The Most Undervalued Marketing Play in the Beverage Industry Right Now

Let us be honest about where the industry is.

The numbers are not pretty. Total market volume is declining. Consolidation at the distributor level is reshaping access to the market. Consumer habits are shifting in ways that have not yet fully settled. Walk into any industry gathering, and the conversation is the same: things are tighter, slower, and stranger than they were three years ago.

That is exactly why what you do with your future marketing dollars matters more than it ever has.

Here is the problem. The traditional playbook is not built for this moment. PR firms charge $100,000 or more to represent a single brand for a single year. What does that buy you? A few press placements, some outreach to journalists who may or may not cover you, and a retainer that keeps going regardless of results. For a small or mid-size producer, that is not a marketing strategy. That is a bet.

Then there are influencers. A single Instagram reel from a creator with a meaningful following runs anywhere from $300 to several thousand dollars. Per post. Per bottle. And the content disappears in 72 hours. A mid-campaign creator package can run $10,000 to $30,000 for a handful of posts and no guaranteed reach.

And trade shows. A booth at a major industry event costs thousands before you add team travel, sample allocation, and the hours spent standing on a concrete floor hoping the right buyer walks past. The shelf life of that investment is the weekend of the show. Then it is gone.

TERROIR is a different calculation entirely.

We built TERROIR out of seven intriguing categories that we feel based on the data, current attitudes, and future outlook will lead the growth into 2027: Touriga Nacional and Portuguese varietals, Emerging spirits, Riesling, Rum, Obscure, Italian varietals, and Rye. Each category represents a space where producers are innovating, professionals are seeking deeper knowledge, and consumers are increasingly open to exploration. Together, they form a cross‑section of grapes, regions, and spirits that are historically rich yet commercially underleveraged — categories that reward education, storytelling, and hands‑on engagement. By pairing a coordinated online-media program with immersive Speakeasy events with a dedicated Content House, TERROIR ensures that these wines and spirits are not only tasted but contextualized, photographed, discussed, and incorporated into the creative processes of industry professionals who shape market perception.

T  —  Touriga — Portuguese Varietals

Portugal produces some of the world’s most distinctive wines from indigenous varieties found nowhere else on earth. Touriga Nacional — the backbone of Port and increasingly the star of dry Douro reds — delivers extraordinary depth, violet aromatics, and aging potential that rivals the finest Cabernets or Nebbiolos at a fraction of the price. Alentejo, Dão, and Bairrada add further intrigue with their own indigenous grapes and terroir-driven styles. Portugal’s broader family of indigenous varietals represent one of the most compelling intersections of heritage, sustainability, and value in the global wine landscape.

Portugal has become a quiet leader in dry‑farming and low‑input viticulture, practices that increasingly influence how buyers, sommeliers, and media evaluate long‑term category relevance. These methods aren’t marketing claims — they are structural realities of Portuguese farming where steep terrain and limited water access have shaped viticultural discipline for generations. The result is wines that express place with clarity and resilience. At the same time, Portuguese varietals deliver an unusually strong value‑to‑quality ratio, making them ideal for by‑the‑glass programs where operators need character, consistency, and affordability in equal measure. Touriga Nacional, Baga, Encruzado, and dozens of lesser‑known grapes offer depth, aromatics, and aging potential that outperform their price tiers, giving beverage professionals a category that is both commercially practical and creatively rewarding. TERROIR captures this momentum by building bartender, media, and sommelier champions from scratch — people who will pour, recommend, and talk about these wines for years to come.

E — Emerging Spirits

‘Emerging’ in the TERROIR campaign is deliberately broad by design. It captures the entire frontier of beverage culture — everything that doesn’t fit neatly into a traditional wine or spirits category but represents the future of the back bar and the wine list. These are unexplored opportunities in today’s beverage landscape — a space where curious bartenders, sommeliers, and consumers are actively searching for something new, distinctive, and culturally grounded. This includes: Mezcal and rare agave spirits (Sotol, Raicilla, Bacanora), Cachaça, Pisco, Soju, Baijiu, Arrack, Clairin, Aquavit, Rakija and other Central and Eastern European brandies, plus the rapidly growing category of functional/adaptogenic non-alcoholic spirits and alternatives.

For bartenders and sommeliers, Emerging Spirits offer creative range — new acids, textures, aromatics, and cultural narratives that expand what a cocktail or pairing can be. For buyers and media, they signal where the market is moving. TERROIR positions this category as a frontier worth understanding, giving producers a platform and professionals a structured way to explore, taste, and translate these spirits into menus and stories.

R  —  Riesling

Riesling is arguably the most misunderstood grape on earth — and the most exciting when properly understood. For too long, ‘Riesling’ in the American market meant ‘sweet,’ a reputation built on the mass-market styles that flooded shelves in the 1980s and ’90s. That era is over. Today’s Riesling story is about Grosses Gewächs (GG) –Germany’s elite dry Riesling classification — and about the extraordinary diversity of styles from Mosel, Rheingau, Alsace, Clare Valley, and the Finger Lakes. Riesling is also one of the few noble grapes thriving across shifting climates. Producers across the globe are all investing in Riesling precisely because it adapts: it maintains acidity, expresses site with precision, and responds transparently to changes in temperature and soil.

For beverage professionals, this adaptability translates into creative range — dry, off‑dry, sparkling, skin‑contact, and even low‑ABV formats that fit modern drinking preferences. For consumers, Riesling offers a clear path into exploration: familiar enough to feel approachable yet varied enough to reward curiosity. Bartenders have begun to rediscover Riesling as the ultimate cocktail-adjacent wine: its bright acidity, pure fruit expression, and low alcohol make it the perfect pairing partner and increasingly a base for low-ABV cocktail builds. The TERROIR campaign positions Riesling as a category ready for rediscovery, giving professionals a structured way to taste across regions, understand the grape’s versatility, and translate that knowledge into wine lists, cocktail menus, and food pairings.

R  —  Rum

Rum is in the middle of its most significant cultural moment in decades. The category — long dominated by mass-market mixers and spring break connotations — has undergone a complete renaissance driven by craft distillers, single-estate agricole producers, and a new generation of bartenders who treat Rum with the same seriousness they once reserved for Bourbon and Scotch. The result is a category of extraordinary depth: long‑ferment Jamaican high‑ester rums, AOC‑regulated agricoles, rum from India’s expansive sugarcane plantings, Pacific portfolios from Fiji to Hawaii, and emerging continental American craft producers. This combination of heritage, diversity, and renewed integrity makes Rum a category ready for deeper discovery –exactly the kind of space TERROIR was designed to elevate.

TERROIR captures Rum at its greatest inflection point. Producers who enter this campaign gain access to the exact audience — bartenders can use Rum to expand cocktail programs with styles that introduce new acids, aromatics, and textures; media and educators gain access to production stories that resonate with audiences seeking authenticity; and buyers can build value‑driven lists that differentiate their programs and portfolios.

O  —  Obscure

Obscure champions lesser‑known grapes, regions, and beverage categories, giving them the cultural and commercial oxygen they rarely receive. For bartenders and sommeliers, the value is immediate: these professionals are constantly searching for new levers of differentiation, new stories to tell, and new flavors that set their programs apart. Obscure gives them a structured platform to explore underrepresented varieties, from grapes like Teroldego and Fernao Pires to categories like Madeira or Tokaji, and to translate that exploration into compelling menus and guest education. In a market saturated with the same dozen grapes and the same predictable spirits, the campaign restores a sense of discovery—something beverage professionals crave because it strengthens their authority, deepens their craft, and keeps their guests engaged. The Obscure category also supports regional economic resilience by giving small producers visibility in markets where they rarely have distribution leverage.

For consumers, Obscure fills an equally important gap. Most drinkers want to explore but lack the context, confidence, or exposure to move beyond familiar labels. By spotlighting lesser‑known regions and categories in an accessible, story‑driven way, the campaign lowers the barrier to entry and reframes exploration as an invitation rather than a risk. It empowers drinkers to understand why these wines and spirits matter—culturally, historically, and sensorially—and why they often deliver exceptional value. In doing so, Obscure strengthens the entire ecosystem: bartenders and sommeliers gain new tools for creativity, producers gain visibility, and consumers gain a richer, more adventurous drinking life.

I  —  Italian Varietals: 350 Grapes, Two Countries Growing Them, American Lists Running About Twelve

Italy produces wine from more indigenous grape varieties than any other country on earth — over 350 authorized varieties and counting. This is a landscape of micro-regional DOC and DOCG zones, volcanic and alpine terroirs, and centuries-old varieties that sommeliers and curious consumers are only beginning to rediscover: Nerello Mascalese on Etna’s volcanic slopes, Fiano and Greco in Campania, Amarone producers challenging the world’s top reds at every price tier, Ribolla Gialla and the radical orange wine revolution in Friuli, plus the diverse zones of Alto Piemonte.

And it doesn’t stop at the Italian border. Italian varieties have been in American ground for more than a century, and the producers working with them now are making wine that belongs in the same conversation. Nebbiolo, Sangiovese, Barbera, Vermentino, Aglianico, Fiano, Teroldego — planted and bottled in California, Washington, Oregon, Texas, and the mid-Atlantic. TERROIR takes both. Italian and American, same category, same online marketing campaign, same blind panel, same Discovery Lab, judged on the same table. Italian varietals embody the core idea of terroir comparison: one grape expressed in two countries reveals two distinct answers; evaluating Italian and American bottlings side‑by‑side shows a fuller truth that neither can communicate alone.

Italian wines are the backbone of American wine culture — but there’s a generational push past the familiar names into indigenous variety and sub-regional exploration. BevFluence’s TERROIR campaign meets this desire, bringing the producers who make those discoveries possible into direct conversation with the industry professionals who matter most. Bartenders and sommeliers can use these wines to build more distinctive by‑the‑glass programs, expand pairing options, and introduce guests to varieties that feel both new and grounded in tradition. Media and educators gain access to stories shaped by geology, history, and regional identity — narratives that resonate with audiences seeking deeper understanding.

Italy has 350 varieties. America is growing a lot of them. We’re building the room where both get poured side by side.

R  —  Rye

Rye represents one of the most historically grounded yet still under‑explored opportunities in the spirits world. It is the original cocktail whiskey — the base of the Manhattan, Sazerac, and countless pre‑Prohibition classics — but its modern resurgence is driven by factors far more interesting than nostalgia. Rye is becoming a terroir‑driven spirit in a way American whiskey hasn’t seen before: producers are reviving heirloom grains like Rosen, Abruzzi, and Danko; farmers are experimenting with single‑field and single‑varietal plantings; and distillers are exploring regional styles that highlight grain character rather than barrel dominance. At the same time, Canada’s century‑old rye traditions are being rediscovered by bartenders who value their spice, structure, and cocktail versatility. This combination of heritage, grain specificity, and regional diversity makes Rye a category ready for deeper professional and consumer exploration — exactly the kind of opportunity TERROIR is designed to elevate.

Thus, today’s Rye landscape is extraordinarily diverse: from the 95%-rye high-rectified Indiana-sourced products that built modern cocktail bars to the single-estate heritage Monongahela style of Pennsylvania, from many producers’ farm-to-bottle programs to Canada’s underappreciated century-old Rye traditions (Lot 40, Alberta Premium). TERROIR captures this full spectrum — and gives Rye producers a platform to educate craft beverage professionals. Bartenders can use grain‑specific ryes to build cocktails with clearer structure and more intentional flavor design; educators and media gain access to production stories that resonate with audiences seeking authenticity and agricultural connection; and buyers can differentiate their whiskey programs with bottlings that offer both value and narrative depth.

What happens to your submissions?

BevFluence® ensures that your submission is evaluated multiple times.  

We’ve watched too many bottles, cans, and drams get shipped off to conferences, campaigns, and media — used once, then forgotten. Years in this industry taught us that waste like that isn’t just a hit to your marketing budget. It’s a disregard for what actually went into that liquid.

That’s why we built a program that puts every sample to work multiple times over — squeezing real value out of every pour, every can, every dram. We know what it takes to produce that juice. We know how hard it is to part with it. So, we made sure none of it goes to waste.

TERROIR incorporates both a virtual marketing campaign plus multiple in-person industry events we call Speakeasies.

In the marketing campaign, every submission is activated across our network of skilled creators who produce authentic, high‑quality content. Posts, reels, stories, long-form reviews, and educational pieces. Analytics from previous campaigns show that the posts reach 3 million-plus engaged followers in the beverage community. Buyers, bartenders, enthusiasts, and decision-makers who care about what they drink and who makes it. BevFluence® will inform you where to send your submissions and you just sit back and engage with all the content from your new brand advocates.

Your submission will also be showcased during all 2027 BevFluence® Speakeasies. These are intimate gatherings of curated attendees.  We spend three days providing education, production access, curated tastings, mentorship, creative time, memories, and of course tons of authentic content.

Each Speakeasy starts with a blind panel review of all submissions. The individual evaluation notes are saved in the BevFluence® Collaborations platform and are available for brands to review. Reviews are also published in the BevFluence® 2027 Holiday Beverage Guide. But the blind tasting is, perhaps, the least interesting part.

Every submission goes through BevFluence® Discovery Labs, where our attendees get hands on creating blends, pairings, cocktails, menu strategies and more. If we haven’t explained it well enough yet, every bottle, can,  dram and drop gets used many times, as we create tasting notes, funky pairings, holiday reviews, videos, hero shots, and more. Beyond any reasonable expectation we use every submission many times.  

The Early Bird submission fee is $435. Six or more entries drops every single submission to $325.  Standard pricing opens February 1, 2027 at $600.  Early activation is highly recommended. Submissions received before October 31, 2026 will benefit from two cycles of Holiday content – Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years and more for 2026 & 2027. 

For context: $435 is far less than a single post from a micro-influencer with 50,000 followers. It is a fraction of a trade show booth deposit. It is a rounding error on a PR firm retainer.

What you get in return is the largest concentration of content creation, blind reviews, editorial coverage,  industry activation, and live event exposure that any beverage brand can access in a single submission. As some experts have claimed, our programming is a “Magical Combination” that exists nowhere else. 

If you decide to skip this campaign, what is your plan? 

TERROIR is where that work gets done.

Registration is open now through October 31, 2027. Early Bird pricing closes January 31, 2027.

Register at BevFluence Collaborations.

PDF Media Kit for TERRIOR Campaign.

The post BevFluence® Launches TERROIR: A First-of-Its-Kind Campaign to Build Real Passion for the World’s Most Compelling Beverage Categories appeared first on BevFluence | Influence. Innovate. Imbibe.

Growers and consumers navigate a complex ecosystem of agricultural certifications — each with its own standards, inspection protocols, and philosophical foundations. What does each certification mean? How do they differ? Some focus strictly on inputs, others on ecological outcomes, and even more incorporate social or animal‑welfare criteria. What follows is an overview of the major certifications used in organic, biodynamic, and regenerative agriculture.

Overview

Program	Scope & Focus	Verification Model	Core Principles
USDA Organic	National organic standard for crops & livestock	Third‑party audit under federal regulation	No synthetic fertilizers/pesticides, no GMOs, 3‑year transition
Certified Naturally Grown	Community‑based alternative to USDA Organic	Peer review inspections	Small‑farm oriented; aligns closely with USDA Organic rules
Real Organic Project	Add‑on label reinforcing soil‑based organic farming	Annual inspection	Soil‑grown crops; excludes hydroponics; pasture‑based livestock
Demeter Biodynamic	Whole‑farm ecological system	Third‑party audit	Biodiversity, closed nutrient cycles, biodynamic preparations
A Greener World – Regenerative Certified	Regenerative outcomes across crop & livestock systems	Third‑party audit	Soil health, biodiversity, measurable ecological improvement
Soil & Climate Initiative	Outcome‑based regenerative verification	Annual measurement & reporting	Continuous improvement in soil function & climate impact
Regenerative Organic Certified (ROA)	Regenerative organic agriculture	Tiered certification (Bronze–Gold)	Soil health, animal welfare, social fairness
Regenified	Regenerative performance standard	Tiered verification (Levels 1–6)	Six soil‑health principles; whole‑system outcomes
Soil Regen	Regenerative agronomy consulting & verification	Data‑driven assessment	Soil testing, biological improvement, farmer profitability
Regenerative Viticulture Foundation	Regenerative grape‑growing & education	Voluntary participation	Soil restoration, biodiversity, One Block Challenge
Land to Market	Regenerative sourcing for food, fiber & leather	Outcome-based verification using Ecological Outcome Verification (EOV)	Soil health, biodiversity, ecosystem function measured annually
Fibershed Climate Beneficial	Regenerative fiber & textile systems	Practices verified through carbon‑farm planning	Soil carbon drawdown, climate‑positive land stewardship
Ethos	Regenerative supply‑chain transparency	Digital verification & traceability platform	Outcome tracking, soil‑health metrics, producer‑level data integrity

Organic Certifications

USDA Organic (National Organic Program)

The USDA Organic seal represents the United States’ federal regulatory standard for organic production. It prohibits synthetic fertilizers, most synthetic pesticides, sewage‑sludge‑based amendments, and genetically modified organisms. Land must undergo a three‑year transition period before certification. Farms maintain an Organic System Plan (OSP) and undergo annual third‑party inspections.

USDA Transitional Organic

This designation supports farms during the required three‑year transition to full USDA Organic status. It does not permit organic labeling on products but verifies that land is under compliant organic management. Transitional certification helps growers communicate progress to buyers and lenders.

Certified Naturally Grown (CNG)

CNG is a peer‑reviewed alternative to USDA Organic designed for small, direct‑market farms. Standards closely mirror USDA Organic, but inspections are conducted by fellow farmers rather than accredited auditors. CNG emphasizes transparency and community‑based verification.

Real Organic Project (ROP)

ROP is an add‑on label for USDA‑certified farms that meet additional soil‑based requirements. It excludes hydroponic production and confinement livestock systems, reinforcing traditional organic principles centered on soil health and ecological integration.

Biodynamic Certification

Demeter Certified Biodynamic

Demeter is the global biodynamic standard and one of the oldest ecological farming certifications. It builds on organic requirements and adds whole‑farm ecological criteria, mandatory biodiversity areas, limits on imported fertility, and use of biodynamic preparations. Certification requires annual inspections and licensing fees based on gross sales.

Regenerative Certifications

Regenerative Organic Certified® (ROC)

ROC is administered by the Regenerative Organic Alliance and layers regenerative requirements on top of USDA Organic. It evaluates farms across three pillars: soil health, animal welfare, and social fairness. Practices include cover cropping, reduced tillage, and verified labor standards. ROC offers three tiers—Bronze, Silver, and Gold—based on performance. See also Regenerative Farming at Grgich Hills Estate and Domaine Bousquet, GAIA, and Regenerative Farming.

Regenified

Regenified provides a structured way to document how farming decisions influence soil function and long‑term site health. Its 6‑3‑4 Standard aligns with many practices already familiar to growers: reduced tillage, permanent or seasonal cover crops, mixed‑species plantings, maintaining living roots through the year, and the controlled use of livestock for vegetation management. See also Understanding Certified Regenified Through Ashton Creek Vineyard.

Land to Market (Savory Institute)

Land to Market, developed by the Savory Institute, is an outcomes‑based regenerative verification. It uses Ecological Outcome Verification (EOV) to measure soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem function through short‑ and long‑term monitoring. Certification is tied to demonstrated ecological improvement rather than prescribed practices.

Soil & Climate Initiative (SCI)

SCI is a regenerative verification program focused on measurable improvements in soil health and climate outcomes. It prioritizes continuous improvement rather than strict practice‑based standards, making it accessible to farms at various stages of transition.

Fibershed Climate Beneficial

Fibershed’s Climate Beneficial certification applies to fiber and textile producers. It verifies that farming and grazing practices sequester carbon and improve soil health within regional fiber systems. The program is part of Fibershed’s broader effort to localize textile production.

A Greener World (AGW) 

A Greener World promotes practical, sustainable solutions in agriculture by supporting farmers and educating consumers. They offer a regenerative certification emphasizing soil health, biodiversity, and verified ecological outcomes. Standards apply to farms of various sizes and production types, including mixed crop‑livestock operations.

Soil Regen

Soil Regen is a science‑based agronomy group that supports growers transitioning to regenerative systems through soil‑health testing, data‑driven consulting, and practical on‑farm guidance. The organization emphasizes measurable biological improvements rather than prescriptive practice lists. Their work connects soil function with economic resilience, helping producers adopt regenerative methods that fit their specific soils, climates, and operational goals.

Regenerative Viticulture Foundation  (RVF)

RVF is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing soil‑centered, climate‑positive grape growing through education, collaboration, and measurable outcomes. Its mission is to help winegrowers transition from extractive to regenerative practices that restore ecosystem function, improve soil health, and strengthen vineyard resilience. The foundation’s flagship initiative, the One Block Challenge, invites growers to dedicate a single vineyard block to regenerative management—serving as a living demonstration of how small, evidence‑based changes can yield ecological and economic benefits. 

Ethos

Ethos provides regenerative verification for farms and ranches, focusing on soil health, ecological outcomes, and transparent documentation. It is a data-driven platform that collaboratively monitors and reports on the holistic impacts of regenerative agriculture, from soil health to farmer and community wellbeing.

Other Resources

Dodon Center for Ecological Farming

The Dodon Center for Ecological Farming promotes a transition to ecological farming and a sustainable food system through practical education, regenerative practices, and strategic partnerships. Their focus is on soil health, biodiversity, and local food production—bringing together farmers, consumers, and policymakers to build a resilient and fair future. 

The post What are the Various Organic, Biodynamic, and Regenerative Certifications? appeared first on BevFluence | Influence. Innovate. Imbibe.

“This pilot program addresses whole-farm resource concerns through support for voluntary regenerative agriculture conservation plans. It also puts American farmers first as a part of the solution to provide access to American-grown whole foods, critical to addressing the chronic disease crisis nationwide.” —  Natural Resources Conservation Service

If vineyard owners – and farmers in general – are interested in moving to more organic and regenerative practices, in December 2025, the U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture launched a program to provide assistance. The NRCS Regenerative Pilot Program was initiate through the department’s Natural Resources Conservation Service as a “farmer first, outcomes-based approach to conservation designed to return the agency to its core mission – helping people help the land. NRCS is investing $700 million to specifically support regenerative agriculture.” 

This $700 million program repackages existing funding in USDA conservation programs into a more streamlined approach with $400 million allocated through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and $300 million through the Conservation Stewardship Program. The streamlined access is intended to allow farmers to pursue whole-farm planning instead of a piecemeal approach and results will be measured through an outcomes report. 

The USDA program targets the most friction-filled phase of any regenerative investment: the three-to-five-year transition window during which farmers adjust practices, absorb upfront capital costs and wait for the agronomic and financial benefits to materialize. EQIP is a cost-share program that reimburses farmers for implementing specific conservation practices—directly reducing that burden and shortening the highest-risk phase for private capital. 

The practical implications break down across two areas worth watching closely.

First, operator behavior. Federal payments reduce the financial barrier to transition, which makes it more likely that farmland operators move toward regenerative practices over the next several years—not out of conviction, but out of economic incentive. For investors evaluating assets, this increases the supply of transition-stage and post-transition farms available for acquisition or partnership. It also raises the floor on what standard practice looks like, which has direct implications for how conventional farms are valued relative to regenerative ones.

Second, the definition problem. As regenerative practices become more widespread, the premium that verified regenerative farmland commands—from buyers, supply chain partners and in lease negotiations—will depend increasingly on how credibly farms can demonstrate outcomes. Investors who have built rigorous evaluation frameworks are better positioned to identify which assets will retain and grow that premium, and which will see it compress as the label becomes more common. — Forbes

According to the Farm Journal, “USDA says farmers and ranchers interested in regenerative agriculture are encouraged to apply through their local NRCS Service Center by their state’s ranking dates for consideration in FY2026 funding. Applications for both EQIP and CSP can now be submitted under the new single regenerative application process.” 

Benefits to producers include:

• Bundled practices will be integrated into a single application, making programs easier to access and more impactful;
• Whole-farm holistic conservation planning is the centerpiece of the program, ensuring that all resource concerns (soil, water, and natural vitality) are addressed together, not piecemeal;
• Conservation planning and producer objectives drive the process, ensuring site-specific solutions that work for the producer;
• Outcomes are tracked, measured, and credited back to the farmer; and
• Producers at every stage, from beginners just starting out with cover crops to advanced operations with years of conservation experience, will find a pathway through this pilot program.

As part of participating in Regenerative Pilot Program, producers must:

• Work with NRCS staff, partners, or technical service providers to conduct a whole-farm assessment.
• Use at least one primary regenerative management practice.
• Agree to perform soil health testing in the first and last year of the contract (at a minimum) to establish a starting baseline and to record the resulting changes. 

 Primary practices include:

• Conservation Crop Rotation
• Contour Farming 
• Contour Orchard and Other Perennial Crop
• Cover Crop
• Drainage Water Management 
• Forage Harvest Management 
• Forest Stand Improvement 
• Irrigation Water Management 
• Mulching 
• Nutrient Management 
• Pest Management Conservation System 
• Grazing Management 
• Residue and Tillage Management, No Till 
• Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced 
• Stripcropping 

The post Start Practicing Regenerative Agriculture Through the NRCS Regenerative Pilot Program appeared first on BevFluence | Influence. Innovate. Imbibe.

Recently we read that Ashton Creek Vineyard becoming the first vineyard in Virginia to earn Certified Regenified status.  We have written previously about Regenerative Farming and the various regulations stipulated through USDA Certified Organic, Demeter Biodynamic, or Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC).  But not Regenified.

In general, Regenerative agriculture is a collection of practices that focus on regenerating soil health and the full farm ecosystem. In practice, regenerative organic agriculture can look like cover cropping, crop rotation, low- to no-till, compost, and zero use of persistent chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Layered into these practices, depending on a farm’s needs, could be the addition of perennials, development of pollinator and wildlife habitats, incorporation of agroforestry systems, vegetative barriers, and other regenerative practices that are shown to contribute to the development of soil organic matter

More specifically, Regenified provides a structured way to document how farming decisions influence soil function and long‑term site health. Its 6‑3‑4 Standard aligns with many practices already familiar to growers: reduced tillage, permanent or seasonal cover crops, mixed‑species plantings, maintaining living roots through the year, and the controlled use of livestock for vegetation management. 

The 6‑3‑4 Standard is Regenified’s core framework for evaluating regenerative agriculture, combining six soil‑health principles, three rules of adaptive stewardship, and four ecosystem processes into a single, measurable structure. The six principles—context, minimizing disturbance, soil armor, diversity, living roots, and livestock integration—outline the foundational conditions needed for healthy soil function. The three adaptive‑stewardship rules emphasize planning with intent, monitoring conditions, and adjusting management as variability occurs. The four ecosystem processes—energy flow, water cycle, mineral cycle, and community dynamics—describe how a functioning landscape moves energy, water, and nutrients through the system. Together, these components allow Regenified to assess both the practices a producer implements and the ecological outcomes observed on the ground, forming the basis for its data collection and tiered certification program.

During verification, trained assessors collect more than sixty ecological data points within vineyard blocks—water infiltration in alleys, ground‑cover percentages, compaction layers that affect rooting depth, biological activity around root zones, and the diversity of plant communities that influence soil structure and pest dynamics. These measurements create a practical record of how the vineyard is functioning beyond yield and canopy metrics. Growers are then placed within a tiered certification system that reflects their current alignment with regenerative principles and the ecological outcomes observed on site. For vineyards interested in demonstrating stewardship with clear, repeatable criteria, the framework offers a consistent way to track progress and communicate improvements to buyers, neighbors, and regional partners.

In 2018, Ashton Creek Vineyard started struggling with ever-increasing inputs and declining soil health and two years later began moving to a more organic and regenerative approach to viticulture. The idea was to “fix the root cause of the sickness instead of always addressing the symptoms”. For example, struggling to keep up with mechanical weeding, they introduced Dorper sheep to their vineyards to help control vegetation and enhance soil health. Next they released beneficial bugs to target vineyard pests and diversified their cover crop plantings. This process eventually led to the Regenified program and they earned Tier 3 Certified Regenified status in May 20, 2026.  This certification recognizes their “measurable progress in soil health and ecosystem function, achieved through practices such as replacing diesel mowers with a flock of sheep, eliminating synthetic inputs, and increasing soil organic matter”. 

In practical terms, adopting these practices have allowed Ashton Creek Vineyard to “eliminate synthetic fertilizers and herbicides, decrease fungicide use by 40%, limit mowing and labor, reduce outside inputs by 65%, and increase their soil’s organic matter by 400% and carbon capture by 350%.” —Virginia Farm Bureau. 

If other vineyards or farms are interested in replicating Ashton Creek Vineyard’s success, our next Regenerative Farming post will explain the NRCS Regenerative Pilot Program – a new program encouraging regenerative farming through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

The post Understanding Certified Regenified™ Through Ashton Creek Vineyard appeared first on BevFluence | Influence. Innovate. Imbibe.

Across both wine and beer, the same paradox is emerging: the broader beverage alcohol market is softening, yet hospitality‑driven tasting rooms—those built around onsite experiences, community, and human connection—are outperforming the industry at large. The 2026 Wine Business Monthly Tasting Room Survey and the Brewers Association’s 2025 New Brewer Industry Overview tell remarkably similar stories from opposite sides of the beverage aisle.

Despite declines in overall consumption, rising costs, and a national shift toward staying home, tasting rooms remain one of the few places where producers are still growing revenue, strengthening loyalty, and attracting new audiences.

The data from both the wine and beer sectors points to a shared conclusion: producers who invest in hospitality are outperforming those who rely primarily on distribution. Experience‑driven tasting rooms—whether winery, taproom, or brewpub—have become the most resilient revenue engines in an era defined by declining alcohol consumption and rising consumer inertia. The next two years will reward operators who treat hospitality not as an accessory but as a core business strategy. This includes designing tasting rooms that function as social anchors, integrating digital tools that streamline service without replacing human connection, and building hybrid models that blend onsite experiences with digital engagement and events. Partnerships with local businesses, from restaurants to wellness providers, are becoming essential traffic drivers, and the wineries and breweries that adopt tiered offerings are best positioned to welcome younger consumers who are price‑sensitive but experience‑motivated.

Within this broader shift, several tactical priorities are emerging. Experience‑driven tasting rooms—those that offer layered, intentional hospitality—consistently outperform the market because they give consumers a reason to leave home. Hybrid models that combine onsite tasting, digital marketing, and event programming help producers reach audiences across multiple touchpoints, extending the relationship beyond a single visit. Local partnerships amplify visibility and create shared value, especially in regions where tourism has softened. And tiered offerings, whether lower‑priced tastings or flexible membership structures, help wineries and breweries meet younger consumers where they are without diluting brand identity.

These trends reflect a simple truth: the gravity of the couch is strong, but the pull of a well‑designed hospitality experience is stronger. The businesses that succeed in 2026–2027 will be those that pair operational efficiency with human warmth, use technology to enhance—not automate—the guest journey, and create spaces that feel like community hubs rather than retail outlets. In this environment, hospitality is no longer a supplement to production; it is the strategic center of the modern beverage business.

1. The Macro Picture: Declines Everywhere Except Hospitality

Beer: On‑Premise Shrinks, But Brewery Taprooms Shine

According to NielsenIQ’s CGA dataset, 2025 was another contraction year for beer in bars and restaurants:

• Beer volume at eating establishments: –8%
• Craft beer volume: –10%
• Beer volume at drinking establishments: –6%
• Craft beer volume: –9%
• Combined draft volume: –5% overall, –10% for craft

Yet onsite‑focused craft breweries bucked the trend:

• Brewpubs (food + onsite sales) were down only 1.7%, the best performance of any craft segment.
• 44% of brewpubs increased production—five points above the craft average.
• Taprooms (onsite sales, limited food) were down 3.9%, still outperforming the broader market.
• Both models had the lowest closure‑to‑opening ratio in craft: 1.4:1.

The data is clear: the more a brewery leans into hospitality, the better it performs.

Wine: Tasting Rooms Outperform a Declining Category

The wine industry is facing its own headwinds—declining visitation, rising costs, and a generational shift in drinking habits. Yet tasting rooms remain the strongest DTC channel:

• Median tasting room order value in 2025: $90 nationally
• Napa: $270, Sonoma: $128, Central Coast: $100
• Wine club acquisition rates remain strong in many regions (e.g., 25% in the Pacific Northwest and East of Rockies)
• 73% of wineries now partner with restaurants, hotels, wellness businesses, and other wineries to drive traffic

Even as “decreased tasting room visitation” was the #1 obstacle reported for 2025, tasting rooms still outperformed wholesale and retail channels by a wide margin.

2. Why Hospitality Works: Experience Outweighs Convenience

Both industries are fighting the same cultural shift: Americans are going out less.

• Full‑service restaurants now get 35.4% of traffic from off‑premise (up from 12.1% in 2019).
• Limited‑service restaurants jumped from 74.1% to 89.9% off‑premise.
• Americans aged 15–29 spend 45% more time alone than in 2010 (BLS Time Use Survey).

In a world where consumers can order anything from their couch, the only reason to leave home is for an experience worth leaving home for.

That’s where tasting rooms excel.

Craft breweries

Taprooms and brewpubs succeed because they offer:

• Community
• Social connection
• A “third place” outside home and work
• Human‑centered service
• A curated, local identity

As the Brewers Association notes, the most successful operators pair personalized hospitality with technology that reduces friction—online reservations, digital menus, streamlined ordering—without making guests feel like they’re being served by robots.

Wineries

Wine tasting rooms are leaning into:

• Tiered tasting experiences
• Lower‑priced entry points for younger consumers
• Events and activities
• Digital marketing and storytelling
• New facilities and experiential upgrades

In the 2026 survey, wineries reported that the most effective ways to attract younger drinkers were:

• Social/digital marketing
• Events and activities
• Experiences and new facilities

Lowering fees helped, but experience design mattered more.

3. The Common Thread: Hospitality as a Revenue Engine

Across both wine and beer, hospitality‑driven businesses share several advantages:

4. The Strategic Imperative for 2026–2027

The data from both industries points to the same conclusion: Producers who invest in hospitality will outperform those who rely on distribution alone.

The next two years will reward:

• Experience‑driven tasting rooms
• Hybrid models (onsite + digital + events)
• Partnerships with local businesses
• Tiered offerings that welcome younger consumers
• Technology that enhances—not replaces—human service
• Food programs (even limited ones) that extend dwell time and increase spend

The gravity of the couch is real. But tasting rooms—wine and beer alike—are proving that consumers will still get up, go out, and engage when the experience is worth it.

The post Hospitality Is the Bright Spot: Why Tasting Rooms Are Outperforming the Beverage Industry in 2025–2026 appeared first on BevFluence | Influence. Innovate. Imbibe.

Riesling has long been regarded as one of the world’s most expressive white grape varieties, yet in the United States it remains far less institutionally embraced than Chardonnay or Sauvignon Blanc. Its history is deep and well documented: the grape originated in the Rhine Valley of Germany, with written references appearing as early as 1435 and viticultural spread into Alsace by the late 15th century and Austria by 1700. Riesling’s success in Central Europe was shaped by climate as much as culture. During the Little Ice Age, its cold‑hardy physiology—thick bark, compact leaves, and the ability to ripen slowly while retaining high acidity—allowed it to thrive where other varieties struggled, producing balanced fruit even in extreme conditions Springer. This resilience helped establish Riesling as a cornerstone of German and Alsatian wine identity, and it remains the most planted variety in Germany today, accounting for over 23,000 hectares of vineyards, with significant plantings also in Alsace, Austria, Luxembourg, northern Italy, and Central Europe more broadly.

Riesling’s climatic preferences are well understood — it excels in cool to cold continental regions where long ripening seasons preserve acidity and allow aromatic development. In Germany’s Mosel and Rheingau, this results in wines marked by apple, citrus, and stone‑fruit notes with pronounced acidity; in warmer but still temperate zones such as Alsace or Austria, Riesling can develop riper peach and citrus tones while maintaining structure. Outside Europe, Riesling has proven equally expressive in cool New World climates. It arrived in North America as early as the mid‑1600s, though early attempts failed; successful plantings emerged in the mid‑1800s in California and later spread to New York, Oregon, Washington, and Canada, where regions like the Finger Lakes and Okanagan Valley now produce distinctive, terroir‑driven styles Springer. Today, Riesling is grown across six continents, from Australia’s Clare and Eden Valleys to New Zealand and South Africa, demonstrating its adaptability and global relevance.

Given this rich history and proven versatility, the question remains: why hasn’t Riesling achieved broader popularity or institutionalization in the United States? Part of the answer lies in consumer perception. Riesling’s stylistic range—from bone‑dry to lusciously sweet—has often been misunderstood, with many American drinkers assuming the category is uniformly sweet. This misconception obscures the grape’s precision, transparency to terroir, and capacity for age‑worthy, dry wines. Another factor is market inertia: Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc dominate shelf space, restaurant lists, and marketing budgets, leaving Riesling underrepresented despite its quality and diversity. Producers who champion the grape often find themselves educating consumers one bottle at a time.

This is precisely where the BevFluence TERROIR campaign becomes relevant. TERROIR is designed to elevate seven under‑recognized but high‑potential beverage categories—including Riesling—through creator‑driven storytelling, blind expert review, and immersive industry events. The campaign integrates each participating producer into a broader cultural exploration of their category, offering media reach, educational activations, and placement in holiday gift guides and industry showcases. For Riesling producers, this represents an opportunity to reframe the narrative: to present Riesling not as a niche curiosity but as a globally significant, terroir‑expressive grape with deep historical roots and modern relevance. By participating, wineries gain access to a network of sommeliers, creators, and beverage directors who can help shift consumer understanding and expand the category’s footprint.

Riesling’s story is one of resilience, precision, and place. Its global history and proven adaptability suggest it deserves a stronger presence in the American market than it currently enjoys. For producers seeking to change that trajectory, aligning with a platform built to amplify overlooked categories may be one of the most effective steps forward.

We built TERROIR as a multi-dimensional campaign across seven locked categories: Touriga Nacional and Portuguese varietals, Emerging spirits, Riesling, Rum, Obscure, Italian varietals, and Rye. TERROIR captures Rum at its greatest inflection point. Producers who enter this campaign gain access to the exact audience — adventurous, education-hungry, cocktail-forward bartenders — most likely to champion their products on menus and in guest conversations.

Every entry goes through a blind panel review and receives a score. That score is published in the BevFluence Spring 2027 Beverage Guide. It appears in multiple holiday gifting features. It travels.

But the blind tasting is, perhaps, the least interesting part.

Every entry is activated across a network of 292 creators producing original content. Posts, reels, stories, long-form reviews, and educational pieces. Your product reaches 3 million-plus engaged followers in the beverage community. Buyers, bartenders, enthusiasts, and decision-makers who care about what they drink and who makes it.

Every entry goes through BevFluence Bartender Labs, where professional bartenders work with your product, create cocktail content, and generate the kind of hands-on endorsement that cannot be bought in a single influencer deal. Every entry is featured in Creator Studios where branded content is produced with a level of polish and intent that reflects the quality of what is in the bottle.

And all of this sits inside a live Speakeasy event series. Intimate gatherings of 30 people maximum. Three days. Education, production access, curated tastings, and the kind of room where real industry relationships are made. Not the kind where you hand someone a business card and hope they remember you.

The Early Bird entry fee is $435. Six or more entries drops every single entry to $325. Standard pricing opens August 1 2026 at $600. The deadline is December 31, 2026.

For context: $435 is less than a single post from a micro-influencer with 50,000 followers. It is a fraction of a trade show booth deposit. It is a rounding error on a PR firm retainer.

What you get in return is the largest concentration of content creation, blind judging, editorial coverage, bartender activation, and live event exposure that any beverage brand can access in a single entry. Nothing else in the market combines these elements at this scale, at this price, with this level of editorial independence and craft-forward positioning.

The alcohol market is changing. That is not a crisis. It is a filter. The brands that understand where attention is moving, who is moving it, and how to get in front of the right people with the right message will emerge from this consolidation period with more ground, not less.

TERROIR is where that work gets done.

Entry is open now through the end of 2026. Early Bird pricing closes July 31.

Register at BevFluence Collaborations.

The post Riesling in America: A Grape Still Waiting for Its Moment appeared first on BevFluence | Influence. Innovate. Imbibe.

American rum occupies a curious place in the nation’s spirits landscape: historically foundational, technically diverse, and increasingly innovative—yet still far from the institutional recognition enjoyed by bourbon, rye, or even American single malt. The category’s roots run deep. Rum was the first widely produced spirit in the colonies, with New England distilleries converting Caribbean molasses into a domestic staple as early as the 1640s. By the mid‑18th century, rum was so embedded in daily life that consumption reached an estimated fourteen liters per person annually, effectively making it the national drink of colonial America. Its decline, however, was equally dramatic. British taxation—first the Molasses Act of 1733, then the Sugar Act of 1764—choked off affordable molasses imports, crippling the industry and paving the way for whiskey’s rise after the Revolution. Prohibition dealt another blow, and when legal drinking returned in 1933, Americans largely favored imported Caribbean rum rather than rebuilding a domestic tradition.

Despite this uneven trajectory, American rum has always been technically flexible. Producers can work with molasses, cane juice, cane syrup, or combinations of local sugars—each yielding distinct fermentation profiles and regional identities. Modern distillers mirror this diversity: some follow colonial models using imported molasses, while others emphasize local agriculture by fermenting domestic sugar or fresh cane juice where climate allows. This breadth should be a strength, yet it also contributes to the category’s fragmentation. Without a unified style, geographic indication, or widely recognized standards, American rum lacks the institutional scaffolding that helps consumers understand bourbon or tequila. Even though rum’s production methods are as rigorous and terroir‑expressive as any other spirit, the category still suffers from decades of marketing that reduced rum to a single “sweet” profile, obscuring its complexity and limiting its cultural standing.

Today’s industry is in a quiet but meaningful revival. Craft distillers across the country—from New England to the Gulf Coast to Hawaii—are experimenting with fermentation techniques, aging environments, and blending traditions that reflect both local conditions and global rum heritage. This contemporary “rumaissance” has accelerated since the 2010s, driven by producers committed to transparency, regional identity, and technical precision. Yet the category still faces a central question: why isn’t American rum more popular or institutionally recognized, given its history and quality? Part of the answer lies in visibility. Rum lacks a cohesive national narrative, a shared educational platform, and the kind of coordinated promotion that has elevated other American spirits. Consumers may encounter excellent American rums, but they rarely encounter the category as a unified movement.

This is precisely where a coordinated industry effort becomes valuable, and why producers should consider participating in the BevFluence® TERROIR campaign. The initiative positions rum alongside six other beverage categories in a structured, cross‑regional storytelling framework—one that emphasizes diversity, place, and production identity. For rum producers, this offers something the category has long lacked: a collective voice that highlights rum’s historical significance, its technical range, and its modern revival as a serious American spirit. By situating American rum within a broader terroir‑driven narrative, the campaign helps counter outdated assumptions, elevates consumer understanding, and gives producers a platform to articulate what makes their rum distinctly American. In a category defined by fragmentation, TERROIR provides coherence. In a market crowded with louder spirits, it provides volume. And for an industry with centuries of heritage but limited institutional recognition, it offers a path toward the visibility American rum has long deserved.

We built TERROIR as a multi-dimensional campaign across seven locked categories: Touriga Nacional and Portuguese varietals, Emerging spirits, Riesling, Rum, Obscure, Italian varietals, and Rye. TERROIR captures Rum at its greatest inflection point. Producers who enter this campaign gain access to the exact audience — adventurous, education-hungry, cocktail-forward bartenders — most likely to champion their products on menus and in guest conversations.

Every entry goes through a blind panel review and receives a score. That score is published in the BevFluence Spring 2027 Beverage Guide. It appears in multiple holiday gifting features. It travels.

But the blind tasting is, perhaps, the least interesting part.

Every entry is activated across a network of 292 creators producing original content. Posts, reels, stories, long-form reviews, and educational pieces. Your product reaches 3 million-plus engaged followers in the beverage community. Buyers, bartenders, enthusiasts, and decision-makers who care about what they drink and who makes it.

Every entry goes through BevFluence Bartender Labs, where professional bartenders work with your product, create cocktail content, and generate the kind of hands-on endorsement that cannot be bought in a single influencer deal. Every entry is featured in Creator Studios where branded content is produced with a level of polish and intent that reflects the quality of what is in the bottle.

And all of this sits inside a live Speakeasy event series. Intimate gatherings of 30 people maximum. Three days. Education, production access, curated tastings, and the kind of room where real industry relationships are made. Not the kind where you hand someone a business card and hope they remember you.

The Early Bird entry fee is $435. Six or more entries drops every single entry to $325. Standard pricing opens August 1 2026 at $600. The deadline is December 31, 2026.

For context: $435 is less than a single post from a micro-influencer with 50,000 followers. It is a fraction of a trade show booth deposit. It is a rounding error on a PR firm retainer.

What you get in return is the largest concentration of content creation, blind judging, editorial coverage, bartender activation, and live event exposure that any beverage brand can access in a single entry. Nothing else in the market combines these elements at this scale, at this price, with this level of editorial independence and craft-forward positioning.

The alcohol market is changing. That is not a crisis. It is a filter. The brands that understand where attention is moving, who is moving it, and how to get in front of the right people with the right message will emerge from this consolidation period with more ground, not less.

TERROIR is where that work gets done.

Entry is open now through the end of 2026. Early Bird pricing closes July 31.

Register at BevFluence Collaborations.

PDF Media Kit for TERRIOR Campaign.

The post American Rum: A Sense of Terroir appeared first on BevFluence | Influence. Innovate. Imbibe.

A BevFluence Series

Social Media | Gatekeeping | Fog City Social | Whiskey Culture | Community-Built Events

The Velvet Rope Moved

What a community-built whiskey event in San Francisco taught us about who actually controls access in the beverage industry — and what that means for every brand still knocking on the wrong doors.

Every few months, a think piece declares influencer marketing dead. The audiences are fatigued. The algorithms have changed. The ROI is gone. Nobody trusts a sponsored post anymore.

All of that is partially true. None of it means what the headline writers think it means.

Influencer marketing isn’t dying. The gatekeeping just moved. And if you’re a beverage brand still mapping your marketing strategy around the channels, publications, and events that controlled access five years ago, you’re not just behind. You’re invisible to the audiences that matter most.

The question isn’t whether social media changed the industry. It did — permanently, irrevocably, and in ways the industry is still processing. The question is who controls the room now. The honest answer is: it’s not what most brands think.

When the Gatekeeper Is an Admin

We tend to think of gatekeeping in the beverage industry as a function of institutions. The wine critic with the hundred-point scale. The award body with the gold medal. The regional association with the membership list. The trade publication with the import account relationships.

Those gatekeepers still exist. But they’ve been quietly flanked by something they didn’t see coming. Facebook group administrators. Reddit moderators. Discord community managers. Instagram community builders who assembled massive trust-based audiences around nothing more than genuine enthusiasm and consistent presence.

These are the new gatekeepers. They decide what content their communities see, which brands get a warm welcome and which get their posts removed, whose review gets pinned, and whose gets buried. And increasingly, they decide when the energy of an online community is ready to move offline — and what that looks like when it does.

Social media is architecturally a gatekeeping machine. The algorithms, the community rules, the ad targeting — all of it exists to control the flow of specific information to specific people. The impressions, reach, and engagement data that brands treat as ROI metrics are really just measurements of how effectively someone else is gatekeeping their audience’s attention. That’s the business model. That’s what you’re buying into when you try to reach these communities.

When Roland Ng hears the word “gatekeeping,” it comes off as negative. That’s most people’s instinct. But when you look at what gatekeeping truly is and its impacts in the beverage industry, the picture becomes more complicated than the word implies.

Roland Ng is a co-founder of Fog City Social — a whiskey event in San Francisco that has grown from a small community gathering into one of the most respected independent spirits festivals in Northern California. He’s also been a Facebook group moderator long enough to have real opinions about what that role actually means. His conclusion, which took years to arrive at: the problem was never gatekeeping itself. The problem was who was doing it and why.

Four Years of Events That Were Trying to Sell You Something

Over the past four years, our team at BevFluence has attended whiskey festivals, wine events, trade tastings, dinners, conferences, and numerous other industry gatherings. Nearly all of them had something in common. They felt, at their core, like a brand or a portfolio trying to sell you something. The educational component was a sales pitch with better lighting. The “curated experience” was inventory management dressed up as hospitality. The VIP tier existed to extract more money from the most enthusiastic consumers while delivering marginally better access to the same content.

This is what traditional gatekeeping looks like from the consumer’s side of the velvet rope. The events weren’t necessarily bad. Some were genuinely enjoyable. But they were optimized for the wrong outcome — for the brand’s conversion goal rather than the attendee’s experience. And the most engaged, most knowledgeable, most community-connected consumers in the room could feel it. They always can.

“What I need in attendance is to learn something — to gain knowledge of a brand, or taste something I haven’t tasted before. If that’s not happening, it’s not worth going to these festivals.”

That line, from one of the Fog City Social founders in conversation before the event, landed because it’s what every serious enthusiast in any beverage category eventually concludes. The casual consumer keeps showing up for the party. The person who actually drives purchase decisions and shapes community opinion walks away and finds something better.

Fog City Social is what they found.

The Room Doesn’t Lie

Fog City Social V drew approximately 800 attendees and more than 70 brand portfolios.

“We had whisky from every whisky category and from every continent. In addition, we showcased rums, tequilas, mezcals, bacanoras, gins, vodkas, aperitifs, aquavits, tea spirits, baijius, RTD cocktails, freshly made cocktails — and I am sure a few other unique things showed up unannounced. We also had chocolate pairings and custom-made chocolate, whisky cordials, and a bevy of exceptional cigars. What a night.” — Marcello Grande, co-founder, Fog City Social

On paper, that scale sounds like every other spirits festival I’ve walked into. The difference wasn’t the numbers. It was the room.

The crowd skewed younger and more diverse than any whiskey event I’d attended in years. Not performatively diverse — actually diverse, in the way that suggests a community built on genuine inclusion rather than a demographic strategy. This was not the typical old white guy whiskey event. The people in this room were different, and that didn’t happen by accident. It happened because the people who built it cared about who showed up, not just how many.

The brands present ranged from major portfolio players with the budget to be everywhere to small producers who were clearly there because the event’s founders believed in what they were pouring. Space was built in for conversation — actual breathing room to slow down, hydrate, and talk. That’s rarer than it sounds at events this size.

“Fog City Social has always been selective to ensure the right brands are in the room — brands that we feel will excite and delight our audience of spirits lovers. We always try to work with brands to find a suitable solution to them exhibiting, no matter how early or late they sign up, space permitting.” — Marcello Grande, co-founder, Fog City Social

The brands that didn’t make it in weren’t excluded for not being able to pay. They were excluded because they weren’t right for the room. In the traditional festival circuit, that distinction has largely been abandoned in favor of whoever can write the check for the sponsorship tier. Here, it still meant something.

No VIP. Everyone Gets the Same Pour.

Here is the single most telling decision Fog City Social made — and the one that best illustrates why community-built events are eating traditional festivals for lunch.

There is no VIP tier at Fog City Social.

“We do not do VIP,” Roland told me. “We want everyone to have the same experience and great pours.”

Brands pushed back on this. More than one told the founders they were crazy for leaving money on the table — that a VIP hour, a premium access tier, and an early-entry window for an upcharge were obvious revenue they were walking past. Roland and Marcello held the line anyway.

Think about what that decision means. Every traditional festival in the spirits space has a VIP tier. It’s the default monetization lever. It’s how you reward the most enthusiastic consumers by letting them pay more for marginally better access to the same room. It stratifies the audience upon arrival and immediately signals that your experience at this event is proportional to what you spent to get in.

Fog City Social looked at that model and said no. Everyone gets the same access. Everyone gets the same pours. The person at the door with a general admission ticket gets the same conversation with the distiller as the person next to them.

That’s not a business decision. That’s a values decision. And values decisions are exactly how you build the kind of community that eventually fills a room with 800 people who actually want to be there.

The Founders Who Don’t Think of Themselves as Gatekeepers

Here’s what struck me most about Roland and Marcello as I talked with them: they genuinely don’t think of themselves as gatekeepers. They think of themselves as protectors.

“We came together as friends to become something organic. Our particular flavor is about inclusion.” — Marcello Grande, co-founder, Fog City Social

That framing — protection rather than restriction, inclusion rather than exclusion — is what separates a community-built event from a brand-built one. When Roland talks about being protective of the group, he means protecting it from dilution, from spam, from the creeping commercialization that turns a genuine community into a marketing channel. He’s not keeping people out. He’s keeping the community’s character intact so that the people inside it continue to trust each other.

The groups that lost their identity — that became brand boards, that let the promotional content flood in because a membership fee from a brand account looked good — are the cautionary tale. The audience is often still there in numbers. The trust is gone. And without trust, the numbers don’t mean anything to anyone worth reaching. “We have never had the intention of being the biggest show ever.” — Roland Ng, co-founder, Fog City Social

From Group Chat to This Room: Years in the Making

Fog City Social didn’t appear fully formed. It took years of the slow, unglamorous community-building work that doesn’t have a marketing strategy attached to it — house tastings, barrel programs, member meetups, the kind of offline experiments that most online communities try once and abandon.

Moving a community from a comment section into an actual room is harder than it sounds. Most groups that try it fail. The community that exists in a thread is a different creature from the community that has to show up at a venue, buy a ticket, and talk to strangers. The event only works when the online community has built enough genuine trust that showing up feels like seeing friends rather than attending a function.

The lead of the Fog City Social barrel team, Jamie, puts it simply: “It’s not about drinking more. It’s about drinking better.” That philosophy runs through everything the event does. When you build a community around genuine curiosity and the pursuit of quality over access and exclusivity, the people who show up are the right people. And the right people attract the right brands.

When the Brand That Doesn’t Need You Shows Up Anyway

One of the more telling details from my conversation with Roland involved St. George Spirits — the Alameda, California distillery that is, by any measure, one of the most established and respected craft operations in the country. St. George has been doing this for decades. They don’t need the exposure.

For years, they didn’t come to Fog City Social. They watched it. And then, after years of watching this community-built event do what traditional festivals weren’t, they got involved — hosting a Whiskey Week session alongside Ki One Distillery on being the first and how hard that is. A club-only event. Library expressions. Over a dozen formal pours.

St. George didn’t need Fog City Social’s audience. They came because the event had built something worth being part of. That’s the signal. Not the attendance numbers, not the press coverage, not the sponsorship deck. When a brand that could be anywhere chooses to be there, the event has arrived.

What the Right Brands Actually Did in That Room

The brands that showed up at Fog City Social in the right spirit understood something that most festival participants miss entirely.

Marcello put it better than any brand brief could.

“My wife’s a great example. She does not like whiskey. She comes every year — her friends do like whiskey, so they take her around. And every year she finds one thing she really likes. She’ll write it down, come find me, and say, ‘Babe, I found something I like.’ Good news — we have that at home. So that becomes what I give her on the weekends.”

That’s the whole thesis of what Fog City Social built. Not a festival for experts. A room where anyone who shows up curious leaves with something. The brands that understood that had conversations all night. The ones that didn’t stood behind their tables waiting for someone who already knew their product to come validate them.

The New Rules Nobody Handed You

Here’s where the gatekeeping conversation gets complicated. The new gatekeepers have rules too — and in some ways they’re more restrictive than the ones they replaced.

In most whiskey Facebook groups, you cannot post promotional content. You cannot represent a brand account. In some communities, you can’t post a link to your own review if it lives on a commercial platform. The moderators who enforce these rules are doing exactly what the traditional gatekeepers did: controlling what their audience sees, protecting the community’s character, and deciding who gets amplified and who gets removed.

The difference is the motivation. The traditional gatekeeper kept things out to protect institutional power and commercial relationships. The community moderator keeps things out to protect trust. Both are gatekeeping. One serves the gatekeeper. One serves the community.

Consumers carry responsibility here, too. The most valuable information about a product, a brand, or an event is rarely the first post you see on any platform. Algorithms are designed to show you what you already agree with, what reinforces the preferences you’ve already expressed. Finding something genuinely new requires effort. That effort is worth making — and the communities that reward it are the ones producing the most valuable gatekeeping in the industry right now.

Social media is not going away. Brands, regions, and gatekeepers need to figure out new ways of engaging an audience — or the audience will keep building its own events and leaving them out entirely. Fog City Social is proof that they already are.

What This Means for Brands

The traditional festival circuit isn’t dead. Publisher-hosted events, trade tastings, and award programs still generate meaningful exposure for brands that know how to use them. But they are no longer the primary access point to the most influential consumers in your category.

Those consumers are in Facebook groups. They’re on subreddits. They’re in Discord communities. They’re at events like Fog City Social — events they built themselves because the existing options stopped serving them. They have enormous influence over what their communities buy, discuss, and celebrate. And they are deeply, instinctively suspicious of brands that show up transactionally.

The brands finding new audiences right now are the ones showing up as participants before they show up as marketers. The ones whose presence in a community predates any commercial interest. The ones whose founders or brand ambassadors are in the group because they actually love the category — not because a marketing manager put it in a deck.

If that sounds like a long game, it is. It’s also the only game that consistently works with the audiences that matter most.

I had a great time at Fog City Social V, and I’m already looking forward to covering the show next year.

Cheers, J

→ The Gatekeeper Paradox continues in Part Two — the wine region associations, trade guilds, and industry organizations that were built to democratize access and quietly became its biggest obstacle. Follow BevFluence at bevfluence.com.

SOURCES & ATTRIBUTION: Quotes from Marcello Grande and Roland Ng are drawn from interviews conducted in connection with Fog City Social V, San Francisco, 2026. BevFluence attended Fog City Social V as press. All brand and attendance figures are as reported by Fog City Social organizers.

The post The Gatekeeper Paradox — Series Introduction appeared first on BevFluence | Influence. Innovate. Imbibe.

The Mid‑Atlantic wine industry is no stranger to weather drama, but the April 21st 2026 freeze and radiational frost carved its own chapter into regional history.  After an unseasonably warm March pushed vines into early budbreak, a sudden plunge into the low 20s°F delivered a blow that many growers describe as the most severe in decades. This was a hard freeze – not simply frost – and even the most orchestrated mitigation efforts had no affect. Other wineries experienced radiational frost where the heavier cold air flowed to the lower lying vineyard plots, pushing up the warmer air. What followed was not just a crop loss — it was a structural shock to both Maryland and Virginia, whose wine economies have matured into nationally recognized industries.

Frost mitigation in vineyards and orchards centers on one goal: keeping developing buds and blossoms above the critical temperature at which tissues are damaged. Growers typically combine site selection, canopy management, and active frost‑control tools to reduce risk. Cold air drainage is foundational — orchards and vineyards are often planted on slopes or elevated benches so dense, freezing air can flow away rather than pool around vines or trees. Within the block, growers maintain open alleyways and avoid windbreaks that trap cold air. These passive strategies don’t eliminate frost risk, but they significantly reduce the frequency and severity of damaging events.

When temperatures drop toward freezing, growers turn to active interventions. Wind machines or helicopters — for businesses with deeper pockets — mix warmer air from the inversion layer with colder surface air, often raising temperatures by 2–4°F across several acres. Potassium-based sprays add a useful physiological buffer to the broader frost‑mitigation toolkit used in vineyards and orchards. When applied ahead of a cold event, potassium strengthens cell membranes, improves osmotic balance, and supports carbohydrate movement — factors that help buds tolerate slightly lower temperatures before injury occurs. Overhead irrigation is another widely used method: as water freezes around buds, it releases latent heat, keeping tissues at 32°F even when ambient temperatures fall lower. Some regions rely on heaters or strategically placed burn barrels or wood piles to raise temperatures. 

Yet, on April 21st, when the freeze arrived, most vineyards were past the point where wind machines, fires, or helicopter downdrafts could meaningfully help. Growers across the region described the same morning scene: blackened shoots, collapsed leaves, and the unmistakable smell of frost‑burned vegetation. In Maryland, the damage spread from the western shore of the Chesapeake to the Blue Ridge Mountains, with the most severe cases found in the Catoctin Valley along the Route 15 corridor. Many wineries reported 90-100% loss of both primary and secondary buds.  For instance, Black Ankle Vineyards – a very respected producer – lost their entire 2026 crop.

In Virginia, the damage was widespread, most notably, from the Loudoun Valley, the Shenandoah Valley, and throughout the Monticello AVA. In that historic American Viticultural Area, wineries also reported 90-100% loss of both primary and secondary buds.   Apple and pear orchards in the Shenandoah Valley were particularly hit hard because an earlier April frost had damaged many primary buds and the April 21st event killed off the secondary shoots. 

Secondary buds sit beside the primary bud within the compound bud. When the primary bud is damaged, the secondary bud typically survives and can push a new shoot in spring. This replacement shoot is vital. First, it restores canopy growth, allowing the vine to photosynthesize and rebuild carbohydrate reserves. Second, it often produces fruit, though usually fewer clusters than a primary bud would have. In short, they act as the vine’s built‑in backup system, ensuring both fruiting potential and the maintenance of vegetative growth needed for long‑term vine health.

In theory, vines planted on higher plots are safer from the radiational frost since the heavier cold air flows to the lower areas.  And, in theory, early budding grape varieties like Pinot Gris would be more susceptible to frost damage.  And Virginia’s Three Fox Vineyards lost most of these plantings. In Maryland, Catoctin Breeze Vineyard owner Adam Fizyta reported they lost 100% of their Albariño – an early to mid budding variety.  And in an informative blog post, the The Vineyards at Dodon detailed that in their region just west of the Chesapeake Bay, “Only the vineyards along the Chesapeake and at 6-800 feet above a valley floor survived unscathed…”

However, these expectations were not uniformly felt. Melissa Aellen, winemaker at Maryland’s Linganore Winecellars, informed us that a plot of Petit Verdot (which traditionally buds early) that was planted at a higher elevation survived mostly intact and will account for some of the 10% of estate vines that survived. Similarly, but in contrast, Keith Morris, the General Manager at Big Cork Vineyards reported that about 80% of their Petit Verdot survived, but these vines were planted at the winery’s lowest plots. 

Another example showing the unpredictability of the damage occurred in Lindon, Virginia — located just east of Front Royal. Over several Facebook posts, Jim Law of Linden Vineyards reported that for the first time the famous Hardscrabble Vineyard was hit by frost with a possible 20–30% crop loss, unusually high for a vineyard known for its frost resilience. However just across Route 66 to the North, Capstone Vineyards, Crimson Lane Vineyards, and Fox Meadow Winery – a trio of vineyards surrounding St. Dominic’s Monastery – fared with only minimal damage.  Yet, on the western edge of Front Royal, Reitano Vineyards lost their entire 2026 crop.

In those Facebook posts, Jim Law also summarized what growers in the Mid-Atlantic are experiencing. “Finally as to the lower parcels that were completely frosted, we are just hoping they can be back in production for 2027. These poor vines have already experienced two years of sap sucking Spotted Lanternflies, two drought years, and a severe winter. Initial growth is generated by stored carbohydrates from the previous growing season. This spring those frosted shoots had already used up a lot of their reserves, so we worry about how much more is now available.”

The Maryland Department of Agriculture called the freeze “one of the most significant crop losses in recent memory.” The Virginia Wineries Association characterized the event as one of the most significant frost episodes in 15–20 years. But, economically, what does it mean? Particularly since wineries in Virginia and particularly in Maryland were already working off a 40-50% reduction in yields from 2025 because of several weather and pest events. 

In a lengthy blog post titled 2026, the Lost Vintage, Drew Baker of Burnt Hill Farm and Old Westminster Winery states that both wineries suffered a 100% loss in primary buds equating to a loss of 100 tons of fruit. On average, one ton of grapes yields about sixty cases of finished wine, or 720 bottles; thus 100 tons of lost fruit translates to roughly 72,000 bottles of wine never actualized. Drew also reminds us that, “The fruit may be gone, but the expenses are not. Payroll remains. Equipment costs remain. Repairs remain. Farming inputs remain. We still have a full time team farming these vines. We still have to mow, tuck shoots, manage canopy, monitor disease pressure, train trunks, control weeds, maintain trellis, and make careful decisions block by block.”

In addition, the uneven ripening of any remaining primary and secondary shoots will add more to labor costs; this event created even more vineyard maintenance.  As Jim Law states, “With strategic and meticulous thinning some will have a full crop and others a partial crop. However there could be a lack of uniformity. Vines should have even separation between shoots and clusters so each receives the same amount of sun and air flow within the canopy. But in the ‘partially frosted’ vines we will have clumps of fruitful shoots, crowding some areas and at the same time gaps along the trellis where nothing is growing. Eventually new shoots will emerge with clusters that will be weeks behind. This would lead to uneven ripening and poor wine quality (what we refer to as an ‘underripe/overripe’ profile). We need to remove the clusters by hand before color change in August while we can still see a distinct difference. By harvest time they would all look the same, but taste very different.” And this could delay harvest waiting for these clusters to ripen. Keith Morris conjectured that he wouldn’t be surprised to see harvest last into mid-late November for many growers. 

What are producers doing next? Most Maryland farm wineries operate under a Class 4 Limited Winery license where they must either have planted 20 acres of estate vines or “at least 51 percent of the ingredients used in the annual production of the license holder’s wine are Maryland-grown agricultural products”.  According to a spokesperson for the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the state has not yet issued a uniform exemption to this regulation, but impacted wineries can can apply for individual exemptions.  The situation is very similar in the Commonwealth. The Virginia ABC requires “Farm Wineries” to grow or lease a specified percentage of the fruit used in the production of their wines — usually 51%. Wineries can apply for a Fruit Loss Exemption Waiver with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and purchase outside fruit.

Wineries are scrambling to source fruit from other regions. Big Cork Vineyards was able to sign contracts with several Maryland growers on the Eastern Shore that were not overly impacted by the April 21st event.  Several wineries mentioned that they are pivoting to New York – specifically the Niagara Escarpment and Finger Lakes. The Texas Hill Country is another option wineries are exploring, particularly for those wanting to replace lost Tempranillo, Tannat, Viognier, and Syrah.  Washington state and Lodi are other available options. 

The event has also showcases the collaborative nature of the industry. Yes, in one sense these wineries are competitors, but they also see each other as family and will be assisting each other to survive. For instance, expect wineries to band together when sourcing outside fruit in order to generate economies of scale. They will then contract this fruit or juice to smaller wineries at the discounted price – a price small wineries would never be able to receive on their own.  

What should consumers expect?  Smaller 2026 releases. Lots of library wines. Expect wineries to present more vertical tastings. Expect wines labelled American and not estate or AVA specific. But mostly, expect a plunge in the supply of local wine. Even before this event, Big Cork Vineyards had much less red wine in barrel due to the smaller 2025 yields. The same is probably true for other Maryland and Virginia wineries.  Consumers can help these wineries remain afloat by visiting or targeting local wines. We didn’t list all the wineries that suffered damage, but we recommend treating each as if they lost everything. Visit WineCompass.com to plan a trip to wine county. 

The post The April Freeze That Rewrote the 2026 Vintage: Virginia and Maryland’s Grape Losses appeared first on BevFluence | Influence. Innovate. Imbibe.

Everyone loves the idea of a partnership. Almost nobody does the work required to make one last.

Let’s start with the reason you clicked on this…A failed collaboration, it can be embarrassing, like any relationship that goes bad.

You’ve been in a collaboration that felt promising and ended badly. Or you’re considering one right now, and something in the back of your mind is telling you to slow down. Or you’ve watched a competitor’s partnership implode from a distance and quietly thought — I could have told you that was going to happen.

You’re not wrong to be cautious. But before we get into what goes wrong, let’s be clear about something: this series isn’t a warning against collaboration. It’s a case for doing it better.

BevFluence® was built on this. The founding belief — the one that has driven every campaign, every event, every creator partnership since 2017 — is that this industry is stronger when people work together. Stronger when a regional winery reaches beyond its own audience. Stronger when a spirits brand earns credibility through voices that aren’t on its payroll. Stronger when content creators, brands, and platforms find the structure that lets all of them win at once. That belief has been tested in practice, not just theory — in successful campaigns across, Chicago, Baltimore, Texas, and San Diego, through a partnership with Cider Canada, and in 2020 when a global shutdown dismantled every plan we had made and we pivoted entirely online, collaborating Michigan Wine Collaborative with dozens of creators across every platform to keep the community alive and the brands visible when nothing else was moving. 

The collaborations that worked taught us something. So did the ones that didn’t. This series is about both.

The data is not encouraging for the industry as a whole.

The hospitality industry is not immune. If anything, the beverage world is more exposed than most. It’s a relationship-driven industry where deals get made over pours, partnerships get hatched at trade shows, and a handshake across a barrel still feels more binding to many in this business than a contract. That culture produces genuine community. It also produces a remarkable number of collaborations that should have had a written scope but didn’t, a clear exit clause but forgot to write one, and a shared definition of success that everyone assumed everyone else already understood.

They didn’t.

This series is a direct look at why that keeps happening. Not from a theoretical view, but from inside actual failed partnerships — including one we’ll walk through in real detail in Part Two. In this first article, we’re laying the foundation: what collaboration actually is, why it tends to fall apart before the real work even starts, and what the warning signs look like from the inside before anyone admits the thing isn’t working.

Read this one carefully. The patterns here feel completely normal while they’re happening.

Collaboration Is a Structure, Not a Feeling

Here’s the first thing people get wrong: collaboration is treated like a personality trait. Some businesses are collaborative. Others aren’t. Some people are natural partners. Others are lone wolves. This framing is almost entirely useless.

Collaboration is a structure. It’s a set of agreements between two or more parties about how they’ll pursue a shared goal, who is responsible for what, how decisions get made, how disagreements get resolved, and what happens when someone wants out. Everything that isn’t explicitly agreed upon becomes an assumption. And assumptions are where partnerships go to die.

The reasons people pursue collaboration in the first place are real. Shared cost. Reduced risk. The creative upside comes from putting more than one brain in the room. When a regional winery partners with a spirits brand on an event series, neither party bears the full cost of production. When a hospitality group co-develops a private label with a beverage partner, both reduce exposure and expand distribution potential. The logic is sound.

The problem is that these advantages get treated like guarantees. Shared cost assumes both parties define cost the same way. Reduced risk assumes the risks were identified before the deal was signed. Creative upside assumes creative alignment — that when two people say “innovative,” they mean the same thing.

They rarely mean the same thing.

A 2015 study examining 106 companies and why their supply chain collaborations failed found that managers struggled most with a deceptively simple challenge: assessing the true value of any given collaboration in advance. Organizations consistently invested scarce resources in partnerships with little real co-creation potential. The collaboration looked good on a whiteboard. It fell apart in execution because neither party had done the hard work of defining what value actually meant to them before anyone signed anything.

In the hospitality industry, where relationships move fast and trust is currency, hard work gets skipped constantly. And it always shows up in the same places.

The Problem Starts at the Beginning — Not the End

Most collaboration failures aren’t dramatic. They don’t begin with a blowup or a betrayal. They begin with a gap — usually a small one — that nobody addressed early on because doing so would have felt awkward, or presumptuous, or like a sign that you didn’t trust the person sitting across from you.

That gap grows. Sometimes slowly over months. Sometimes fast, inside a single bad week. By the time it’s visible to everyone, it’s usually too late for a clean resolution.

Every gap traces back to the same source: the beginning. The decisions that weren’t made. The roles that weren’t defined. The questions that weren’t asked when everyone was still excited about the idea, and nobody wanted to be the one to kill the mood by asking the uncomfortable question.

Who are the actual stakeholders?

The first question every collaboration needs to answer is also the one most often skipped: not who’s in the room for the pitch meeting, but who has real decision-making authority. Who has to sign off on financial commitments? Who represents a third party — a membership, an investor, an employee base — that isn’t at the table but will be affected by every decision made?

In the beverage world, this gets complicated fast. A regional wine association’s executive director doesn’t just represent the association. They represent the member wineries, the sponsors, the board, and a community of consumers who trust the association’s voice. When that person signs a partnership agreement, they’re not just committing their own time and resources — they’re making a decision on behalf of stakeholders who were never asked. When the deal creates friction — and it will — those invisible stakeholders become very visible, very quickly.

According to research from MIT Sloan Management Review, drawing on over a decade of organizational network analysis across companies ranging from 2,200 to 45,000 employees, one of the most consistent collaboration failure patterns is leaders who cannot step back from their personal agendas to see what is actually happening within the partnership. The people closest to the deal are often the least able to see it clearly.

Think about any two craft beverage brands co-hosting an event series. Both parties show up to the first planning call representing their own sales goals, their own brand equity concerns, their own relationship with the venue — none of which has been named yet. The conversation sounds collaborative. Underneath it, two completely different sets of priorities are already pulling in different directions, and neither party knows it yet.

Stated Purpose vs. Real Purpose

Every partnership has a stated purpose. Not every partnership has a real one.

Stated purpose sounds like: “We’re going to grow both of our businesses by combining our networks.” Real purpose sounds like: “I need someone to close sponsors because I’m working 60-hour weeks and I have no more capacity.” These are not the same goal. They require different structures, different timelines, and different definitions of success. One is a partnership. The other is a staffing solution wearing the language of a partnership.

When those two things aren’t the same — and they often aren’t — the collaboration is being built on a foundation that’s partly fiction. One party is solving for the stated goal. The other is solving for the real one. Six weeks in, neither is getting what they actually came for, and neither fully understands why.

Ambassador Deborah L. Birx, describing the structure behind one of the most successful public-private partnerships in modern history — the PEPFAR global health initiative — put it plainly, per the Stanford Social Innovation Review: the partnership required not only a shared goal but also clarity and transparency throughout the entire pathway to achieving it. Every partner needed to understand not just what they were working toward, but how they were going to get there together. That clarity had to exist before the work started, not be discovered during it.

For a distillery collaborating with an influencer network, or a winery entering a co-branding agreement, or a hospitality group bringing on a marketing consultant, the principle is identical. If the pathway isn’t clear before anything is signed, the contract is a liability waiting to be triggered.

The IP Trap Nobody Talks About

Here’s something that doesn’t make it into the academic studies but is all over the real conversation in this industry: intellectual property kills more beverage collaborations than ego does. And it happens quietly, in legal and marketing departments, long after the founders have already shaken hands.

Adam Spiegel has spent years on both the supplier and trade sides of the spirits industry. He’s watched more collaboration ideas die in the planning stages than most people have had. His read on why is blunt:

“Most of the time, there’s so much of that intellectual property that IP problems become just overwhelming.”

He’s not talking about complex licensing disputes between major conglomerates. He’s talking about two craft brands — two people who genuinely want to work together — getting stopped cold by something as basic as a label.

“Even just getting the logo of the winery on the label could be exhausting.”

Spiegel was involved in a wine-finished whiskey project with Sonoma Distilling. The winemaker made a genuinely exceptional port barrel. The product had real market potential. Everyone at the creative level was excited. Then the winery’s legal team and marketing team got involved. Suddenly, there were questions about what the association would imply, what the licensing structure would look like, and what they’d get out of it financially. The deal collapsed not because the product wasn’t good — it was — but because nobody had figured out the IP framework before the excitement took over.

“They didn’t want to have the logo applied. Then they were also like, ” What are we going to get out of it? There’s no way to hand money to them — a marketing fee or a licensing fee. So it becomes a little bit of a nightmare.”

This is the version of undefined roles that beverage brands hit specifically. Two founders agree on a concept. Two legal and marketing departments disagree on the terms. And the founders, who made the original decision to collaborate, don’t always have the authority — or the appetite — to push it through.

Everyone Has an Agenda — Including You

A 2015 study of supply chain collaborations found that 73% of companies cited turf wars as a primary barrier to successful collaboration. Turf wars — competition over credit, control, and ownership — are the single most consistently underestimated threat to any joint venture. They’re underestimated because nobody ever admits in advance that they’re bringing one.

One senior manager quoted in the research put it plainly: “People are more concerned about who will get the glory or the blame rather than evaluating whether or not a decision will benefit the entire company.”

Every party comes into a collaboration with its own agenda. This is not a character flaw. It’s the accurate description of why anyone enters into a collaboration in the first place — you want something, the other party wants something, and the partnership is the vehicle you’ve agreed to use to get there. The implicit assumption is that your wants are compatible enough to share a vehicle.

They are often not fully compatible. And the incompatibilities don’t usually reveal themselves cleanly. They reveal themselves as friction. Scheduling conflicts. Delayed responses. Small disagreements about process that feel disproportionately charged. Decisions that one party made unilaterally because waiting felt like losing ground.

Adam Spiegel saw this pattern repeatedly in attempts to build industry charity brands through organizations like the USBG. The concept made sense: a brand where the people pouring the product actually had a stake in its success.

“If they’re the ones pouring the product, they may actually care about pouring the product more.”

But the moment the idea moved from concept to execution, the red tape arrived. Whose name goes on it? Who controls the IP? Who gets the revenue?

“When everybody who was involved started to look at all of the red tape that was going to be necessary to get it done, it just became overwhelming. Which is the story of how most people run into problems.”

The Test Is Not a Strategy

According to Harvard Business Review research, 60% of business relationships dissolve due to a breakdown in trust — and the breakdown most often happens not because one party did something malicious, but because both parties stopped nurturing the relationship once the initial excitement wore off and the real work began.

There’s a specific trust failure pattern worth naming directly: the deliberate test. One party creates a scenario to gauge the other’s response, then uses the outcome to decide whether the relationship is viable.

Testing a partner is not a diagnostic tool. It’s a breach of the collaboration’s foundation. What it reveals — more clearly than it reveals anything about the person being tested — is that the party running the test hasn’t built enough real trust to have the direct conversation they actually need.

Research from the Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation points to why this backfires: our sense of fairness in any dispute is heavily shaped by egocentrism. We struggle to see situations from another person’s perspective. A test designed by one party and evaluated by the same party will always confirm the expected result. That is not information. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy dressed up as due diligence.

The most productive partnerships start with the difficult conversations. The ones that collapse most spectacularly are the ones that saved them for last.

Do Not Go Nuclear First

There’s a reflexive move that shows up in almost every collaboration breakdown at some point: the sudden, unilateral decision. Exercising a pull-out clause before the work is fully underway. Cutting off access to a shared platform. Issuing a statement to your team about why the partnership is ending before you’ve finished the conversation with your partner.

This is almost always the wrong move. Not because the partnership necessarily deserves to be saved — sometimes it doesn’t — but because the unilateral move forecloses options that a conversation might have opened. You don’t know where a road leads until you’ve walked it. The nuclear option ends the road.

A unilateral decision made mid-partnership is a signal — to your partner, to your team, to the broader industry — that your house is not in order. Going with your gut is frequently what leads to the problem in the first place.

Cutting ties can feel like a clean solution. It rarely is. What it usually is: a decision made in a moment of frustration that removes any possibility of a creative outcome neither party had thought of yet.

Not Every Collaboration Has to Last Forever — And That’s the Point

Here’s the reframe that changes everything: collaboration doesn’t have to be permanent to be successful.

This industry tends to treat the end of a collaboration as evidence of failure. It isn’t. People move on. Priorities shift. Circumstances change. What made two brands a natural fit in 2020 may not make them a natural fit in 2025, and that’s not a tragedy — it’s the normal lifecycle of a business relationship in a fast-moving industry.

Attorney William Piercy, who specializes in partnership dissolutions, makes a point worth putting on the wall: “Unlike a marriage, business partnerships are supposed to end.” The goal isn’t a collaboration that lasts forever. The goal is a collaboration that delivers on its original promise and exits cleanly when that promise has been fulfilled.

The best collaborations are often designed with an end in mind. Two craft brands co-releasing a seasonal product don’t need a permanent merger — they need a clearly scoped project with defined deliverables, a shared understanding of what success looks like, and an agreed path to a clean separation upon completion. That’s not pessimism. That’s architecture.

Design for the end from the beginning. Not because you expect failure, but because the people who plan their exits are the ones who get to choose them.

What’s Coming Next

This article is the foundation. The patterns here — unstated assumptions, undefined roles, IP nightmares that nobody planned for, testing instead of trusting, going nuclear instead of talking, and treating every collaboration like it’s supposed to last forever — are the ones that determine whether a partnership has a real chance before anyone shows up to do the work.

In Part Two, we go inside an actual partnership dissolution. Real emails. Real decisions. Real moments where the outcome could have gone differently — and one moment where it couldn’t. Not to relitigate it, but because the patterns inside a real failure are worth more than any framework built in the abstract.

In Part Three, we ask the question nobody wants to answer honestly: Am I the problem? Because in almost every collaboration breakdown, both parties have a version of the story in which they’re the reasonable ones. Learning to interrogate your own version — specifically, without self-protection — is the discipline that separates operators who grow from failed partnerships from the ones who repeat them.

The collaborative spirit in this industry is real. It’s one of the things that make beverage and hospitality careers worth building. The goal isn’t to be more guarded about collaboration. It’s to be better at it. That starts with being clear-eyed about why it fails — and honest enough to plan for what you usually pretend you won’t need.

Part Two: Inside a Real Failure — What the Emails Actually Said Part Three: Am I the Problem?

Sources: A full APA reference list appears at the end of Part Three. Key research used in this article includes organizational network analysis from MIT Sloan Management Review, partnership failure data from the Stanford Social Innovation Review, trust research from Harvard Business Review (Paul J. Zak), conflict resolution frameworks from the Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation, and supply chain collaboration failure data cited in Management Today (2020).

The post Collaborations in Hospitality – Part One of Three – Why Collaborations Fall Apart Before They Begin appeared first on BevFluence | Influence. Innovate. Imbibe.