Let’s imagine Chianti wasn't a collection of wineries and appellations but a single business with one marketing budget. How would you organise the portfolio?
Today, we have Chianti DOCG, Chianti Classico DOCG, Riserva, Gran Selezione, geographical subzones and the newer UGAs.
Each with its own history, identity, and reason to exist.
But how many consumers understand the differences?
If Chianti were a company, I suspect its first priority would be simplifying the message.
It would probably build on the extraordinary heritage of Chianti Classico, use Gran Selezione to reinforce its premium credentials, and create a much clearer path for consumers to understand the different wines. That sounds reasonable, and we can probably find a few people to agree on it.
Let’s call it a clear message that can be repeated, reported and translated. For this mental exercise, we can call it: Chianti, the home of fine wine in Tuscany since XYZ. (I’m sure a better tagline can be found - but you get the gist)
Instead, two independent appellations share the most important word in their names, represented by different consortiums and hundreds of producers with their own commercial interests.
Chianti DOCG producers are rightly promoting their own terroirs, craftsmanship, and premium wines. Meanwhile, Chianti Classico DOCG is building its distinct identity around heritage, the Black Rooster, geographical specificity and premiumisation with the Grand Selezione and UGA.
Neither is necessarily wrong. But after XYZ years of Chianti being synonymous with Italian red wine in many export markets, the extra mental effort to understand those complications can easily wear out consumers and sommeliers; history shows producers leaving the appellations to make their own wines.
Now let’s see what happens when two brands share a name and compete for different positions in the consumer's mind.
Think about how luxury groups manage portfolios.
They don't necessarily put every product under the same name and expect consumers to understand the difference. They create distinct identities, associations and price expectations.
In an extended product portfolio, say Samsung's mobile division, national and international efforts to win consumers' attention focus on fully spec'd-out phones to embed an idea of quality and innovation in people's minds, while entry-level models get closer to the point of sale marketing through special offers, incentives and some clever copy. The brand and idea are built around the icon, and it trickles down; otherwise, it would be nearly impossible, even with massive budgets, to make it work.
The other way to see it for Chianti is as a house of Brands, like Virgin and its divisions; however, the vertical is the same for Chianti, so it doesn’t work, though that’s the case for Chianti now.
And here's the deliberately uncomfortable question:
If we were starting from zero, would we even call both appellations Chianti?
I'm not suggesting that centuries of history, protected denominations and local interests can simply be redesigned in a boardroom, nor that Chianti Classico is automatically better than every wine bearing the Chianti name.
But I do wonder how much collective brand equity is lost to complexity.
When the regional message isn't immediately clear, individual producers must spend more time and money explaining their position.
Some have done this exceptionally well, building estate brands that stand confidently above the confusion. Others are left relying on consumers to understand an increasingly complicated system.
If the problem isn't product quality, then it's communication, brand, or distribution.
So, if Chianti were your business, where would you spend your marketing budget?
I'm curious what producers, sommeliers and brand strategists think.
Thoughts from a Wine Marketing & PR Agency
Observations from the conversations, decisions and problems we see every day in wine.
