like bragging about the sugar levels being so low. But they’re purposefully saying this in such a way that makes a consumer stop and think ‘Gosh, I’m so glad that THESE guys don’t do that kind of stuff…’”

The Pattersons:

“While I don’t have the figures to back it up, I would argue — strenuously — that less than .0001% of wineries on Earth still use animal-based products for fining, or the coagulation of proteins and solids that some wineries use before filtration. This is just pablum designed to make these wines appear special when they merely fall into the category that contains the overwhelming majority of wines produced on planet Earth.”

IN CONCLUSION

In examining the growing raft of “clean wine” marketers, a single question kept nagging us at VinePair. None of these companies reveal critical information about these wines, such as who grew it, who vinified it, and in some cases what vintage it is. Why is that? We asked the experts.

Miller:

“There are precisely four reasons not to tell you who produced the wine. 1. It’s a lifestyle-brand money grab by people who are good at social media, and they genuinely don’t even know themselves. 2. The actual wine producer doesn’t want to be associated with what’s in that bottle: They are selling off the barrels that they don’t want to use in their own labeled wines, so you’re getting a selection of their absolute worst juice, and only their worst juice, the stuff that there’s a good chance would’ve gone down the drain otherwise. 3. You could buy that producer’s ACTUALLY good wine cheaper than the crap they have here. 4. The wine company is lying to you about their sources, and they don’t want you to be able to fact-check.”

Shiels:

“These wine brands are marketing-based, not product-based. They market to consumers who are looking for a beverage they can feel good about, without too much work.  As such, you just need fanciful copy and pretty pictures, not any real information.”

Zimorski:

“What’s frustrating is that it’s not just consumers seeing these ads in glossy magazines and saying … ‘huh, I’ll try that.’ In just my case: Multiple people I follow on social media have included links and codes to these or similar wines and I have sent them all unsolicited DMs explaining that they’re endorsing something that is marketing mumbo jumbo.  These are folks who have running, cooking, healthy living presences — Instagram accounts, blogs, and websites with significant numbers of followers. They aren’t wine professionals, but they get sucked in, share a discount code or a link to their followers to purchase, and the ‘influencer effect’ takes over. I’ve had my best friends (not in the wine industry) and my mother send me messages inquiring about the validity of these wines. It’s a prolific problem and that it’s all built on wordsmithing and lifestyle imaging when it should be about the people, places, grapes, and methods.”

Mazur:

“I’d love a bit more visibility into these companies — what does ‘clean’ mean to them? Are you just looking at winemakers who don’t add sugar? Don’t add sulfites? Grow grapes organically? What about their labor practices — is that ‘clean?’ I’m assuming if you don’t even tell us who these producers are, you don’t actually have clear visibility into either their winemaking practices, their labor practices, or their political practices — or does that not matter as long as we don’t get hangovers?”

The article ‘Clean Wine’ Marketers Make a Lot of Wild Claims, So We Asked Experts to Debunk Them appeared first on VinePair.

source https://vinepair.com/articles/clean-wine-marketing-claims-debunked/

[johnboothus]

Clean Wine Marketers Make a Lot of Wild Claims So We Asked Experts to Debunk Them

Ever since Cameron Diaz and Katherine Power announced the launch of their “clean wine” label, Avaline, the wine industry has been pushing back against yet another attempt to bring the “clean” wellness trend into the wine space. From tracking down details about Avaline to deriding the entire trend, much virtual ink has been spilled on the topic.

Avaline isn’t the only brand in this space, though, and all the so-called “clean wine” companies rely on seemingly compelling claims and marketing mumbo jumbo that, under scrutiny from experts and wine professionals, doesn’t pass muster. So, let’s investigate some of these claims.

Dry Farm Wines / The Claim:

“The authentic wines we procure are exceptionally interesting and compelling expressions of taste and pleasure. When a wine is alive and free from overreaching modern influence, the wine will whisper in nature’s perfect logic and design. The wine will express nature joyfully and perfectly.”

Chris Miller, Master Sommelier, owner and winemaker at Seabold Cellars, Marina, Calif.:

“Well, this statement wins first prize for the most flowery bullshit I’ve ever heard without saying a single thing.”

Margot Mazur, beverage director, Wild Child Wine Shop, Somerville, Mass.:

“These terms are there to paint a picture for a consumer — one that is not necessarily an honest reflection of the wineries, or how the wines are made. These are marketing terms used to convince consumers to make that purchase. Supporting small businesses who have done their research and are committed to serving wines without chemicals, wines made by small farmers, wines that tell a story about their culture and history, is the way to go.”

Jill Zimorski, Master Sommelier, educator at the American Wine School in Chicago:

“By including ‘authentic,’ ‘interesting,’ and ‘compelling’ in their wine description it implies that ‘other’ wines are made inauthentically or are less compelling or interesting. Modern advancements and technology are some of the things that have allowed delicious wine to be made. Period. Modernity isn’t inherently bad. Does this mean that the fermentation takes place in amphorae? Without temperature control? Because stainless steel is a modern technological development and without even researching, based on style and price point alone, I’d be willing to bet many of these wines are fermented in stainless steel.”

Jenn and Brian Patterson, owners, Black Sheep Wine and Spirits, Lisbon, Portugal:

“Wine is either organically produced or it isn’t, it either has a lot of added sulfur or it doesn’t — these things are objective. They may not be perfectly set up for the anthropomorphizing of a fermented beverage, but these are the things that matter to real natural wine lovers. Using language like this, in our opinion, only serves to further make sincere natural wine lovers look like weird fetishists who talk to their wine glasses expecting a response.”

Dry Farm Wines / The Claim:

“Love wine, hate hangovers? … Did you know when wine is naturally created without chemicals or irrigation and allowed to fully ferment – it has no sugar (or carbs) and there are no nasty side effects. Which means you can enjoy wine and feel great the next day!”

Zimorski:

“Oh, this is a landmine. What causes hangovers is an excess of alcohol, which all wine contains, and dehydration. To claim that ‘naturally created’ wines that weren’t irrigated doesn’t cause hangovers is hilarious. I’ll volunteer to be part of a study on this BS. I’d love to see some data about how wines made from unirrigated grapes don’t cause hangovers. This is absolutely absurd. And fun fact, the majority of wines which are fermented to dryness have little to no residual sugar. Which means, duh, few carbs. They can’t claim dibs on the low sugar/carb argument — all dry wines share that.”

Brianne Cohen, DipWSET, wine educator and event producer in Los Angeles:

“I almost can’t entertain this with a response, but I will. Irrigation is not ‘bad’ in terms of making wine and certainly will have NO effect on whether the drinker ends up with a headache or not. Irrigation is used when the region the grapes are grown in does not have enough precipitation. Also, ALL wines have SOME sugar. Unfermented grapes start out with plenty of sugar, though most of the sugar is converted to alcohol during fermentation. To say a wine has no sugar is categorically incorrect as there are some sugars in a grape that are un-fermentable.”

Good Clean Wine / The Claim:

“All of our wines carry certifications listed on the table that indicate how clean the wine is. Symbols and letters on the label indicate the winemakers commitment to the environment, to the grape growing and to the winemaking process. To be classified and certified, both grape growers and wine makers must comply with strict standards regulated by the regions governing agencies. These ensure the quality, tradition and reliability of the wine.

Certifications to look for: CCSW, SIP, PEAS, LIVE, DOC, DOCG, IGT, IGP, AOC, DO, IPR, DAC, QbA, VDP, VT, VR, Landwein, QWPSR.”

Miller:

“This is so patently absurd. Only a couple of these certifications could be even remotely interpreted to denote ‘how clean a wine is.’ It’s like the person writing this copy got their wine education out of a 5-year-old’s coloring book.”

The Pattersons:

“Most of these are standard classifications used by European winemaking regions to tell you what you are drinking and what level of classification it has achieved. Thank you to Good Clean Wine for pointing out the obvious. As to the others, sure, knock yourself out doing research on SIP versus LIVE and let us all know why those were used, when USDA-approved organic certification is right there for the taking.”

Zimorski:

“Some of these are certifications (LIVE), some are acronyms for appellations (DOC, IPR). Some are high quality and specific (DAC, DOCG, AOP) and some are very generic (Landwein, VR). A consumer would have no way to understand or even differentiate between them.”

Cohen:

“Many wines carry these certifications and are not under the Good Clean Wine brand. This is marketing language that means nothing in terms of what’s in the glass. Literally, the rest of the wine world uses these certifications!”

Scout & Cellar / The Claim:

“For a wine to be considered Clean-Crafted™, it goes through two rounds of independent lab testing to guarantee that it’s free of yucky stuff like synthetic pesticides and chemical additives and has fewer than 100 ppm of total sulfites. We also evaluate and review farming and production practices to confirm that they are, in fact, Clean-Crafted™.”

Zimorski:

“Trade-marked Clean-Crafted: This is the first sign of BS.”

Cohen:

“Looks like Scout & Cellar is working on or has trademarked the term ‘Clean-Crafted’ when it comes to wine. They literally made this term up. The problem is that they’re intending for the term to indicate what’s in the bottle and it gives consumers the feeling that there is meaning behind that term. There is not. Producers know exactly what goes into their wines as far as pesticides and additives. This new term is solely marketing lingo trying to ‘clean-wash’ their wines, similar to the green-washing problem in wine.”

Miller:

“The childish language here is just moronic. I’m not even going to speak to anything else regarding this company’s wine philosophies, as it is an MLM [multi-level marketing company]. According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 99 percent of people in an MLM lose money.”

The Pattersons:

“100 ppm is a lot of sulfur. Clearly and squarely in the middle, if not high zone for conventional wine making. Natural wine lovers have coalesced around 40 ppm as being the outer limits for a wine made naturally — many fans prefer a big fat zero in their added sulfur column. Bragging about 100 ppm is like Trump bragging about his intelligence test — just silly.”

Scout & Cellar / The Claim:

“Sulfites are naturally occurring antioxidant and antibacterial compounds in grapes and are utilized to protect the wine from oxygen until it reaches your glass. Because of the slow-crafted, intentional way Scout & Cellar wines are made, they require very little sulfur additions to remain stable. Most have less than 50ppm, all must have less than 100ppm. As a point of reference, the FDA allows up to 350ppm.”

Zimorski:

“What does slow-crafted and intentional mean? It’s a bunch of nonsense words strung together to sound like they mean something. And again, ppm of sulfur is mostly meaningless to consumers unless to perpetrate the debunked idea that sulfites cause headaches.”

Miller:

“Low sulfur is great. Big believer. But the MLM here is purposefully misleading the audience. As a percentage of production volume, most well-made wine in the U.S., for example, is going to have between 75 ppm to 150 ppm of sulfur, and even the huge wine companies that just pump this stuff out usually don’t stray above 200 ppm all that often for anything but the kind of stuff, that — well, if you’re drinking it — just be glad they DID put that much sulfur in it.”

Winc’s Wonderful Wine Co. / The Claim:

“Whenever possible, our wines are certified by an accredited third party (like the California Certified Organic Farmers).”

Zimorski:

“‘Whenever possible’ is awfully vague. I mean, whenever possible I try not to murder people.”

The Pattersons:

“In the U.S., for organics, there really is only one voice that matters and it’s the USDA. They set the standard on what constitutes organic — legally — and a product either is or it isn’t. Being approved by a third party or included in their club is nice, but it’s not really a certification in and of itself.”

Winc’s Wonderful Wine Co. / The Claim:

“Because our wines are low sugar, that makes them low carb as well. Wonderful Wines are tested to ensure they contain 3g/100mL or less of carbohydrates.”

Zimorski:

“This claim is THE WORST. Dry wines (red, white, and sparkling) are low in sugar because most of it has been fermented into alcohol. This is like saying, ‘our carrots are low fat,’ when in fact all carrots are fat-free. It’s just reframing to suit the purposes of the advertisement. Also, most consumers have NO IDEA what 3g/100mL of carbohydrates even means unless they’re tracking macros for a keto diet.”

Miller:

“This fact applies to, I don’t know, about 95 percent of all half-decent wine on the planet? Almost all wines fall into these guidelines, unless producers are specifically trying to capture residual sugar for a sweeter style, are making fortified wine, or some of the ‘bigger’ styles.”

Winc’s Wonderful Wine Co. / The Claim:

“Wonderful Wine Co. uses only plant-based ingredients (no fish bladders here!) because why use animal products when you could just, not?”

Miller:

“I have worked in wine production for almost 20 years and I have never seen a fish bladder in my life. They’re referring to an old-school practice: Still around for sure, but old-school. MOST wines are vegan. Again, this is like bragging about the sugar levels being so low. But they’re purposefully saying this in such a way that makes a consumer stop and think ‘Gosh, I’m so glad that THESE guys don’t do that kind of stuff…’”

The Pattersons:

“While I don’t have the figures to back it up, I would argue — strenuously — that less than .0001% of wineries on Earth still use animal-based products for fining, or the coagulation of proteins and solids that some wineries use before filtration. This is just pablum designed to make these wines appear special when they merely fall into the category that contains the overwhelming majority of wines produced on planet Earth.”

IN CONCLUSION

In examining the growing raft of “clean wine” marketers, a single question kept nagging us at VinePair. None of these companies reveal critical information about these wines, such as who grew it, who vinified it, and in some cases what vintage it is. Why is that? We asked the experts.

Miller:

“There are precisely four reasons not to tell you who produced the wine. 1. It’s a lifestyle-brand money grab by people who are good at social media, and they genuinely don’t even know themselves. 2. The actual wine producer doesn’t want to be associated with what’s in that bottle: They are selling off the barrels that they don’t want to use in their own labeled wines, so you’re getting a selection of their absolute worst juice, and only their worst juice, the stuff that there’s a good chance would’ve gone down the drain otherwise. 3. You could buy that producer’s ACTUALLY good wine cheaper than the crap they have here. 4. The wine company is lying to you about their sources, and they don’t want you to be able to fact-check.”

Shiels:

“These wine brands are marketing-based, not product-based. They market to consumers who are looking for a beverage they can feel good about, without too much work.  As such, you just need fanciful copy and pretty pictures, not any real information.”

Zimorski:

“What’s frustrating is that it’s not just consumers seeing these ads in glossy magazines and saying … ‘huh, I’ll try that.’ In just my case: Multiple people I follow on social media have included links and codes to these or similar wines and I have sent them all unsolicited DMs explaining that they’re endorsing something that is marketing mumbo jumbo.  These are folks who have running, cooking, healthy living presences — Instagram accounts, blogs, and websites with significant numbers of followers. They aren’t wine professionals, but they get sucked in, share a discount code or a link to their followers to purchase, and the ‘influencer effect’ takes over. I’ve had my best friends (not in the wine industry) and my mother send me messages inquiring about the validity of these wines. It’s a prolific problem and that it’s all built on wordsmithing and lifestyle imaging when it should be about the people, places, grapes, and methods.”

Mazur:

“I’d love a bit more visibility into these companies — what does ‘clean’ mean to them? Are you just looking at winemakers who don’t add sugar? Don’t add sulfites? Grow grapes organically? What about their labor practices — is that ‘clean?’ I’m assuming if you don’t even tell us who these producers are, you don’t actually have clear visibility into either their winemaking practices, their labor practices, or their political practices — or does that not matter as long as we don’t get hangovers?”

The article ‘Clean Wine’ Marketers Make a Lot of Wild Claims, So We Asked Experts to Debunk Them appeared first on VinePair.

Via https://vinepair.com/articles/clean-wine-marketing-claims-debunked/

source https://vinology1.weebly.com/blog/clean-wine-marketers-make-a-lot-of-wild-claims-so-we-asked-experts-to-debunk-them

[isaiahrippinus]

‘Clean Wine’ Marketers Make a Lot of Wild Claims, So We Asked Experts to Debunk Them

Ever since Cameron Diaz and Katherine Power announced the launch of their “clean wine” label, Avaline, the wine industry has been pushing back against yet another attempt to bring the “clean” wellness trend into the wine space. From tracking down details about Avaline to deriding the entire trend, much virtual ink has been spilled on the topic.

Avaline isn’t the only brand in this space, though, and all the so-called “clean wine” companies rely on seemingly compelling claims and marketing mumbo jumbo that, under scrutiny from experts and wine professionals, doesn’t pass muster. So, let’s investigate some of these claims.

Dry Farm Wines / The Claim:

“The authentic wines we procure are exceptionally interesting and compelling expressions of taste and pleasure. When a wine is alive and free from overreaching modern influence, the wine will whisper in nature’s perfect logic and design. The wine will express nature joyfully and perfectly.”

Chris Miller, Master Sommelier, owner and winemaker at Seabold Cellars, Marina, Calif.:

“Well, this statement wins first prize for the most flowery bullshit I’ve ever heard without saying a single thing.”

Margot Mazur, beverage director, Wild Child Wine Shop, Somerville, Mass.:

“These terms are there to paint a picture for a consumer — one that is not necessarily an honest reflection of the wineries, or how the wines are made. These are marketing terms used to convince consumers to make that purchase. Supporting small businesses who have done their research and are committed to serving wines without chemicals, wines made by small farmers, wines that tell a story about their culture and history, is the way to go.”

Jill Zimorski, Master Sommelier, educator at the American Wine School in Chicago:

“By including ‘authentic,’ ‘interesting,’ and ‘compelling’ in their wine description it implies that ‘other’ wines are made inauthentically or are less compelling or interesting. Modern advancements and technology are some of the things that have allowed delicious wine to be made. Period. Modernity isn’t inherently bad. Does this mean that the fermentation takes place in amphorae? Without temperature control? Because stainless steel is a modern technological development and without even researching, based on style and price point alone, I’d be willing to bet many of these wines are fermented in stainless steel.”

Jenn and Brian Patterson, owners, Black Sheep Wine and Spirits, Lisbon, Portugal:

“Wine is either organically produced or it isn’t, it either has a lot of added sulfur or it doesn’t — these things are objective. They may not be perfectly set up for the anthropomorphizing of a fermented beverage, but these are the things that matter to real natural wine lovers. Using language like this, in our opinion, only serves to further make sincere natural wine lovers look like weird fetishists who talk to their wine glasses expecting a response.”

Dry Farm Wines / The Claim:

“Love wine, hate hangovers? … Did you know when wine is naturally created without chemicals or irrigation and allowed to fully ferment – it has no sugar (or carbs) and there are no nasty side effects. Which means you can enjoy wine and feel great the next day!”

Zimorski:

“Oh, this is a landmine. What causes hangovers is an excess of alcohol, which all wine contains, and dehydration. To claim that ‘naturally created’ wines that weren’t irrigated doesn’t cause hangovers is hilarious. I’ll volunteer to be part of a study on this BS. I’d love to see some data about how wines made from unirrigated grapes don’t cause hangovers. This is absolutely absurd. And fun fact, the majority of wines which are fermented to dryness have little to no residual sugar. Which means, duh, few carbs. They can’t claim dibs on the low sugar/carb argument — all dry wines share that.”

Brianne Cohen, DipWSET, wine educator and event producer in Los Angeles:

“I almost can’t entertain this with a response, but I will. Irrigation is not ‘bad’ in terms of making wine and certainly will have NO effect on whether the drinker ends up with a headache or not. Irrigation is used when the region the grapes are grown in does not have enough precipitation. Also, ALL wines have SOME sugar. Unfermented grapes start out with plenty of sugar, though most of the sugar is converted to alcohol during fermentation. To say a wine has no sugar is categorically incorrect as there are some sugars in a grape that are un-fermentable.”

Good Clean Wine / The Claim:

“All of our wines carry certifications listed on the table that indicate how clean the wine is. Symbols and letters on the label indicate the winemakers commitment to the environment, to the grape growing and to the winemaking process. To be classified and certified, both grape growers and wine makers must comply with strict standards regulated by the regions governing agencies. These ensure the quality, tradition and reliability of the wine.

Certifications to look for: CCSW, SIP, PEAS, LIVE, DOC, DOCG, IGT, IGP, AOC, DO, IPR, DAC, QbA, VDP, VT, VR, Landwein, QWPSR.”

Miller:

“This is so patently absurd. Only a couple of these certifications could be even remotely interpreted to denote ‘how clean a wine is.’ It’s like the person writing this copy got their wine education out of a 5-year-old’s coloring book.”

The Pattersons:

“Most of these are standard classifications used by European winemaking regions to tell you what you are drinking and what level of classification it has achieved. Thank you to Good Clean Wine for pointing out the obvious. As to the others, sure, knock yourself out doing research on SIP versus LIVE and let us all know why those were used, when USDA-approved organic certification is right there for the taking.”

Zimorski:

“Some of these are certifications (LIVE), some are acronyms for appellations (DOC, IPR). Some are high quality and specific (DAC, DOCG, AOP) and some are very generic (Landwein, VR). A consumer would have no way to understand or even differentiate between them.”

Cohen:

“Many wines carry these certifications and are not under the Good Clean Wine brand. This is marketing language that means nothing in terms of what’s in the glass. Literally, the rest of the wine world uses these certifications!”

Scout & Cellar / The Claim:

“For a wine to be considered Clean-Crafted™, it goes through two rounds of independent lab testing to guarantee that it’s free of yucky stuff like synthetic pesticides and chemical additives and has fewer than 100 ppm of total sulfites. We also evaluate and review farming and production practices to confirm that they are, in fact, Clean-Crafted™.”

Zimorski:

“Trade-marked Clean-Crafted: This is the first sign of BS.”

Cohen:

“Looks like Scout & Cellar is working on or has trademarked the term ‘Clean-Crafted’ when it comes to wine. They literally made this term up. The problem is that they’re intending for the term to indicate what’s in the bottle and it gives consumers the feeling that there is meaning behind that term. There is not. Producers know exactly what goes into their wines as far as pesticides and additives. This new term is solely marketing lingo trying to ‘clean-wash’ their wines, similar to the green-washing problem in wine.”

Miller:

“The childish language here is just moronic. I’m not even going to speak to anything else regarding this company’s wine philosophies, as it is an MLM [multi-level marketing company]. According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 99 percent of people in an MLM lose money.”

The Pattersons:

“100 ppm is a lot of sulfur. Clearly and squarely in the middle, if not high zone for conventional wine making. Natural wine lovers have coalesced around 40 ppm as being the outer limits for a wine made naturally — many fans prefer a big fat zero in their added sulfur column. Bragging about 100 ppm is like Trump bragging about his intelligence test — just silly.”

Scout & Cellar / The Claim:

“Sulfites are naturally occurring antioxidant and antibacterial compounds in grapes and are utilized to protect the wine from oxygen until it reaches your glass. Because of the slow-crafted, intentional way Scout & Cellar wines are made, they require very little sulfur additions to remain stable. Most have less than 50ppm, all must have less than 100ppm. As a point of reference, the FDA allows up to 350ppm.”

Zimorski:

“What does slow-crafted and intentional mean? It’s a bunch of nonsense words strung together to sound like they mean something. And again, ppm of sulfur is mostly meaningless to consumers unless to perpetrate the debunked idea that sulfites cause headaches.”

Miller:

“Low sulfur is great. Big believer. But the MLM here is purposefully misleading the audience. As a percentage of production volume, most well-made wine in the U.S., for example, is going to have between 75 ppm to 150 ppm of sulfur, and even the huge wine companies that just pump this stuff out usually don’t stray above 200 ppm all that often for anything but the kind of stuff, that — well, if you’re drinking it — just be glad they DID put that much sulfur in it.”

Winc’s Wonderful Wine Co. / The Claim:

“Whenever possible, our wines are certified by an accredited third party (like the California Certified Organic Farmers).”

Zimorski:

“‘Whenever possible’ is awfully vague. I mean, whenever possible I try not to murder people.”

The Pattersons:

“In the U.S., for organics, there really is only one voice that matters and it’s the USDA. They set the standard on what constitutes organic — legally — and a product either is or it isn’t. Being approved by a third party or included in their club is nice, but it’s not really a certification in and of itself.”

Winc’s Wonderful Wine Co. / The Claim:

“Because our wines are low sugar, that makes them low carb as well. Wonderful Wines are tested to ensure they contain 3g/100mL or less of carbohydrates.”

Zimorski:

“This claim is THE WORST. Dry wines (red, white, and sparkling) are low in sugar because most of it has been fermented into alcohol. This is like saying, ‘our carrots are low fat,’ when in fact all carrots are fat-free. It’s just reframing to suit the purposes of the advertisement. Also, most consumers have NO IDEA what 3g/100mL of carbohydrates even means unless they’re tracking macros for a keto diet.”

Miller:

“This fact applies to, I don’t know, about 95 percent of all half-decent wine on the planet? Almost all wines fall into these guidelines, unless producers are specifically trying to capture residual sugar for a sweeter style, are making fortified wine, or some of the ‘bigger’ styles.”

Winc’s Wonderful Wine Co. / The Claim:

“Wonderful Wine Co. uses only plant-based ingredients (no fish bladders here!) because why use animal products when you could just, not?”

Miller:

“I have worked in wine production for almost 20 years and I have never seen a fish bladder in my life. They’re referring to an old-school practice: Still around for sure, but old-school. MOST wines are vegan. Again, this is like bragging about the sugar levels being so low. But they’re purposefully saying this in such a way that makes a consumer stop and think ‘Gosh, I’m so glad that THESE guys don’t do that kind of stuff…’”

The Pattersons:

“While I don’t have the figures to back it up, I would argue — strenuously — that less than .0001% of wineries on Earth still use animal-based products for fining, or the coagulation of proteins and solids that some wineries use before filtration. This is just pablum designed to make these wines appear special when they merely fall into the category that contains the overwhelming majority of wines produced on planet Earth.”

IN CONCLUSION

In examining the growing raft of “clean wine” marketers, a single question kept nagging us at VinePair. None of these companies reveal critical information about these wines, such as who grew it, who vinified it, and in some cases what vintage it is. Why is that? We asked the experts.

Miller:

“There are precisely four reasons not to tell you who produced the wine. 1. It’s a lifestyle-brand money grab by people who are good at social media, and they genuinely don’t even know themselves. 2. The actual wine producer doesn’t want to be associated with what’s in that bottle: They are selling off the barrels that they don’t want to use in their own labeled wines, so you’re getting a selection of their absolute worst juice, and only their worst juice, the stuff that there’s a good chance would’ve gone down the drain otherwise. 3. You could buy that producer’s ACTUALLY good wine cheaper than the crap they have here. 4. The wine company is lying to you about their sources, and they don’t want you to be able to fact-check.”

Shiels:

“These wine brands are marketing-based, not product-based. They market to consumers who are looking for a beverage they can feel good about, without too much work.  As such, you just need fanciful copy and pretty pictures, not any real information.”

Zimorski:

“What’s frustrating is that it’s not just consumers seeing these ads in glossy magazines and saying … ‘huh, I’ll try that.’ In just my case: Multiple people I follow on social media have included links and codes to these or similar wines and I have sent them all unsolicited DMs explaining that they’re endorsing something that is marketing mumbo jumbo.  These are folks who have running, cooking, healthy living presences — Instagram accounts, blogs, and websites with significant numbers of followers. They aren’t wine professionals, but they get sucked in, share a discount code or a link to their followers to purchase, and the ‘influencer effect’ takes over. I’ve had my best friends (not in the wine industry) and my mother send me messages inquiring about the validity of these wines. It’s a prolific problem and that it’s all built on wordsmithing and lifestyle imaging when it should be about the people, places, grapes, and methods.”

Mazur:

“I’d love a bit more visibility into these companies — what does ‘clean’ mean to them? Are you just looking at winemakers who don’t add sugar? Don’t add sulfites? Grow grapes organically? What about their labor practices — is that ‘clean?’ I’m assuming if you don’t even tell us who these producers are, you don’t actually have clear visibility into either their winemaking practices, their labor practices, or their political practices — or does that not matter as long as we don’t get hangovers?”

The article ‘Clean Wine’ Marketers Make a Lot of Wild Claims, So We Asked Experts to Debunk Them appeared first on VinePair.

source https://vinepair.com/articles/clean-wine-marketing-claims-debunked/ source https://vinology1.tumblr.com/post/626885760334856192

[getyourgossip0-blog]

Katy Perry Moving To London For Orlando Bloom?

New Post has been published on https://getyourgossip.xyz/katy-perry-moving-to-london-for-orlando-bloom/

Katy Perry Moving To London For Orlando Bloom?

(Getty Images)

There’s nothing to indicate Katy Perry is moving to London for Orlando Bloom, despite a new tabloid report. Gossip Cop can point out a number of significant flaws with the claim. Additionally, the magazine that first sparked the rumor appears to not fully believe its premise either.

On the cover of the new issue of Us Weekly, there’s a cover chip that definitively states, “Katy & Orlando Move To London For Love.” Inside the magazine, after consumers have already paid $6.99 for the publication, the tabloid seems to back away from its narrative and simply speculates, “Katy Perry: Moving To London?” Not only is the article a bait-and-switch, but it also doesn’t appear to have an answer to its own question.

Instead, the outlet notes that during a short break between the European and African legs of her “Witness Tour,” Perry took in a performance of Bloom’s “Killer Joe” in London’s West End and had dinner with him afterwards at the club Annabel’s. The tabloid’s source offered, “Katy and Orlando looked like any normal couple during dinner.” Adds a so-called “witness” at the hot spot, “She was so in love with him by the way she looked at him.”

In this instance, Gossip Cop will not make a big deal about how the magazine quoted an unnamed source, because what the person said about Perry and Bloom has no bearing whatsoever on the tabloid’s premise that the singer may be moving to England’s capital for her boyfriend. In fact, the outlet offers no proof whatsoever that she’s relocating from the U.S. to Europe for Bloom. It just regurgitated what other outlets did about Perry and Bloom being photographed after dinner in London. It appears the publication wanted to splash the moving claim on its cover, and yet has nothing to back it up.

Forget how Us Weekly can’t justify its narrative. Let’s examine the story more reasonably. There’s literally nothing to indicate the actor is relocating to London full-time and that Perry is following him.

Bloom and ex-wife Miranda Kerr share custody of their 7-year-old son, Flynn, who lives in Los Angeles with the model and her new husband, Snapchat founder Evan Spiegel. The actor has a home nearby and there’s nothing to suggest he’s going to move a continent away from his child. It should also be pointed out that Bloom’s performance in “Killer Joe” is a limited engagement that’s slated to run until August 18.

There’s also nothing to support that Perry is leaving the U.S. The “California Gurls” singer was simply in England for a number of concerts and time off in June and July before heading to South Africa for three shows, the last of which was on Saturday night. She’s now going to Australia and New Zealand for the last leg of her tour.

And, as widely reported, for a long time Perry had been in a lawsuit with some nuns who lived in a former convent owned by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It’s not like the singer decided after all years of litigation to buy that convent and convert it into her personal home that she’s suddenly moving to London, where Bloom is simply in a six-week run of a play before returning to California to be closer to his son. Should both Perry and Bloom pick up and relocate to London, that would be a very surprising move indeed.

[gossipgirl2019-blog]

Katy Perry Moving To London For Orlando Bloom?

New Post has been published on http://gr8gossip.xyz/katy-perry-moving-to-london-for-orlando-bloom/

Katy Perry Moving To London For Orlando Bloom?

(Getty Images)

There’s nothing to indicate Katy Perry is moving to London for Orlando Bloom, despite a new tabloid report. Gossip Cop can point out a number of significant flaws with the claim. Additionally, the magazine that first sparked the rumor appears to not fully believe its premise either.

On the cover of the new issue of Us Weekly, there’s a cover chip that definitively states, “Katy & Orlando Move To London For Love.” Inside the magazine, after consumers have already paid $6.99 for the publication, the tabloid seems to back away from its narrative and simply speculates, “Katy Perry: Moving To London?” Not only is the article a bait-and-switch, but it also doesn’t appear to have an answer to its own question.

Instead, the outlet notes that during a short break between the European and African legs of her “Witness Tour,” Perry took in a performance of Bloom’s “Killer Joe” in London’s West End and had dinner with him afterwards at the club Annabel’s. The tabloid’s source offered, “Katy and Orlando looked like any normal couple during dinner.” Adds a so-called “witness” at the hot spot, “She was so in love with him by the way she looked at him.”

In this instance, Gossip Cop will not make a big deal about how the magazine quoted an unnamed source, because what the person said about Perry and Bloom has no bearing whatsoever on the tabloid’s premise that the singer may be moving to England’s capital for her boyfriend. In fact, the outlet offers no proof whatsoever that she’s relocating from the U.S. to Europe for Bloom. It just regurgitated what other outlets did about Perry and Bloom being photographed after dinner in London. It appears the publication wanted to splash the moving claim on its cover, and yet has nothing to back it up.

Forget how Us Weekly can’t justify its narrative. Let’s examine the story more reasonably. There’s literally nothing to indicate the actor is relocating to London full-time and that Perry is following him.

Bloom and ex-wife Miranda Kerr share custody of their 7-year-old son, Flynn, who lives in Los Angeles with the model and her new husband, Snapchat founder Evan Spiegel. The actor has a home nearby and there’s nothing to suggest he’s going to move a continent away from his child. It should also be pointed out that Bloom’s performance in “Killer Joe” is a limited engagement that’s slated to run until August 18.

There’s also nothing to support that Perry is leaving the U.S. The “California Gurls” singer was simply in England for a number of concerts and time off in June and July before heading to South Africa for three shows, the last of which was on Saturday night. She’s now going to Australia and New Zealand for the last leg of her tour.

And, as widely reported, for a long time Perry had been in a lawsuit with some nuns who lived in a former convent owned by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It’s not like the singer decided after all years of litigation to buy that convent and convert it into her personal home that she’s suddenly moving to London, where Bloom is simply in a six-week run of a play before returning to California to be closer to his son. Should both Perry and Bloom pick up and relocate to London, that would be a very surprising move indeed.

[bchainxplained]

An innovative decentralized marketing ecosystem called VEXANIUM, which helps to cut costs and improve efficiency and transparency for commercial businesses, is being launched by Danny Baskara – a Southeast Asia based e-commerce pioneer and team.

Founder and CEO Danny Baskara previously built and sold Indonesia’s largest voucher and couponing platform Evoucher, which was with more than 2 million active users. After 7 years of building Evoucher, he realized that the blockchain can solve the fundamental problems of this industry. The idea for the VEXANIUM ecosystem was born.

The blockchain based ecosystem which VEXANIUM creates will solve the major pain points that this industry faces today. In Asia, a majority of retailers use online promo marketing platforms such as Groupon, Dianping or Meituan to win new customers. Promo marketing strategies rely heavily on campaigns on these platforms which provide substantial traffic and sales.

These platforms charge an average of 15% – 20% in commission per transaction through a CPA (Cost Per Acquisition) or CPS (Cost Per Sale) structure. An increasing number of retailers struggle because these commissions, together with the discounts offered, represent too high a proportion of their margins. To protect margins, retailers often end up giving lackluster promotions that are either unattractive or with unrealistic terms.

Meanwhile, customers are often frustrated when trying to utilize a voucher or redeem their gift cards and coupons. Common difficulties include using vouchers that have already been utilized, expired, are lost or with unreasonable T&C requirements.

Baskara says:

By using the VEXANIUM platform, companies can create points in loyalty program applications in the form of digital tokens. […] Typically such incentives are rewards to customers in Cost Per Acquisition (CPA) activity. The tokens can also be converted into coupons or points that can be used in corporate applications.

A study conducted by GfK concluded that 49% of consumers would gladly switch brands for savings in the form of a coupon. In the retail market, South-East Asia and Indonesia, in particular, are some of the fastest growing markets globally, with the latter boasting a population of over 260 million people. The importance of vouchers and coupons for retailers to attract new customers in those regions is significant.

VEXANIUM will revolutionize this space by bringing the voucher and couponing industry on-chain. The VEXANIUM platform will also naturally serve existing blockchain businesses in their user acquisition, activation and retention. This makes it attractive for both businessmen, crypto-enthusiasts and ordinary users.

The VEX app features an integration with selected crypto exchanges in order to allow users to directly trade their VEX token balance on the exchange. Also, the VEX Exchange will allow consumers to trade vouchers among themselves and set their own prices. Customers will be able to store and redeem their voucher tokens via VEXANIUM app.

One game-changing use case of the VEX Platform is the lucrative “airdrop” market, which will allow blockchain companies to create airdrop campaigns for acquiring new customers and rewarding existing ones, using the VEX token.

As Baskara states:

For companies that want to take advantage of the VEXANIUM platform and want to create digital tokens on their applications are required to purchase a large number of VEXANIUM digital tokens -VEX, because each transaction is using the VEX token. It’s part of VEXANIUM ecosystem.

This will be facilitated via the VEX web and mobile apps.

In an exciting move, the VEXANIUM marketplace plans to be fully functional and open to merchants and individual users in Indonesia by Q4 2018. The company will complete the establishment of the ecosystem by launching VEXchange and VEXplorer by Q2 2019. Merchants and enterprise users can create voucher tokens and start their marketing campaigns all seamlessly via the one-stop mobile app.

The company plans to launch in other major cities in Asia, including Kuala Lumpur, Ho Chi Min City, Seoul, Hong Kong, Bangkok and Dubai in 2019. And will then expand to big business hubs outside of Asia in 2020.

VEXANIUM’s Co-founder Robin Jang is also the Co-founder of Coinone Indonesia, the major South Korea cryptocurrency exchange that just launched their Indonesia chapter recently. Prior to joining VEXANIUM, he was the Co-founder of Cashtree, the largest online marketing platform in Indonesia and managed the company to achieve over 10 million users. A number of angel investors are already backing VEXANIUM, such as Marcus Yeung, founder and CEO of SEAbridge, and Joseph Aditya, CEO of Ralali, the largest B2B marketplace portal in Indonesia.

The immutability, liquidity and decentralized nature of VEXANIUM will revolutionize this market while introducing a whole new wave of retailers and users to the blockchain era.

VEXANIUM VEX token sale starts on May 16th, 2018.

Website: https://www.vexanium.com/

Twitter: @vexanium

Telegram: t.me/vexaniumcom

Images courtesy of Vexanium

The post Vexanium: A Decentralized Platform is Disrupting the Marketing Ecosystem appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.

via CryptoCoinscious.com via Josh Cannon on Inoreader